United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Air and Radiation EPA420-R-99-019

September 1999

Commercial Marine

Activity for Great Lake and

Inland River Ports in the

United States

 Printed on Recycled Paper

Final Report
EPA420-R-99-019

September 1999

Commercial Marine Activity for

Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States

Final Report

Assessment and Modeling Division

Office of Mobile Sources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared for EPA by

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions.

It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data which are currently available.

The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of

technical information and to inform the public of technical developments which

may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.
30 June 1999

COMMERCIAL MARINE

ACTIVITY FOR GREAT

LAKE AND INLAND RIVER

PORTS IN THE UNITED

STATES

Final Report

P R E P A R E D F O R
U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Assessment & Modeling Division

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Commercial Marine Activity

for Great Lake and Inland

River Ports in the United

States

Final Report
Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Assessment & Modeling Division

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Prepared by:

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.

555 Clyde Avenue

Mountain View

California 94043

Tel 650 961 5700

Fax 650 254 2496

Our Ref.:

SJ007264

Date:

30 June 1999

Authors:

Louis Browning

Kassnadra Genovesi

This report and the information and data described herein have been funded by the USEPA

under Contract 68-C6-0068, Work Assignments 0-06, 1-05, and 2-01. It is being released for

information purposes only. It may not reflect the views and positions of the USEPA on the

topics and issues discussed, and no official endorsement by USEPA of the report or its

conclusions should be inferred.

This report has not been peer reviewed. 
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMERCIAL MARINE ACTIVITY 

AT GREAT LAKE AND RIVER PORTS 1-1

1.1 MARINE INVENTORY BACKGROUND 1-1

1.2 DATA SOURCES FOR COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES 1-1

1.3 APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES 1-3

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-4

SECTION 2 TOP RIVER AND LAKE PORTS 2-1

2.1 PURPOSE 2-1

2.2 DATA SUMMARIZED AND EXPLAINED 2-1

2.3 DATA ORIGINS AND DETAILS 2-3

SECTION 3 TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1

3.2 DATA SOURCES 3-1

3.3 CALCULATION OF TIME-IN-MODE 3-2

3.4 GENERAL OPERATIONS AT TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS 3-4

3.5 CLEVELAND, OHIO 3-4

3.6 BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA 3-13

3.7 METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATION TO OTHER GREAT LAKE

PORTS 3-19

SECTION 4 TYPICAL RIVER PORTS 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO TYPICAL RIVER PORTS 4-1

4.2 GENERAL OPERATIONS ON INLAND RIVERS 4-1

4.3 CALCULATING TIME-IN-MODE 4-4

4.4 PORT OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS 4-6

4.5 PORT OF CINCINNATI, OHIO 4-14

4.6 METHODOLOGY - USING TYPICAL RIVER DATA WITH TOP 60

LRP DATA 4-21

SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1

SECTION 6 REFERENCES 6-1

APPENDIX A USACE FIELDS DETAILED A-1
1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION TO COMMERCIAL MARINE ACTIVITY 

AT GREAT LAKE AND RIVER PORTS

This report is Volume II of a two volume report on commercial marine activity in the United States

developed by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office

of Mobile Sources. This Volume addresses commercial marine activity at selected Great Lake and river ports.

Volume I addressed commercial marine activity at selected deep-sea ports. 

1.1 MARINE INVENTORY BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to present a basis for quantifying and qualifying operational characteristics

of commercial marine activity at major Great Lake and river ports in the U.S. This report details work

performed under work assignment (WA) 2-01, a continuation of WAs 0-06 and 1-05, of Contract 68-C6-0068,

begun in fiscal year 1997 by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller for the EPA. The activity profiles developed herein

may be used to quantify emissions from Great Lake and river ports in the United States. EPA eventually plans

to use data derived from these activity models as default inputs to EPA’s NONROAD model.

As air emission inventories become more precise, it becomes necessary to chronicle all types of

activities that could impact air quality. Because marine vessel emissions are believed to be a significant portion

of the emission inventory, their operations and emissions must be better understood before the true impact of

marine emissions on air quality can be assessed. Marine vessel activities have been investigated in the past, but

in general these studies focused on only a few ports or made assumptions about all vessels based on data for

only a few ship-types. This report will help EPA to assist state and local air pollution control agencies in

forming a more precise picture of commercial marine activity at Great Lake and river ports, a large contribution

to overall marine activity, and may help in devising incentive programs and regulations to reduce emissions

from the marine sector.

1.2 DATA SOURCES FOR COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES

A set of ports were selected for detailed analysis in this report. These ports are referred to as Typical

Great Lake Ports and Typical River Ports throughout this document. The Typical Ports are shown in Table 1-1.

Data from these Typical Ports can then be used to define activity at other ports in the U.S. that are similar in

nature to the Typical Ports.

In addition, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller developed less detailed activity profiles (cumulative trips

and tonnage organized by ship-type) for the Top 60 Great Lake and River Ports (LRPs) in the U.S. The LRP

data can be used for applying Typical Port activity data to other of the LRPs.
1-2

Table 1-1. Typical Great Lake and River Ports

Typical Port Waterways

Port of Cleveland, OH Lake Erie

Burns Waterway Harbor, IN Lake Michigan

Port of Cincinnati, OH Ohio River

Metropolitan Port of St. Louis, MO Mississippi River

Data on the Typical Great Lake Ports were available from Marine Exchanges and Port Authorities

(MEPAs) associated with each Typical Great Lake Port as well as from the Census Bureau for foreign ships.

All of the Typical Ports had detailed data available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

This detailed data contained information on vessel movements, vessel characteristics, and vessel operators. The

data sources, and a brief explanation of the data uses, are listed below. For a more detailed discussion of the

data, refer to the sections referenced below and also to Appendix A.

• United States Army Corps of Engineers - The Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the United

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided data used to develop total domestic trips and total

domestic tonnages for the LRPs in the U.S. (see Section 2). The USACE also provided more detailed

data on the Typical Ports allowing computation of individual vessel movements. (see Sections 3 and

4)

• United States Bureau of Census (Census Bureau) - Data provided on the Navigation Data Center

Publications and U.S. Waterway Data CD by the Census Bureau were used to develop the total foreign

trips and tonnages as well as individual foreign vessel movements for the Great Lake Ports. (see

Sections 2 and 3) (Reference 1)

• Marine Exchange/Port Authority (MEPA) - Data were used to develop vessel hotelling time averages

for the Great Lake Ports. (See Section 3)

• Lloyds Maritime Information Service (LMIS) - Data were provided from the Lloyds Register on vessel

characteristics such as horsepower and engine speed. These data were matched with the vessel data

from the MEPAs and Census Bureau for vessel characteristic summaries at the Great Lake Ports. (See

Section 3)

• Operator Data - Information obtained through conversations with operators augmented the electronic

data and allowed calculation of time-in-modes at the River Ports.

• Port Series Reports - Reports covering the principal U.S. coastal, Great Lakes, and ports are compiled

and published by the Ports and Waterways Division, Water Resources Support Center, USACE. The
1

FIPS codes are distinct, unique, numeric identification codes assigned to each county by the U.S. government.

1-3

data in these reports were used in conjunction with pilot data to develop the detailed port data presented

in each Typical Port section. (References 2 through 5 )

• Other data sources - Other data sources such as the book “Know Your Ships” (Reference 6) and

Internet Web Sites www.boatnerd.com (Reference 7) and www.lcaships.com (Reference 8) were

invaluable for determining vessel characteristics and general operations for the Typical Great Lake

Ports.

The data sources listed above were used to determine how each ship-type operates in each Typical Port,

how many of each ship-type called on the Typical Port in the given year, and the characteristics of the ship-type.

These data can be used to determine the emissions per ship-type for each mode of operation in the given year.

This report will determine the ship type categories to use as well as the values to use for the number

of trips per year, the average time-in-mode, and the average rated horsepower. Other factors needed for

determining emissions inventories, such as load factors and emission factors, are not discussed in this report.

1.3 APPROACH TO COMMERCIAL MARINE INVENTORIES

Our approach to the Great Lake and River component of the commercial marine inventory relies on a

detailed analysis of a set of Typical Ports to be used in conjunction with less detailed data on the LRPs in the

U.S. This approach provides a clear summary of the major U.S. ports as well as a more detailed analysis of the

Typical Ports. The foundations of this approach are the activity profiles for the Typical Ports that give

information on vessel equipment such as horsepower, speed, and age as well as information on vessel

movements so that a modeler can determine how long each type of vessel commonly operates in each of several

modes. These modes correspond to different engine loads and, thus, to different emission characteristics. In

order to develop the activity profiles, this report does the following:

• Lists the Top 60 LRPs in the U.S. as determined by cargo tonnage for 1995 by the USACE

• Provides an inventory of the number of trips, by vessel type, at the Top 60 LRPs in the U.S. for 1995

• Provides an inventory of the tons of cargo handled, by vessel type, at each of the LRPs in the U.S. for

1995

• Provides Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)1

 codes for the LRPs in the U.S. Each county

has a unique FIPS code, and the county names are also given for each county within a port’s

boundaries

• Provides detailed data, collected from the ports themselves, on vessel movements for four Typical Great

Lake and River Ports for 1996
1-4

• Provides vessel characterizations, by vessel type, for the Typical Ports including such equipment

details as propulsion horsepower, capacity tonnage, and engine age (as available)

• Provides the time-in-mode for each vessel category

• Provides a methodology for allocating time-in-mode activity data from a Typical Port to a similar LRP

An activity scenario for each Typical Port is specified in terms of categories of vessels, number of

vessels in each category for the given year (1996), and number of hours at each time-in-mode associated with

cruising, reduced speed, maneuvering, and hotelling. The time-in-mode values developed for the Typical Great

Lake Ports were based on actual activity information acquired directly from vessel operators and information

obtained from the MEPAs. The time-in-mode values developed for the Typical River Ports were based on

information acquired from vessel operators. The ship characteristics and time-in-mode data can be used to

develop default operating time-in-modes for other LRPs based on similarities between a given LRP and a given

Typical Port. This will yield a more easily obtained and more accurate estimate of vessel emissions for a wide

range of ports than has been available in the past.

Because Great Lake ports and River ports are different from deep-sea ports as well as from each other,

individual methodologies have been developed for Great Lake ports and for River ports. These are explained

in detail in Sections 3 and 4.

By using trip and cargo tonnage data generated for the Top 60 LRPs and more detailed activity data

generated for 4 Typical Ports, time-in-mode and vessel characteristics by ship-type can be determined for each

of the 60 LRPs. Thus, a modeler could use either locally available time-in-mode characteristics unique to the

port they wish to model or to use the default values from a Typical Port that most closely resembles the port to

be modeled.

This report is intended for use by EPA in developing activity profiles for U.S. ports. These profiles will

then be used with emission factors to develop emission profiles for LRPs. This report can also be used to

facilitate data gathering and modeling efforts at the state and local levels by providing an understanding of the

inputs EPA used in developing port emission profiles. 

1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report presents data from four Typical Ports and the Top 60 LRPs. This report is organized into

5 sections. Section 1 is this introduction to the purpose and organization of the report. Section 2 is a presentation

of the LRP data, data sources, and methodology for developing the data. Section 3 is a presentation of the

Typical Great Lake Ports used in this study, operations in a Typical Great Lake Port, and a summary of the data.

Section 4 is a presentation of the Typical River Ports used in this study, operation on the rivers, and a summary

of the data. Section 5 provides recommendations for future work. References follows in Section 6. Appendix

A gives descriptions for each field from each data source.
2-1

 SECTION 2

TOP RIVER AND LAKE PORTS

2.1 PURPOSE

The data on the U.S. Great Lake and River Ports (LRPs) will be used to:

• Rank the Lake and River Ports as determined by 1995 cargo tonnage records

• Provide an inventory of the number of trips, by vessel type for 1995 at the LRPs

• Provide an inventory of the tons of cargo handled in 1995 by vessel type at each of the LRPs

• Determine county affiliations and federal county codes for the LRPs (for allocation purposes)

• Allow an estimation of activity at each of the LRPs when coupled with the information presented in

Sections 3 and 4 for the Typical Ports.

2.2 DATA SUMMARIZED AND EXPLAINED

Before looking closely at the ship-types and the cargo tonnages, it is necessary to review the language

of vessel movements. The terms most commonly used in this section are defined in Table 2-1. Trips, entrances,

and clearances are terms used to denote a type of vessel movement to, from, or within a port/waterway area.

Table 2-1. Vessel movements described

Term Definition

Port A defined area of marine commerce within a navigable body of water. Ports have distinct

boundaries but may be nearly 100 miles long in some instances. Port and waterway codes

may be identical. They differ when a port is on a waterway which has more than one port.

For instance, the Port of St. Louis is defined by port code 2310 and is located on waterways

6079 and 6080, but Burns Waterway Harbor is located on waterway 3739 and has no

separate port code.

Waterway A navigable body of water that may or may not have a port within it. Waterway codes and

port codes are identical for some bodies of water (See "Port" above).

Entrance When a vessel enters a port/waterway area. An entrance is recorded for a vessel entering

the waterway and is analogous to one trip.

Clearance When a vessel leaves a port/waterway area. A clearance is recorded for a vessel exiting the

waterway and is analogous to one trip.

Trip A trip is one entrance or one clearance from a USACE recognized port/waterway. A trip is 

a one-way movement. Trips may also occur within a port/waterway. Trips within a port are

considered intraport and may be analogous to MEPA Area shifts (see Section 3.3). Trips

and tonnages associated with intraport trips are included in the LRP summary tables.

Intraport Movement within the boundaries of a port. For Great Lake and river ports, an intraport

movement is comparable to a shift in a deep-sea port.
2-2

In some instances, the terms port and waterway can be used nearly interchangeably. In most cases,

however, we are concerned with the traffic at the ports.

The data presented in this section were collected by the USACE and the Census Bureau. Data on

domestic flag vessels were received from USACE and data on foreign flag vessels from the Census Bureau.

Data received included trips and cargo tonnages for each port/waterway area in the U.S. recognized by the

USACE. This trip and cargo data can be used separately or together to estimate ship traffic and activities in

order to estimate emissions due to commercial marine vessel activity from port areas. For more detail on the

relationship between Census Bureau data and USACE data as used in this report, see “Commercial Marine

Activity Volume I: Deep-Sea Ports” by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, 1999 (hereafter Volume I).

There are a more limited number of ship-types involved with transportation at the LRPs than in the

Deep-Sea Ports (DSPs). Table 2-2 of Volume I has descriptions of many general ship-types. Of those, there

were no barge carrier, ferry or vehicle carrier trips or tons in 1995 at the Top 60 LRPs.

Table 2-2 presents a summary of all the trips and cargo tonnages for the LRPs in 1995. This table

demonstrates how different criteria can result in different rankings of the LRPs and the significance of each

ship-type. Intraport movements are included in the trip and tonnage totals of Tables 2-2 through 2-4. These

intraport movements are a significant part of traffic on the river ports and have the same time-in-mode

characteristics as a trip from an outside port. Intraport movements are an insignificant component of most of

the Great Lake Ports. However, there are exceptions, such as the Port of Chicago, which have significant

intraport movements. The activity profiles developed for the Typical Great Lake Ports may need to be revised

for Great Lake Ports with significant intraport movements, as intraport movements would not normally have

cruise or reduced speed zone time allotments.

Ship-types are abbreviated in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 as follows:

BC = Bulk Cargo Carrier RF = Reefer

BD = Dry-cargo Barge RO = RORO and Ferry

BL = Liquid Cargo (Tanker) Barge SV = Supply/Support Vessel

CS = Container Ship TA = Tanker

GC = General Cargo TUG = Tugboat and Pushboat

OT = Other, Unknown, or Undefined UC = Unidentified Dry-cargo

PA = Passenger, Cruise and Excursion
2-3

Table 2-2. USACE trip and ton totals for the LRPs

Ship-Type

Trips Tonnage

Lake River Lake River

BC 16,420 - 212,348,453 -

BD 30,772 268,473 33,681,664 165,545,033 

BL 8,821 44,941 9,761,536 42,739,741 

CS 2 - 4,850 - 

GC 1,484 9 1,719,198 - 

OT 19 - 13,066 - 

PA 3,759 559 7,929 128 

RF 34 - 425,146 - 

RO 4 - 8,414 - 

SV - 40 - - 

TA 2,539 - 1,811,986 -

TUG 23,972 140,204 - - 

UC 3,329 1,426 36,114,265 1,196 

Grand Total 91,155 455,652 295,896,507 208,286,098 

Table 2-3 and 2-4 present the LRPs ranked in order of net cargo tonnage recorded as sent/received by

the port. Only the Top 60 LRPs as determined by the data from the USACE and Census Bureau are included

in these tables. The top commercial DSPs are in the corresponding tables in Volume I. Table 2-3 presents the

total number of trips per ship-type, and Table 2-4 presents the tons of cargo by ship-type. Table 2-5 presents

Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) codes and corresponding county names for each of the LRPs.

2.3 DATA ORIGINS AND DETAILS

The number of vessels for each LRP were determined from two databases. One database, from the

USACE Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, records the port code, type of vessel, tons of cargo, number

of trips per vessel type, and month of trip for domestic vessels. Port codes and waterway codes are assigned by

USACE to all navigable waters in the U.S. As stated in Table 2-1, the port code is more specific and refers

directly to a port or harbor area. The waterway code usually refers to a more general waterway area that often

contains port or harbor areas. Knowledge of vessel type is important because there are distinct differences

between operating characteristics and, therefore, between emissions of various types of vessels.

Included in the USACE files are data on foreign vessels. While USACE receives these data from the

Census Bureau, they do not have permission to provide some details of foreign vessel traffic. USACE may only

release the number of foreign entrances and clearances by a general ship-type description while reporting the

annual foreign shipments in January , and the annual foreign receipts in December. Thus, another data source

is needed in order to obtain detailed ship-type descriptions and monthly breakdowns of foreign vessel traffic.
2-4

Table 2-3. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, trips by ship-type for 1995

Rank Port Name R/L a BC BD BL CS GC OT PA RF RO SV TA 

1 Port of Pittsburgh, PA R - 104,185 3,668 - - - 286 - - - - 42 Duluth-Superior, MN & WI L 1,808 63 6 - 84 - - 5 - - 670 3 Port of St. Louis, MO & IL R - 46,419 5,039 - 1 - 3 - - - - 24 Port of Chicago, IL L 690 21,739 5,964 - 10 - 1 - - - 166 15 Huntington, WV R - 29,154 5,769 - - - - - - - - 16 Memphis, TN R - 13,888 4,748 - 2 - 4 - - - - 7 Indiana Harbor, IN L 679 638 1,504 - 1 - - - - - 961 8 Port of Detroit, MI L 1,068 361 605 - - - - - - - 207 9 Cleveland Harbor, OH L 1,344 229 145 - 11 - 2 - - - 48 

10 Lorain Harbor, OH L 1,061 35 - - 12 - - - - - - 11 Toledo Harbor, OH L 763 80 212 2 26 - - - - - 65 12 Cincinnati, OH R - 12,419 2,824 - - - 220 - - - - 13 Burns Waterway Harbor, IN L 306 2,634 88 - 10 - - - - - 214 14 Presque Isle Harbor, MI L 505 2 - - - - - - - - - 15 Ashtabula Harbor, OH L 522 2 - - - - - 2 - - - 16 Gary Harbor, IN L 325 1,350 - - - - - - - - 88 17 Taconite Harbor, MN L 339 41 - - - - - - - - - 18 Louisville, KY R - 8,864 4,034 - - - - - - - - 19 Escanaba, MI L 521 44 - - - - - - - - - 20 Stoneport, MI L 696 32 - - - - - 2 - - - 21 Calcite, MI L 612 51 - - - - - - - - - 22 Two Harbors, MN L 317 34 - - - - - - - - - 23 Mount Vernon, IN R - 5,551 1,610 - - - - - - - - 24 St. Clair, MI L 378 6 53 - - 19 - - - - 5 25 Conneaut Harbor, OH L 223 8 - - - - - 18 - - - 26 Vicksburg, MS R - 2,877 9,508 - 6 - 6 - - 38 - 27 Port Inland, MI L 457 111 - - - - - - - - - 28 St. Paul, MN R - 6,818 346 - - - - - - - - 29 Victoria, TX R - 1,813 2,991 - - - - - - - - 30 Silver Bay, MN L 306 - - - - - - - - - - 31 Port of Kansas City R - 15,983 132 - - - - - - - - 132 Marine City, MI L 162 - - - - - - - - - - 33 Port of Nashville, TN R - 4,603 252 - - - - - - - - 34 Sandusky Harbor, OH L 183 9 - - - - 8 7 - - - 35 Marblehead, OH L 339 114 12 - - - 3,714 - - - - 36 Milwaukee Harbor, WI L 302 902 83 - 19 - - - 4 - - 37 Port Dolomite, MI L 299 75 - - - - - - - - - 
2-5

Table 2-3. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, trips by ship-type for 1995 (continued)

