C SZ<3&^ : /> ?3 A UNITED STATES PORT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE SURVEY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Maritime Administration Office of Port and Intermodal Development • i i UNITED STATES PORT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE SURVEY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Maritime Administration Office of Port and Intermodal Development C s tates o* • January 1980 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 003-007-00100-2 ABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER II III IV. LIST OF TABLES FOREWORD . . . SUMMARY • • . . I. INTRODUCTION A. History of Survey B. Survey Methodology C. Survey Response D. Report Format . . TRFNDS IN PUBLIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR PORT DEVELOPMENT A. National Summaries B. Leading Port Expenditures Summaries METHODS OF PUBLIC PORT FINANCING A. Port Revenues B. General Obligation Bonds C. Revenue Bonds D. State and Local Aid E. Federal Aid F. Financing Trends CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES BY PORT North Atlantic South Atlantic Gulf Coast Pacific Coast Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico Great Lakes PAGE ii i v vi 15 15 16 16 16 17 22 26 29 32 37 40 n LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 1 Comparison of Current Survey Port Development Expenditures with Total Outlays since 1946 5 2 U.S. Port Capital Expenditures by Region and Facility Type (1973-1978) 6 3 Public Port Development Expenditures (1973-1978) 7 4 Proposed U.S. Port Capital Expenditures by Region and Facility Type (1979-1983) 8 5 Proposed Port Development Expenditues (1979-1983) 9 6 Leading 10 Ports in Expenditures for Conventional General Cargo Facilities (1973-1978) 10 7 Leading 10 Ports in Proposed Expenditures for Conventional General Cargo Facilities (1979-1983) 10 8 Leading 10 Ports in Expenditures for Specialized General Cargo Facilities (1973-1978) 11 9 Leading 10 Ports in Proposed Expenditures for Specialized General Cargo Facilities (1979-1983) 12 10 Leading 10 Ports in Expenditures for Bulk Cargo Facilities (1973-1978) 13 11 Leading 10 Ports in Proposed Expenditures for Bulk Cargo Facilities 14 12 Representative Financing Methods of U.S. Public Ports .... 18 13 North Atlantic Ports (1973-1978) 23 14 North Atlantic Ports (1979-1983) 24 15 South Atlantic Ports (1973-1978) 27 16 South Atlantic Ports (1979-1983) 28 17 Gulf Coast Ports (1973-1978) 30 18 Gulf Coast Ports (1979-1983) 31 19 Pacific Coast Ports (1973-1978) 34 20 Pacific Coast Ports (1979-1983) 36 m LIST OF TABLES (cont.) NUMBER TITLE PAGE 21 Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico Ports (1973-1978) 38 22 Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico Ports (1979-1983) 39 23 Great Lakes Ports (1973-1978) 42 24 Great Lakes Ports (1979-1983) 44 IV FOREWORD As part of its statutory responsibility to promote the development of efficient ports, the Maritime Administration conducted this survey to compile and analyze capital expenditure data for marine terminal facilities in the principal ports of the United States from 1973-1978, including projections through 1983. By utilizing data from previous surveys since 1946, the end product of this effort is a 38-year picture of past and future capital commitments on the part of the port industry in the United States to provide the terminal port facilities to serve ocean shippers. Consideration is also given to the methods by which these capital requirements are financed. We hope the results of this survey will assist individual ports in measuring their port development progress and planning future terminal expansion programs. All of the expenditure data contained in this survey were derived from information submitted by individual public ports. We would like to thank those local public officials who found the time to provide the important port develop- ment expenditure information. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS o This survey reveals that approximately $5 billion has been invested in the construction and modernization of pier and wharf facilities in U.S. ports in the 33 years since the end of World War II. The rate of expendi- tures for these purposes has increased remarkably in the last six years. o Between 1973-1978, U.S. ports expended approximately $1.6 billion to expand and improve marine terminal capacity. Plans indicate an estimated $3.4 billion will be spent by U.S. ports for cargo handling facilities from 1979-1983. o A large part of the increase in port development expenditures can be attributed to the continued commitments toward containerization and other unitized forms of cargo handling which have transformed a traditionally labor-intensive industry to one of capital intensiveness. o While there has been a general shift to container terminal development in several concentrated coastal areas, the construction of new or modernized conventional general cargo facilities continues. At many ports, efficient breakbulk facilities represent significant local investments in cargo handl ing capabil ity. o Bulk cargo facilities are often the result of private investment. Large investments are projected for 1979-1983 with particular emphasis on offshore crude oil receiving facilities off the Gulf Coast. o Regionally, the North Atlantic group of ports lost their traditional dominance of total U.S. development expenditures. The Gulf, South Atlantic, and Great Lakes groups of ports displayed major relative increases in development expenditures during 1973-1978 over previous survey periods. o There has been a general trend away from the traditional port dependence on general obligation bonds for developmental financing. Increases in revenue bonding, re-investment of port revenues and Federal aid have characterized public port financing during 1973-1978. vi Chapter I INTRODUCTION As the volume of domestic and international waterborne commerce increases and the technology of oceanborne carriers advances towards more efficient and economical transportation, the port communities of the United States and Puerto Rico likewise continue to adjust, rehabilitate, and develop the necessary supporting terminal facilities to transfer cargoes between ship and shore. This survey, similar to six earlier port expenditure reports, attempts to quantify the degree of financial commitment U.S. ports have made since the end of Worl d War II . A. HISTORY OF SURVEY The first Port Development Expenditure Survey was issued by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1956 and covered the 10-year post - World War II period from 1946 through 1955. The Port Authority subsequently published three updated versions of its original survey in 1958, 1960 and 1962. In 1965 the American Association of Port Authorities published an additional update of the survey which was prepared with the assistance of the Maritime Administration (MarAd). This was followed by a 1974 MarAd survey. The methodology and formatting contained in these two surveys as well as this current report were essentially the same as that in all previous survey reports. Therefore, this report is able to present cumulative expenditure totals from the beginning of 1946 to the end of 1978, thus portraying a 33-year history of the capital terminal investments made by the port communities of the United States. In addition, projected port development expenditures for 1979-1983 are also included in this report. The publication of this report represents the first time an attempt has been made to include information on sources and trends of public port financing as well as expenditure data. This section is intended to supplement the information on the amounts and purposes of the expenditures. B. SURVEY METHODOLOGY The data used in this survey were solicited from individual ports by means of a four-part mail questionnaire which requested information on development expenditures by type of facility, year completed, total dollar amount invested, physical description of facility, type of financing, and principal owner. The ports were requested to submit development expenditures from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1978. This data included all known