Rank Port Name R/L a BC BD BL CS GC OT PA RF RO SV TA 

38 Fairport Harbor, OH L 256 36 - - 576 - - - - - - 39 Alpena Harbor, MI L 492 2 - - - - - - - - 4 40 Guntersville, AL R - 3,277 297 - - - 32 - - - - 41 Chattanooga, TN R - 2,709 737 - - - - - - - - 42 Green Bay Harbor, WI L 215 1,801 6 - - - - - - - 14 43 Helena, AR R - 1,604 730 - - - 7 - - - - 44 Monroe Harbor, MI L 128 1 31 - - - - - - - 2 45 Greenville, MS R - 1,700 935 - - - 1 - - 2 - 46 Port of Buffalo, NY L 106 6 16 - 73 - 34 - - - 73 47 Muskegon Harbor, MI L 170 37 10 - - - - - - - - 48 Biloxi Harbor, MS R - 1,979 419 - - - - - - - - 49 Drummond Island, MI L 121 36 - - - - - - - - - 50 Charlevoix Harbor, MI L 154 146 - - - - - - - - - 51 Tulsa, Port of Catoosa, OK R - 1,036 574 - - - - - - - - 52 Buffington Harbor, IN L 88 117 - - - - - - - - 22 53 Minneapolis, MN R - 1,813 - - - - - - - - - 54 Ludington Harbor, MI L 103 6 86 - - - - - - - - 55 Huron Harbor, OH L 87 - - - - - - - - - - 56 Erie Harbor, PA L 186 2 - - 662 - - - - - - 57 Grand Haven Harbor, MI L 108 22 - - - - - - - - - 59 Washington, DC R - 1,041 122 - - - - - - - - 60 Hempstead, NY R - 740 206 - - - - - - - - 

Grand Total 16,420 299,245 53,762 2 1,493 19 4,318 34 4 40 2,539 1

a R indicates a river port, L indicates a Great Lake Port.
2-6

Table 2-4. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, tonnage by ship-type for 1995

Rank Port Name R/L a BC BD BL CS GC OT PA RF RO SV TA 

1 Port of Pittsburgh, PA R - 59,181,271 3,531,651 - - - - - - - - 2 Duluth-Superior, MN & WI L 35,251,727 971,765 8,284 - 608,991 - - 69,273 - - 91,015 3 Port of St. Louis, MO & IL R - 26,781,810 5,897,501 - - - - - - - - 4 Port of Chicago, IL L 6,101,138 17,137,750 5,442,921 - 22,388 - - - - - 274,525 5 Huntington, WV R - 21,349,882 6,915,849 - - - - - - - - 6 Memphis, TN R - 10,332,453 5,970,642 - - - - - - - - 7 Indiana Harbor, IN L 11,266,916 1,488,782 2,239,545 - 1,945 - - - - - 89,551 8 Port of Detroit, MI L 13,589,436 761,008 698,825 - - - - - - - 620,028 9 Cleveland Harbor, OH L 12,019,713 1,554,374 270,307 - 29,249 - - - - - 177,671 

10 Lorain Harbor, OH L 14,515,815 328,479 - - 5,467 - - - - - - 11 Toledo Harbor, OH L 7,604,955 351,877 322,682 4,850 72,272 - - - - - 187,426 12 Cincinnati, OH R - 10,127,942 2,950,144 - - - - - - - - 13 Burns Waterway Harbor, IN L 6,820,626 1,527,771 91,936 - 27,236 - - - - - 25,164 14 Presque Isle Harbor, MI L 8,250,539 57,133 - - - - - - - - - 15 Ashtabula Harbor, OH L 6,569,580 57 - - - - - 34,538 - - - 16 Gary Harbor, IN L 7,637,237 2,068,560 - - - - - - - - 3,354 17 Taconite Harbor, MN L 8,620,330 627,031 - - - - - - - - - 18 Louisville, KY R - 4,557,255 4,442,027 - - - - - - - - 19 Escanaba, MI L 7,737,833 741,595 - - - - - - - - - 20 Stoneport, MI L 7,125,554 330,530 - - - - - 33,671 - - - 21 Calcite, MI L 5,934,910 585,986 - - - - - - - - - 22 Two Harbors, MN L 7,141,452 1,123,932 - - - - - - - - - 23 Mount Vernon, IN R - 6,130,521 2,109,194 - - - - - - - - 24 St. Clair, MI L 6,153,051 64,912 36,688 - - 13,066 - - - - 9,176 25 Conneaut Harbor, OH L 2,776,685 220,301 - - - - - 248,892 - - - 26 Vicksburg, MS R - 1,941,307 3,290,186 - - - - - - - - 27 Port Inland, MI L 4,569,546 106,723 - - - - - - - - - 28 St. Paul, MN R - 4,456,951 314,057 - - - - - - - - 29 Victoria, TX R - 2,034,914 2,589,278 - - - - - - - - 30 Silver Bay, MN L 4,348,458 - - - - - - - - - - 31 Port of Kansas City R - 4,050,173 208,686 - - - - - - - - 32 Marine City, MI L 3,850,333 - - - - - - - - - - 33 Port of Nashville, TN R - 3,340,089 408,889 - - - - - - - - 34 Sandusky Harbor, OH L 887,715 2,400 - - - - 716 38,771 - - - 35 Marblehead, OH L 2,838,254 265,134 13,453 - - - 2,143 - - - - 36 Milwaukee Harbor, WI L 1,659,048 327,940 232,256 - 43,015 - - - 8,414 - - 37 Port Dolomite, MI L 2,455,796 519,206 - - - - - - - - - 
2-7

Table 2-4. Top 60 Lake and River Ports, tonnage by ship-type for 1995 (continued)

LRP

Rank Port Name R/L a BC BD BL CS GC OT PA RF RO SV TA 

38 Fairport Harbor, OH L 2,056,975 365,871 - - 91,412 - - - - - - 39 Alpena Harbor, MI L 2,604,507 - - - - - - - - - 12,328 40 Guntersville, AL R - 2,623,790 142,323 - - - 128 - - - - 41 Chattanooga, TN R - 1,897,795 627,582 - - - - - - - - 42 Green Bay Harbor, WI L 1,538,824 745,982 14,918 - - - - - - - 31,206 43 Helena, AR R - 963,237 1,001,345 - - - - - - - - 44 Monroe Harbor, MI L 1,792,744 - 120,959 - - - - - - - 6,209 45 Greenville, MS R - 1,185,025 700,259 - - - - - - - - 46 Port of Buffalo, NY L 616,321 47,546 31,441 - 581,213 - - - - - 282,029 47 Muskegon Harbor, MI L 1,628,417 20,298 - - - - - - - - - 48 Biloxi Harbor, MS R - 1,428,647 309,613 - - - - - - - - 49 Drummond Island, MI L 1,045,235 357,634 - - - - - - - - - 50 Charlevoix Harbor, MI L 979,061 581,212 - - - - 5,070 - - - - 51 Tulsa, Port of Catoosa, OK R - 821,129 710,748 - - - - - - - - 52 Buffington Harbor, IN L 1,097,077 317,208 - - - - - - - - 2,304 53 Minneapolis, MN R - 1,299,922 - - - - - - - - - 54 Ludington Harbor, MI L 871,258 32,842 237,321 - - - - - - - - 55 Huron Harbor, OH L 955,802 - - - - - - - - - - 56 Erie Harbor, PA L 716,368 - - - 236,011 - - - - - - 57 Grand Haven Harbor, MI L 719,217 49,825 - - - - - - - - - 59 Washington, DC R - 654,715 204,829 - - - - - - - - 60 Hempstead, NY R - 386,205 414,938 - - - - - - - - 

 Grand Total 212,348,453 199,226,697 52,501,277 4,850 1,719,198 13,066 8,057 425,146 8,414 - 1,811,986 

a R indicates a river port, L indicates a Great Lake port.
2-8

Table 2-5. County and FIPS codes for the Top 60 LRPs

Rank Port Name R/L a County FIPS code

1 Port of Pittsburgh, PA R Allegheny 42003

2 Duluth-Superior, MN & WI L Saint Louis/Douglas 27137/54047/55031

3 Port of St. Louis, MO & IL R Saint Louis City/ Saint Louis/Jefferson

St. Charles/Monroe/St. Clair/Madison

29510/29189/29099

29183/17133/17163/17119

4 Port of Chicago, IL L Cook 17031

5 Huntington, WV R Cabell/Wayne/Lawrence 54011/54099/39087

6 Memphis, TN R Shelby/Crittenden 47157/05035

7 Indiana Harbor, IN L White County 18181

8 Port of Detroit, MI L Wayne 26163

9 Cleveland Harbor, OH L Cuyahoga 39035

10 Lorain Harbor, OH L Lorain 39093

11 Toledo Harbor, OH L Lucas 39095

12 Cincinnati, OH R Hamilton/Kenton/Campbell 39061/21117/21037

13 Burns Wwy Harbor, IN L Porter 18127

14 Presque Isle Harbor, MI L Presque Isle 26141

15 Ashtabula Harbor, OH L Ashtabula 39007

16 Gary Harbor, IN L Lake 18089

17 Taconite Harbor, MN L Itasca 27061

18 Louisville, KY R Jefferson/Floyd/Harrison 21111/18043/18061

19 Escanaba, MI L Delta 26041

20 Stoneport, MI L Presque Isle 26141

21 Calcite, MI L Presque Isle 26141

22 Two Harbors, MN L Lake 27075

23 Mount Vernon, IN R Posey/Henderson 18129/21101

24 St. Clair, MI L Saint Clair 26147

25 Conneaut Harbor, OH L Ashtabula 39007

26 Vicksburg, MS R Warren/Madison 28149/22065

27 Port Inland, MI L Interlochen in Grand Traverse 26055

28 St. Paul, MN R Washington/St. Croix/Pierce 27163/55109/55093

29 Victoria, TX R Victoria/Goliad 48469/48175

30 Silver Bay, MN L Lake 27075

31 Port of Kansas City R Jackson/Clay/Platte

Johnson/Wyandotte

26095/29047/29165

20091/20209

32 Marine City, MI L Saint Clair 26147

33 Port of Nashville, TN R Davidson 47037

34 Sandusky Harbor, OH L Erie 39043

35 Marblehead, OH L Ottawa 39123

36 Milwaukee Harbor, WI L Northampton 37131
2-9

Table 2-5. County and FIPS codes for the Top 60 LRPs (continued)

Rank Port Name R/L a County FIPS code

37 Port Dolomite, MI L Mackinac 26097

38 Fairport Harbor, OH L Lake 39085

39 Alpena Harbor, MI L Alpena 26007

40 Guntersville, AL R Marshall 1095

41 Chattanooga, TN R Hamilton 47065

42 Green Bay Harbor, WI L Brown 55009

43 Helena, AR R Phillips/Coahoma/Tunica 05107/28027/28143

44 Monroe Harbor, MI L Monroe 26115

45 Greenville, MS R Washington/Chicot 28151/05017

46 Port of Buffalo, NY L Erie 36029

47 Muskegon Harbor, MI L Muskegon 26121

48 Biloxi Harbor, MS R Harrison 28047

49 Drummond Island, MI L Chippewa 26033

50 Charlevoix Harbor, MI L Charlevoix 26029

51 Tulsa, Port of Catoosa, OK R Tulsa 40143

52 Buffington Harbor, IN L Brunswick in Lake 18089

53 Minneapolis, MN R Hennepin/Ramsey 27053/27123

54 Ludington Harbor, MI L Mason 26105

55 Huron Harbor, OH L Fresno 06019

56 Erie Harbor, PA L Erie 42049

57 Grand Haven Harbor, MI L Ottawa 26139

58 Port of Hopewell, VA R Hopewell City 51670

59 Washington, DC R Prince Georges 24033

60 Hempstead, NY R Queens, Nassau 36081/36059 a R indicates a river port, L indicates a Great Lake port
2-10

To obtain more detailed ship-type descriptions and monthly breakdowns for foreign vessel traffic, data

on the "U.S. Waterway Data CD-ROM" made available by the Census Bureau’s Bureau of Transportation

Statistics was used. The fields available in this database include vessel name, month in which the data were

recorded, port/waterway entered or cleared, international classification by ship-type (ICST) code, flag of

registering country, waterway schedule to indicate the next or last port visited, net registered tons, and draft.

The data on the CD-ROM are gathered from the Census Bureau who collects the data from U.S. Customs

entrance clearance forms.

Both the foreign and domestic vessel files had port/waterway codes to define what port was being

entered or cleared. There is a master list of waterways recognized by the USACE on the Waterway CD-ROM.

This list was used to query the foreign and domestic databases and to break the data down into the LRPs. The

LRPs were ranked by the most cargo tonnage (combination of shipments and receipts) for the calendar year

1995. Table 2-7 in the Volume I report presents the corresponding Vessel Type Classification and Construction

codes (VTCC) used to identify domestic ship-types and International Classification by Ship-Type codes (ICST)

used to identify foreign ship-types. The match between the VTCC and ICST codes in Table 2-7 comes from

the USACE CD-ROM from the Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States (WTLUS).
3-1

SECTION 3

TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO TYPICAL PORTS

The purpose of these Typical Port data are to allow determination of actual commercial marine vessel

movements on the Great Lake ports of Cleveland and Burns Waterway Harbor. These two ports are considered

by this report to be Typical Great Lake Ports and were chosen to use as models for extrapolating vessel

characteristics and movements at other Great Lake ports. Included in this section are detailed data on these

ports and a methodology allowing the data for these Typical Great Lake Ports to be used with the more general

data in Section 2 to estimate commercial marine vessel movements at other Great Lake ports. The data on the

Typical Great Lake Ports are from 1996 and were obtained from a variety of sources as will be explained in

detail in Section 3.2. The data on the Typical Great Lake Ports will be used to:

• Calculate the total number of trips to and from locations within each Typical Great Lake Port

• Calculate the total number of trips by Lakers and Salties

• Determine vessel characteristics for the various ship-types stopping at each Typical Great Lake Port

• Determine modes of similar speed and operating characteristics

• Calculate the average time each ship-type is operating in these modes 

The two Typical Great Lake Ports were chosen because they represent different barge-type distributions

and because they were able to provide electronic data. Both ports are mid-sized Great Lake ports, with

Cleveland ranked 9th by tonnage in the Top 60 LRPs and Burns Waterway Harbor ranked 13th. 

The following information is presented in this section. Section 3.2 presents a general overview of the

data sources used to determine operations at the ports. Section 3.3 presents a general overview of time-in-mode

calculations. Section 3.4 presents operating information common to the Typical Great Lake Ports. Section 3.5

presents detailed data on the Port of Cleveland. Section 3.6 presents detailed data on Burns Waterway Harbor.

This section concludes with Section 3.7, a methodology to use the Typical Great Lakes Port data with the

general Great Lakes data presented on the Top 60 LRPs in Section 2.

3.2 DATA SOURCES

Four primary sources of data were used to determine trips and time-in-mode for the two Typical Great

Lake Ports. These include USACE, Census Bureau, MEPA, and LMIS. The first dataset, obtained from the

USACE, gave detailed trip data on domestic trips to the ports of Burns Waterway Harbor and Cleveland.

Information within this database included vessel name, vessel type, engine horsepower, shipping port and dock,

receiving port and dock, travel code, unloading equipment, year built, capacity and net rated tons. This dataset

was used to determine trips and shifts for domestic ships, tugs, and barges calling on and leaving the two
3-2

Typical Ports.

 The second dataset used was the data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Census on the Navigation Data

Center Publications and U.S. Waterway CD. These data gave detailed trip data on foreign vessels that stopped

at the ports of Burns Waterway Harbor and Cleveland. Data included in this dataset were ship name, flag,

vessel type, and net rated tons. These data were used to determine trips to and from the two Typical Ports by

foreign ships. The third dataset was provided by the Marine Exchange or Port Authority (MEPA). This

included at least ship name, date and time the ship arrived at the port and date and time the ship left the port.

This was used to determine hotelling times. 

The fourth dataset was provided by LMIS on ship characteristics. This was matched with both the

Census Bureau and MEPA datasets to provide detailed ship information. Sea-speed, engine type, engine speed

and DWT ratings were determined using LMIS data for similar ship-types and information from the book

“Know Your Ships 1996". Barge types and capacities were determined from USACE data and “Know Your

Ships 1996". Ship-type information was determined from the vessel type construction and characteristics

(VTCC) codes in the USACE datasets and from “Know Your Ships 1996". Maneuvering time was determined

using the distance from the breakwater to the dock at which the vessel left or arrived. 

 In addition to the aforementioned data sources, information about ship activity was obtained from

calling various operators of Lake vessels and pilots used to guide foreign vessels through the lakes. In addition,

information published by the Lake Carriers Association and an educational web site at www.boatnerd.com

provided valuable information on ship characteristics. Further details on the datasets can be found in Appendix

A.

3.3 CALCULATION OF TIME-IN-MODE

Time-in-modes associated with the major engine operating characteristics are needed to calculate

emission inventories due to commercial marine activity. Four separate time-in-modes were calculated for all

ships entering and leaving the two Typical Great Lake Ports: cruise, reduced speed zone (RSZ), maneuvering,

and hotelling. Definitions of these four time-in-modes are given in Table 3-1.

As this study details ship activity within a Great Lake port and not the Great Lakes themselves, travel

on shipping lanes in the Great Lakes were excluded from this study. As most shipping lanes are over 10 miles

from the breakwater of any port, cruise time-in-modes were treated as starting 10 miles from the breakwater and

continuing for 7 nautical miles. Cruise times for all vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater were

determined using the sea-speed or service speed of the vessel. Cruise is assumed to occur at 85 to 90 percent

of maximum continuous rating (MCR). Intraport vessel movements do not have cruise times. Cruise times for

each vessel entering or clearing one of the Typical Great Lake Ports were calculated using Equation 3.1.

Cruise (hrs/trip) = 7 nautical miles / Service Speed (knots) (3.1)
3-3

Table 3-1. Time-in-mode descriptions for vessel movements in Typical Great Lake Ports

Summary

Table Field Description

Cruise (hrs/trip) Time at sea-speed measured from 10 miles outside of the breakwater to 3 miles outside

of the breakwater. The breakwater is the geographic marker for the change from the

open lake to the port.

Reduced Speed

Zone (RSZ)

(hrs/trip)

Time during which the vessel slows from sea-speed to 4 knots. This occurs during the

last 3 miles before entering the port. It also occurs upon leaving the port when the

vessel increases speed from 4 knots to sea-speed over a distance of 3 miles. 

Maneuver

(hrs/trip)

Time at dead slow or reverse. Dead slow is usually from 2 to 4 knots. All ships are at

maneuvering speed while within the port boundaries except for excursion vessels

which tend to operate at a RSZ of 6 to 7 knots for most of the 2 hour excursion within

the port boundaries. Maneuvering for excursion vessels is only to get into and out of

the dock and is considered to be 0.4 hours for the total trip. 

Hotelling

(hrs/call)

Hotelling is the time at a dock when the vessel is operating auxiliary engines only. 

Auxiliary engines are operated at some load conditions the entire time the vessel is

manned, but peak loads will occur after the propulsion engines are shut down either

because the auxiliary engines are responsible for onboard power or because they are

being used to power off-loading equipment, or both.

At about 3 miles from the breakwater, the vessel begins to slow down in order to pass the breakwater

at approximately 4 knots. Reduced speed zone (RSZ) times for vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater

were determined from the average between sea-speed and 4 knots and were expected to last 3 nautical miles.

The calculations give all vessels an average of 3 miles to slow from sea-speed to 4 knots. In actual operations,

larger vessels may require more distance and time at RSZ to slow to maneuvering speed. RSZ is assumed to

occur at about 60% MCR. RSZ time for each vessel was calculated using Equation 3-2 for all vessels entering

or clearing one of the Typical Great Lake Ports. Tug sea-speed was assumed to be 12 knots based upon

information gathered from tug operators. 

RSZ (hrs/trip) = 3 nautical miles * 2 / (Sea-Speed + 4) knots (3.2)

The third time-in-mode is maneuvering. It is the final leg of the journey into the port estimated to occur

at 2 to 4 knots depending upon the waterway, direction, and ship-type. Different estimations of maneuvering

time were made for each Typical Great Lake Port. Maneuvering occurs at approximately 20 to 30% MCR.

Details on maneuvering calculations for Cleveland and Burns Waterway Harbor are in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.6.2

respectively.

 Hotelling time was determined from the time and date a ship arrived in the port to the time and date

it left the port. These details on individual vessel operations were received from the MEPAs. Details on

hotelling calculations for each Typical Great Lake Port can be found in Section 3.5.3 for Cleveland and Section

3.6.3 for Burns Waterway Harbor.
2 One statute mile is equivalent to 5280 feet. A nautical mile is equivalent to 1.15 statute miles

3-4

3.4 GENERAL OPERATIONS AT TYPICAL GREAT LAKE PORTS

There are several ship-types common to the Great Lakes. Most Great Lake ports have a combination

of Lakers and Salties as well as a substantial amount of barge traffic. Commercial passenger vessels used for

brief excursions are also common. 

Lakers are dry-cargo ships that operate only on the Great Lakes and have self-unloading equipment.

Most Lakers are bulk carriers or cement carriers. Salties are foreign flag ships entering and leaving the Great

lakes using the St. Lawrence Seaway. Salties may include bulk dry-cargo, general cargo, tankers, and container

ship-types. 

Barge traffic falls into two categories: flat-bottomed river barges (scows) that enter the Great Lakes

through the Ohio River near Chicago, Illinois. The river barges share 1-4 barges per tug and generally do not

have self-unloading equipment. Notch barges are larger lake barges that are more common at Great Lake ports

distant from Chicago. These frequently have self-unloading equipment. 

Not included in any of the datasets used for this project are mooring tugs and dredges. Both operate

within the harbor boundaries. Generally, only Salties use mooring tugs to assist in docking, but some Lakers

also will need mooring help under certain conditions. According to operators on the Great Lakes, the rule of

thumb is that ships with bow thrusters need one mooring tug, while those without bow thrusters often require

two tugs. Generally Lakers have bow thrusters and Salties do not. Salties are often required to pick up a Great

Lake pilot who is familiar with the specific section of the Lakes and the vessel’s destination port. 

3.5 CLEVELAND, OHIO

Cleveland, Ohio is on the south shore of Lake Erie, at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, approximately

176 statute2

 miles southwesterly by water from Buffalo, New York, and 96 statute miles easterly by water from

Toledo, Ohio. The Port of Cleveland consists of a lakefront, breakwater-protected, outer harbor area, and an

inner harbor consisting of the lower, deep draft section of the Cuyahoga River, and connecting Old River.

Table 3-2. Port Of Cleveland

LRP Rank Typical Port USACE Port Code

9 Cleveland, Ohio 3217

The approximate dimensions of the Outer Harbor are as follows: length of 5 miles along the Cleveland

lakefront, a width of 1,600 to 2,400 feet, and an area of 1,300 acres. It is divided into an East and West Basin,

formed by the East and West Breakwaters. The Outer Harbor has two entrances from Lake Erie: the main

entrance is through a dredged channel between the outer ends of two converging breakwaters; the other entrance
3-5

is at the east end of the East Basin between the breakwater and the shore. 

The Inner Harbor includes the improved, lower 5.8 miles of the Cuyahoga River and about one mile

of Old River, the former outlet of the Cuyahoga River. The Old River extends westward from a point about 0.4

mile above the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. The mouth of, and entrance channel to, the Cuyahoga River are

in line with the main entrance to the Outer Harbor from the lake. The entrance channel is protected by 2 parallel

piers placed 325 feet apart. The Cuyahoga River varies in width from 130 feet to 325 feet in straight sections

and widens in the bends and in the turning basin where a width of 800 feet is available; the turning basin is

located 4.8 miles above the mouth. No foreign flag ships use harbors on the Cuyahoga River.

Cleveland has four distinct seasons with strong modifying influences caused by Lake Erie. Prevailing

winds are generally from the south. Summers are moderately warm and humid, winters are reasonably cold and

cloudy with expectations of about 5 days with sub-zero temperatures. Precipitation varies from year to year,

but is normally abundant and well distributed throughout the year with spring being the wettest season. Winds

of 50 mph or greater are most frequent from April to August. Mean snowfall is about 45 inches in the west to

more than 90 inches in the extreme east. The average earliest and latest dates of opening and closing of

navigation for Salties are as follows:

Opening Closing

Earliest Date March 21 December 20

Latest Date April 8 December 30

Domestic Lakers use the port all year around. Coast Guard cutters may be used in the winter months to break

up ice in the harbors and channels to allow passage by Lakers.

3.5.1 Data

The main datasets used to analyze ship activity for the Port of Cleveland were USACE, Census Bureau,

and data available from the MEPA. 

Census Bureau data together with LMIS data were used to determine trips and ship characteristics for

foreign vessels. The Census Bureau data were matched to the LMIS data using ship name. Of the 614 records

of ships that stopped at the Port of Cleveland, 287 matched directly with LMIS data. Another 118 related to

barges, leaving 209 that were matched to similar ships based upon ship-type, DWT and date of build. Each

record represented an entrance or clearance to the Port of Cleveland. It was assumed that all vessels in the

Census Bureau dataset stopped or left from a central dock in the Outer Harbor.

MEPA data together with LMIS data were used to determine hotelling times for all vessels. Of the 154

records in the MEPA dataset, 132 matched directly with LMIS data by vessel name. The other 22 records were

matched with LMIS data based upon ship type, DWT, flag, and date of build. While there were no domestic

ship data in the MEPA dataset, the data did represent data on all the various ship-types except excursion vessels,
3-6

tugboats and barges. Assumptions made for those ship-types are explained in Section 3.5.2.

 3.5.2 Time-in-Mode Calculations

Cruise and RSZ time-in-modes for all vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater were determined

as discussed in Section 3.3. Maneuvering times were calculated based upon ship-type and the direction on the

Cuyahoga River. Salties typically stop at a central dock in the Outer Harbor. Maneuvering times for Salties

were estimated to be 0.8 hours per trip. Lakers and tugboats travel down the Cuyahoga river to unload cargo.

Because the Cuyahoga is too narrow for Lakers to turn around (except at the turning basin), they must be pushed

back out the Cuyahoga river by tugboats. Assuming that the river current is negligible, maneuvering for Lakers

is assumed to occur at 4 knots down the river (away from the breakwater) and at 2 knots up the river (towards

the breakwater) with tug assist. Average maneuvering times for Lakers are shown in Table 3-3 for the various

docks within the port of Cleveland. Tugboats are assumed to travel at 3 knots both up and down the river. In

addition to the travel time to the dock discussed above, 0.5 hours are added to maneuver into or out of a dock.

The maneuvering times in Table 3-3 include the 0.5 hours of maneuvering into or out of a dock.

Hotelling time for bulk carrier Salties and Lakers were calculated using the MEPA Hotelling time was

calculated using Equation 3.3.

 Hotelling (hrs/call) = (ETD_DATE - ETA_DATE) * 24 + (ETD_TIME - ETA_TIME) (3.3)

where

ETA_DATE = Estimated date of arrival at port

ETD_DATE = Estimated date of departure from port

ETA_TIME = Estimated time of arrival at port

ETD_TIME = Estimated time of departure from port

The MEPA dataset did not contain any information on tugs, excursion vessels, or barges. Estimates

of hotelling time for those ship-types is discussed in Subsection 3.5.4.

3.5.3 Trip Activity

Summary tables for Lakers, Salties, and excursion vessels stopping at the Port of Cleveland are given

in Table 3-4. Each trip is considered one way, either an entrance or clearance into or out of the port. The total

time-in-mode for each ship-type can be achieved by multiplying the trips by the chosen time-in-mode category.

For instance, the 219 trips recorded for Bulk Carrier, Salty times the average RSZ time of 0.3 hours gives a total

RSZ time for all Salty Bulk Carriers that stopped at Cleveland of 65.7 hours per year. The abbreviation “ST”

denotes that a steam turbine is used for the propulsion engine instead of a diesel engine. Because most of the

Lakers go down the Cuyahoga River but Salties do not, Lakers tend to have larger maneuvering times. The use

of mooring tugboats to push the Lakers up the river from the last dock, LTV Steel, to the turning basin also

increases maneuvering time. This activity might be unique to the Port of Cleveland and should be taken into
3-7

account when extrapolating the detailed data for Cleveland to other Great Lake ports. For ports without narrow

rivers that prevent a Laker from turning, maneuvering times for Salties should be used for Lakers when

allocating Cleveland time-in-mode data to other ports.

Loaded vessels sit deeper in the water and require more power than the same vessel would without

cargo, thus emissions will be higher from loaded vessels. Table 3-5 shows the percent of trips by Lakers,

Salties, and excursion vessels that are loaded. Lakers tend to be loaded for only 57% of the trips indicating that

they travel to a port loaded and leave light or visa versa. Salties tend to enter and leave the port loaded.

Trips for tugboats and barges are shown in Table 3-6. Cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times for barges

are not shown as barge emissions come from the tugboat which pushes them. While there is no direct way to

tie specific barges to specific tugboats, several conclusions can be drawn from the comparison of tug and barge

trips. First, there is an almost equal number of barge trips and tugboat trips, so one can assume that the tugboats

recorded by USACE are nearly always pushing a barge and are not deployed “light” or without a barge. It can

also be assumed from this one to one barge to tug ratio that one tug pushes one barge in the Cleveland area.

Furthermore, only 44 % of return trips are loaded, and one can assume that the larger horsepower tugs are used

to push larger capacity barges. This means that for a majority of the trips into and out of the harbor, the barge

comes in loaded and leaves light or comes in light and leaves loaded. Based upon information obtained from

the tugboat operators, the tugboat generally stays with the barge while loading or unloading. Mooring tug trips

are not recorded by USACE.

3.5.4 Hotelling

Summary tables for hotelling times for all ship-types are given in Table 3-7. While the MEPA only

provided data on foreign ships, hotelling times for domestic ships are expected to be similar. According to the

Boatnerd website (http://www.oakland.edu/boatnerd/), “Most Lakers require around six hours in port loading

or unloading; many self-unloaders are so highly evolved it often takes just one man at the controls to unload the

entire vessel. The majority of Lakers are self-unloaders - able to discharge cargo without dockside equipment.”

The 7.4 hour average hotelling time for Lakers found in this study seems quite reasonable based upon the above

statement. 

Because they are not recorded by the MEPA, tug and barge hotelling times were not calculated using

the MEPA data. It can be assumed that self-unloading barges would unload in 6 hours or less depending upon

cargo capacity. Since a 20,000 ton ship takes approximately 6 hours to unload with self-unloading equipment,

one might assume 20 minutes unloading for each 1,000 tons of capacity for a barge with self-unloading

equipment. Barges without self-unloading equipment have no significant emissions and therefore hotelling

time, but there may be hotelling time associated with the tugboat if it stays with the barge. Hotelling time for

excursion vessels should be assumed to be one hour for most voyages, to allow for passenger loading and
3-8

unloading and cleaning the boat after an excursion. Back-to-back cruises might have two hours of hotelling

in between voyages. Tugboats do stay with the larger self-unloading barges thus hotelling time for both the

barge and tug should be taken into account. Table 3-8 shows the percentage of trips by each ship-type and

category that have self-unloading equipment.

Table 3-3. Laker maneuvering times for various docks in Port of Cleveland

Dock

No. Description

Miles from

Breakwater

Maneuvering (hrs/trip)

Entering Clearing

1 Cuyahoga River Bank 1.5 0.9 1.3

10 Consolidated Rail Corp. 1.2 0.8 1.1

29 Cleveland Breakwall 0.0 0.5 0.5

30 City of Cleveland 2.8 1.2 1.9

50 Ontario Stone Corp., Dock 1 0.8 0.7 0.9

107 Sand Products Corp. 1.4 0.9 1.2

115 International Salt Co. 1.7 0.9 1.4

160 Ontario Stone Corp., Dock 4 1.4 0.9 1.2

178 Lafarge Cement Corp. 1.7 0.9 1.4

195 Byerlite Dock - ARCO Chemicals 1.9 1.0 1.5

250 United Ready Mix Dock 2.1 1.0 1.6

275 Mid Continental Coal & Coke Co. 2.9 1.2 2.0

329 Cleveland Builders Supply, F Hill Dock 3.7 1.4 2.4

360 Clifton Concrete & Supply Co. Wharf 4.6 1.7 2.8

378 Cleveland Builders Supply, Dock 1 5.0 1.8 3.0

435 LTV Steel, Middle Dock 6.2 2.1 3.6

440 LTV Steel, Upper Dock 6.5 2.1 3.8

495 LTV Steel, Lower Dock 5.6 1.9 3.3

580 Ontario Stone Corp., Dock 2 4.0 1.5 2.5

590 Cleveland Builders Supply, Dock 2 3.7 1.4 2.4

598 River Dock, Inc. 3.2 1.3 2.1

673 Medusa Cement Co. 2.1 1.0 1.6

720 Cleveland Stevedore Co. 0.5 0.6 0.8

724 Cleveland MEPA 0.5 0.6 0.8

728 Pier 28 0.5 0.6 0.8

736 North Coast Cruises Landing 1.5 0.9 1.3
3-9

Table 3-4. Summary of trips for the Port of Cleveland for 1996

Ship-type

Stroke

Typea Categoryb Trips

Year

Built

DWT

(tonnes)

Power

(hp)

Sea-Speed

(knots)

Engine

(rpm)

Cruise

(hrs/trip)

BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 < 10,000 2 ND 8,186 6,200 14 ND 0.5 

10,000 - 20,000 23 ND 15,866 6,996 14 113 0.5 20,000 - 30,000 134 1984 27,225 9,116 15 110 0.5 

 > 30,000 60 1981 35,125 10,909 14 100 0.5 

BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 219 1983 28,022 9,358 14 109 0.5 BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 10,000 - 20,000 39 1943 17,500 4,500 13 ND 0.5 

20,000 - 30,000 717 1977 26,830 7,098 13 750 0.5 30,000 - 40,000 55 1974 37,107 7,087 13 ND 0.5 

 > 40,000 37 1980 50,800 8,538 13 ND 0.5 

4 < 10,000 56 1959 7,686 4,303 14 ND 0.5 

10,000 - 20,000 350 1951 17,000 4,236 13 ND 0.5 20,000 - 30,000 70 1973 21,303 5,503 14 ND 0.5 30,000 - 40,000 16 1980 33,205 9,601 12 ND 0.6 

ST 10,000 - 20,000 106 1943 15,047 8,269 15 ND 0.5 

BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 1446 1967 23,445 6,308 13 750 0.5 CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY 2 < 10,000 4 ND 8,229 5,950 15 ND 0.5 

4 10,000 - 20,000 2 1995 10,187 7,382 16 500 0.4 

CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total 6 1995 8,882 6,427 15 500 0.5 EXCURSION VESSEL 4 450 572 1981 ND 460 10 ND 0.0 

1000 748 1990 ND 850 12 ND 0.0 

EXCURSION VESSEL Total 1320 1986 ND 655 11 ND 0.0 GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 2 < 10,000 2 ND 7,805 5,400 15 225 0.5 

10,000 - 20,000 6 1980 15,658 10,600 16 ND 0.4 

4 < 10,000 8 1963 7,251 3,391 12 550 0.6 

10,000 - 20,000 2 ND 17,154 6,000 14 ND 0.5 20,000 - 30,000 2 ND 23,000 7,800 13 ND 0.5 

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total 20 1972 12,394 6,456 14 442 0.5 TANKER, SALTY 2 < 10,000 5 1974 8,000 2,950 12 750 0.5 

4 10,000 - 20,000 12 1978 11,420 6,253 15 117 0.5 

TANKER, SALTY Total 17 1976 10,280 5,152 14 328 0.5 Grand Total 1665 1968 23,678 6,664 13 519 0.5 

a ST refers to steam turbineb Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship types except excursion boats. Excursion boat category is passenger capacity. c Hotelling times are found in Table 3-7.
3-10

Table 3-5. Percent of trips that are loaded by ship-type for the Port of Cleveland, 1996

Ship-type Category a

% of trips

loaded

BULK CARRIER, LAKER < 10,000 93%

10,000 - 20,000 43%

20,000 - 30,000 59%

30,000 - 40,000 54%

 > 40,000 62%

BULK CARRIER, SALTY all 100%

CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY all 100%

EXCURSION VESSEL all 100%

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY all 100%

TANKER, SALTY < 10,000 50%

10,000 - 20,000 92%

a Category is dead weight tonnes.
3-11

Table 3-6. Tugboat and barge trip summary for Port of Cleveland for 1996

Ship-type Categorya Barge Trips 

YearBuilt

Sea-Speed

(knots)

Cruise

(hrs/trip)

RSZ

(hrs/trip)

Man

(hrs/

TUGBOAT 2000 80 1930 12 0.5 0.4 1

2400 254 1971 12 0.5 0.3 13000 30 1977 12 0.3 0.2 03600 N/A 70 1965 12 0.6 0.4 24000 6 1975 12 0.3 0.4 25000 27 1944 12 0.3 0.4 17000 8 1990 12 0.6 0.4 1

TUGBOAT Total 475 1961 12 0.5 0.3 1DRY-CARGO BARGE < 2,000 Loaded 1 1983 N/A 

2,000 - 5,000 Light 15 1968 N/A

Loaded 66 1977 

5,000 - 10,000 Light 10 1937 N/A

Loaded 6 1937 

10,000 - 15,000 Light 33 1957 N/A

Loaded 32 1957 

15,000 - 20,000 Loaded 32 1978 N/A 

 > 20,000 Light 25 1950 N/A

Loaded 47 1951 

DRY-CARGO BARGE Total 267 1962 N/A LIQUID CARGO BARGE 2,000 - 5,000 Light 37 1981 N/A

Loaded 49 1980 N/A 

5,000 - 10,000 Light 52 1969 N/A

Loaded 73 1968 N/A 

LIQUID CARGO BARGE Total 211 1973 N/A Grand Total 953 1964 12 0.5 0.3 1

a

Category for Tugboats is actual engine power (hp). Category for barges is cargo capacity in tons.
3-12

Table 3-7. Average hotelling times by ship-type for calls on Port of Cleveland in 1996

Ship-type

DWT Category

(tonnes)

Calls Hotelling

(hrs/call)

BULK CARRIER, SALTY 10,000 - 20,000 11 41.3

20,000 - 30,000 75 69.3

 > 30,000 45 49.1

BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 131 60.0

BULK CARRIER, LAKER 20,000 - 30,000 1 7.8

 > 30,000 1 7.0

BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 2 7.4

CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY < 10,000 1 24.7

10,000 - 20,000 1 111.5

CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY Total 2 68.1

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY < 10,000 9 55.1

10,000 - 20,000 6 78.9

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total 15 64.6

PASSENGER, SALTY all 2 30.5

TANKER, SALTY all 1 29.0

Grand Total 153 59.3

Table 3-8. Percent of self-unloaders by ship-type for the Port of Cleveland, 1996

Ship-Type

DWT Category

(tonnes)

Percent

Self-Unloaders

BULK CARRIER, SALTY all 0%

BULK CARRIER, LAKER all 100%

CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY all 0%

EXCURSION VESSELS all 0%

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY all 0%

TANKER, SALTY < 10,000 100%

 10,000 - 20,000 8%

DRY-CARGO BARGE < 5,000 0%

5,000 - 10,000 100%

10,000 - 20,000 0%

> 20,000 100%

LIQUID CARGO BARGE 2,000 - 5,000 99%

5,000 - 10,000 94%

TUGBOAT all 0%
3 Riparian = along the bank of the Lake

3-13

3.6 BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA

Burns Waterway Harbor is an artificial harbor constructed on the south shore of Lake Michigan,

approximately 16 miles east of Indiana Harbor and 19 miles east of Chicago, Illinois. The 400-foot-wide

entrance between the breakwaters extends from deep water in the lake to the 94-acre Outer Harbor. The East

Harbor Arm and the West Harbor Arm are each 820 feet wide and have lengths of about 2,140 feet and 3,950

feet, respectively. 

Table 3-9. Burns Harbor Waterway

LRP Rank Typical Port USACE Port Code

13 Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 3739

Bethlehem Steel Corp. has a riparian3

 fill in Lake Michigan in the area immediately east of the harbor

area and the west bulkhead of this riparian fill is the east limit of Burns Waterway Harbor. Midwest Steel

Division of National Steel Corp. has a riparian fill in the lake immediately west of the port site. The West

Harbor Arm is owned by National Steel Corp.

The climate in Burns Harbor is predominately continental, ranging from relatively warm in summer to

relatively cold in winter. In the winter, there is sometimes snowfall that is light inland but locally heavy near the

lakeshore. Most of Lake Michigan does not freeze during the winter, which enhances the effect of Lake

Michigan on winter temperatures and lake-produced snowfall, even though the area and harbors are often icechoked.

Lakers use the harbor throughout the year. Coast Guard cutters break the ice around the harbor during

winter months. The average navigation season for Salties is April 1 to December 15. Prevailing wind direction

varies by month as shown in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10. Prevailing wind direction for Burns Harbor

Month Prevailing Wind Month Prevailing Wind

January W July NW

February SW August NW

March NW September SW

April NW October S

May S November SW

June W December SW
3-14

Burns Waterway Harbor and the other ports on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron have more unique barge

traffic than other Great Lake ports. Most of the barge traffic at Burns Waterway Harbor are river barges that

come up the Illinois River from as far south as the Lower Mississippi River. When river tows reach the mouth

of the Illinois River near Chicago, the barges are left in a fleeting area for distribution to nearby Great Lake ports.

The larger barges that are commonplace to other Great Lake ports, such as Cleveland, are rarely seen in Burns

Waterway Harbor. Tugs from Burns Waterway Harbor will bring loaded barges from the fleeting area into Burns

Waterway Harbor and then push other loaded or light barges from Burns Waterway Harbor back to the fleeting

area to be carried back down the river. These barges are also pushed from Burns Waterway Harbor to other ports

on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, as well as other Great Lake ports.

3.6.1 Data

The main datasets used to analyze ship activity for Burns Waterway Harbor were obtained from USACE,

Census Bureau, and the MEPA. 