funds actually spent or positively committed for marine terminal development during this six-year period. Projected expenditures included all funds authorized or planned for port construc- tion during the period from January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1983. This data did not include funds which were spent to acquire land or existing facilities, deepen channels, dry dock or repair vessels, or construct piers for pleasure boat facilities. Expenditures for improvements of rail or highway connections to terminal or berthing areas were not considered. Administrative and other operating expenses were also omitted. As in the 1974 MarAd survey, development expenditures were divided into three principal categories; (1) conventional general cargo facilities, (2) specialized general cargo facilities (container, Lash/Seabee and roll-on/roll-off) and (3) bulk facilities (dry and liquid). Conventional general cargo facilities include piers, wharves and transit sheds used primarily to accommodate break-bulk general cargo vessels. Specialized general cargo facilities include piers and wharves used primarily to load and discharge either container, Lash/Seabee or roll -on/rol 1 -off (Ro/Ro) vessels, as well as special purpose terminal handling equipment, such as gantry cranes, straddle carriers, etc., or other related terminal service structures, such as cargo consolidation and distribution sheds. The dry and liquid bulk facilities classification includes piers and wharves used primarily to handle bulk cargo vessels. Also included in this category are pierside grain elevators, liquid storage tanks and specialized loading/ discharging equipment for handling dry and liquid bulk commodities. Each of these three principal categories is further broken down into two secondary groupings, "new construction" and "modernization/rehabilitation." The "new construction" (NEW) classification includes only work that is completely new or reconstruction projects that create completely new berths. The "moderni- zation/rehabilitation" (M-R) grouping encompasses all additions, improvements, and restorative work to existing facilities which do not result in additional berths . The cost data collected are expenditures made by public ports during the 1973- 1978 period. The cumulative cost figures, thus, do not represent dollar totals for any one year but rather expenditures made during the subject six-year period. This lack of price index manipulation yields totally historical costs and not current replacement prices for port construction. C. SURVEY RESPONSE The four regional offices of the Maritime Administration were responsible for soliciting the expenditure data and preparing preliminary investment assessments on the ports within their respective areas. In those cases where no reply was received, cumulative expenditure totals from previous survey years are depicted. The vast majority of capital outlays presented in this report are the expentli tures of public port entities. It has been estimated that private investments in marine terminals, principally for liquid and dry bulk terminals, essentially match the expenditures of local port agencies in the United States. For this current survey, approximately 110 public port agencies were requested to submit expendi- ture information. Ninety-five ports responded to the survey, which equates to a very representative 89 percent response rate. D. REPORT FORMAT The survey results are presented in the three following chapters of the report. Chapter II presents trends in public capital expenditures for port development by depicting national summaries and leading port expenditure totals for various types of cargo handling terminals. Chapter III addresses the critical issues of public port financing by describing the primary funding sources and trends in public financing methods. Chapter IV concludes the report with regional presentations of port-by-port expenditures between 1973-1978 and proposed through 1983. In total, 24 tables provide supporting data to the descriptions of U.S. port development expenditures. Chapter II TRENDS IN PUBLIC CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR PORT DEVELOPMENT In order to provide adequate transfer capacity to handle an increasing volume of trade, U.S. public ports have made significant capital investments in port facilities. The total expenditures by public port agencies on construction and modernization of marine terminal facilities during the 33-year period since World War II (1946-1978) were approximately $5 billion. This does not include several billions of dollars that have been invested by private enterprise during the above period in marine terminal facilities which are essential components of industrial complexes. Between 1973 and 1978 alone, U.S. public ports allocated over $1.6 billion to the construction and modernization of commercial shiphandling facilities. This figure represents approximately 36 percent of the total amount spent since 1946. In addition, the overall yearly average expenditures of local port authorities continue to reach new record levels. For instance, in comparison with $65 million during the 10-year period immediately following World War II, the average annual port development outlay rate has risen to over $270 million for the 1973-1978 period. While a portion of this increase can be attributed to escalating costs due to inflation, it is evident that capital investments in port development have increased substantially since World War II. This is due to the increasingly capital-intensive nature of modern port facilities. A. NATIONAL SUMMARIES Tables 1-3 depict national summaries of port development expenditures by region. Expenditures for the 1973-1978 period are compared with the total post World War II period in Table 1. As noted, while representing only approximately 15 percent in terms of duration, the present survey period accounted for expenditures ranging from 18 percent to 53 percent of the port development expenditures made since 1946. Development expenditures by facility type are depicted in Table 2. Regional comparisons are offered with total expenditures displayed for the 1973-1978 survey period. By cargo facility type, 16 percent of the $1.6 billion was spent for conventional general cargo facilities, 36 percent for specialized general cargo and 49 percent for liquid and dry bulk cargo facilities. There were signi- ficant variations between the regional groups of ports. Table 3 illustrates the division between expenditures for strictly new port construction and costs of modernization and rehabilitation. The relationships remained fairly constant throughout the regions with a national average of 78 percent of development expenditures going towards new construction and 22 percent for facility modernization. Proposed expenditures by U.S. ports for the years 1979-1983 are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. For this five-year span, an estimated $3.4 billion will be expended to meet the requirements of expected growths in international trade. CO LU CC CO 1 — 4-> fO O > 1— S_ aj "4- -M O c 1— 1 ■M c 0) LU t— LU C_> i— Q z o i— i o 1— CO O) C£ <+- 1 — O CO o -O o_ >- ro - _i -o LU 1— c > IT) rs LO _J o h- 1— »— ^ O — ' LU 1— a; or n3 >. +J n3 O ■ — h- +■> =3 4- o O ^— -(-> fC C +-> O) • r— u Q. C- n3 O) CJ> o_ CO CO cr> cti CO O CO LO o CO 1 — I cc o~> LO CnJ LO o LO LO LO CT-. en o <* CT. O CO ■— LO CT> CO «d" LO CD CT> LO LO ^d- ro LO ^3- +j 00 n3 -i- C c fO S cc oo 03 ra +-> O ns • < , — 4-> •M 4- • r— 00 O- fB n3 s_ 3 i — O fO ai -M o o 23 ns i— o3 5- O z oo C3 Q_ < CD I— , 4- ea O +-> o +-> I— c — ^ O 1— O Cn Cn CO LO CO CO CM CO o CO 00 LO ID CO lo 00 CM Cvl LO CO CM co o CO CO LO ^1- en CO o CO CO CO rv CT> 1 — 4-> 1 i— r— r— ^— CO (1) - - fC f^~ U CO-M 4-J en S- CU - >■> (XI cu JD rt3 C_) - -o 00. C fO CO CO UJ 3 a: o O- X >> c_ o Q en i_ oC o ^r , LO , , en LO C^J CO CO r-v. CU - - +-> S- 0) lO o a) a: zi- o_ ■a cu N r- •r- (T3 T— S- (0 CU O CTi CO CD LO en 00 CO CO o en s_ cu o cu CD Q. CO r^ LO en *d- , CO en CO LO o cn CM en O LO LO r^ •— CM LO CO en "* co •tf- O CO o en r*. r«s OO ■s* CO ■ — ■ — ID i — i E i — i— i — CL. CU - - f0 < CD c7>+-> +-> cm 1 — 1 — en CD i- cu «a o cu cm 22 1— CM CO 1 •"" 1— o_ cc o o_ CO s_ Ol c cu i- a; c cu CD C CD o CD CO CO r^ CM o LO CD ! >!