Census Bureau data together with LMIS data were used to determine trips and ship characteristics for

foreign vessels. The Census Bureau data were matched to the LMIS data using ship name. Of the 221 records

of ships that stopped at Burns Waterway Harbor, 112 matched directly with LMIS data. The remaining 109

were matched to similar ships based upon ship-type, DWT, and date of build. Each record represented an

entrance or clearance to Burns Waterway Harbor. It was assumed that all vessels in the Census Bureau dataset

stopped or left from a central dock in the International Harbor.

MEPA data together with LMIS data were used to determine hotelling times for all vessels. Of the 594

records in the MEPA dataset, 71 matched directly with LMIS data by name. Another 496 records related to

barges. The remaining 27 self-propelled vessel records were matched with LMIS data based upon ship-type,

DWT, flag, and date of build. While there was no domestic ship data in the MEPA dataset, it did contain data

on most of the various ship-types except tankers and tugboats. Assumptions made for those ship-types are

explained in Section 3.6.2.

 3.6.2 Time-in-Mode Calculations

Cruise and RSZ times for all vessels that entered or cleared the breakwater were determined as discussed

in Section 3.3. Maneuvering time was calculated based upon the distance from the breakwater to the dock at 4

knots plus 0.5 hour for maneuvering into or out of a dock. For all ship types, the maneuvering times in Table

3-11 were used. In actual operations, larger vessels may require more time for maneuvering.

Hotelling times were calculated directly from the MEPA dataset for all vessel types. The exceptions

include dry-cargo barges, tankers, and tugboats. All of the dry-cargo barges that stopped at Burns Waterway

Harbor in 1996 did not have any auxiliary equipment, thus they would have no associated emissions with

hotelling. Most of the liquid-cargo barges, however, had diesel pumps for unloading and thus some emissions

would be associated with hotelling for those barges. Due to the efficiency of tugboat deployment, tugboats in
3-15

Burns Waterway Harbor are continually in motion either picking up or delivering barges. Thus, no hotelling

emissions are associated with tugboats. Tanker hotelling emissions were unavailable using the existing datasets.

The average hotelling time of 29 hours found for tankers in Cleveland would be an acceptable estimation of

hotelling at Burns Waterway Harbor. Hotelling times for all other ship-types were calculated using Equation 3.4.

Table 3-11. Average maneuvering times for various docks in Burns Waterway Harbor

Dock

No. Description

Miles from

Breakwater

Maneuvering

(hrs/trip)

1 Disposal Site 0.7 0.7

2 Burns Harbor Breakwater 0.0 0.5

410 National Steel Corp. Barge Dock 1.1 0.8

420 Indiana Port Commission Berth 15 1.3 0.8

510 Indiana Port Commission Berth 6 0.5 0.7

540 Indiana Port Commission Berths 2-4. 0.7 0.7

550 Indiana Port Commission Berth 1 0.8 0.7

560 Bethlehem Steel Corp. 0.5 0.6

Hotelling (hrs/call) = (Exit_Date - Entry_Date) * 24 + (Exit_Time - Entry_Time) (3.4)

where

Entry_Date = Date ship arrived at port

Exit_Date = Date ship departed from port

Entry_Time = Time ship arrived at port

Exit_Time = Time ship departed from port

3.6.3 Trip Activity

Summary tables for Lakers and Salties stopping at Burns Waterway Harbor are given in Table 3-12.

Each trip is considered one way, either an entrance, clearance, or an intraport movement. The abbreviation “ST”

indicates a steam turbine used for the propulsion engine. In all other instances a diesel engine is the propulsion

source. All of the cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times were fairly similar for all ship types and categories for

Burns Waterway Harbor due to the short distance from the breakwater to the docks. This port should be used

to model other ports that are similar in geography.

Load on the propulsion engines increases as the weight of the vessel increases. Table 3-13 shows the

percent of trips by Lakers and Salties that are loaded with cargo. Lakers tend to be loaded for only about 58%

of the trips indicating that they travel to a port loaded and leave light or visa versa. Salties tend to enter and leave

the port loaded.
3-16

Table 3-12. Summary of trips for Burns Waterway Harbor for 1996

Ship-type

Stroke

type a Category b Trips 

Year

Built 

DWT

(tonnes)

Power

(hp)

Sea-Speed

(knots)

Engine

(RPM)

Cruise

(hrs/trip

BULK CARRIER, LAKER 2 20,000 - 30,000 9 1973 24,827 8,531 13 750 0.5 

30,000 - 40,000 37 1974 34,925 7,108 13 ND 0.5 

 > 40,000 162 1975 67,695 14,376 14 ND 0.5 

4 10,000 - 20,000 14 1952 17,978 4,800 13 ND 0.5 

20,000 - 30,000 6 1971 22,491 6,600 15 ND 0.5 30,000 - 40,000 27 1979 32,908 9,541 12 ND 0.6 

ST 20,000 - 30,000 11 1953 23,627 8,886 16 ND 0.4 

BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 266 1973 52,630 11,753 14 750 0.5 BULK CARRIER, SALTY 2 10,000 - 20,000 4 1976 14,631 6,700 14 ND 0.5 

20,000 - 30,000 99 1973 27,329 8,839 13 219 0.5 30,000 - 40,000 42 1982 32,449 10,132 14 105 0.5 

ST 20,000 - 30,000 20 1961 26,175 3,551 16 ND 0.4 

BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 165 1974 28,185 8,476 14 193 0.5 GENERAL CARGO, 2 < 10,000 8 1962 8,395 4,100 14 ND 0.5 SALTY 10,000 - 20,000 1 1982 16,467 11,200 16 150 0.4 

4 < 10,000 6 1979 5,785 3,667 12 ND 0.6 

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY Total 15 1970 7,889 4,400 13 150 0.5 TANKER, SALTY 4 < 10,000 200 1973 7,500 400 14 720 0.5 Grand Total 646 1973 40,342 9,792 14 596 0.5 

a ST refers to steam turbineb Category is dead weight tonnes for all ship-typesc Hotelling times are found in Table 3-15
3-17

Table 3-13. Percent of trips that are loaded by ship-type

Ship-type Category a Percent loaded trips

BULK CARRIER, LAKER 10,000 - 20,000 50%

20,000 - 30,000 77%

30,000 - 40,000 72%

 > 40,000 51%

BULK CARRIER, SALTY all 100%

CONTAINER SHIP, SALTY all 100%

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY all 100%

TANKER, SALTY < 10,000 50%

a Category is in dead weight tonnes

Trips for tugboats and barges are shown in Table 3-14. Cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times for barges

are not shown as the emissions come from the tugboat which pushes them. While there is no direct way to tie

specific barges to specific tugboats, several conclusions can be drawn. First, there are almost 1.6 barge trips

for each tugboat trip, indicating that tugboats push more than one barge at a time. Tugboat operators indicate

that they can move from 2 to 4 barges at a time over the Great Lakes. It is assumed that the larger horsepower

tugboats will push more barges. One can also see that about 56% of the barge trips are loaded, thus it is slightly

more likely that loaded barges are moved into Burns Waterway Harbor and empty barges are pushed out. 

Based upon information obtained from the tugboat operators, the tugboat generally does not stay with the barge

while it is loading or unloading. Tugs are dispatched so that they are constantly on the move. Mooring tug trips

are not recorded by USACE. 

3.6.4 Hotelling

Summary tables for hotelling times for all ship-types are given in Table 3-15. While the MEPA

provided data on almost all the ships and barges that stopped at Burns Waterway Harbor, tankers and tugboats

were not recorded by the MEPA. Tugboat hotelling emissions are negligible as tugboats are scheduled to

maximize the ratio of hours operated to barges pushed. The hotelling time for tankers in Cleveland can be used

as a default for Burns Waterway Harbor. When comparing Table 3-15 for Burns Waterway Harbor against

Table 3-7 for Cleveland, Lakers hotel longer and Salties shorter at Burns Waterway Harbor. This might be due

to the port configuration, unloading equipment at the harbor, or the type of cargo handled. 

Table 3-16 shows the percentage of each ship-type that contained self-unloading equipment. Only the

Lakers and liquid-cargo barges have unloading equipment, the rest of the ship-types have none.
3-18

Table 3-14. Tugboat and Barge trip summary for Burns Waterway Harbor, 1996

Ship-type Category a Barge Trips 

Year

Built 

Power

(hp)

Sea-Speed

(knots)

Cruise

(hrs/trip)

RSZ

(hrs/trip)

M

(h

TUGBOAT < 1500 N/A 530 1963 1,264 12 0.6 0.4 

1500 - 2500 N/A 356 1962 2,048 12 0.6 0.4 2500 - 3500 N/A 170 ND 2,600 12 0.6 0.4 

4000 N/A 8 ND 4,000 12 0.6 0.4 7000 N/A 2 1990 7,000 12 0.6 0.4 

TUGBOAT Total 1066 1963 1,637 12 0.6 0.4 DRY-CARGO BARGE < 2000 Light 639 1980 N/A Loaded 827 1979 

DRY-CARGO BARGE Total 1466 1980 N/A LIQUID-CARGO BARGE < 2000 Light 24 1985 N/A Loaded 24 1985 

2000 - 5000 Light 21 1966 N/A Loaded 22 1966 

LIQUID-CARGO BARGE Total 91 1976 N/A Grand Total 2623 1977 1,637 12 0.6 0.4 

a Category for tugboat is actual engine power (hp). Category for barges is cargo capacity in tons.
3-19

Table 3-15. Average hotelling times by ship-type for calls on Burns Waterway Harbor

Ship-type Category a

 Calls Hotelling (hrs/call)

BULK CARRIER, LAKER 10,000 - 20,000 7 13.5

20,000 - 30,000 7 17.9

 > 30,000 7 18.7

BULK CARRIER, LAKER Total 21 16.6

BULK CARRIER, SALTY 10,000 - 20,000 4 61.0

20,000 - 30,000 43 43.2

 > 30,000 19 48.0

BULK CARRIER, SALTY Total 66 45.8

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY < 10,000 10 26.3

20,000 - 30,000 1 23.9

GENERAL CARGO Total 11 26.0

DRY-CARGO BARGE < 2000 446 46.8

LIQUID CARGO BARGE < 2000 23 52.9

2000 - 5000 27 29.7

LIQUID CARGO BARGE Total 50 40.3

Grand Total 594 44.4 a Category is in dead weight tonnes.

Table 3-16. Percent of self-unloaders by ship-type

Ship-type

Percent

Self-Unloaders

BULK CARRIER, SALTY 0%

BULK CARRIER, LAKER 100%

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 0%

TANKER, SALTY 0%

DRY-CARGO BARGE 0%

LIQUID CARGO BARGE 100%

TUGBOAT 0%

3.7 METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATION TO OTHER GREAT LAKE PORTS

In Section 2 of this report, trips and tons for the various ship-types were presented for the Top 60 LRPs.

In Section 3, two Typical Great Lake Ports were studied in detail, showing activity and time-in-mode for the

various ship-types. In this subsection, a methodology is presented for determining time-in-modes at other Great

Lake ports using the following steps:

Step 1: Determine the Like Port for the Modeled Port (i.e. which Typical Great Lake Port is most

similar to the port to be modeled)
3-20

Step 2: Allocate undetermined dry-cargo trips

Step 3: Determine bulk carrier trips made by Lakers

Step 4: Adjust barge and tug trips as needed

Step 5: Allocate time-in-modes to the Modeled Port

Step 6: Adjust maneuvering time as needed

As an example, Lorain Harbor, Ohio, ranked 10th in the Top 60 LRPs shall be used as the Modeled Port.

3.7.1 Step 1: Determine Which Typical Great Lake Port Is Most Like The Port To Be Modeled

In order to determine which Typical Great Lake Port to use as the basis for allocation of time-in-modes,

the modeler must determine which Typical Port the Modeled Port is most similar to. Several factors can be used

to determine this, but the most distinguishing characteristic is the dominant type of barge traffic that is seen at

the port. 

As stated in Subsections 3.5 and 3.6, two different types of barge traffic are common to the Great Lakes.

Cleveland has a majority of larger notch barges which have unloading equipment. Burns Waterway Harbor has

a majority of river barges which have no unloading equipment. Only barges with unloading equipment will

have emissions associated with hotelling time. Tugboats tend to stay with barges that have unloading equipment,

thus hotelling time is likely to be significant for tugboats pushing these barges. 

If more detailed information is not available directly from the Modeled Port, the modeler can use Table

3-17 to help determine the dominate barge-type at the Modeled Port. As can be seen from Table 3-17, ports like

Chicago, Gary, and Port Inland all have dry-cargo barge tons per trip of less than 2,000 tons indicating river

barges with no unloading equipment. Tugs may often push more than one river-type barge at a time. Thus a

barge to tug ratio greater than 1 indicates a majority of river barge traffic These ports should use Burns

Waterway Harbor as the Like Port for allocation of time-in-modes. Ports such as Lorain, Toledo, and Buffalo

all have dry-cargo barge tons per trip greater than 2,000 tons and barge to tug ratios of less than 1.0 indicating

large notch barges with self- unloading equipment. These ports should use Cleveland as the Like Port.

Other ports such as Duluth-Superior and St. Clair have dry-cargo barge tons per trip over 2,000 tons

but barge per tug trips greater than 1.0. For lack of better information, the modeler should look at the liquidcargo barge tons per trip as well. Since in both these cases, liquid-cargo barge tons per trip are under 2,000 tons,

one might assume that tugboats might push several liquid-cargo barges but only one dry-cargo barge. In those

cases Cleveland should be used as the Like Port for the dry-cargo barge trips with tugboats and the Burns

Waterway Harbor as the Like Port for the liquid-cargo barges. Other ports such as Detroit and Marblehead do

not have a dominant barge-type and would require further data before a Like Port could be chosen. Green Bay

Harbor seems to be an anomaly that either overstates dry-cargo barge trips, or understates tugboat trips, or both.

Since Lorain Harbor is the Modeled Port, the above discussion shows that Cleveland should be used

as the Like Port.
3-21

3.7.2 Step 2: Allocate Undetermined Dry Cargo Trips

Time-in-modes were not calculated for undetermined dry-cargo (UC) ships. UC ships can be bulk

carrier (BC), container (CS), general cargo (GC), passenger (PA), refrigerated cargo (RF), or roll-on/roll-off

Table 3-17. Tug and barge ratios for the top Great Lake ports

LRP Rank Port Name Barge/Tug a Tons/DCB b Tons/LCB c

2 Duluth-Superior, MN & WI 1.1 15,425 1,381 

4 Port of Chicago, IL 2.2 788 913 

7 Indiana Harbor, IN 0.8 2,334 1,489 

8 Port of Detroit, MI 1.2 2,108 1,155 

9 Cleveland Harbor, OH 0.5 6,788 1,864 

10 Lorain Harbor, OH 0.8 9,385 NBT 

11 Toledo Harbor, OH 0.8 4,398 1,522 

13 Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 1.2 580 1,045 

14 Presque Isle Harbor, MI 1.0 28,567 NBT 

15 Ashtabula Harbor, OH NBT NBT NBT 

16 Gary Harbor, IN 1.2 1,532 NBT 

17 Taconite Harbor, MN 1.0 15,293 NBT 

19 Escanaba, MI 1.0 16,854 NBT 

20 Stoneport, MI 1.1 10,329 NBT 

21 Calcite, MI 1.1 11,490 NBT 

22 Two Harbors, MN 1.0 33,057 NBT 

24 St. Clair, MI 1.4 10,819 692 

25 Conneaut Harbor, OH 1.0 27,538 NBT 

27 Port Inland, MI 1.0 961 NBT 

30 Silver Bay, MN NBT NBT NBT 

32 Marine City, MI NBT NBT NBT 

34 Sandusky Harbor, OH 1.0 267 NBT 

35 Marblehead, OH 5.7 2,326 1,121 

36 Milwaukee Harbor, WI 0.5 364 2,798 

37 Port Dolomite, MI 1.1 6,923 NBT 

38 Fairport Harbor, OH 1.0 10,163 NBT 

39 Alpena Harbor, MI 2.0 NBT NBT 

42 Green Bay Harbor, WI 112.9 414 2,486 

44 Monroe Harbor, MI 1.0 NBT 3,902 

46 Port of Buffalo, NY 0.4 7,924 1,965 

47 Muskegon Harbor, MI 1.4 549 NBT 

49 Drummond Island, MI 1.0 9,934 NBT 

50 Charlevoix Harbor, MI 0.4 3,981 NBT 

52 Buffington Harbor, IN 1.6 2,711 NBT 

54 Ludington Harbor, MI 0.4 5,474 2,760 

55 Huron Harbor, OH NBT NBT NBT 

56 Erie Harbor, PA NBT NBT NBT 

57 Grand Haven Harbor, MI 0.4 2,265 NBT 

Grand Total 1.7 1,095 1,107 

a Ratio of all barge trips to tug trips for port. NBT indicates no barge trips.

b Ratio of total dry-cargo barge tons to total dry-cargo barge trips for port.

c Ratio of total liquid-cargo barge tons to total liquid-cargo barge trips for port.
3-22

(RO) ship-types. UC trips should be allocated to each of the above-listed ship-types using the ratio of trips for

each dry-cargo ship-type divided by the total of all the listed dry-cargo ship-type trips. In the example of Lorain

Harbor, there were 1,061 BC, 12 GC or 1,083 defined dry-cargo trips and 37 UC trips in 1995 (from Table 2-3).

The 37 UC trips can be allocated to the BC and GC ship-types as follows. Of all the defined dry-cargo ship

trips, 1,061 out of 1,083 were bulk carrier trips and 12 out of 1,083 were general cargo trips. The 37 UC trips

multiplied by 1,061 and divided by 1,083 trips equals 36 trips, which should be added to BC trips. The

remaining trip should be added to GC trips. Thus the total BC trips for Lorain would be 1,097 and the total GC

trips would be 13. 

3.7.3 Step 3: Determine Bulk Carrier Trips Made By Lakers

As the hotelling time for Lakers that have self-unloading equipment is significantly shorter than

hotelling time for Salties, bulk carrier trips determined in Subsection 3.7.2 should be broken into Laker and

Salty trips. By using the information in Table 3-18, the modeler can allocate bulk carrier trips to Lakers and

Salties.

As a result of the step described in Subsection 3.7.2, Lorain Harbor had 1097 bulk carrier trips in 1995.

Using the percentages in Table 3-18, all 1097 trips were by Lakers.

3.7.4 Step 4: Adjust Barge and Tug Trips as Needed

For ports like Duluth-Superior where barge to tug ratios are higher than 1.0 and dry-cargo barge tons

per trip exceed 2000 tons, a reallocation of tug trips should be made. In this case, the modeler should allocate

one tug trip for each dry-cargo barge trip. The remaining tug trips should be allocated to the liquid-cargo barge

trips. This will give a different barge to tug ratio for dry-cargo and liquid-cargo barges.

Duluth-Superior had 63 dry-cargo barge trips, 6 liquid-cargo barge trips and 64 tug trips. Assigning

one dry-cargo barge trip to one tug trip leaves 6 liquid-cargo trips for one tug trip. If the tugs at this harbor are

higher horsepower tugboats, they should be able to push 6 liquid barges without problem. By doing this, the

modeler can better estimate the loads on the tugboat while pushing barges.

In the example of Lorain Harbor, there are no liquid-cargo barge trips, the dry-cargo barge tons per trip

seem reasonable, and so does the ratio of barge trips to tug trips. In the case of Lorain Harbor, there are 35 drycargo barge trips and 46 tugboat trips, indicating that 11 trips or 24% of the tug trips are made without barges.

3.7.5 Step 5: Allocate Time-In-Modes To The Modeled Port

Cruise, RSZ and maneuvering times listed in the tables for the Typical Great Lake Ports are in hours

per trip, while hotelling times are in hours per call. If the modeler desires to calculate time-in-modes (cruise,

RSZ, and maneuver) for calls (an entrance and clearance) instead of trips, divide the trips by 2 and multiply the

times-in-mode by 2. Hotelling can be directly applied from the Like Port to the Modeled Port without

modification for all the various ship-types. In the case of Lorain Harbor, 1097 bulk carrier Laker trips, 35 drycargo barge trips, 13 general cargo trips and 46 tugboat trips were made in 1995. Time-in-modes were applied
3-23

directly from Tables 3-4 and 3-6 for Cleveland and are shown in Table 3-19 for Lorain Harbor. Tugboat and

dry-cargo barge hotelling times should be determined using the rule of thumb for self-unloading barges from

Subsection 3.5.4 and the cargo tonnage per barge from Table 3-17, if the cargo tonnage per dry-cargo barge is

over 2000 tons. Lorain Harbor has an average of 9,385 tons per barge, thus a hotelling time of 20 minutes per

1000 tons times 9.385 gives a hotelling time of 188 minutes or 3.1 hours. This should be applied to both the

barges and the tugboats. 

Table 3-18. Bulk carrier Laker and Salty percentage of trips for Great Lake ports

RL Rank Port Name Salty Laker

2 Duluth-Superior, MN & WI 10% 90%

4 Port of Chicago, IL 27% 73%

7 Indiana Harbor, IN 0% 100%

8 Port of Detroit, MI 0% 100%

9 Cleveland Harbor, OH 15% 85%

10 Lorain Harbor, OH 0% 100%

11 Toledo Harbor, OH 15% 85%

13 Burns Waterway Harbor, IN 30% 70%

14 Presque Isle Harbor, MI 0% 100%

15 Ashtabula Harbor, OH 7% 93%

16 Gary Harbor, IN 1% 99%

17 Taconite Harbor, MN 0% 100%

19 Escanaba, MI 0% 100%

20 Stoneport, MI 0% 100%

21 Calcite, MI 0% 100%

22 Two Harbors, MN 0% 100%

24 St. Clair, MI 1% 99%

25 Conneaut Harbor, OH 0% 100%

27 Port Inland, MI 0% 100%

30 Silver Bay, MN 0% 100%

32 Marine City, MI 0% 100%

34 Sandusky Harbor, OH 0% 100%

35 Marblehead, OH 0% 100%

36 Milwaukee Harbor, WI 21% 79%

37 Port Dolomite, MI 0% 100%

38 Fairport Harbor, OH 3% 97%

39 Alpena Harbor, MI 0% 100%

42 Green Bay Harbor, WI 0% 100%

44 Monroe Harbor, MI 0% 100%

46 Port of Buffalo, NY 31% 69%

47 Muskegon Harbor, MI 0% 100%

49 Drummond Island, MI 0% 100%

50 Charlevoix Harbor, MI 0% 100%

52 Buffington Harbor, IN 0% 100%

54 Ludington Harbor, MI 9% 91%

55 Huron Harbor, OH 0% 100%

56 Erie Harbor, PA 2% 98%

57 Grand Haven Harbor, MI 0% 100%
3-24

Table 3-19. Allocation of ship activity to Lorain Harbor

Ship-type Trips

Cruise

(hrs/trip)

RSZ

(hrs/trip)

Maneuver

(hrs/trip)

Hotelling

(hrs/call)

BULK CARRIER, LAKER 1,097 0.5 0.3 2.0 7.4

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 13 0.5 0.3 0.8 64.6

TUGBOAT 46 0.5 0.3 1.7 3.1

DRY-CARGO BARGE 35 N/A N/A N/A 3.1

3.7.6 Step 6: Adjust Maneuvering Time as Needed

A comparison should be made between the Modeled Port and the Like Port distance from the

breakwater to docking areas. These data can be obtained from the Port Series reports for the Modeled Port. If

the distances are different, maneuvering times should be adjusted accordingly by the ratio of the distances. The

easiest and most direct method is to determine the distance to the furthest dock for the Modeled Port and the

Like Port. Since 0.5 hour of maneuvering time per trip is related to entering or clearing the dock, 0.5 hour needs

to be subtracted from the total maneuvering time at the Like Port to determine the travel time from the

breakwater to the average dock. The remaining maneuvering time should then be adjusted by multiplying it by

the ratio of the distance to the furthest dock in the Modeled Port divided by the distance to the furthest dock in

the Like Port. The 0.5 hour per trip should then be added back to the adjusted travel time to give the total

maneuvering time per call for the Modeled Port. 

In the case of Lorain, the furthest dock is about 2.8 miles down the Black River while the furthest dock

for Cleveland is approximately 6.5 miles down the Cuyahoga River. Distances to various docks within ports

can be determined from the Port Series Report published by the USACE. Subtracting 0.5 hour of maneuvering

time per trip, the modeler calculates 1.5 hours of maneuvering time for Lakers. The maneuvering time should

then be adjusted by multiplying it by the ratio of 2.8 miles divided by 6.5 miles giving an adjusted maneuvering

travel time of 0.6 hour. Adding 0.5 hour of maneuvering for the time into or out of the dock, the modeler gets

1.1 hours of maneuvering for Lakers per trip. Similar adjustments for distance should be carried out for

tugboats, dry-cargo barges, and liquid-cargo barges. Data indicate that Salties do not go down the river and thus

the maneuvering times for Cleveland can be directly applied to all Salty ship-types. The final time-in-modes

for Lorain Harbor are shown in Table 3-20.

Table 3-20. Final time-in-modes at Lorain Harbor

Ship-type Trips

Cruise

(hrs/trip)

RSZ

(hrs/trip)

Maneuver

(hrs/trip)

Hotelling

(hrs/call)

BULK CARRIER, LAKER 1,097 0.5 0.3 1.1 7.4

GENERAL CARGO, SALTY 13 0.5 0.3 0.8 64.6

TUGBOAT 46 0.5 0.3 1.0 3.1

DRY-CARGO BARGE 35 N/A N/A N/A 3.1
4-1

SECTION 4 

TYPICAL RIVER PORTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION TO TYPICAL RIVER PORTS

To continue our analysis of major commercial ports in the United States, we chose to acquire data on

two inland river ports. The purpose of these data are to allow determination of actual commercial marine vessel

movements on the inland waterways at the Port of St. Louis and the Port of Cincinnati. These two ports are

considered Typical River Ports and will be examined in detail in this section. A methodology is also presented

in Section 4.6 that allows data for these Typical River Ports to be used with the more general data in Section

2, Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 to estimate commercial marine vessel movements at other river ports. The data on

the Typical River Ports is for 1996 and were obtained from the USACE Waterborne Commerce Statistics

Center. The data will be used to:

• Calculate the total number of trips to and from locations within each Typical River Port

• Calculate the total number of trips passing, but not stopping at, each Typical River Port

• Determine vessel characteristics for tugboats and barges operating in and through each Typical River

Port

• Determine modes of similar speed and operating characteristics

• Calculate the average time the tugs are operating in these modes

The Typical River Ports were chosen because they are large ports located on two of the most important

rivers in the U.S. and because of the availability of lock data either within or on either side of the port. The Port

of St. Louis has two locks located within its boundaries. Cincinnati has no locks located within its boundaries

but has an up-river and a down-river lock with no other major ports located between the locks.

This section is organized with general data on the river ports in Section 4.2 and general information on

time-in-modes of the river ports in Section 4.3. Information and data specific to the Port of St. Louis are in

Section 4.4. Information and data specific to the Port of Cincinnati are in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 presents the

methodology for using Typical River Port data with the rivers in the general Top 60 Lake and River Ports data.

4.2 GENERAL OPERATIONS ON RIVERS

Commercial traffic on rivers consists almost exclusively of tug and barge movements. There are some

excursion vessels such as paddle boats, dinner cruises, or other entertainment-centered river traffic, but the

majority of trips and vast majority of tonnage recorded by the USACE are centered around the tug/barge

movements. The tug/barge combination is often referred to as a tow. The following is a discussion of excursion

vessels, tugs, and barges.

Excursion vessels are passenger boats of all kinds which normally operate on repetitive routes that last
4-2

a set length of time. Excursion vessels include cruise, passenger, and excursion ship-types. Each excursion boat

usually has a cruise that lasts from one to several hours, returning and departing from the same port. A few

excursion cruises may be overnight or several days and cover several ports. Excursion vessels will have only

a short time at the dock between cruises and will rarely leave their auxiliary engines on for more than an hour

of hotelling time at the dock. Gambling boats are likely to have large hotelling emissions from auxiliary

engines, however they are expected to be a small percentage of the overall excursion vessel population and are

not specifically addressed in this report.

There are different types of tugs and different types of barges that commonly operate on the rivers. Two

main types are described as follows. The two main types of tugs are towboats and pushboats. A river tug or

pushboat is generally a flat bottomed boat with a flat bow. The bow meets up against the flat stern of a river

barge, the two are secured to each other, and the tug pushes the barge or barges up or down the river. In one

variation, the pushboat has a rounded or pointed bow that fits in a notch on the stern of a barge (notch barge)

and then commences to push the barge. Less commonly seen on the rivers are towboats. Unlike a pushboat, the

hull of the towboat does not, generally speaking, touch the barge. Instead a long line passes between the towboat

and the barge as the towboat pulls the barge forward. Towboats are more commonly used for ocean going barges

and on the Great Lakes than they are in the rivers. Table 4-1 shows the relative percent of tow trips powered

by towboats and by pushboats near the Typical River Ports. No distinction is made between operating

characteristics of these vessels in the report and, in all other sections of the report, the propulsion boat of the

tow is referred to as a tug.

Table 4-1. Percent of towboats and pushboats at the Typical River Ports

Port Propulsion Source Trips % of Trips

St. Louis Towboat 4,833 21%

Pushboat 17,864 79%

Cincinnati Towboat 4,000 25%

Pushboat 12,000 75%

The two main types of barges are dry cargo and liquid cargo barges. Dry cargo barges include flat deck,

open hopper, covered, and lash barges. Liquid cargo barges include single-hull, double-hull, and double-sided.

Liquid cargo barges have an average of 40% greater cargo capacity and are an average of 15% longer and 30%

wider than a dry cargo barge. There are variations within the liquid and dry cargo barge categories. Table 4-2

presents the barge-types and total number of trips near the ports of St. Louis and Cincinnati. These trip totals

also include barges which passed the port without calling. However, it is very difficult to determine, using the

existing data, any matches between specific tugs and specific barges on the river. Because tugs generally push
4-3

several barges as part of a tow and the tow could be made of a combination of liquid and dry barges, it is not

considered critical to this report to present barges in more defined ship-type categories in the summary tables.

Table 4-2. Detailed barge characteristics at the Typical River Ports

Barge 

Type

St. Louis 

Trips

Cincinnati 

Trips

Cap a

(Ton) NRT b Length Breadth VTCC c ICST d Description

Dry Cargo 0 1,918 486 e 84 116 33 4A11 351 Passenger barge

Dry Cargo 231 48 407 204 62 31 4A52 344 Lash Barge

Dry Cargo 2,663 1,668 1557 590 184 30 4A47 341 Open Dry Cargo Barge

Dry Cargo 23,493 1,740 1618 758 195 35 4A48 342 Covered Dry Cargo Barge

Dry Cargo 17,411 47,711 1600 691 196 35 4A40 341 Open Hopper Barge

Dry Cargo 7,398 184 1464 806 206 40 4A43 343 Flat/Deck Barge

Dry Cargo 59,157 7,776 1596 905 196 35 4A41 342 Covered Hopper Barge

Liquid Cargo 4 6 1655 740 200 35 5F71 142 Double Hull Liquid Cargo

Barge (unknown material)

Liquid Cargo 8,678 4,741 2290 1254 230 46 5A71 142 Double Hull Liquid Cargo

Barge (steel)

Liquid Cargo 530 149 2440 1314 243 48 5A74 149 Other Liquid Cargo Barge

Liquid Cargo 662 1,359 3227 1318 232 48 5A70 141 Single Hull Liquid Cargo

Barge

Liquid Cargo 512 858 2764 1369 264 53 5A72 143 Double Sided Liquid

Cargo Barge a Barge capacity in Tons, b

 Average Net Registered Tons, c Vessel Type Classification and Construction code, d International Classification by Ship-Type code, e

 Average Passenger Capacity

Barges are assembled into tows at fleeting areas. It is within the fleeting area that tows are made and

broken down by harbor tugs and where the higher horsepower tug meets the completed tow for the trip up- or

down-river. Barges are secured together according to their delivery destination. Sometimes the entire tow may

be delivered to a fleeting area within a port and sometimes a harbor tug will meet the tow and remove one or

more of the outermost barges while leaving the rest of the tow intact to continue its voyage. 

Unlike deep-sea ports, a vessel passing through a river port does not necessarily stop at the port.

However, the passage of this vessel will be an emission event for the surrounding port area. For example, a

vessel leaving from Memphis, TN and destined for St. Paul, MN would pass through the Port of St. Louis.

Likewise, a vessel leaving St. Louis, MO and destined for Pittsburgh, PA would pass through the Port of

Cincinnati. Thus, traffic passing through a river port can be equally important as traffic calling on the port.

Indeed, passing traffic is often more significant in tonnage and trips than the calling traffic as seen in the

summary tables for the Typical River Ports. For this reason, the summary tables are broken out by passing and

calling to indicate the characteristics of vessels that actually had the Typical River Port as their shipping or

receiving port as separate from the characteristics of vessels that were passing through the port.
4-4

As mentioned above, there is no direct way to link a specific tug with a specific barge or set of barges

using the USACE data. Lock Performance Monitoring System data were also consulted and the average barges

per tug through the locks are presented in the sections on St. Louis and Cincinnati. To supplement these data,

river operators were contacted and asked how tug horsepower related to the number of barges in a tow. The

operators cited many different factors that affect this decision including weather, river stage (depth), river

current, destination on the river, and Coast Guard Regulations. We were also told that the Coast Guard rule is

250 hp per barge but that the ratio might be higher or lower than that depending on the previously cited factors.

In general, strong current requires more horsepower as shown in the example from one operator who stated that

3 barges carrying 20,000 barrels of oil each could be pushed by an 1,800 hp tug in the intracoastal waterway

around the Gulf of Mexico, but that a 3,000 hp tug would be assigned to the same barges if they were destined

for a port on the river. General guidelines for horsepower required per total tow tonnage as used by one operator

are repeated in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Rules of thumb for computing maximum barge to tug ratios per tow

Tug HP Range tons/hp tons/barge a hp/tug barge/tug b

3,500 and above 5.7 1,610 4,200 15

1,500 - 3,500 5.3 1,610 3,000 10

< 1,500 6.6 1,610 1,200 5

a Average tons/barge includes 1550 tons for barge cargo, 100 tons for the empty barge NRT, and 10 tons for a

fraction of the tug NRT.

b Barge per tug numbers are expected to be the upper limit of that tugs horsepower capacity. These are rule of thumb

numbers only. Actual barges per tow should be expected to vary considerably.

4.3 CALCULATING TIME IN MODE

Unlike the commercial deep-sea ports, vessels moving within inland river ports have two primary

modes of operation, river cruise and maneuvering. Hotelling is rarely seen on the river although some hotelling

time is allocated to passenger/excursion vessels.

4.3.1 River Cruise

River cruise is considered to be the speed when traveling on the river which varies due to weather and

river conditions, congestion in the river, and load on the tug. This speed will be slower in the vicinity of a port

where congestion forces slower speeds, in bends where slower speeds allow more maneuvering time, going upriver where the current of the river reduces the relative speed of the boat, and at low river stages. River cruise

will be faster going down-river in straight flowing, open water when the river is at a higher stage.

The river cruise speeds were adjusted for the river current. Data on river current was obtained from the

regional office of the USACE for St. Louis and Cincinnati respectively. The velocity of the river will change

depending on season, river stage, and whether it is a bend or straight section. The river is generally wide enough
4-5

such that varying widths produce only small changes in the current speed. The average river velocity, given by

the USACE regional office for St. Louis, varies from 1.5 to 8 miles per hour. An average of 2 mph was used

in this report. For Cincinnati a range of 0.2 to 3 miles per hour was given and an average of 0.5 mph was used.

When calculating river cruise time-in-mode, river current is added to the tug speed for downbound traffic and

subtracted from the tug speed for upbound traffic to get the overall speed.

For excursion vessels, if the shipping mile and receiving mile are the same, a value of 2 hours for time

at river cruise is recorded and factored into the average cruise time calculations.

4.3.2 Maneuvering

Maneuvering is calculated to take place when a tug maneuvers a barge into a dock or fleeting area or

when a tow maneuvers through a lock. There are other times a tow may drop to a maneuvering speed within the

port area such as to maneuver around a tight bend, to maneuver through a congested area, or as a precaution in

unusually high river conditions or other inclement weather. Only maneuvering associated with movements into

and out of docks, fleeting areas, or locks has been accounted for in this study.

4.3.3 Hotelling

Hotelling is the time the vessel is at dock with it’s main propulsion engines shut down and the auxiliary

engines still in operation. While hotelling can last many hours at deep-sea ports, it is rarely a significant event

for vessels operating on the river. Tugs are deployed nearly constantly. Due to the efficiency of river operation,

tugs are rarely at dock and virtually never traveling without any barges. They have two crews which keep the

vessel in operation 24 hours a day. Tugs are most often refueled midstream so they do not even have hotelling

time due to bunkering. Therefore, for a normal trip on the river, hotelling time is negligible.

No emissions are generally associated with barges, so time the barges spend in port is generally of little

interest to the modeler. The exception to this would be for barges with self-unloading equipment or other

equipment that requires power. A very small percentage, less than 0.5% of the liquid cargo barges at St. Louis

have self-unloading equipment. These vessels are not discussed in any further detail and no extra hotelling time

is included for them.

The time an excursion vessel is at port is rarely hotelling. As the term is used in this report, hotelling

is time the vessel is at dock with it’s main propulsion engines shut down and the auxiliary engines still in

operation. Excursion vessels will have only a short time at the dock between cruises (if they are doing back to

back cruises). This time between cruises may be up to an hour long, but the propulsion engines are generally

running in the idle position during this time. If the vessel is done for the day, it will have up to an hour of

hotelling while the crew cleans the vessel and readies it for the next day’s operation. Then the vessel will be

completely shut down for the night. For this reason, hotelling times for each excursion vessel can be considered

to be 1 hour per trip.
4-6

4.4 PORT OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS

The Metropolitan Port of St. Louis is located on the Mississippi River and is nominally located between

miles 138.8 and 208.8 on the river. The port extends for 70 miles along both banks of the river and encompasses

Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Charles counties as well as the city of St. Louis on the right bank and Monroe, St.

Clair, and Madison counties on the left bank. The city of St. Louis, MO is located on the right bank of the

Mississippi River below its confluence with the Missouri River and approximately 175 miles above its

confluence with the Ohio River. The Missouri River flows into the Mississippi River at mile 195, within the

boundaries of the Port of St. Louis. Seven port authorities serve the area in and around the port. These are the:

City of St. Louis Port Authority, Tri-City Regional Port District, Southwest Regional Port District, St. Charles

County Port Authority, Jefferson County Port Authority, St. Louis County Port Authority, and the Southeast

Missouri Regional Port Authority. 

Table 4-4. Metropolitan Port of St. Louis

LRP Rank Typical Port Miles USACE Port Code

4 Metropolitan Port of St. Louis 138.8 - 208.8 2310

The USACE is responsible for maintaining a minimum channel of 9 feet deep and 300 feet wide in the

lower Mississippi River and a depth of 9 feet and minimum width of 200 feet starting at mile 191 (within the

Port of St. Louis) with additional width in bends. Weather in the St. Louis area varies with four seasons and a

modified continental climate. Freezing temperatures are not unusual in December, January, or February,

however, the river traffic is rarely if ever impeded due to ice. Table 4-5 has prevailing wind directions as

reported in the USACE Port Series report 70 from data compiled by the National Weather Service. All data

were collected and averaged over a 32 year period. Heavy fog days occur less than 12 days per year and are

those with 1/4 mile visibility or less.
4-7

Table 4-5. Weather data for the Port of St. Louis

Month Prevailing wind direction Month Prevailing wind direction

Jan NW July S

Feb NW Aug S

Mar WNW Sep S

April WNW Oct S

May S Nov WNW

June S Dec S

Overall for the Year S

4.4.1 Locks of St. Louis

Two locks are located within the port. These are located at miles 185.5, for lock 27 at Granite City, IL,

and mile 200.8, the Melvin Price lock at Alton , IL. Each of these locks has a main and an auxiliary lock. The

main locks, with an available length of 1,200 feet are twice as long as the auxiliary locks and can accommodate

larger tows. Lockage times through the main lock are longer than those through the auxiliary lock due, in part,

to the larger volume of water transferred. Lock 27 is the first lock for vessels traveling up-river on the

Mississippi River. Tows may be as large as 40 barges per tow on the lower Mississippi River but due to

restrictions in lock capacity and river conditions, it is rare to see more than 15 barges per tow up-river of lock

27. Vessel passage data recorded at these locks differ not only because of traffic that may have stopped at or

originated in St. Louis, but also due to traffic originating from or stopping at ports on the Missouri River. Table

4-6 gives the total counts and average barges per tow as reported by the Lock Performance Monitoring System

for 1996 (Reference 9). These averages are through the lock and may or may not accurately reflect the average

number of barges per tug on the river or within the port itself.

Table 4-6. Vessel counts and tonnage through locks in the Port of St. Louis

tow barge loaded total barges total tons

Barges/

tow tons/barge

A a M A M A M A M AM A M

Lock

27

up 865 3,022 1857 12,960 5,383 34,579 2,871 20,852 6 11 1,546 1,609

dn 983 3,086 5193 30,717 6,015 34,009 8,173 47,588 6 11 1,574 1,549

Melvin

Price

up 449 2,879 491 13,660 971 36,284 603 22,031 2 12 1,228 1,613

dn 549 2,947 527 32,845 1,298 36,023 854 50,394 2 12 1,615 1,534

a A = Auxiliary Lock, M = Main lock. The main lock often has twice the capacity of the auxiliary lock.
4-8

4.4.2 Time-in-modes for St. Louis

The load on the tugs during river cruise is of interest to any modeler. The cruise speeds in this report

account for load in three ways - tows with loaded and light barges, direction the tow is headed on the river, and

the average barges/tug in the tow. Upbound tugs have higher loads, or slower speeds, than downbound tugs.

Loaded barges are heavier and therefore sit lower in the water requiring more power to move, or moving slower,

than a light barge. 