}■ LO r^ CO i — co r»> CO LO LO CD CO 00 , CO CM *d- CO CD «* iX> >sr r-~ CO LO CM o o •<- O •1 — ■r— +-> •>- u -M 4-J co n3 t- c c ro S o: CO n3 f0 +-> O «3 CU i — c i — 1 — co C_) 3C O ^ +-> -t-> ^- >r- co D. ft3 s_ 3 ( — (D rt3 CU oo o O 3 fO ■— o3 s- • 22 oo CD Q. o 4-> 1- C 01 -o CJ c: S- to CD s_ o_ CD cn CO LO O O CO 00 cn en >- CJ < <- 00 CD 1 — q; — -!-> i — fO to -ZL +-> ■■s^ o 1— LO LO LO LO cr, LO LO co i — LO >* CO 00 LO CO r— «=J- CO LO oo LO CO CO co CO CTl 1^ , cn CM LO cn CO LO r-~ CM CM Cn co m cn C r— r— i— a> - - -»-> !■ - M- CD O O0 LO LU "O oc c ID n3 1— CO i — i rs Q o SI -C LlJ I— o_ — X >> !- O O cr s_ o$ 03 CJ T3 •r— .^ 3 I — CT 13 •i — co —J * * * ■=3- i^- oc LO co C0 1 — LO CO 00 o CO ffN •^ *■ ** LO <3- CO "=3" r-« CM cn (^ CM LO CM CM O CM CD - - ro o on-> +-> 00 (^ S- 4) ro O LO r-- oiazh D_ LO LO CTl CO r- LD LO CO 00 CM CM LO CM "O CU N i— •i— 03 o I— i. CD 03 CD i- •i- C H3 CJ CD CJ CD CD D_ CO LO o CO LO LO r-. 00 CM ^3- LO CTl CTi «a- LO •— cn ^— CO LO CM o o O LO , CO O CM r^ r*» CO 1 — CO CO LO ■— ■— r_ co CO O- C r~~ t~~ t— r— CD - - +j o S- CU ro O o_ a> cc ^ \— o_ CO co o o a; CL. +-> c CD > o CJ ra O S- cn > CD > CD O -o CD o -a c 03 JD fO c CD CD JO 00 rt3 CJ CJ •r- O •r" •f— +-> •i- CJ -M -(-> CO 03 -i- C c 03 S CU CO n3 (O +-> O 03 CD • i — r— CO CJ or O -^ oo -M +-> 03 +J 03 • c i — D") +-> +J 4- •^ CO O. 03 03 CD S- 3 , — U 03 CD 4-> q: o o 13 03 r— oS S- O ^ oo CD o_ «=C C3 1— 4-> Jd S- S o a. +-> -C 03 CJ 2 03 a. cd CD CO (D o cn c co O 03 _1 X CD C 1— •!- "O +-> c cj 03 CD ••—> ■M O i_ S- O Q- o_ i — i— 03 •i- C O -r- e CD S- i~ CD O V- jz: CO O M- H-l 4- in o o CO 03 c -a 03 CD • •i— CO c co O CD •r- Q. J^ =1 o 03 o s- +-> _l CL s- CD C0 CO ■a CD CD c T3 TO 3 =5 3 ■ — r— 00 U U 03 C C 2 i— i l— i * * * Table 5 PROPOSED PORT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES (1979-1983) (Thousands of Dollars) Port Area New Percent M&R Percent Total North Atlantic 272,950 93 20,615 7 293,565 South Atlantic 218,058 98 5,057 2 223,115 Gulf Coast 1 ,877,123 96 81 ,333 4 1 ,958,456 Paci fi c Coast 555,211 79 143,634 21 698,845 Alaska, Hawaii & Puerto Rico 28,706 72 10,983 28 39,689 Great Lakes 109,330 69 48,556 31 157,886 Total U.S. 3,061 ,378 91 310,178 9 3,371 ,556 Because of the capital-intensive nature of container!' zation , it is more costly to construct a modern container marine terminal than a more labor-intensive breakbulk facility. Containerized port terminal facilities include not only a wharf or pier but also specialized handling equipment such as container cranes, straddle carriers, portainers and other related terminal service require- ments. Included in the related terminal service category are cargo consolidation/ distribution sheds and sizable back-up areas. The estimated construction costs, for example, of a new container terminal with 900 linear feet of berthing space, a 40-ton gantry crane and 20-acres of paved back-up area range between $9-17 million. These average container terminal development costs are reflected in total expenditures for specialized general cargo facilities which has totalled over $1 billion since 1966 and $580 million since 1973. Tables 8 and 9 show the leading 10 U.S. ports in expenditures for specialized general cargo facilities. It is interesting to note that these 10 ports accounted for a significant portion (65 percent) of total U.S. expenditures for these types of facilities. While the traditional container handling ports of New York/New Jersey, Oakland, Houston and other North Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coast ports lead the way in expenditures since 1973, South Atlantic ports like Charleston, S.C. and Wilmington, N.C. are planning major container terminals in the years ahead, thus reflecting the economic growth of the southeast region of the country. Table 6 LEADING 10 PORTS IN EXPENDITURES FOR CONVENTIONAL GENERAL CARGO FACILITIES (1973-1978) (Thousands of Dollars) Port Total New M&R Baltimore 29,454 15,417 14,037 Seattle 18,090 2,734 15,356 Savannah 16,565 14,797 1 ,768 New Orleans 14,666 10,850 3,816 Portland, Oregon 11 ,500 11 ,500 - Charleston 11 ,150 10,750 400 Tampa 9,703 9,703 -■ Beaumont 9,299 7,185 2,114 Corpus Christi 9,116 8,300 816 Tacoma 8,000 5,000 3,000 Table 7 LEADING 10 PORTS IN PROPOSED EXPENDITURES FOR CONVENTIONAL GENERAL CARGO FACILITIES (1979-1983) (Thousands of Dollars) Port Total New M&R New Orleans 31 ,760 25,910 5,850 Georgia Ports 30,657 30,657 - New York/New Jersey 26,000 25,000 1 ,000 Houston 21 ,100 20,000 1 ,100 Baltimore 17,400 17,400 Oakland 16,250 10,250 6,000 Long Beach 16,010 6,500 9,510 Tampa 13,460 13,460 - Galveston 13,100 11 ,500 1 ,600 Los Angeles 13,090 115 12,975 10 Table 8 LEADING 10 PORTS IN EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIALIZED GENERAL CARGO FACILITIES (1973-1978) (Thousands of Dollars) Port Total New M&R New York/New Jersey 106,000 106,000 - Oakland 48,042 39,542 8,500 Houston 36,241 36,241 - Los Angeles 32,371 31,055 1 ,316 New Orleans 31,766 30,479 1,287 Baltimore 29,980 28,603 1 ,377 Philadelphia 28,884 27,500 1 ,384 San Francisco 21 ,959 13,929 8,030 Long Beach 21 ,416 19,246 2,170 Norfolk 19,095 16,992 2,103 Top 10 Total 375,754 349,587 26,167 Percent of Top 10 Total 100 93 7 U.S. Total 580,809 521 ,915 58,894 Percent of U.S. Total 65 67 44 11 Table 9 LEADING 10 PORTS IN PROPOSED EXPENDITURES FOR SPECIALIZED GENERAL CARGO FACILITIES (1979-1983) (Thousands of Dollars) Port Total New M&R New Orleans 77,404 61 ,904 15,500 Charleston 66,000 66,000 - New York/New Jersey 64,700 62,700 2,000 Long Beach 62,610 18,760 43,850 Seattle 58,523 57,751 772 Los Angeles 56,546 51,325 5,221 Miami 51 ,540 51 ,540 - Houston 40,249 40,249 - Oakland 36,250 36,250 - Wilmington, N.C. 29,400 29,400 - Top 10 Total 543,222 475,879 67,343 Percent of Top 10 Total 100 88 12 U.S. Total 852,058 740,744 111 ,314 Percent of U.S. Total 64 64 60 12 The leading 10 ports in expenditures for bulk cargo facilities are shown in Tables 10 and 11. Known investments of private enterprise are included in these summaries. LOOP, Inc., for example, is a consortium of oil companies that have expended funds for the construction of the country's first large offshore deepwater oil port located near the coast of Louisiana. It should also be noted that the proposed funds appearing in Table 11 for Long Beach include estimates for the S0HI0 oil terminal project, the plans for which have recently been abandoned. Table 10 LEADING 10 PORTS IN EXPENDITURES FOR BULK CARGO FACILITIES (1973-1978) (Thousands of Dollars) Port Total New M&R LOOP* 325,000 325,000 - Duluth/Superior 133,500 46,500 87,000 Mobile 44,347 18,987 25,360 Galveston 37,000 37,000 - Portland, Oregon 31 ,000 17,000 14,000 Tampa 26,036 26,036 - Lorain 18,500 18,500 - Albany 18,000 18,000 - Tacoma 16,000 16,000 - Long Beach 13,639 - 13,639 Louisiana Offshore Oil Port 13 Table 11 LEADING 10 PORTS IN PROPOSED EXPENDITURES FOR BULK CARGO FACILITIES (1979-1983) (Thousands of Dollars) Total New M&R Texas Deep Water* 1,200,000 1 ,200,000 - New Orleans 221 ,500 200,000 21 ,500 Long Beach** 190,600 146,400 44,200 LOOP* 177,000 177,000 - Galveston 54,500 54,500 - Portland, Oregon 39,800 38,000 1 ,800 New York/New Jersey 39,500 38,500 1 ,000 Toledo 35,250 35,250 - San Francisco 35,000 35,000 - Duluth/Superior 30,000 30,000 - * Offshore Oil Ports ** Includes estimates for abandoned SOHIO oil terminal project 14 Chapter III METHODS OF PUBLIC PORT FINANCING In addition to collecting data on development projects, the survey question- naires gathered information on the methods by which these capital requirements were financed. This section addresses the basic tools of public port financing and then presents the trends for representative public port investment during the 1973-1978 survey period. Public ports in the United States use a variety of capital funding methods and services for financing new facilities, carrying out needed acquisitions, expansion, and improvements, and for retiring outstanding indebtedness. The degree of freedom which a port has in financing its requirements depends largely on its political make-up and structure; degree of autonomy in raising and utilizing capital granted by the controlling governmental body; financial position in terms of assets and investments; support by the local community; and its overall reputation. The bulk of public financing for pier, wharves, buildings and structures is obtained through the issuance of bonds by the port authority or other governing public body. Other primary sources of public financing are port revenues and local, state or Federal Government grants. These traditional methods are briefly described below. A. PORT REVENUES Revenues of port authorities are derived from marine terminal dues, terminal rates, services and charges, rentals and leases, etc. In the case of the multi- purpose transportation/public authority, earnings from other facilities (bridges, tunnels, airports, etc.) may be reinvested in marine terminals as a means of cross-subsidy. Accumulated port revenues may be employed to acquire new marine facility development. Quite often, the purchases are smaller than bond funding acquisitions. In total, however, the dependence on revenue financing is signicant and for many reasons is the preferred funding alternative for a self-sufficient conscience port industry. B. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS The sale of general obligation bonds is a traditional mechanism for the public financing of large port development projects. The state, county or municipality, when acting as the legislative parent of the port authority, and as issuer of general obligation bonds, is required to provide the collateral security by pledging its full faith and credit. The payment for these kinds of bonds is the responsibility of the issuer which is payable from and primarily secured by ad valorum taxes upon all of the taxable property within the boundaries of the issuer, within limitation of rate or amount. The issuance of such bonds is often preceded by a voter referendum to determine the consensus of the community. Although this type of bond financing places a financial burden on the local tax- payer, its acceptance or rejection is predicated on the will of the community concerning the overall economic benefits of the new facility to be financed. 15 From a financial autonomy perspective, there are several unfavorable character- istics associated with general obligation bonds. Since the controlling govern- ment body assumes the indebtedness, there is an implied or real degree of control and regulation of port activities. Secondly, port financing is at the mercy of the voting public which may show a preference for more visably beneficial endeavors such as schools, parks or hospitals or for no tax-supported spending at all. And finally, an indebtedness ceiling can be placed on the parent govern- mental organization. Once this ceiling is reached, further funding is denied no matter how potentially lucrative the proposed investment may be. C. REVENUE BONDS Revenue bonds do not need voter approval, and are secured by general port income or specific port project revenues. Since revenue bonds have a higher risk factor than general obligation bonds, interest rates are usually higher. A degree of autonomy is retained in the issuance of revenue bonds while the ability to sell the bonds is related to the perceptions in the market of the port's ability to generate sufficient revenues. Another tax-exempt bond that has been growing in popularity is the port industrial revenue bond. These bonds are only tax-exempt when used to finance certain specified facilities. Such facilities must serve or be available to the public on a regular basis for the bonds to be tax-exempt. In the case of port facilities, this requirement is satisfied if the facilities are part of a public port. Port industrial revenue bonds differ from port revenue bonds in that the former are secured by specific project revenues of an industrial sponsor or an industrial user's corporate guarantee while the latter are secured by specific port project revenues . D. STATE AND LOCAL AID This category relates to direct financial assistance to port development projects from state or local governments. Some public ports are administered as agencies or branches of state, county or municipal governments. In some cases, direct appropriations are granted to these port agencies in the same manner as traditional agencies such as fire, police and sanitation departments receive aid. Quite often in these cases, the operating income of these port agencies is turned over to the city or state treasury. E. FEDERAL AID Unlike financial assistance programs for airports, mass transit and other govern- mental activities, the Federal Government does not offer specific categorical grants or loans for port development or improvement. Ports as public agencies, however, are eligible and have received Federal grants. Most port Federal aid has been through related categorical programs where the applications are on a project-by-project basis. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has been the largest source of Federal economic assistance to ports. Since 1966, EDA has tunneled approximately $350 million to local governments for port construction projects. In several 16 cases, these grants have been competitively significant and have served as leverage for additional investments that are financed from traditional sources. EDA offers assistance under three programs (1) direct grants of up to 50 percent for eligible projects in designated areas (2) supplementary grants to provide additional assistance for eligible projects in severely distressed areas when applicants are unable to supply the local share; and (3) public facility loans in severely distressed areas. During the current survey period, these conven- tional EDA programs were supplemented by the Local Public Works Program. The LPW programs pumped approximately $6 billions into local economic development projects during 1976-1977. Several ports received LPW grants from EDA during this period. Other agencies that have provided grants for port development projects are: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration; Farmers Home Administration; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Office of Coastal Zone Management; and Environmental Protection Agency. These additional agencies have provided a very small amount of financial assistance in comparison with the public works program of EDA. F. FINANCING TRENDS Table 12 depicts the public financing methods employed by some 43 representative U.S. port agencies in facility development. The figures are relative percentages by public financing source for development expenditures within the respective port areas during 1973-1978. The absolute dollar expenditures varied, of course, between port agencies. The range of individual port expenditures was from $110 million for one port to a low of $69,000 for another. The selected port average appearing at the bottom of Table 12 represents the average percentages of financial sources for the 42 port agencies in the sample. There appears to be trends in public financing for the various regional areas. These trends reflect organizational structures and degrees of financial autonomy of the various regions. Public ports of the South Atlantic region, for example, reflect their state organization arrangements by showing a relatively high percentage in the local and state aid category. General obligation and revenue bonds were used extensively by the ports in the Gulf Coast. Revenue bonds and port revenues financed most of the facility developments in the ports of the West Coast. Federal aid from the Economic Development Administration proved to be comparatively more significant to ports in the Pacific Northwest and North Atlantic areas than in other regions. On the average, 75 percent of the sample expenditures was financed with the combination of revenues, general obligation and revenue bonds. The remaining 25 percent was evenly divided between Federal and non-Federal Government assistance. As depicted, general obligation bonds remain the most depended upon by local public ports in financing capital developments. This reliance on general obligation bonds has declined, however, and other shifts in financing methods have occurred since the previous survey period of 1966-1972. 