For tows in and around St. Louis, 57% of the barges were loaded with cargo in 1996. In general, all

loaded barges are considered loaded to capacity of 1,500 tons and all light barges carry no cargo tonnage.

Information from phone conversations with tug and barge operators indicates that loaded barges are traveling

(with no current and in an open river) at 8 mph and light barges are traveling at 10 to11 mph (full ahead). In a

more congested area, the tugs are likely to run at 60% to 80% of their max power or less for an average speed

of 5 to 6.5 for loaded barges and 6 to 8 mph for light barges (without adjusting for current). Thus, if 57% of

the barges are loaded, we adjust the overall tug speeds to be 57% at 5.7 mph and 43% at 7 mph for an overall

weighted average speed of 6.2 mph. Adjusting for current gives the results shown in Table 4-7.

In addition to the difference between loaded barges and light barges, there is the difference in load

depending on the number of barges in a tow. On average, tugs under 1,500 hp are harbor tugs used for

maneuvering 1 to 4 barges in and around the port. The larger tugs are used to transport the barges longer

distances although they may also take part in maneuvering a barge into dock to facilitate the dispersal of the

tow. An adjustment were made to the cruise speed of tugs <1,500 hp to account for their role in more congested

areas by reducing their cruise speeds by 20% as shown in Table 4-7. 

Table 4-7. Cruising and maneuvering, average speeds on the Mississippi River

Tug Power Direction Status Cruise (mph) Maneuver (mph)

>1500 hp Upbound Calling 4.2 2

Passing 4.2 2

Downbound Calling 8.3 2

Passing 8.3 2

< 1500 hp Upbound Calling 3.4 2

Passing 3.4 2

Downbound Calling 6.6 2

Passing 6.6 2

Although the speeds used in this report, as presented in Table 4-7, reflect accurate average speeds, the

following anecdotal information may help modelers understand the variability in river cruising speeds.

Anecdotal information from river operators suggests that other speeds may be common on the river and within

the boundaries of the port. Anecdotal information from Cincinnati has 8 loaded liquid cargo barges pushed by
4-9

3800-5000 hp tugs at 8 mph using an estimated 80-85% of tug capacity. The same speed would be used for light

barges leading to a lower load on the tug. Another operator said that speed through a port varies but 3-4 mph

is considered no wake. All operators agreed that the pilot is responsible for the wake of his tow and any damage

which it might cause. Loaded barges create more wake than light barges. Another operator gave an average of

8 mph loaded and 10-12 mph for light barges in still water (no current) when in straight water and noncongested areas.

Maneuvering is calculated to take place when a tug maneuvers a barge into a dock or fleeting area or

when a tow maneuvers through a lock. Data from the operators indicates that on average, each lockage event

takes one hour from initial slow down until the vessel is back up to speed again. This includes delays at the lock

and is the same for upbound and downbound vessels. The average speed maneuvering into the lock is 1-2 mph.

For the data summaries, maneuvering is associated with the USACE recorded tug trips and is considered to be

0.5 hours each to maneuver into or out of a dock and 1 hour from first slowdown to resumption of river cruise

speed when going through a lock. As both lockages and calls on port are considered reasons for maneuvering,

both calling and passing vessels have maneuvering time. Thus, vessels passing the Port of St Louis also have

1 hour of maneuvering time for each lock or a total of 2 hours of maneuvering. Depending on the miles traveled

within the port, other vessels will also have an extra hour of maneuvering to account for each probable lockage.

Maneuvering for lockages were computed as follows. The two locks within the boundaries of the Port

of St. Louis are located at miles 185.5 for lock 27 at Granite City, IL and mile 202.9, the Melvin Price lock at

Alton, IL. For tows traveling upbound on the Mississippi River and received at mile 185.5 or less and for tows

traveling downbound on the Mississippi River and received at mile 202.9 or greater, no locks are passed and

no maneuvering time for lockages were computed. For tows shipped from or received to a mile on the

Mississippi River between miles 185.5 and 202.9, each trip has one hour of maneuvering for lockages plus 0.5

hours to maneuver into a dock or fleeting area. For all other tows, each trip has 2 hours of maneuvering for

lockages plus 0.5 hours to maneuver into a dock or fleeting area. Note, although 0.5 hours is considered an

average time to maneuver into a fleeting area, one operator indicated that larger tows take 1 to 1.5 hours to

maneuver into a fleeting area.

4.3.3 Summary Data for the Port of St. Louis

All data in Tables 4-8 through 4-10 were assembled from data received from the USACE Waterborne

Commerce Statistics Center. Table 4-8 is the summary table for St. Louis tug movements and Table 4-9 is the

summary of tug characteristics. Table 4-10 is the summary table for barge trips and tonnage. Table 4-11

summarizes the percent of barges loaded and light by barge type. Table 4-12 presents the summary of barge/tug

ratios for trips and tonnages including all the St. Louis barges (including light) in the calculations. 
4-10

Table 4-8. Tug movements in the Port of St. Louis

Status Direction HP Bin

Total

Trips 

% of 

Trips

Maneuver

(hr/trip)

Cruise 

(hr/trip) 

Calling Downbound 0 - 750 544 2% 2.2 2.7

751 - 1,500 1,544 7% 2.3 2.1

1,501 - 3,000 613 3% 1.7 3.7

3,000 - 5,000 4,015 18% 2.1 3.8

5,000 - 8,000 730 3% 1.8 4.3

>8,000 912 4% 2.2 4.3

Downbound Total 8,358 37% 2.1 3.7

Upbound 0 - 750 3,972 18% 1.0 4.5

751 - 1,500 814 4% 1.2 5.0

1,501 - 3,000 704 3% 1.2 6.5

3,000 - 5,000 4,368 19% 1.7 7.5

5,000 - 8,000 961 4% 1.0 8.4

>8,000 1,033 5% 0.7 8.5

Upbound Total 11,852 52% 1.4 7.4

Calling Total 20,210 89% 1.7 5.6

Passing Downbound 0 - 750 4 0% 2.0 10.6

751 - 1,500 76 0% 2.0 6.0

1,501 - 3,000 81 0% 2.0 8.4

3,000 - 5,000 628 3% 2.0 8.1

5,000 - 8,000 239 1% 2.0 8.4

>8,000 56 0% 2.0 8.4

Downbound Total 1,084 5% 2.0 8.2

Upbound 0 - 750 13 0% 2.0 20.6

751 - 1,500 85 0% 2.0 14.4

1,501 - 3,000 71 0% 2.0 16.7

3,000 - 5,000 891 4% 2.0 16.3

5,000 - 8,000 307 1% 2.0 16.7

>8,000 36 0% 2.0 16.7

Upbound Total 1,403 6% 2.0 16.4

Passing Total 2,487 11% 2.0 13.0

Grand Total 22,697 100% 1.8 7.0
4-11

Table 4-9. Tug characteristics in the Port of St. Louis

Status Direction HP Bin

Total

Trips 

NRT

(Ton)

Avg. Engine

Power (hp)

Date Of 

Build

Calling Downbound 0 - 750 544 55 497 1968

751 - 1,500 1,544 85 998 1971

1,501 - 3,000 613 195 1,884 1966

3,000 - 5,000 4,015 408 4,504 1971

5,000 - 8,000 730 605 6,332 1978

>8,000 912 817 8,992 1975

Downbound Total 8,358 419 4,549 1972

Upbound 0 - 750 3,972 44 559 1969

751 - 1,500 814 85 1,050 1973

1,501 - 3,000 704 184 1,855 1965

3,000 - 5,000 4,368 408 4,413 1970

5,000 - 8,000 961 610 6,319 1978

>8,000 1,033 817 9,010 1975

Upbound Total 11,852 433 4,641 1972

Calling Total 20,210 426 4,596 1972

Passing Downbound 0 - 750 4 130 293 1962

751 - 1,500 76 75 1,140 1978

1,501 - 3,000 81 162 2,061 1968

3,000 - 5,000 628 365 4,511 1974

5,000 - 8,000 239 619 6,371 1982

>8,000 56 753 8,527 1976

Downbound Total 1,084 409 4,724 1975

Upbound 0 - 750 13 79 541 1975

751 - 1,500 85 91 1,169 1976

1,501 - 3,000 71 145 2,093 1971

3,000 - 5,000 891 388 4,712 1973

5,000 - 8,000 307 648 6,362 1981

>8,000 36 582 8,683 1983

Upbound Total 1,403 431 4,911 1975

Passing Total 2,487 422 4,835 1975

Grand Total 22,697 425 4,640 1973
4-12

Table 4-10. Barge trips and cargo tonnage summary for St. Louis

Status Direction Barge Type Trips Tons 

Calling Downbound Dry Cargo Barge 14,003 18,863,052

Liquid Cargo Barge 2,052 2,459,163

Downbound Total All 16,055 21,322,215

Upbound Dry Cargo Barge 26,761 6,010,668

Liquid Cargo Barge 2,238 2,817,515

Upbound Total All 28,999 8,828,183

Calling Total All 45,054 30,150,398

Passing Downbound Dry Cargo Barge 36,646 51,309,023

Liquid Cargo Barge 3,061 1,747,262

Downbound Total All 39,707 53,056,285

Upbound Dry Cargo Barge 32,972 15,657,937

Liquid Cargo Barge 3,066 4,705,737

Upbound Total All 36,038 20,363,674

Passing Total All 75,745 73,419,959

Grand Total All 120,799 103,570,357

Table 4-13 is the summary table for excursion and other traffic on the river calling or passing the Port of St.

Louis. 

The date of build given in Table 4-9 for St. Louis tugs includes the date of rebuild for some of the tug

vessels. A review of the data shows that approximately 5% of the 2,000 horsepower bin tugs and 2% of the

4,000 horsepower bin tugs have been rebuilt. There is no indication that the other horsepower categories have

rebuilt engines. It was unknown at the time of writing if the data accurately presented the rebuilt indicator for

all rebuilt engines.

Higher horsepower tugs push more barges. In order to estimate the maximum feasible barge/tug ratios,

it is suggested to use the rule of thumb in Section 4.2. However, to determine the average load on each tug in

Table 4-8, it is useful to know the overall average barge/tug ratio and the overall average tons/barge ratio

(including light barges in the calculations). Table 4-12 presents these overall summaries.
4-13

Table 4-11. St. Louis barges, percent of total for light and loaded by barge type

Status Direction Cargo Type Trips Tons 

Calling Downbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 2% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 1% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 10% 18%

Liquid Cargo Barge 1% 2%

Downbound Total All All 13% 21%

Upbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 18% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 1% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 4% 6%

Liquid Cargo Barge 1% 3%

Upbound Total All All 24% 9%

Calling Total All All 37% 29%

Passing Downbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 1% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 2% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 29% 50%

Liquid Cargo Barge 1% 2%

Downbound Total All All 33% 51%

Upbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 18% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 0% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 9% 15%

Liquid Cargo Barge 2% 5%

Upbound Total All All 30% 20%

Passing Total All 63% 71%

Grand Total All 100% 100%

Table 4-12. Overall average barges per tug and tons per barge on the Mississippi River at St. Louis

Status Direction Barges/Tug a Tons/Barge 

Call Downbound 2 1,328

Upbound 2 304

Pass Downbound 37 1,336

Upbound 54 565

a The barge per tug ratios for passing vessels are higher than is actually seen on the river. This may be due

to lack of reporting for tugs passing the port. LPMS reports an average of 10 barges per tug

The overall barge per tug ratios in Table 4-12 for vessels calling on St. Louis is synchronous with the

anecdotal information received from the port. However, the passing barge to tug ratio is higher than the
4-14

anecdotal information or the LPMS information would lead one to expect. It appears that the USACE data

undercounts the number of tugs passing the port. One hypothesis that explains this undercounting would be if

a tug pushed a tow of 15 or so barges up or down the river to the fleeting area. The tug then leaves the tow in

the fleeting area, removes two to four barges from the tow, and pushes these barges into port at St. Louis. After

depositing those barges, the tug picks up one to four barges and pushes them back to the fleeting area. These

new barges may be introduced into the original tow or another tow. The tug then continues up or down the river

with the larger tow. The reason for the undercounting of passing tugs comes because the barges in the tow that

stopped in the fleeting area are considered as passing while the tug is considered calling.

Table 4-13. Excursion vessel summary on the Mississippi River at St. Louis

Status Direction Trips

Date 

of Build

Avg. Engine 

Power (hp)

NRT

(ton)

Passenger

Capacity

Cruise 

(hr)

Maneuver

(hr)

Hotel 

(hr)

Calling Downbound 5,031 1978 2,066 1,226 1,006 3.4 0.8 1.0

Upbound 5,028 1977 2,026 1,135 1,027 3.4 0.8 1.0

Passing Downbound 8 1975 2,348 1,997 343 14.0 0.5 1.0

Upbound 3 1994 1,928 1,249 217 10.2 0.5 1.0

4.5 PORT OF CINCINNATI, OHIO

The Ohio River starts in Pittsburgh, Pa and flows in a generally west/southwest direction through the

states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. At Cairo, IL, the Ohio flows into the Mississippi.

The Port of Cincinnati lies between miles 0 and 7 on the Licking River and between miles 483 to 516 on the

Ohio River if the river miles are considered to increase from Cairo, IL to Pittsburgh, PA ( C to P) or between

miles 460 and 483 if the river miles are considered to increase from Pittsburgh, PA to Cairo, IL (P to C). 

The reason for this ambiguity is that organizations which record data on the Port of Cincinnati seem

to use two different numbering conventions to indicate miles on the river. Care must be taken as to which

numbering convention is being used as the port of Cincinnati is nearly in the middle of the length of the Ohio

River. Some numbering systems put mile 0 at Cairo, IL and mile 981 at Pittsburgh, PA ( C to P) and others put

mile 0 at Pittsburgh, PA and mile 981 at Cairo, IL (P to C). Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS) data

uses P to C as does the USACE’s Port Series Report. The detailed electronic data from the USACE data,

however, uses C to P. Not only are the numbering conventions reversed in direction, but the C to P method has

10 more miles within the bounds of the Port of Cincinnati than does the P to C method. As the electronic data

forms the basis of the summary tables, the C to P format is favored in this report and the Port of Cincinnati is

treated as 33 miles long. Both numbering conventions will be presented here in the format of C to P (followed

by P to C in parenthesis).
4-15

Table 4-14. Port of Cincinnati

LRP Rank Typical Port Miles on River USACE Port Code

14 Port of Cincinnati

Ohio River, 483-516 ( C to P)

Ohio River, 460-483 (P to C)

Licking River, 0-7

2335

2335

2345

There are no locks within the boundaries of the Port of Cincinnati. The closest upstream lock to

Cincinnati is the Captain Anthony Meldahl at mile 544.8 (436.2) and the closest downstream lock is the

Markland at mile 449.5 (531.5). 

4.5.1 Time-in-mode calculations for Cincinnati

The load on the tugs during river cruise is of interest to any modeler. The cruise speeds in this report

account for load in three ways - tows with loaded and light barges, direction the tow is headed on the river, and

the average barges/tug in the tow. Upbound tugs have higher loads, or slower speeds, than downbound tugs.

Loaded barges are heavier and therefore sit lower in the water requiring more power to more, or moving slower,

than a light barge. 

For tows in and around Cincinnati, 56% of the barges were loaded with cargo in 1996. In general, all

loaded barges are considered loaded to capacity of 1,500 tons and all light barges carry no cargo tonnage.

Information from phone conversations with tug and barge operators indicates that loaded barges are traveling,

with no current and in an open river, at 8 mph and light barges are traveling at 9 to 10 mph. In a more congested

area, the tugs are likely to run at a maximum of 60-80% of their max power to a minimum of engine idle for an

average speed of 4 to 6 mph for loaded barges and 6 to 7 mph for light barges (without adjusting for current).

Thus, if 56% of the barges are loaded, we adjust the overall tug speeds to be 56% at 5 mph and 44% at 6.5 mph

for an overall average speed of 5.7 mph. Adjusting for a current of 0.5 mph gives the results shown in Table 4-

15.

In addition to the difference between loaded barges and light barges, there is the difference in load

depending on the number of barges in a tow. On average, tugs under 1,500 hp are harbor tugs used for

maneuvering 1 to 4 barges in and around the port. The larger tugs are used to transport the barges longer

distances although they may also take part in maneuvering a barge into dock to facilitate the dispersal of the

tow. An adjustment was made to the cruise speed of tugs < 1,500 hp to account for their role in more congested

areas by reducing their cruise speeds by 20% as shown in Table 4-15. 
4-16

Table 4-15. Cruising and maneuvering, average speeds on the Ohio River

Tug Power Direction Status

Cruise 

(mph)

Maneuver 

(mph into dock)

Maneuver 

(mph on Licking R.)

>1,500 hp Upbound Calling 5.2 2 4

Passing 5.2 0 4

Downbound Calling 6.2 2 4

Passing 6.2 0 4

< 1,500 hp Upbound Calling 4.1 2 4

Passing 4.1 0 4

Downbound Calling 4.9 2 4

Passing 4.9 0 4

Anecdotal information from river operators suggests that other speeds may be common on the river and

within the boundaries of the port. Information from Cincinnati has 8 loaded liquid cargo barges pushed by

3,800-5,000 hp tugs at 8 mph using an estimated 80-85% of tug capacity. The same speed would be used for

light barges leading to a lower load on the tug. Another operator said that speed through a port varies but 3-4

mph is considered no wake. All operators agreed that the pilot is responsible for the wake of his tow and any

damage which it might cause. Loaded barges create more wake than light barges. Another operator gave an

average of 8 mph loaded and 10-12 mph for light barges in still water (no current) when in straight water and

non-congested areas.

There are no locks within the boundaries of the Port of Cincinnati. Thus, no maneuvering time due to

lockages is accounted for on the Ohio River near Cincinnati. Maneuvering time in Cincinnati is a default value

of 0.5 hours for all trips and 1 hour for intraport trips. 

4.5.2 Summary data for the Port of Cincinnati

All data in Tables 4-16 through 4-21 were assembled from data received from the USACE Waterborne

Commerce Statistics Center. Table 4-16 is the summary table for Cincinnati tug movements. Table 4-17 is the

summary table for Cincinnati tug characteristics. Table 4-18 is the percent of trips loaded and light for the

barges. Table 4-19 presents barge trip and tonnage summary data. Table 4-20 present the overall averages for

barges per tug and tons per barge in and around Cincinnati including light barges in the calculations. Table 4-21

is the summary table for all other traffic (excursion) calling or passing the Port of Cincinnati.
4-17

Table 4-16. Tug movements summary table for the Port of Cincinnati

Status Direction HP Bin Trips 

%

Trips

Cruise

(hr) 

Maneuver

(hr) 

Calling Downbound 0 - 750 392 2% 4.2 0.7

751 - 1,500 796 5% 4.3 0.9

1,501 - 3,000 191 1% 2.8 0.5

3,000 - 5,000 559 4% 3.0 0.5

5,000 - 8,000 57 0% 2.8 0.5

>8,000 1 0% 3.8 0.5

Downbound Total 1,996 13% 3.2 0.6

Upbound 0 - 750 393 3% 4.3 0.8

751 - 1,500 774 5% 5.4 0.8

1,501 - 3,000 168 1% 3.5 0.5

3,000 - 5,000 474 3% 3.7 0.5

5,000 - 8,000 34 0% 3.4 0.5

>8,000 1 0% 4.5 0.5

Upbound Total 1,844 12% 3.9 0.6

Calling Total 3,840 24% 3.5 0.6

Passing Downbound 0 - 750 57 0% 7.7 0.5

751 - 1,500 3,014 19% 7.7 0.5

1,501 - 3,000 555 4% 5.6 0.5

3,000 - 5,000 2,101 13% 5.5 0.5

5,000 - 8,000 277 2% 5.5 0.5

>8,000 1 0% 5.5 0.5

Downbound Total 6,005 38% 5.8 0.5

Upbound 0 - 750 83 1% 8.2 0.5

751 - 1,500 3,033 19% 8.2 0.5

1,501 - 3,000 538 3% 6.6 0.5

3,000 - 5,000 1,987 13% 6.6 0.5

5,000 - 8,000 215 1% 6.6 0.5

>8,000 1 0% 6.6 0.5

Upbound Total 5,857 37% 6.8 0.5

Passing Total 11,862 76% 6.3 0.5

Grand Total 15,702 100% 5.8 0.5
4-18

Table 4-17. Tug characteristics summary table for the Port of Cincinnati

Status Direction HP Bin Trips 

NRT

(ton)

Avg. Engine 

Power (hp)

Date of 

Build

Calling Downbound 0 - 750 392 45 600 1973

751 - 1,500 796 82 1,009 1972

1,501 - 3,000 191 175 1,882 1967

3,000 - 5,000 559 397 4,098 1969

5,000 - 8,000 57 505 6,437 1979

>8,000 1 602 8,200 1965

Downbound Total 1,996 303 3,255 1970

Upbound 0 - 750 393 43 589 1972

751 - 1,500 774 81 965 1972

1,501 - 3,000 168 173 1,812 1968

3,000 - 5,000 474 405 4,151 1969

5,000 - 8,000 34 540 6,342 1979

>8,000 1 602 8,200 1965

Upbound Total 1,844 305 3,205 1970

Calling Total 3,840 304 3,233 1970

Passing Downbound 0 - 750 57 47 605 1974

751 - 1,500 3,014 63 951 1970

1,501 - 3,000 555 170 1,802 1972

3,000 - 5,000 2,101 427 4,384 1972

5,000 - 8,000 277 543 6,163 1981

>8,000 1 602 8,200 1965

Downbound Total 6,005 350 3,691 1972

Upbound 0 - 750 83 42 606 1974

751 - 1,500 3,033 62 948 1970

1,501 - 3,000 538 170 1,803 1972

3,000 - 5,000 1,987 429 4,352 1972

5,000 - 8,000 215 555 6,126 1981

>8,000 1 602 8,200 1965

Upbound Total 5,857 345 3,590 1972

Passing Total 11,862 347 3,642 1972

Grand Total 15,702 339 3,561 1972
4-19

Table 4-18. Cincinnati Barges, percent of total for light and loaded by barge type

Status Direction Cargo Barge Type % Trips % Ton

Calling Downbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 4% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 1% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 11% 16%

Liquid Cargo Barge 2% 6%

Downbound Total All 18% 22%

Upbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 8% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 2% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 7% 9%

Liquid Cargo Barge 2% 4%

Upbound Total All 18% 12%

Calling Total All 37% 34%

Passing Downbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 5% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 0% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 19% 35%

Liquid Cargo Barge 2% 6%

Downbound Total All 27% 41%

Upbound Light Dry Cargo Barge 21% 0%

Liquid Cargo Barge 2% 0%

Loaded Dry Cargo Barge 13% 24%

Liquid Cargo Barge 0% 1%

Upbound Total All 36% 25%

Passing Total All 63% 66%

Grand Total All 100% 100%
4-20

Table 4-19. Barge Summary for Cincinnati, OH

Status Direction Barge Type Trips Tons

Calling Downbound Dry Cargo Barge 8,287 8,015,952

Liquid Cargo Barge 1,960 2,999,500

Downbound Total All 10,247 11,015,452

Upbound Dry Cargo Barge 8,415 4,359,134

Liquid Cargo Barge 2,050 1,793,011

Upbound Total All 10,465 6,152,145

Calling Total All 20,712 17,167,597

Passing Downbound Dry Cargo Barge 13,950 17,394,338

Liquid Cargo Barge 1,481 2,934,547

Downbound Total All 15,431 20,328,885

Upbound Dry Cargo Barge 19,163 12,201,534

Liquid Cargo Barge 1,406 358,540

Upbound Total All 20,569 12,560,074

Passing Total All 36,000 32,888,959

Grand Total All 56,712 50,056,556

Higher horsepower tugs push more barges. In order to estimate barge/tug ratios, it is suggested to use

the rule of thumb in Section 4.2. However, to determine the average load on each tug in Table 4-16, it is useful

to know the overall average barge/tug ratio and the overall average tons/barge ratio (including light barges in

the calculations). Table 4-20 presents these overall summaries.