17 GO I— CC o CQ CM CU J2> ■=> cc 1 — ZD U_ 1— <- o •-. OJ Q jQ GO ^ F a uj CU 00 O ci- U O) in X OJ CD h- UJ Cl ra UJ +-> S r- 1 c z: CU CD UJ 00 O 2: -sl r- S- 1— < a. CTl a> <_> 1 — Cl. 2: _i * — ca; uj >> z: > ±- 1—1 UJ ra U_ Q ZS C UJ CC rC > O ■-D 1— 1 U_ CC ex. CC rO O o3 T3 1 — =r ra o~> O CD VO O -M _l n3 GO A3 s- -o CU -r- ■a o CU DQ CC 03 CD •1 — to 1 — -0 -O C O CO 1 — fd s_ O) c CU 00 CL) 13 4-> c: s- a> > Q_ CU a: +-> S- o O O o o o o o o o o o o o o CTi cr> o o 00 o o en o o 00 en o o CO 10 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o LT> CM 1— C\J CO CM I— ^J" r— CM CM uo CM o o ID ID O 00 CO CTl o o cr, -a c: rO O 00 s_ O Q. 00 en CU 00 s- CU 2 CU s- o O) ro CM CO CM OO O O O o o CM < Q. Q. ^ CJ CU -o jc: CU -o ra c: o en C E r— •1- T- O cu o ra CO o 00 a> -t-> CD i- C O -r- Q- E 3 r- CU -r- O -o fO CU -C CU s- o o C_J GO o +J CO CU s- fO 2: <-> c 03 > ra GO CU > o CO o rO •"D CU u CU o to CU -o (0 CD S- cu > u ra CU CO rO s_ CU > c ra C_) 18 03 +-> O •— < CJ CD O +-> __l fC +J lo 03 s- -o CD -i- ■a o CD CQ O O CXI CD -O 03 o3 cn •i — 00 i — ■o -0 c: O o CO i — 03 i- O) c 0J CD 00 CU +-> zs ^ c o cu Cu > cu cc o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o en C\j co co co LO co o lo O CO CO C\J LO CO CO cn CO CO r~- en i — «* C\J CT> cn cn CXI i>- o o o o CO CXJ CO CO LO CO o LO * -X CO >tf CO CXI cxj KT CXI CXI LO r^ CO r— r— CO CXI i — o o o o _l X CJ ^ _i U_ to 00 * X I— " < s_ < cc +J 2: * O) 00 1— X * 00 < CJ OS < cC Q_ >- S- * _l 03 1 — C * h- -C QJ CJ 3 -Q 3 #•• 2: o 03 < « 1 — !L 03 «■> c 1 — r> S_ cu r> a. i — *-> Z5 03 ai +-> " 03 QJ •> -a «> « 03 •> cn c r> O " C x: 1 — C +-> c ai cn -0 c ra +-> 31 QJ 03 03 o CU m cj S- O 00 cq c c •1 — •4-1 i — 5- =3 , — 03 1 — Q. «=C 03 E c QJ 00 ■»-> O ■"3 03 on •1 — 4- CJ CD Z5 > 00 cn 1 — -sz: S- >> +J JZ n- c -O t— 00 -^ s 03 1 — zs C CO -^ O +-> ai 03 03 U c: 5- ai c 03 3 o_ s: CD Q_ _J 2: cn CD X _l _J O a: —1 TO +-) t/5 to s- -o cu -I- -o < cu cu c o u CD re c -o CD c > o cu CO nc c o •I — +-i (0 en •r— iyi I "O -O c: O o CQ t TO <~ CD c O) CD uo cu 4-> Z5 C. C o CU O- > CD a; o o o o o o o o CD LT> i — o o o m CO CO CM OO =c " 3; o o ^ *•■ m JQ CD -o o ^ CU n: =5 1 — o TO cu "O oo ^ > cu c i — > +-> S_ --* - S- »-^ O CO O CNJ o_ r^ D_ t^ CT> cr> -a r— XJ r— tD a r-- O CD CD CTi CU CTi ^— ^— r— r— CU QJ ~ oo OO e/i Q TO -a o CQ CU c cu > <1J cu cu > cu o a> o o O) cu -a +-> CU =3 ■a o <+- CU GO o +-> s- O -Q CU •r-3 4-> O O s- c CL cu +-> s- s- cu o s LO -a cu cu u o s- CL CU (J TO ^- 00 20 The comparative findings presented at the bottom of Table 12 indicate significant increases in revenue financing and assistance from the Federal Government. The former accounted for 22 percent of public financing methods while the latter represented 12 percent. Each category increased by five percent since the previous survey period. 21 Chapter IV CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES BY PORT This section presents the survey returns and cumulative totals of 33 years of development expenditures by individual U.S. ports. The tables and accompanying descriptions are divided into six regions with Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico included as a survey grouping. Data is depicted by expenditures for type of cargo facility for the years 1973-1978, grand totals for 1946-1978 and proposed investments for 1979-1983. A. NORTH ATLANTIC Since 1946, the North Atlantic region has led all survey regional areas in port development expenditures with approximately $1.5 billion. Between 1973 and 1978, North Atlantic ports from Maine through Virginia spent $285,790,000 for marine terminal improvements. These North Atlantic expenditures represent 18 percent of the U.S. total between 1973 and 1978. Proposed development expendi- tures submitted by North Atlantic ports are expected to be approximately $263 million for the period 1979-1983. The North Atlantic port range is a concentrated area for container and other specialized general cargo facilities. Seventy percent of all development expenditures during 1973-1978 were dedicated to the provision of specialized general cargo facilities. Nevertheless, these ports continued investments in conventional general cargo facilities with the majority of the $62 million being expended for modernization and rehabilitation of existing general cargo terminals. Investments in bulk cargo facilities represented only eight percent of the total. Concentration on containeri zation is expected to continue through 1983 as 66 percent of known future development expenditures are targeted for specialized general cargo terminals. The Northern New England ports of Portland, Me., and Portsmouth, N.H., invested solely in conventional general cargo handling capacity. Portsmouth expects to continue this trend through 1983 with the expected investment of $2.5 million in new general cargo facilities. The main concentration of container facilities in New England is in Boston, Mass. MASSPORT has expended $6 million during 1973-1978 and expects to spend over $17 million from 1979-1983 for new and modernized specialized general cargo facilities In Fall River, private investment financed a new petroleum handling facility while there are plans to construct a new roll -on/roll-off platform at the State Pier for a cost of $2.25 million. Port development expenditures in New Haven, Conn., were almost $7 million during 1973-1978. New general cargo and bulk cargo facilities represented most of the port investments. Future expenditures are planned for new capabilities to handle specialized general cargo. 22 co LlJ dc ID h- ' — - CO i — i CO 1— CD S- oc 2: fO o LU i — D- D- . — » t — X 00 O co <_> UJ r-^ Q i — i — i en h- l— i— M- 01 ^ s i O i — ■ Z3 dc LU o O Q jz 1— o Q. \— _i «a; 00 CM LO 10 CO en O CM O «* «^" r^ lo «d- O CD lo cd lo en en cm lo 1— r^ CO ro CD en 00 P0 f— »•« LO ^3" IDNi — CO CT> 1 — rs ro cm in LO en o CTi O r-- ^3- r— O CM ^f 1^- «^" CO LO CO to >— 1— co to 1 — <* en •— t— 1 CTi «d- lo ro =3" t~^ LO LO LO CO 1 — ^a- 1— CO CO CO CM ro en o LO ro 1 — CM O O0 CM 1 — r^~ «*• O CM «* 2: * ION h» *3" C-J c>"S l — " 1 1 r. 1 •N #S ff «N ^ * 1 II * •> •> 1 1 •» ** CM r CO CM CO c— to O O 00 CD «d" en 1 — co to LO ^3" CC 1 — I— CM 1 — CM 1 — LO CM 00 ro LO 1 CM CM 1 — CD O CM co . CO CD O 00 to 2E DC LU C£L 1 1 1 1 , — | LO| 1 1 1 1 O 1 CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 en UJ oa 1— 1 « « •* i2 r- 5; I— (— 21 , — ! CM SI 2: | 1 _J LU _i UJ _l < CD <£. CD h- DC 1 — d: CD uo O CD LO O LU O LU eC 3 r^ O O r^ h- Cl. r— D. U_ cu 1 1 " 1 LO 1 O 1 CD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LO "21 O CO 00 ' — CD 1 — CM DC <_> to CD CD CD , r-^ ^ ro LO O CD CD 00 co^ _j -M 1 1 1 1 r~- 1 LO 1 CD 1 1 CD 1 CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LO 5-S id O « w « " "00 CO 1— 1 — CO CO 1 — "d- — 1 CM CO O "=*■ CD r-~- >* ro 01 CO O LO 00 to 0- ^oco 00 cd DC 1 1 1 O 1 1 1— 1 1 1 ro 00 1 CO 1 II 1 — CM 1 1 a: •> * " " * CD O "* CD en lo co h> 1 1 1 " 1 1 1 1 " * « 1 * 1 11 - " " 1 1 "O LU O IO to CO r— en 1— en to en 1 — D_ 1— c CM CM 1 — en — CO 1 1 00 r-^ r~- CD CM O 00 CM t->- ■3- h«» r*. LU r-N r^ CD 1^ LO 00 CO r>o ■vT .— O LO 1 — 1 CU co 1 1 1 I LO 1 LO CM 1 en lo CD 1 1 1 CM LO 1 — 1 1 CM 1— • r\ #* ** cs n •> * " i— 1 s: CM CM >* CO) r— ^3- CO to 1 1 — CO CD U_ 00 CD CD CO r*. O CO CTi LO 2 r^ en O CC CO 1 — co to to to O a> tO 1 CM 1 1 | LO 1 1 1 1 r^ =* «*■ 1 II CD CM 1 1 ^3- CD :z " ** ^ •* * ** DC CM CM CM LO 1 — LO * "^f to LO*-» DC ro "vf en r-^ CD !-•» LO tO CM LO tvOON r— ^-S LU +-> 1 CM O 1 1 O I LO CM 1 r- CD ^" 1 1 1 CM LO CO 1 1 r«s c\j ^ O *> •> *• *> «\ #> r% X) > -r- CO 2 h- ■1— JZ -M S- c c •r- x: c +-> rO (1) CD JT ^ 4-> JZ -l-> CD CU ro , — c U CD -0 1— +-> O i~ cr S_ ro 13 TD c 1 21 C O a. rs -i- CO cu •1- > c -^ CU CU CD D- "O O "O ro "O CD -M J^. O C 2 h- «=c ro O. E E J= C DC 1 — 1 -0 +J ro 5- >> s- -0 C c E ■•- •^ C Q. I- >— E O O CU +J S- in -m r0 4-> 1 — QJ >- (O ^ 2 r- E QJ ^- +-> JD •1- X to Q.M- +-> JZ ^ _J IC 1— C S- ro s_ to CO 1 — "O O c 2 2 JD "^ ro •.- 1 — J= >>i— E CT) CD CD 2 S- S- 1— z: -* 23 oo UJ CC oo D_ oo 1— X s_ cc LiJ rO O 1 Cu 1— - I 2T CO o — 1 > en h- Q. . — i 4- CD S'- O I O i — ■=£ _J CTi -Q _J LU r^ OO en -a h- . CO CD (XI CD co cxi O CO i— < «=J- co r-~ i— i LO CTi cr. CO Q »> 2^ CXI r-- c\j "=d- CO o lo r^ cr> LO CD r^ ■vj- OO C\J o ■=t < — i oo CXI sd- I— 1 !— 1 cr> r«~ (XI q: < — 1 CXI CXI CD o o oo oo a: <3- i i 1 1 o 1 1 o i i i i «d- co . I — 1 CD I— 1 OU LU s: " « 3 a: i — i I — 1 1 — 1 LU o3 I— 2: h- h- H— 1 LU ■2. LU _J _i __l 1 1 O CD O .-) . — 1 oo 1— CC 1— CC CD o ■ — o o o O -vT ■=j- -—' ^ rO "=t i i 1 o o O 1 CTi i i i i oo &s _J +-> 1 — 1 LO LO CD ^-i OO CO ) O *s f\ r, t\ •> CXI CO 1— co en O CTi LO ' oo 1 — 1 r~~ r-~- o o o LO LO t~^ o • r-~ o o o CO CXI CO CD CC CO CO o CO i— 1 i— 1 1 — 1 CC • 1 ** i 1 " 1 1 1 •\ 1 " LO y 2 O C\J o r^ O CO St ■=d- lo cr> en LU cu 1 #\ ** * 1 ** ^ ^ 1 #v *s ^ »> ^ CD z CD CXI ^j- CXJ CO lo r-~- t— i CO (XI oo I s - co ■ — i oo LO Q < — 1 LU 1^1 i — i _l r~- CD o CD O «sf" CD CD LO O CO <=c 1 — r~-~ lo o O O LO O .— ) OO O (XI ^-> 1 — 1 fO CD CXI CO r-- O CO o «3- r-^ i— i ^H &« CD -l-> 1 r\ r» c i •> #% ^ 1 ^ *\ «s ^ " CO LU o r— cxi ■=t ^t- lo r~^ CO oor^^- CD LO O- h- i — i CO t— i (XI r— 1 r^« — oo i — i CA> CD LO LO LU q: o O o i — i • 1 i i 1 1 CD i i i 1 CM 1 1 CXI 1— ^: r\ « " i — i I — 1 (XI oo 1 CD <£ o CD o o U_ 2 cu o LO O CD o ■=3- o cr> o y x i i 1 1 " i i i •> 1 1 1 « CD (XI LO r-~. >5t CC CXI i — i St LO CD St CVI t-H CO LU o ^ i i 1 1 " i i i ^ " 1 1 «> I — 1 2: 1— CXI CO h«. 00 CO ~— LU CXI ■ — i "* CD <- CD cu 00 CD ra 00 i — t S-. +-> > •■- S r— •r- _£Z -M <*- 4-> •i- SZ d CD -C ^ SZ 4-> O) cu =s c CC Cl o O) 2: +-> (J cu r— -M S- 13 _J s Q- O 3 •1 — ■r- > -^ CD CU CD "O o ro -^ +-> O 1— cC E E -C C CC +-> rO s- >^ S- TD C C c: E •.- r— S- E ro +J 1 — cu >- •r- 4- Q. +-> —I zc t— s_ OO OO i — c 2 JD \ ro -r- i — E >^r— OIL 5 L - i — -SZ •!— fO S- ro ^- o cu o I— cc O CU Q- (— -2L 24 The $18 million of private financing to construct a new petroleum facility in the Port of Albany was the largest investment in bulk cargo facilities that was reported by the North Atlantic ports. Albany expects to continue this bulk cargo emphasis through 1983 with additional expenditures of $6.5 million. The Port of Albany also improved its general cargo handling capability during 1973-1978 with modernization expenditures of $2.6 million. The regional port complex of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the City of New York continues to lead the nation in total port development expenditures. The vast portion, over $106 million, was dedicated to new container and other unitized cargo handling facilities. During the 1973-1978 period, the expenditures were centered in container facilities at Port Newark, Northeast Marine Terminal and Howland Hook Marine Terminals. Proposed port development expenditures for this regional area will also provide container handling capability. By the mid-1980's the new Red Hook container terminal and break-bulk terminal is expected to be in operation. The project is a joint venture sponsored by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the State of New York and the City of New York. The project is already in progress and will cost an estimated $20 million. The eventual marine terminal complex will include 30 acres of land integrating an office building, martialing yard, container cranes and the projected capacity to handle 25,000 containers per year. Along the Delaware River, the ports of Philadelphia, Camden and Wilmington have invested large portions of their expenditures in the area of specialized general cargo facilities and new conventional general cargo facilities. Philadelphia was the major investor in container facilities with development expenditures exceeding $28 million during 1973-1978. Philadelphia expects to continue this trend with a proposed $15 million investment in specialized general cargo facilities before 1983. Camden, N.J. and Wilmington, Del. spent funds during 1973-1978 towards new and improved conventional general cargo berths. Wilmington expects to deviate from this trend during 1979-1983 with over $7 million envi- sioned as specialized general cargo facility investment. The $30 million expended in the 1973-1978 period and the proposed $45 million for 1979-1983 reflect the commitment on the part of the Maryland Port Administra- tion to retain the Port of Baltimore as a leading container load center on the North Atlantic coast. New and improved conventional general cargo facilities also accounted for development spending in Baltimore during 1973-1978. Similarly, the Hampton Roads ports of Virginia invested heavily in port facilities that will accommodate specialized general cargo. Norfolk led the Virginia ports with over $19 million for container facilities and $4 million to rehabilitate conventional general cargo handling capacity. Newport News and Portsmouth will join Norfolk in future spending for container handling facilities during 1979-1983. Table 13 depicts development expenditures for North Atlantic ports during 1973- 1978 and cumulative totals since 1946. Table 14 shows proposed expenditures for these ports for the years 1979-1983. 25 B. SOUTH ATLANTIC Ports from North Carolina through Florida along the South Atlantic Coast have invested $376 million, since 1946, in the development of break-bulk general cargo, specialized general cargo and bulk cargo facilities. Traditionally, South Atlantic ports have placed spending emphasis on providing adequate conventional general cargo facilities. From 1958-1960, 83 percent of all South Atlantic port development expenditures went towards breakbulk facilities. For the years 1966-1972, approximately 51 percent of all development expenditures was dedicated to breakbulk facilities. The information provided by South Atlantic ports for the current survey period depict a shift in spending direction. Development expenditures for container and other unitized cargo facilities, during 1973-1978, represented approximately one-half of all port expenditures. Conventional general cargo development expenditures have fallen to 31 percent of the area port improvements. Combined, the North Carolina ports of Morehead City and Wilmington invested roughly $20 million on port development during the survey period. Major improvements in breakbulk cargo handling, with ro/ro capability included, were the primary investments in Morehead City's Berths 6 and 7. In Wilmington, expenditures for new container handling capacity were made behind Berths 7 and 8. Significant expenditures of approximately $30 million for new container capacity are planned and authorized within the Port of Wilmington area by 1983. The South Carolina port of Charleston has become a major East Coast container handling center. Over $17 million has been spent in Charleston during 1973-1983 and over $60 million will be spent before 1983 on new container facilities. Recent container handling investments have been concentrated in the Port's North Charleston and Columbus Street Terminals. A major expansion will be the Wando Terminal consisting of 3 berths, 4 container cranes and back-up area. Past and future improvements to the Port's breakbulk facilities are located in the Union Pier Termi nal . The Georgia Ports Authority invested over $16 million in conventional general cargo facilities, $14 million in container interchange facilities and $12 million for new bulk cargo facilities during 1973-1978. Future investments will be concentrated breakbulk facilities including warehouses and the addition of a fourth container berth. The Georgia Ports Authority plans to spend over $52 million on marine terminal improvements between 1979-1983. The responding ports of east Florida spent a total of $45 million between 1973- 1978 and approximately $127 million since 1946. The Port of Jacksonville spent approximately $9 million for specialized general cargo facilities and $5 million for export bulk cargo facilities during 1973-1978. Miami and Port Everglades invested in specialized general cargo facilities while Palm Beach and Port Canaveral made expenditures for breakbulk and bulk cargo facilities during 1973-1978. Future port investments vary in the State of Florida with, perhaps, the most ambitious taking place in Miami where the size of the port will be doubled in the near future. 