Table 4-20. Overall average barges per tug and tons per barge on the Ohio River at Cincinnati from

USACE data (Tables 4-16 and 4-18)

Status Direction Barges/Tug Tons/Barge 

Call Downbound 5 1,075

Upbound 6 588

Pass Downbound 3 1,317 

Upbound 4 611 
4-21

Table 4-21. Excursion Vessels on the Ohio River at Cincinnati

Status Direction Passengers Trips Tons Maneuver (hr) Cruise (hr)

Calling Downbound Light 42 0 0.5 1.1

Loaded 915 85,718 0.5 1.6

Upbound Light 44 0 0.5 3.3

Loaded 913 85,873 0.5 4.9

Grand Total 1,914 171,591 0.5 2.9

No excursion vessels passing the Port of Cincinnati were reported by the USACE

4.6 METHODOLOGY - USING TYPICAL RIVER PORT DATA WITH TOP 60 LRP DATA

Operations on the rivers are significantly different from operations on the Great Lakes or at Deep Sea

Ports. For this reason, a different methodology is needed to apply Typical River Port data to other river ports.

In general, this methodology will apply the percentage of tug trips and barge trips and tonnages for the Typical

Port to the total tug and total barge trips given in Section 2 for a port chosen to be the Modeled Port. 

The Typical River Ports can be used with the general river data in Section 2 to develop more detailed

vessel characteristics and movements at other river ports. The tug, barge, and excursion vessel data developed

for the ports of St. Louis and Cincinnati can be used to model tug, barge, and excursion vessel movements at

the other river ports by using the percent of total trips given in each of the Section 4 summary tables. If there

is better information available from the port on the distributions of trips by horsepowers or on barge to tug

ratios, that data should be used to supplement the default values in the summary table for the Typical Ports.

This methodology for river allocations pertains to barges, tugs, and passenger/excursion ship-types.

Unidentified dry-cargo ship-types should, by default, be treated as excursion vessels. Other ship-types such as

general cargo or bulk carrier may have a few trips for some ports. These can either be treated as a barge/tug

combination or can use the methodology from the deep-sea port when determining their characteristics and timein-modes. 

There are seven main steps to use when applying the Typical River data to a general river port. Step

1 is to choose a general port from Section 2. This is the Modeled Port. Step 2 is to choose which Typical River

Port to use. Step 3 is to summarize the trips and tonnage data for the Modeled Port. Step 4 is to calculate the

time-in-modes of interest for the Modeled Port by applying the percentage of trips and tonnages in the summary

tables (4-10 or 4-17). Step 5 is to adjust the cruising time for the port distance on the river. Step 6 is to adjust

the maneuvering time for the presence of locks. Step 7 addresses how the data may be allocated to the county

level. An example of how the default data from the Typical River Ports would be used with general data from

a LRP (Section 2) follows. 

4.6.1 Step 1: Choose a Modeled Port

This example will use Memphis, TN (LRP # 6) as the Modeled Port.
4-22

4.6.2 Step 2: Choose the Typical River Port

Choosing a Typical Port is at the discretion of the modeler. Some of the important factors to consider

are: 

• The presence or absence of locks in the Modeled Port

• The presence or absence of navigable tributary rivers within the Modeled Port

• The characteristics of the fleet and the barge to tug ratio at the Modeled Port

• The average river characteristics including current information if available for the Modeled Port.

Memphis Harbor has no locks within the boundaries of the port. In this way it is like Cincinnati. From

the data in Section 2, Table 2-3 we find that Memphis is like many of the river ports in that virtually all of the

traffic is barge and tug and that there are several times as many dry-cargo barge trips as liquid-cargo barge trips.

Memphis Harbor has a section of the Wolf River within the boundaries of the port. In this way it is like

Cincinnati. The overall barge to tug ratio from Table 2-3 is 18,632 to 1,893 or roughly 10 to 1. In this way

Memphis, with its relatively high barge to tug ratio, is more like St. Louis. The main river for Memphis Harbor

is the Mississippi below St. Louis and is likely to flow at 2 to 5 miles per hour. In this way, Memphis Harbor

is more like St. Louis. 

Thus, the data available from the river ports is similar enough such that a modeler can choose which

Typical Port to use as Like Port for individual criteria if need be. The bulleted criteria indicate that for

calculating the cruising time-in-mode, barge to tug ratios, and other vessel characteristics, use of St. Louis as

the Like Port is likely to yield a better estimate of activity for Memphis. Likewise, using Cincinnati to estimate

maneuvering time-in-mode (after correcting for river current) is likely to yield more accurate vessel movement

data.

4.6.3 Step 3: Summarize Trip and Tonnage Data for the Modeled Port

From Section 2, Tables 2-3 and 2-4 we get the trip and tonnage data by ship-type for Memphis as shown

below in Table 4-22.

Table 4-22. Trip and tonnage data for the Modeled Port, Memphis, TN

Ship-Type Trip Ton

Dry Cargo Barge 13,888 10,332,453 

Liquid Cargo Barge 4,748 5,970,642 

General Cargo 2 0

Passenger 4 0

Tug 1,893 0

Total 20,535 16,303,095
4-23

4.6.4 Step 4: Determine Trips and Tons for the Modeled Port Ship-Types

Using the percentages in the tug and barge summary tables (Table 4-8 and 4-11 for St. Louis), trips and

tons can be calculated for any of the horsepower bins, calling or passing the port, upbound or downbound using

Equation 4.1 (below). If details of tug horsepower distributions are available from the Modeled Port, calculating

all of these categories may be necessary to determine emissions for the port. However, as we are assuming that

the Modeled Port has a distribution of tug horsepowers similar to those in the Typical Port, only the overall trip

and tonnage averages for the categories of upbound, downbound, calling and passing will be required to

determine emissions. As there is currently no way to determine what tugs push loaded or light barges or which

tugs push dry or liquid cargo barges, the barge trips and tons used in Equation 4.1 are totals including both

loaded and light, dry and liquid cargo barges.

MPCT = MPTT * %TPCT (4.1)

Where:

MPCT = Modeled Port category trips or tons (by vessel type)

MPTT = Modeled Port total trips or tons (by vessel type)

%TPCT = Percentage of Typical Port trips or tons (by vessel type and by category)

As an example, here are the calculations for the category of calling, downbound tugs. MPTT from Table 4-22

is 1,893 and the %TPCT for St. Louis from Table 4-8 is 37%. Thus,

MPCT = MPTT * %TPCT 

= 1,893 * 37%

= 700 

Thus the methodology estimates that there are 700 calling, downbound tug trips for Memphis. Table 4-23 has

the results of these calculations for each category. The categories are abbreviated with DB for downbound and

UB for upbound traffic.

Table 4-23. Step 4 results for the Modeled Port, Memphis, TN

Category % Tugs a Tug Trips b % barge trips c Barge Trips b % barge tons c barge tons b

Calling DB 37% 700 13% 2,423 21% 3,423,650

Calling UB 52% 984 24% 4,473 8% 1,304,248

Passing DB 5% 95 33% 6,150 51% 8,314,578

Passing UB 6% 114 30% 5,591 20% 3,260,619

Total 100% 1,893 100% 18,636 100% 16,303,095 a

 From Table 4-8, b From Equation 4-1, c From Table 4-11
4-24

The barge trips and tonnages found by the methodology in Step 4 will be significantly lower than those

found if the modeler used the rule of thumb in Table 4-3. Application of the rule of thumb in Table 4-3 will

result in barge trip numbers close to the upper limit of barge trips and tonnages that could be propelled by the

recorded number of tugs in the Modeled Port. The rule-of-thumb is likely to give the upper limit of feasible

barge trips rather than an estimation of actual trips. The numbers in Table 4-23 represent an estimation of the

actual average barges and tonnage per tug and therefore give the modeler some indication of load on the tugs.

4.6.5 Step 5. Allocation of Cruise Time-in-mode to the Modeled Port

As stated in Step 2, more than one Like Port may be chosen to determine the time-in-mode and vessel

characteristics of the Modeled Port. As cruise times are largely unaffected by locks and are dependent mainly

on the length of the Modeled Port on the river and of the river current through the Modeled Port, St. Louis will

be used as the Modeled Port for determining cruise time-in-mode at Memphis.

The Modeled Port distance along the river can be determined from the master dock file available from

the USACE. This file presents the docks within each port, the waterway the dock is on, and the mile on the river

for each dock. Thus the difference between the miles for the first dock and the last dock give a useful estimation

of the length of the river port along the river. These data are also available for most of the perspective Modeled

Ports from Port Series Reports published by the USACE and other sources. If the exact distance of the Modeled

Port on the river is not available, the default distance can be the distance of the Modeled Port’s namesake city

along the river. 

Cruise times are calculated by calculating the ratio of the Modeled Port’s distance along the river and

the Like Port’s distance along the river and by adjusting for the Like Port’s river current from the time-in-mode.

Cruise times for excursion vessels are calculated using the same ratio. Equation 4.2 shows the calculations for

cruise time-in-mode.

MPCT = LPCT * MPRD/LPRD* LPCS /(LPCS 

+

/- LPRC

-

/+ MPRC) (4.2)

Where:

MPCT = Modeled Port cruise time-in-mode (hr/trip)

LPCT = Like Port cruise time-in-mode. Data in Tables 4-8 and 4-13 or 4-16 and 4-21

depending on the Like Port. 

MPRD = Modeled Port distance along the river

LPRD = Like Port distance along the river

LPCS = Like Port cruise speed. Depends on direction. Data in Tables 4-7 or 4-15

LPRC = Like Port river current (added for upbound vessels or subtracted for downbound)

MPRC = Modeled Port river current (subtracted for upbound vessels or added for downbound)

Regardless of the vessel category (hp bin, direction, or status), the port of Memphis is approximately

30 miles long (MPRD = 30 miles). The Like Port, St. Louis, is 70 miles long (LPRD = 70 miles). The river current
4-25

at Memphis is treated as an average of 3 miles per hour. As stated earlier, the current at St. Louis is treated as

2 miles per hour. An example of how Equation 4-2 would be applied to Memphis for the category of calling,

upbound tugs follows: 

MPCT = LPCT * MPRD/LPRD* LPCS /(LPCS 

+

/- LPRC

-

/+ MPRC)

= 7.4 * 30/70 *3.8 / (3.8 + 2 - 3)

= 3.7 * 0.43 * 1.4

= 4.3 (hr/trip)

Note: Although the cruise speeds are broken into greater than and less than 1,500 tug horsepower categories

in Tables 4-7 And 4-15, the use of these more specific cruise speeds is only useful if the allocation of

horsepowers within the Modeled Port is known or needed. If a general estimation is required, the above and

below 1500 hp categories should be averaged. For St. Louis this leads to the cruise speeds of 7.5 mph

downbound and 3.8 mph upbound. Table 4-24 has the results of Step 5 calculations.

4-6.6 Step 6. Allocation of Maneuvering Time-in-mode to the Modeled Port

Maneuvering times are mainly dependent upon the presence of locks and of tributary rivers within the

port. Memphis Harbor has a tributary river and no locks within the boundaries of the port. Thus, Cincinnati

which also has a tributary river and no locks within its boundaries will be used as the Like Port.

If there are locks within the Modeled Port, maneuvering times should be adjusted based on the number

of locks within the boundaries of the port. If a port has no locks, maneuvering times should be treated as 0.5

hours per each tug trip. If a port has two locks, the maneuvering times from St. Louis can be used without

adjustment. If a port has 1 or 3 or more locks, an estimate of the maneuvering time can be made using the

average maneuvering times for St. Louis (with 2 locks) and Cincinnati (with 0 locks). For example, the category

of downbound calling tugs has 2.1 hours of maneuvering for St. Louis and 0.5 hours for Cincinnati. The

difference between these maneuvering times is 1.6 hours and can be considered the maneuvering time associated

with two locks for this category of vessel. For a 1 lock port, the average maneuvering time per lockage could

be considered 1.6/2 or 0.8 hours and the total maneuvering time for tugs towing barges downstream would be

1.3 hours (0.8 + 0.5) in a single lock port. Maneuvering times for excursion vessels are calculated using the

same methodology.

If there is a navigable tributary river within the Modeled Port, maneuvering times should also be

adjusted for the time-in-mode on the tributary river. In Cincinnati, miles on the Licking River are considered

maneuvering and calculated accordingly.

To conclude the example of the Modeled Port, Memphis has no locks and a tributary river and thus

would use the maneuvering time-in-modes as calculated for Cincinnati. Table 4-24 shows the cruising and

maneuvering times to use for Memphis calculated as discussed above.
4-26

Table 4-24. Cruise and maneuvering times in hours for the Modeled Port, Memphis

Category Tug Cruise Tug Maneuver Excursion Cruise Excursion Maneuver

Calling DB 1.4 0.6 1.3 0.5

Calling UB 4.3 0.6 2.0 0.5

Passing DB 3.1 0.5 5.3 0.5

Passing UB 9.5 0.5 5.9 0.5

4.6.7 Step 7: Allocation to counties

Emissions from ports will likely need to be allocated to counties. Many ports are large enough that

their boundaries encompass more than one county. For example, the Port of St. Louis is located on both banks

of the Mississippi River from mile 138 to mile 208 on the river. Thus the port encompasses the city of St. Louis

counties of Jefferson, St. Louis, St. Charles, Monroe, St. Clair, and Madison. If emissions from ports will need

to be allocated to the county level, trips or the various time-in-modes must be allocated to the county level. The

following are some possible methods of allocating ship traffic to the various counties that are within the port.

Method 1. Equal distribution: Divide the total number of trips for the port by the total number of

counties. This is the simplest method and gives a straight forward equal allocation of trips to each county.

Method 2. Distribution by coastline distance: Divide the coastline distance of the county by the total

coastline of the port. This method seeks to allocate trips based on an actual geographic factor. Still a simple

method but more complex and probably more accurate than Method 1. 

Method 3. Distribution using average wind speed and direction. Get data on wind speeds and

directions along the river. Allocate emissions to the counties downwind of the prevailing wind (either by

Method 1 or 2). This method has varying degrees of complexity depending upon the detail of the

meteorological data used to determine the prevailing winds. This could be used to change the allocation to ports

on a seasonal basis. This method may be more or less accurate than Methods 1 or 2 depending on the constancy

of the prevailing winds.

Method 4. Distribution by berth density: Determine the density of activity (by counting the total

number of berthing facilities in each county), total the berthing facilities in the overall port, determine the

fraction in each county and use that fraction to determine traffic distribution. This method assumes that areas

with more piers, wharves, and docks (PWDs) should have more emissions allocated to them. The port series

reports published by the USACE for most major U.S. ports have detailed descriptions of PWD locations. For

this method to be accurate, the intensity of activity at the majority of PWDs would need to be similar.

An example of how Method 4 would be used on the Typical River Ports is shown in Table 4-25 and

4-26 below. 

Table 4-25. Counties within the boundaries of the Port of St. Louis 
4-27

from the USACE published Port Series Report 70, Revised 1990

County State Bank Mile (AOR for Mississippi) PWD #’s # Docks % of total

Jefferson MO R 138.8 - 161 148-158 11 8 %

St. Louis MO R 161 - 195.5 86 - 147 62 47 %

St. Charles MO R 195 - 208.8 0 0 0 %

Monroe IL L 138.8 - 171 13 - 17 5 4 %

St. Clair IL L 171 - 182 18 - 34 17 13 %

Madison IL L 182 - 208.8 35 - 68, 76-77 36 28 %

PWD = Piers, wharves, and docks. AOR = actual on river

Table 4-26. Counties within the boundaries of the Port of Cincinnati 

from the USACE published Port Series Report 72, Revised 1991

County State Bank Mile C to P (P to C) PWD #’s # Docks % of total

Kenton KY L 516-483 (470 - 483) 12 - 19 8 24 %

Campbell KY L 516-516 (460 - 470) 20 - 24 5 15 %

Hamilton OH R 516-483 (460 - 483) 113 - 132 20 61 %

PWD = Piers, wharves, and docks. AOR = actual on river C to P = Cairo, IL to Pittsburgh, PA

Activity information developed for the port as a whole could be allocated to the county level using the

percent of total numbers given in the above tables. Thus we would say that since 47% of the docks in the

Metropolitan Port of St. Louis are in St. Louis County, 47% of the time-in-mode activity also takes place there. 

However, the percent of total numbers do not necessarily reflect activity. They are merely a count of the

piers, wharves, and docks in operation when these Port Series Reports were revised and updated. Some of the docks

may be used infrequently, others several times a day. The data in Tables 4-25 and 4-26 do not determine frequency

of use.
5-1

SECTION 5

RECOMMENDATIONS

This section discusses further work required to quantify and qualify the commercial marine

inventory at Great Lake and river ports in the United States. Some tasks must be completed before the

default inputs for the NONROAD model can be developed. All of these recommendations are complimentary

to the work already performed in this Work Assignment. Many of the recommendations are similar to those

recommendations in Volume I of this report. The recommendations pertain to the following:

1. Characterization of mooring tug operation

2. Clearer definitions of barge types at Great Lake ports

3. Determination of emission factors

4. Update of the Top 60 LRPs to 1996 

5. Auxiliary engine characterization

6. General understanding of inland river and Great Lake traffic

7. Commercial fishing vessels and activity

8. Dredging vessels and activities

9. Distances from the breakwater for Great Lake ports

10. Distance on the river for river ports

11. Electronic maps

12. Guidance document

Mooring tug operation on the Great Lakes, as well as at the Deep-Sea Ports, may account for a large

percentage of the emissions that occur close to land. Unfortunately, neither the USACE nor the MEPAs

regularly track mooring tug operations. It may be possible to apply a rule-of-thumb, based on ship-type, to

determine the average number and time-in-mode for mooring tugs. It would be better to have actual data on

mooring tugs and have these vessels tracked within the port.

The types of barges used at the Great Lake ports help determine barge per tug ratios and whether

emissions are negligible during hotelling. Although it is possible to determine the number of dry and liquid

cargo barges, and even to determine average capacity tonnages for the barges based on VTCC codes, the

VTCC code alone is not enough to determine if the barges are river barges or the larger lake barges which

would have self-unloading equipment and therefore hotelling emissions.