26 OO LxJ cc oo i— i (— Q cc -^ o UJ Q. D. -—» X 00 in o Lj r-v i — 1 1—1 CTi o Q O oo i — — - f0 in uj co l— > => ZD LU O O Q -£Z CO h- I— -— cc o _1 cC CO 1— r-^ o CT o oo r~ o o r-^ co oicon oiom oo 1— t— i O r-l O0 CD o *d- oo CO o o r- O0 LO CT i CO CD si- <3- LO O LO r~- oo cm co co cd CO en CD ^ ^1- CC O CD O0 i-H OO **t t— I *tf- ID O C * M #t ft «t fl fl *v l— o en o *d- roroiscovt CNJ oo CT o i-H oo ^ 1— 1 1— ( 1— » LO oo 1—1 h- 1—4 1 — 1 o LO oo o rs oo cc: o OO o OO LxJ . i i LO 1 1 1 «*■ III 1 LO ^ 3 CC i — i s: ft »» A LU oC 1— CvJ t—l «=t s t— s: 1— i — i 1 _J *c LU _J 2: LU i — i cC CJ) cC o CJ> oo O LO CD oo h- CC 1— or: < 3 oo O LO i— 1 oo o LU c LU Ll_ QJ i i 1 1 1 1 oo 1 O 1 CTi O0 1 1 — 1 \— Q- 1— o_ O ^: oo •t *t »s LO ^f ^d" #1 l-«. CD t— 4 oo cc: < c_> ,— o rs o r*- co o o^-- ^ to o i— 1 O CO i—i o oo &-■; _i +-> i i LO 1 1 1 CO 1 O 1 CT) CI LO CO r— 1 ID O #1 « ft *» «s #t »oo CQ 1— oo OO LO "=d" «^" t — 1 I-H * 1—4 oo O CD C_ • LO CD O r-H < CC OO i-H O t— 4 CJ s: i i 1 1 1 1 I-H II 1 1 CO o _J oo CO CT < or: LU ^T O LO o oo o o o r>* ■st LU 2 O oo o o O0 CO LO *3- <* cd cu CD CTi 1—4 o-- is oo i— i coo LO ^y #\ A * 1 1 1 « | n •* | *i tk Q CvJ CD r^» OO 00 oo ^~ LO UJ i— » I-H 1—1 CD 1 <=£ t— O LO o r-» o co o rs LO^-^ 03 O OO o OO O0 OO LO -vT LO &S CJ -M CO OO 1 — 1 CO srOH o-- LO oo LU O r* ft t— i ■ — i i-H 1—4 CD _J CJ •t CD i^- o •=r oo oo o CC 1 — 1 r-i «^J- cc C_> _l , o r-~ O LO LO O0 OO ^ Oi CO LO'— co «* i-H oo LO CO CO OO CO CD i—l LU o •n *o »* 1 1 » | •% 0S t\ «oo ^ I— r~- oo I— 1 CD O0 OO i— 4 KO LU i — 1 i-H «3" CD 00 •— QJ 03 >> 03 re -o C_J c +-> c CJJ S- (O I—l •r— 'r— •r— a> i— qj i— 1— i— CJ c r— C C 1 — O i— JZ > CT z: o o O o s rt3 -i i- +-> o >! CJ JZ qj > ra c aj _l s: ro n3 CT (O l/l -P o •i- (V •i- c; qj fa > (— CD -^ E E +-> +J _i _r h- -4-> S- i— +-> (C o s. S- 13 > i_ i. O (T3 >— S- i- cC h- or: S- O -r- 3 -C O) o O S- fT3 o o o O 5H IS O C_> CD D_ CD CO OO r— U_ "-D 5: D- O- D_ o o Q. ^ CO O Ll_ (— oo 27 in 00 D. I— X Q£ LU O 0- I— CO CD UJ i — ii — i 5-T 1— Q- CD -21 O i— <=C _) _a _i lu fll-> Q I— h- CD OL o o OO Q- rt3 co O CO Q CTl ,-J <+- I o CTl r»~. to CTl "O i— I C ^ CO CO 3 O CO o a. o a: a. co a: CO O < ^ u_ CD o CO o: cC O r— 5*£ ID O CD C£ CD cd o CD < cd CD CD LD CD CTi O CT. CVJ CO CO I IT} CTi ■^t- I o o ■^- CVJ o o cn Cvi o o o LT> O CD P-- o o o o o C£> o CD O o o o CO) o o o o CVJ LD O .—i o -=3" CO O IT) O CO i-H U"> CO CVJ en CO cvj cr. CO o o o o o o ro >, «— CD SZ o o s- -a +-> (O ID Dl O OJ c -SZ VT -C CD E +-> S_ i— s- o •■- o s: ^ o o LD CD h- o o o LO CD r-- CD c o 4-> 00 , +-> o o <- .sz a> o CD CD Cc rC r-- LT) o co Lf) O CO o LT) i — I LO o LD CO CVJ CVJ r-. Lf) o CO i — co -— « CO 5-« * CVJ o CTi o r-. CO 55 r-» ^ LT) CO LT) CVI O cr> o *\ r* CO LO 1 — Cvl !3 o; LjJ o3 z 1— s: l~ z: 2 _l LaJ _i Ll! < CD cC CD y— or. t— CI a UJ o Ul j— Q_ 1— Q_ o •^r -— v cr> s« o r-< r». — o o o o I I— 1 CO r-H CO co CTi I « I CO r-H O co o O CO LO CO ra c •r- C CTl TO S_ > O fd CD CO CD a> -c a-. ro OJ OJ > CO UJ S- fO, — S- O •<- re O i — 2: d_ a. CO CO CO CO -— ■ co s« cvi i— « CVI CVJ 7^. fO 1— LU 1 — CC CL. . 1 — o X CO o r-» o_ LU r-» Q i — CTl 1— h- ! 4- O) OO s: 1 O 1 — <=r LU oo jQ O SE r*» CO ro CJ Q. CTl -o \— o i — c Ll_ _J — -* ro _l LU 00 ID >• 13 CD LU Q 1— o D. O 1 «\ ■— < I=~ lo 1 — r> ld i — , — CM 3; CC 1 — CM <=1- LU oS l — i 1 P 5 ' 1— ZL s: 1— ■21 i— i _1 LU 1 LU CJ lo r-- O o o o O ST CD CTi eC CJ 1 1 o oo r. ■=a: SL *t i — LO CJ i < c£ LU CD CO CM o CT , o 21 3 CO LO CO o r-. -3- *d- LU CD 1 LO CM oo i 1 i i ^t- 1 1 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 C3 CD ^ OO , CD LO CM O LU OO oo 1^ i — i i o •vj- CD s^: CJ +-> 1 CO cn OO | 1 i i r*. LO 1 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 r^ oo LU o « « ^ CL. 1— r*. i — , — LO CO OO oo oo r^ CO cn CD «=1- LO "^J- CO LO C CTi CM LO OO • LO oo O CTi i— i — r^ i — O OO LD LU cc 1 1 cn 1 o 1 1 CTi CO i— CO 1 i — CTi LO 1 1 1 LD i — i i « r\ *% *v 1— s: CM CM 1^. OO CM oo "vf i — i CM 1 l — i CJ «i CD i — CTl LO o r^ r— CX) CM CO CC ^~ *d- CJ _l ,— t— ro en CM CD >* LO CTi LD LO O CTi OO l~^ *-~* < LU , — r^ t_ CD o .,— CL. +-> CO co 1 — >> CU CD co CD •<- s- , — •r— +J •r- ro Dl r — C i— S- n CD >-, o •r- ro Cl i— rs s- ro i — JZ. c: -C JD +-> 1— LU CJ t— CL+-> 3 ro o ro cu +-> •<- CJ 4-> o +-> ro .f— oo CD s: o ■r- S- O c CC JZ i — c > s- +-> c: s_ CO CJ CD CO CJ JZ •i— ro CO Q. ro • 1— ■r- 4- O CO o CL. <1) co 3 S O. CD > CO c +-> +-> ro _l co h- S- C C E -Q JD CO i — CO 1 — +-> O -^ 2 ro ro o s- cd i — =5 ro 5- J_ X < U_ C(- cc O ro CL) fC ro O co 3 ro Z3 ro o ro cu X CD S- O S- ro o s- o o O) — _J t»- o i — Q- Q_ I— 5" i- CD CL o cn _i _i ^: CD CO CO CJ u. CDI OO- o. 1— Z5 =D o CL- U_ < se: —I ~ 1— CD * 30 oo LlJ cc o CD cc < CD o o o co o ^a- «3- oo CD D_ 00 X S_ co LU ID 1— i — cc 1— ^ — - i — o -Z. CO O OO Q. LU oo CTi o 1— Dl i — M- OJ OO o 1 O 1 — CT> T3 h- LU i — C" u_ O — ^ i 00 ZD h- rj CD or o Q- LU CO O CL O Cc: o I— o CD C£ CD CD Q LU i\l _J =t i — i CJ LU Q_ OO oo LU CC o CD cc: ■=C C_> CD a: o o_ OOllD CD *3" LO r-» oo o oo oo OO o en CD *d" LO 00 r— CM o o O O O O r~- i o r^ o I— CM o oo o O CTi CD CD >* LO NCOr- r-~ cm i— CM O o C\J o o CD LO 00 >* CD CD CD LO O «=3- «3" 0O O U ID lO •i— CO d s- c E O (0 .— CL (— -Q -Q fC O Ql Q. +-> r- S_ CO O co eel- o o I LO LO O CD CD CTi CD CM O O CD CTl CD LO i — Or — CM O cm cn CD lo o i — r— r— o oo r-> i— CM LO «3- I o LO i ^r i CD CD CD CD O CD LO O O CD CD O C i — CD LO LO CD i — CTi CD *3" 1^ i — i — i — CD LO i — CM LO O O CD CD CD CM O CD O LO O LO i — CD LO CTi CD CM CT> CD ^t" ■ — i — CD LO CM 00 .— O o LO I CO o I CTi CO CD co i — C S_ rt> ro CD CD S- O 03 r- * CO O- CD r- O -^ 2 3 3 O ro CD ■i- CD O — J —J Z o en o ^t- LO CM 1^ o r— "d" O cn CD ^d- LO CM r-^ o CD CD CD CD LO I— o o CD CD LO O i— O i— CM CD O O O 0O , — r— CM +-> CO CD •!- r— V- IT- i. CD +J ro CD C CD O Q 4-> CO co CD "3 > X i — CD fO CD CO CD I— CD >1 •i- CD > co co 2 CL O i- o C CD o ■M CO co ns rs x O CD CO CD <— » 0O CO CM 00 r- ro 00 &9 CM cn ro -* 1 — 00 r^ , r^ CO co • sz cc LU e3 2T I— 21 h- 2: 2: _l LU 1 LU — i 00 1— Q i- cc z: 03 o LU r— O. Q- -— « i — X 00 O (T» \— lu r-» Q f— 00 cn «=C t— r— M- 3 «=c LU O D_ O 1— cc o a. 1— _l < 00 00 en r*» co co *d- ro ir> *t O CO co CO lo cn O CO ro ro Or — OLOi — OOCOlO 1— r-» 00 CT> WD Cn OO *3" CTi TJ- IT) CO <— "=3" cn CM cd r^ r^ «d- >=3- CM incoinwoNooo o cn o> 00 LO 1 — "3" LO co lo ro CO LO *3" 00 «* r^. 00 ^3- OO LO CO 1— CM CO r - r— 00 CO r— 1— ^- 1 1— CO CD O en ■ — r-~ lo LO CM CM t — 1 — cn lo 1 — CO 1 — CM 10 00 1 — 00 ro 1 — Q CO ro r» en CM CM CO cn 1— t— 1 — , — ro lo z: «d- CM 1— 1 — ^- ^J- >^- O — CO ^d- r-- co O 1 — CD CC LO O ■XL +J 1 1 1 1 CD CM 1 1 CO 1 1 <* 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 —1 O A A A A t\ *\ =D h- ro ro 1— CO en 1— co 0Q 1 co O O CD O cn o • r- 1— CO r^- d; or 1— CO LO CO <: • 1 1 1 1 •% •* #* 1 1 1 1 •> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 *ii <_> SI CM r— CO 00 i— _i < or LU CD LD CM en CM O r-» CO z: 3 «3- LO >=3- CM "3" CM CO h» LU — 1 cC CD O O •=i- O LL- 3 cu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , CD 1 LO , O 1 O 1 1 O 1 ro 1 r*. 1 CS z: A A A A A e> 1 co CM CM LO or I •a: c_> _i r_ 00 CO O , < •a CO co O 1— « O O O co r^ or 4-> 1 CTi 1 1 CO LO VO 1 O 1 1 CT. 1 1 I 1 O 1 O O 1 1 CO «=3- 1 cn 1 LU A *» fl LO CM O 00 CM z: l— *3- CM LO A A A A A A LU 1— CO CO CM 00 00 CJ3 > 1 — O >. O s- 00 >> 00 -»-> 00 a 03 .c ai •1- O •r— E -a r— fO CO <_> 1— O +J a c 00 03 s- CU s- LU •r— (D CU ■0 C en c: c >>"CD cu x: 03 3 er> cu S c .c ro cu -t-> cu oi-o DCO CD 03 03 03 03 C +J +-> CD+J ^ CL> 03 c cu > <: J- O -i- E r-CQ C C O O E •p— s- +-> s- •1— CO 03 CT> S- c +J 03 '1 — *l — D_ O +-> E O M- -n- -r- C XI CD 1 — 3 J= s- u +-> O O CO +-> •r— (J ,— C_>,03cT>ECJ+->4->OO i— •r- -M C CU E C CO -^ "O u c c C cn+j s- -C 03 r— iW L «J U C a: 1— C QJ Z3 3 O O 03 CD • 1- 03 03 03 +-> S- 03Oi — 030CD0303 03 s- < C_> O- 03 < CQ LU CJ3 '^_100-Q.00l— > o_ 3: 34 CO ZJ 1— <■ — - CO P— 1 CO - — s 1— o S- cc 2: ro +J O UJ 1 — c D_ Cl. »■ — s 1 — c X CO u (_ UJ r-s ' CO m ■a: h- 1 — 4- en o 2: 1 O i — CJ LU ro 2: r~- c/1 — ' O 1 — e JD U 1 * — rD to 1 — 1 UJ l/l h- CJ > Z5 cC uj O Q_ Q t— I— ■ — * cc CL _J < 00 h- r~-~ 0O O CTl cn <3" 1— "— >=J- 00 O CO sj- 2T *d" r-~ CVJ I— 1 *> « « ro 1 lo lo => O " CvJ CO. 1— CO LD O • cn CD CC 1 CO CC • * < s: 1 — CJ C\J 1 < oc cn UJ CTl 2: s <3" UJ QJ 1 * CD 2; CVJ CD O i — UJ 1 — 1 1 ^f < 1— CTl -— > 1 — 1 fC 1 — S-5 CJ +-> 1 « (JD UJ <^J- LO Q- h- CO — - CO 1 CO CO UJ CvJ •—1 q: 1 ro 1— • x —* ^z r-» _] 00 t— 1 CJ < u_ <3" 2 >d- cu 1 C\J CD ST •» CC r^. < C\J CJ 1 lo en 2: O * i — UJ 1— *d- — - CD 10 s- -Q h- S- CO rO ■=£ X UJ CJ s: ro < Q. CJ 2: ro 1 — ( 1 — _J Ll_ 1— 1 — < •— q: ■!