Emission factors will need to be applied to the time-in-mode data developed in this report if

emissions are to be estimated for Great Lake and river operations. Lloyds Maritime has reports on fuel

consumption and emission rates which could be used to calculate emission factors for the various time-in-
5-2

modes for Salties, Lakers, tugs, and excursion vessels as used in the Great Lakes and rivers.

The Top 60 LRP data are from 1995 USACE data. The Typical Great Lake Port and Typical River

Port data are from 1996. More agreement between these two datasets might be seen if the data were from

the same years. We suggest purchasing 1996 data on all the United States Ports so that the Top 60 Lake and

River Ports as well as the Top 95 Deep-Sea Ports may be updated to 1996 figures. Likewise, both the "Top

Port" data and the "Typical Port" lake and river data can be updated to any given year if those data sets are

purchased from USACE.

Auxiliary engines are on some liquid and dry cargo barges, some tugs, and most excursion vessels.

 Auxiliary engines are used for loading and unloading and power generation on the vessel. Lloyds Maritime

Information Service (LMIS) have auxiliary engine data on about 22,000 engines. However, these auxiliary

data are more likely to apply to deep-sea vessels than to the vessels operating on the Great Lakes and Rivers.

The USACE has data on auxiliary equipment that could be used to determine the number of vessels with

auxiliary engines. Further information could be obtained directly from fleet operators.

While this report details river and Great Lake traffic at two ports, general operations on the rivers

and Great Lakes is not covered. There are substantial distances on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers that are

not covered by ports and could be a significant emissions source. Using lock data and additional USACE

data, we could present a more thorough picture of activity on the inland rivers. In addition, significant lake

traffic occurs in the shipping lanes on the Great Lakes that is not characterized in our current study. This

could also be a significant source of emissions that are transported to local non attainment areas that need

to be characterized. With additional USACE data, we could also characterized general Great Lake traffic.

Fishing activity was investigated and several possible methodologies were discussed. Very few ports

keep records on fishing boat activities. These most likely need to be determined from fishing boat operators

and state departments of fish and game. Efforts were invested in contacting the Washington Department of

Fish & Game which provided information on fishing licenses and tons of fish caught. Extrapolation of these

data are difficult since tons of fish caught, as recorded by USACE, are given without distinguishing the type

of fish. Also USACE only records these data for regions rather than ports. Furthermore, fishing license

information is not specific or complete enough to detail vessel activity. More vessel oriented information

is needed, however, to detail fishing vessel activity.

Some attempts were made to determine dredging activity from the USACE. USACE coordinates

most of the dredging in ports and rivers. The LMIS data has some information on dredges and together with

USACE data on dredging schedules at the Typical Ports, dredging activity could be characterized.

Although distances from the breakwater to the majority of docks within the Great Lakes is only a

few miles and could be estimated, some port areas are more complex than others and information from these

ports would allow determination of a more accurate distance. Some of the Great Lakes ports also have rivers
5-3

within the boundaries of the port and more detailed information would be needed from the port to determine

if vessels call on harbors on the river. 

It would also be useful to obtain accurate miles on the river for each of the river ports. Many of these

ports extend beyond the boundaries of the city for which they are named and common maps do not show

these port boundaries. The Port Series Reports published by the USACE are very useful in determining the

boundaries of the river ports as well as the counties located within the ports and the location of docks on the

river. If allocation is to be made to the county level, it will be necessary to know, at a minimum, what

percentage of docks lie within each county of the river ports. 

Additional items to help the user of this report might include maps in electronic form that are

imported into the document. Electronic maps focusing on the major geographic features of ports and

waterways are not as readily available as street maps but through a combination of INTERNET map sites,

cooperation with various Port Authorities, and scanning of available paper maps, maps showing the

breakwater, ports, major geographic features and other reference points often referred to in this report could

be obtained and included herein.

 Furthermore, a guidance document should be written for air emission inventory modelers to assist

them in obtaining marine activity information more specific to their port. As ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller

searched for information on detailed vessel activities and port descriptions, it became apparent that a great

deal of variability exits between ports as to what data are recorded at what level of completeness. A guidance

document could greatly assist the Port Authorities in obtaining information relevant to the model.

ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller can provide all these services and would be happy to discuss these

recommendations and future work with EPA.
6-1

SECTION 6

REFERENCES

1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center Navigation Data Center. NDC

Publications and U.S. Waterway Data CD, Volume 4. Alexandria, VA. April 1998.

2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Port on Lake Michigan. Port

Series No. 48. Revised 1995.

3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of Cleveland, Ohio. Port Series No. 70. Revised 1992.

4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of St. Louis Missouri and Ports on Upper Mississippi River

Miles 0 to 300 AOR. Port Series No. 70. Revised 1992.

5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of Cincinnati, Ohio and Ports on Ohio River, Miles 317-

560. Port Series No. 70. Revised 1992.

6 LeLievre, Roger ed. Know Your Ships, Guide to Boats and Boatwatching on the Great Lakes and

St. Lawrence Seaway. Marine Publishing Company. 1996. See web site

http://www.knowyourships.com/

7 Schultheiss, N. Great Lakes and Seaway Shipping Web site. http://www.boatnerd.com/ Copyright

1995-1999.

8 Lake Carriers Association. Lake Carriers Association Web site. http://www.lcaships.com/

9 United States Army Corps of Engineers/CEWRC Navigation Data Center. Lock Performance

Monitoring Data. 1996
APPENDICES
A-1

APPENDIX A

DATA FIELDS DETAILED

A.13 CONFIDENTIAL USACE DATA FIELDS

Table A-1. ARC(WW) FILES (Cincinnati, St. Louis, Burns Harbor, Cleveland)

Field Field Name Type Length DESCRIPTION

1 LD_LT TEXT 6 loaded or light

2 OPERATOR TEXT 8 operator code (OPERATOR)

3 VESSEL NUM 6 vessel code (VESSEL)

4 TRIPS NUM 4 Number of trips (some are more than 1 – how can that be?)

5 VESS_TYPE NUM 2 vessel type

6 SHIP_DATE TEXT 6 shipping date (yymmdd)

7 SHIP_LOC NUM 6 shipping location (LOCATION)

8 SHIP_DOCK NUM 4 shipping dock (DOCKS)

9 SHIP_DRAFT NUM 3 shipping draft

10 RECV_DATE TEXT 6 receiving date (yymmdd) (may need to convert in DBASE or other

11 RECV_LOC NUM 6 receiving location (LOCATION)

12 RECV_DOCK NUM 4 receiving dock (DOCKS)

13 RECV_DRAFT NUM 3 vessel draft upon reception into the dock

14 TRAFFIC NUM 3 traffic code, 11 = oversears imports, 12 = overseas exports, 21 =

imports from Canada, 22 = Exports to Canada, 30 = Coastwise, 40 =

Lakewise, 50 = Internal, 70 = Intraport, 80 = Intraterritory, 90 =

Ferry

15 SER_CODE TEXT 2 service code, 1 = common carrier, 2 = exempt for hire, 3 = private, 9

= unknown

16 COMM_CODE NUM 6 detail commodity code (COMMODITY)

17 TONNAGE NUM 9 short tons (2,000 lb = 1 ton)

18 ALTERNATES NUM 14 maximum of 7 alternates, 2 characters each, indicates the route of the

vessel if different from the ‘standard’ route

19 SHIP_WW NUM 5 shipping waterway (port/waterway codes)

20 SHIP_MILE NUM 5 shipping mile

21 SHIP_PORT NUM 5 shipping port

22 SHIP_ST TEXT 2 shipping state

23 RECV_WW NUM 5 receiving waterway (port/waterway codes)

24 RECV_MILE NUM 5 receiving mile

25 RECV_PORT NUM 5 receiving port

26 RECV_ST TEXT 2 receiving state

27 CONT TEXT 1 containerized indicator

28 AREAS TEXT 3 Indicates which regions were in the trip. The same

number can indicate 2 or more regions.

29 SUB_A1 TEXT 3 Indicates subareas traveled in region 1

30 SUB_A2 TEXT 3 Indicates subareas traveled for region 2

31 SUB_A3 TEXT 3 Indicates subareas traveled for region 3

32 SUB_A4 TEXT 3 Indicates subareas traveled for region 4
A-2

Table A-2 OPERATOR

Field Field Name Type Length Description

1 OPERATOR NUM 6 Detail Operator code – 6 digit numerical

2 NAME TEXT 62 Operator company name

3 ADDRESS TEXT 25 street address

4 CITY TEXT 20 city

5 ST TEXT 2 state

6 ZIP TEXT 10 ZIP

7 OWNER TEXT 1 not implemented

8 OPER TEXT 1 not implemented

9 TS OPER TEXT 1 not implemented

10 SERVICE TEXT 1 operator shipping service code, R = regulated, N = non-regulated

11 REPORT FREQ TEXT 1 Operator reporting frequency, A = annual, M = monthly, Q =

quarterly, S = semi annual

12 POC NAME TEXT 20 contact person with NM or other 2 letter initial designation.

13 POC AREA CODE NUM 3 POC area code

14 POC PHONE TEXT 3 Phone number

15 FAX TEXT 20 Fax number – and comments often blank

16 BEGIN DATE DATE 6 Date record created

17 END DATE DATE 6 Date record marked for deletion

18 LAST CHANGE DATE 6 date record last changed

19 CLASS TEXT 2 types of vessels operatord, 3 = cargo/bulk, 4 = towing, 5 = passengers,

6 = barges, 7 = tankers, 8 = towing/barges, 9 crew boats

20 SEA GOING TEXT 2 Indicates an ocean going vessel

Table A-3. ALTERNATES

Field Field Name Type Length Description

1 ALTERNATE NUM 2 alternate route

2 ALTERNATE NAME TEXT 40 alternate name

3 REGION TEXT 1 region alternate is in, 1 = Atlantic, 2 = Miss Valley/Gulf, 3 = Great

Lakes, 4 = Pacific, 5 = Coastwise traffic

4 LINK TEXT 5 link number alternate is in

5 ENTRY TEXT 1 basis for alternate, C = contractor, O = O/D pairs, P = passengers

Tale A-4. LOCATION

Field Field Name Type Length Description

1 LOCATION NUM 5 Location code (5-digit port code)

2 DISTRICT NUM 2 engineering district code

3 LOCATION NAME TEXT 138 location name

4 HMF TEXT 4 harbor maintenance fee indicator

5 BEGIN DATE DATE 11 Date record created

6 END DATE DATE 11 Date record marked for deletion

7 AREA NUM 4 areas used in Part V publication
A-3

Table A-5. COMMODITY

Field Field Name Type Length Description

1 COMMODITY NUM 5 TOWS commodity code

2 COMMODITY NAME TEXT 50 commodity name

3 COMM4 NUM 4 WCSC commodity code prior to 1990

4 PUB GROUP NUM 4 publication commodity code

5 PDDB GROUP NUM 5 public domain database commodity code

6 PMS GROUP NUM 1 PMS commodity code

7 BEGIN DATE DATE 11 date record created

8 END DATE DATE 11 date record marked for deletion

9 LAST CHANGE DATE 11 date record was last changed

10 HAZARD TEXT 1 hazardous material based on USDOT

11 STCC NUM 2 Standard Transportation Commodity Classification

12 EST GROUP NUM 2 commodity groups used for estimating waterways

Table A-6. DOCKS

Field Field Name Type Length Description

1 LOCATION NUM 5 5 digit port code

2 DOCK NUM 3 dock code

3 FACILITY TYPE TEXT 3 dock facility type: First character: D= dock, L = lock, J = junction, B = bridge,

C = cargo handling facility, N = non-cargo handling facility, U = unverified port

facilty, M = milepost, F = fleeting area, X = foreign, W = open water (ocean,

rigs, fishing), O = other (harbor breakwater, dredging area, channel jetty and

turning basin), R = recreational (foreign yachts)

Second character: P = port facilities, null/blank = not official port facilities, D =

dam

4 DOCK NAME TEXT 50 official dock name

5 DOCK MILE NUM 4 mile point on the waterway or channel

6 BANK TEXT 1 bank (location of dock on river)

C = center transfer, L = left bank, R = right bank

7 PORT NUM 4 port code 4-digit

8 COUNTY TEXT 3 county code

9 STATE TEXT 2 dock state

10 LINK NUMBER NUM 4 River link number

11 WTWY NUM 4 waterway code (useful to see if the waterway code and port code are different

for any or most or none)

12 BEA NUM 4 Bureau of Economic Analysis Code

13 SMSA NUM 4 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Code

14 PUB DOMAIN NUM 2 Public Domain code for 26 regions

15 PORT EQUIVALENCE NUM 4 Port Equivalence code

16 STATUS NUM 2 dock status code

17 COMM CLASS NUM 2 commodity class code

18 SHIPRECV TEXT 1 shipping/receiving code: S = shipping only (not implemented), R = receiving

only, B = both shipping and receiving

19 BEGIN DATE DATE 11 Date record created

20 END DATE DATE 11 Date record marked for deletion

21 LAST CHANGE DATE 11 date record last changed

22 NTAR NUM 3 National Transportation Analysis Region
A-4

Table A-7 VESSEL

Field Field Name Type Length Description

1 VESSEL NUM 5 vessel code

2 REGION TEXT 1 vessel region

3 NRT TEXT 6 vessel net registered tonnage (NRT = gross registered tonnage less

an allowance for the space occupied by machinery, bunkers,

water ballast and crew's quarters. Gross Registered Tonnage is a

measure of the carrying capacity of the vessel. 100 cubic feet of

capacity are equivalent to one gross ton

4 VESSEL NAME TEXT 24 vessel name

5 VESSEL NUMBER TEXT 7 vessel number

6 COAST GUARD TEXT 10 coast guard number

7 OPERATOR TEXT 7 operator code

8 OWNER NUM 7 vessel owner code (same codes as operator codes)

9 LAST OPERATOR NUM 7 last reporting operator

10 REG_LENGTH NUM 7 registered length of the vessel, 0-20,000

11 OVERALL LENGTH NUM 7 0 – 20,000

12 REG_BREADTH NUM 6 0 – 4,000

13 OVERALL BREADTH NUM 6 0 – 4,000

14 HORSEPOWER NUM 6 horsepower 0 - 150,000

15 CAP_REF TEXT 1 capacity reference indicator: R = railroad cars, A = autos, C =

containers, V = ?

16 CAP_TONS NUM 8 capacity tons 0 – 50,000

17 CAP_PASS NUM 4 passenger capacity

18 HFP NUM 4 highest fixed point

19 REBUILT TEXT 1 REBUILT INDICATOR

20 YEAR BUILT YEAR 4 1900 – present

21 VESSEL TYPE TEXT 4 VTCC code

22 EQUIPMENT_1 TEXT 16 cargo handling equipment 1

23 EQUIPMENT_2 TEXT 16 cargo handling equipment 2

24 STATE TEXT 2 state code

25 BASE_1 TEXT 10 vessel operating base 1

26 BASE_2 TEXT 10 vessel operating base 2

27 SERIES 3 TEXT 1 series 3 indicator

28 SERIES 4 TEXT 1 series 4 indicator

29 SERIES 5 TEXT 1 series 5 indicator

30 TS OPERATOR TEXT 7 TS Operator code

31 SUSPENSE TEXT 1 vessel suspense code 

32 FOREIGN EXCEP TEXT 2 Foreign exemption code

33 STATUS TEXT 1 vessel status code, A = active, G = group vessel code, F = foreign

vessel

34 BEGIN DATE DATE 11 Date record created

35 END DATE DATE 11 Date record marked for deletion

36 LAST CHANGE DATE 11 date record last changed

37 LOADED DRAFT NUM 7 vessel loaded draft 1-99

38 LIGHT DRAFT NUM 7 1-99

39 ICST NUM 3 International Classification of Ships by Type

40 STATE ID TEXT 14 state identification

41 LAST REPORT DATE DATE 11 last reporting/receiving date for that vessel

42 YEAR REBUILT YEAR 4 1990-present
A-5

A.2 DATA FROM LLOYDS MARITIME INFORMATION SERVICE

Table A-8. Lloyds Maritime Information Service fields and descriptions

LMIS Field Description

Vessel Current trading name of vessel

Ship Type - A Ship type classification as defined for Lloyds Register Statistical Tables

Ship Type - B More detailed ship type classification

Ship Type -C Most detailed ship type classification

Lr No The unique Lloyd’s register identity number.

Steam Turbine Number of steam turbines

Stroke Type 2 stroke, 4 stroke, or blank (for steam turbines)

DWT Summer deadweight tonnage

BHP Power in brake horsepower of new or refurbished engines

Speed Service speed of the vessel

RPM RPM at service speed

Consumption Fuel consumption

DOB Year in which the vessel was delivered to the fleet or last date of engine

refurbishment

Ind Ship status indicator

Ship Status Description of ship status

Design Name of company that manufactures the main propulsion engines

Designation Engine designation

Recip - Kw KW produced by the steam turbines

Gas Turb Number of propulsion gas turbines on board

Flag Flag of country where the vessel is registered

Best Address Parent company where available, or manager, or owner.

LR number

supplied

Yes indicates that this record was generated from a Lloyds registry number

supplied by ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller to LMIS

No indicates that this record was generated from a ship name only.
A-6

A.3 DATA FROM USACE AND CENSUS BUREAU TO GENERATE TOP 60 LRP TABLES

Table A-9. Army Corps of Engineers Data 1995 file and field data vessel movement data

Data Field Description

acurrvld File name for loaded receipts. These are vessels coming into port with cargo

acurrvlt File name for light receipts. These are vessels coming into port without cargo

acurshld File name for loaded shipments. These are vessels leaving the port with cargo

acurshlt File name for light receipts. These are vessels leaving the port without cargo -

These files are cargo specific so that the same vessel could be recorded several

times in different files without double counting trips

USACE Field Description

PCODE Port code used by the COE to represent ports and waterways in the United

States

PORT_NAME Name of the port

SH_RC_DATE Date of shipment receipt

TRAFFIC Traffic code indicates the type of shipment or receipt by origin

VTYPE Single digit vessel type code:

1 = Motor dry cargo and steam dry cargo

2 = Motor tanker and steam tanker

3 = Tug

4 = Barge - dry cargo

5 = Barge - tanker

6 = Other including yacht, sloop, schooner, sailboat, houseboat, rowboat, and

VESS_TYPE Four digit vessel type construction and characteristics (VTCC) code

TONS Tons shipped or received

TRIPS One-way entrance or clearance from a PCODE

Source: Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center in New Orleans, LA
A-7

Table A-10. USACE Data on Foreign Ships from USWWCD and the Census Bureau. 

Data Field Description

STAT MONTH Represents the month in which the vessel entrance or clearance was processed.

The porcessin month is almost always the same month as the physical

movement of the vessel

WTWY Port or waterway code used by the COE to represent ports and waterways in the

United States

VESS_NAME Vessels full name up to 36 characters

ICST International Classification of Ships by Type code indicates the ship type. If the

ICST code is not available, the Census Bureau’s 1 digit rig code is used as

follows:

1 = Motor dry cargo and steam dry cargo

2 = Motor tanker and steam tanker

3 = Tug

4 = Barge - dry cargo

5 = Barge - tanker

6 = Other including yacht, sloop, schooner, sailboat, houseboat, rowboat, and

research

FLAG Vessel’s flag of registry

WTWYSCHEDK Indicates the vessel’s last port of call for an "entrance" or the next port of call

for a "clearance". If the port if foreign the field contains the port’s 5 digit

schedule K code. If it is domestic, it contains the COE’s 4 digit port or

waterway code.

PORT_IND Indicates a domestic port by a "D" in the field. Otherwise the port is foreign

NRT Net registered tonnage of the vessel

DRAFT Indicates the vessel’s draft in feet

Source: Data submitted to the Census Bureau by the Army Corps of Engineers for publication on the United States Waterway

Data CD-ROM for 1995
A-8

A.4 DATA FROM BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR PORT AUTHORITY

Table A-11. Burns Waterway Harbor MEPA data

Data Field Description

TENANT The company that brought the ship into Burns Harbor

BARGE Barge name and number. This field is blank if it is a ship

SHIP Ship name. This field is blank if it is a barge.

VESSEL Indicates whether the ship is a Laker, Salty, or Barge.

BERTH Dock at which the vessel stopped.

IN Date and time the vessel stopped at Burns Harbor

OUT Date and time the vessel left Burns Harbor

COMMODITY The commodity on the ship

CARGO TYPE Type of cargo carried. This includes Bulk Metal, Dry Bulk (Dr/Bk), General,

Grain, and Liquid Bulk (Li/Bk).

TONNAGE Cargo tonnage

A.5 DATA FROM PORT OF CLEVELAND PORT AUTHORITY

Table A-12. Cleveland MEPA data

Data Field Description

ETA (TIME) Estimated time of arrival to Port of Cleveland

ETA (DATE) Estimated date of arrival to Port of Cleveland

ETD (TIME) Estimated time of departure from Port of Cleveland

ETD (DATE) Estimated date of departure from Port of Cleveland

FLAG Vessel’s flag of registry

SHIP Ship name

TONS Cargo tonnage

LINE Shipping line

AGENT Shipping agent

PIER First pier stopped at

PIER (#2) Second pier stopped at