■■ r— CJ "=? O «C D. 1— Q. 35 UJ Q m Q. CO \— X s- 06 UJ ro CD i — a. r— - — ■* i — zr. CO o O 1— UJ co Q CNJ 00 g_ cr> «=c D_ t— i 4- a> o o i O r— <_) 1 CT> JD. UJ r~- O) rC <_> > CTi XJ t— l-H UJ i — 1 C u_ Q v ro t— 1 CO <_> r— 13 <=c cc O O- o sz a. t— Q UJ OO o D_ O Q£ D_ _J cC * 1— O CNJ O O O O O CD CD O ooooooooo u~> 1 — ^5 «d- &s o O un un OOO ocooocDi — r^un ■^3- r— en co 1 — 1— cnj cnj un 00 CD CO un co Lnouifoo^-Oi — 00 CNJ r~- CO CsJ Q Ol LT) CNJ r-~ un «3- CO O CO i— H O CO CO 00 ^" CD co un CO ^r co r^ lo cnj i-h co cnj cnj un r- 1 CO CNI CTi un <3- <=C CNJ CO un 1 — c; CD O CO 00 O CO • Oin 00 O CO O un cc CNJ LT) LT) uo 1 — 1 CO CT> 3 cc: OO • f» #» 1 «t m 1 — 1 ^i- co 7Z. 2: h- _i UJ _i UJ i — i cC I— CD cc ^ CD CC i — i O UJ UJ o O 1— Cl I— D_ < O CD u. a; «3" LO •» 1 1 1 CD un O III *3" o s: CO CO un >^t- 00 O CD *t co CO CO q; I — 1 OvJ < CO * ^ i — O CO OO O CO _i n3 O CO OO O un ^~- ID +-> co lo un co co CO CO &« CD O ft f* | ft ft w\ r\ ft 1 ft III 1 1 1 1 « CNJ r— un un UD •3- -vl- CTt 1 — 1 CO CO CTi 1 — 1 CNJ «— 1 r^ CNI CD CD o • un cnj un 1— 1 CNJ O 1 — 1 CD CC 00 CNJ CO 1 — 1 r^. CO CC • •> •> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ft < s; co un CO CO O 1 ■=d- un < Cr: un OOO O O 1 — O CO UJ co cnj un OOO un cc SI 3 1^-. CO CNJ CD un un r-- un :un UJ aj a a #« «i | 1 1 f* r% ft 1 1 "i "i « « ' „ CD ^ CO «— < CO CNJ 1— 1 un co cnj CO O CNJ CNJ 1— 1 1— 1 CO CO NOC0 un r— un Q CM UJ 1 O CO O O r-» OOO O CD CO O CO =c i — 1— i «^- un un 1— 1 OOO O O CNI O ( CTi ^— . 1— 1 rO co un cnj co 1 — 1 un un un in co s^ CD 4-> a a n a J 1 n n n 1 1 ^ 1 « 1 •> " it uo UJ O CNJ CO CO CNJ CO CNJ co 00 cohh^ D. h- co un co cnj CNJ iH H IT) r— r-i ^ oo ICO O un CO CO OO • r-H r-H O CO O O CD CO UJ CC un 1— 1 1 — 1 1 — in ■ ro 1 — 1 . "II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "=d- un co " r— s: cr> co •t ft|(_Q 1 — 1 CO "—CNJ _1 I — 1 CD i •=t un O O OO CD CD |un U_ 2 OMfi O O OO O CD CNI cu un cn cnj CD O un cni o 2: r< &i w\ | | 1 1 1 ^ «t ft »> 1 1 1 1 •» « 1 ft CD CO CNJ O O m r-H CD Un LO [CO CC 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — 1 1—1 CO •a; n3 1— 1 cr> un CO O O 00 1 — un un en &s QC +-> O O CNJ 1 — 1 O O un ^j- uo id un co UJ O ft ft ft 1 1 1 1 * « ft ^ 1 1 1 ft « « f> 1 — 1 ^: t— CO CO CO un r-H CD CO UO CO CNJ -^-- UJ 1— 1 r— 1 1 — 1 . — 1 1 — 1 cri CD u s_ I— CO CO 00 -ZZ O) •1— .£2 cC CJ C W c_ O UJ •r- >-a O CU ro 3 c_> s. sz cu cd>~o c: cu rO re ro C +-> +-> +-> ZJZ QJ (O CD cC S_ CO C £Z CD E S- +-> •1- CO 03 CD S- +-> (O •!— •!— 1 — ro CD ■Z. O < (D E t! u ^ C t_ 1— £Z O CU CO E > Q. +J E 1 — 1 M- ai 1 — r s. u O O CO +-» •r-(_)i->>E-l- ) _J U. 1— •1— C CO -^£ (_> O c O en +-> O S- -CraCUrO 1 — C>,raO cc p— 1 CC 1 O O ID 'r (O fO +-> rjj co O O cOC>S- CU -o CU o -0 c rO XI (O c CU CD -Q ro tD '1 — C) aii O S_ ro 0J o 00 CU +-> S- o <+- E o o CNJ CO CU -o Z5 u 36 Container Terminal #3 in Richmond cost $19 million which was financed by revenue bonds. Additional container facility investments are proposed in Richmond. The Southern California ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles continue to heavily invest in all types of cargo handling facilities. Long Beach has invested $5 million to modernize breakbulk facilities, $21.4 million for new and altered specialized general cargo facilities and $13.6 to upgrade coke and grain terminals. Massive investments in the future are planned by the Port of Long Beach. Included in the total $269 million proposed expenditures is the SOHIO Terminal project which has been abandoned since this survey was undertaken. The majority of expenditures by the Port of Los Angeles during 1973-1978 were invested in container facilities. Expected development expenditures by Los Angeles will also concentrate on specialized general cargo facilities through 1983. Table 19 presents a port-by-port breakdown of expenditures by type of cargo facility for the Pacific Coast during 1973-1978. Table 20 gives a breakdown of the proposed port development expenditures for 1979-1983. E. ALASKA, HAWAII AND PUERTO RICO Reported expenditures for port development in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico for the 1973-1978 period totaled over $45,061,000, bringing the post World War II total to over $200 million. Seventy-eight percent of the 1973-1978 expenditures were for new construction, while twenty-two percent were for modernization and rehabilitation of existing facilities. Alaska Anchorage was the only port in Alaska to respond to our survey. The port has undertaken a significant capital expansion program, and the growth of this relatively new port over the past 12-years has been phenomenal. Most of the expenditures have been for specialized general cargo facilities. Since 1966, over $21 million has been invested in this type of facility. Over $15 million was invested in the 1973-1978 period alone. Additional expenditures were also reported for modernization and rehabilitation of existing bulk cargo facilities. These expenditures are indicated in Tables 21 and 22. Hawai i With over $5 million in reported expenditures, Honolulu continues to lead Hawaiian ports in overall expenditures since World War II. New construction at the port has centered around container!* zation . Over $2.7 million was reported invested in new specialized general cargo facilities during the 1973-1978 period, while various modernization projects at Honolulu for specialized general cargo facilities involved expenditures in excess of $1 million. Although no new general cargo facilities were constructed, the port did spend over $1 million to modernize existing facilities. An additional $11 million -- not included in our totals -- was spent by the State to acquire some 16.152 acres of waterfront land for future port development. 37 CO r— cc o Q. O c_> I — I CXL O r— i— or cm LlJ CO UJ or id «- ■» I— to O n3 -Q Q ro 2: I— < a. «— » x CO lu r-~- I— r— z 1 uj co q. cr> O r- LU a; o m n^j- no 1— ro co ro 00 ■=* M cm O lo ro CM lo CM I «d" O CT> "3" CO CO CD CO CO N (\| Ol N 1 — CO CTl Mr- r- Ol lo to 00 ro 1 — CO en <3- 00 CTl VO o~> og LO r— CM cr ro O 1 CO CD CD LO O o LO I ^3- f — I ■ t 1 o CD C\J ^1- LO r — ■ 1 1 1 CO LO OO LO 1 — O i— CD CD CTl CO r— LO CD CMI^ CTl ^3- 1 — CM r-* 1 — CTiCO CO «*■ 00 r». CM CXI CTl tO tO LO LO LO «=}- r— to CO I I CD I I I I I CO LO CO LO 1 — r-OM tO CTl >3- OO O CTl CO CTl I I CO I to CT. r- — . tiiii 1 — LO CM to CTl CO CM O CTl 1 — CTl I I CO I I I I I CD CD ro C. ro o -^ .E tO (_) ro c O) rs j*: -a •!- ro ro t- -M CD "r- ro -M C -O 3 -r- 3 O O) JC >-£ rO"— C -C 13 3 2 S_ S'rOffllBfflflO LO I I I I — I I I I I o o O I 10 1 1 r-~ O ro LO O ro 1— (O 'I— 1 — 1 — CD N C OT 1— CD -r- S- CD lO ID •r- S- C ro =3 3 O otd s_ 02 criuo u 4-> ro •!— >> ro O 3 S- 13 =3 ro to >> C C -Q (UOIO13101OOHI1B 3<< CD_j^Q_cO>- to cn •* co CM to O LO CM CO LO CO CM CM r— cS^ CO «3" 10 r— LO o 00 CM CO CM &S CM CT. •>CO CD — - CO CO CO CM CD &S CD &$ « CO •» CM LO r^ O CM CO l ~~ ~s or ll 1 03 an h- 2: 1— z 2r _i LU _j LU cT CD «=C CJ h- or r— or O LU O LU r— o_ r— D. CD CO CD CD CD CD O CO-— o &« co — - 3 O CXi "O 1— < UJ . — I ^ r-v cr> CM O «* vi «i #i « * a n 2: CO C\J 00 CO I — 1 OO co o l 1 1 1 1 1 1 o — i O CO. 1— O CD • o o a: cc en OO <=£ • l 1 1 CTi 1 1 1 oo (_) s: LT) LO _1 ■< Di LU CO o o VO •y s LO O LT) O LU cu l 1 O I— 1 LO 1 1 r^~ CD 2 cm cm oo i^- O CNJ CM LU rM 1 — 1 _l 1 — VO O O VO -— ^ <: o rv «\ ». « oo LU (— CM CO CO OO Q_ CNJ oo OO OO O O OO OO LU . CO O CO OO i — i o; CO CO OO OO 1— • i ''III •> i — ( s: CO «=j- 1 i — i CD I co i i i 1 OO CTi LO C£ O •* »> " r-l LU 1— CO 1 — 1 LO py UJ CD CD -ZL 1— ( c: t— 1 •i— << o o o 00 ZS C_) CD- u r0 -« UJ IS •1 — CD C zsz cc 21 1 — •!— 00 cc S- ro <: 3 3 i. ro =3 "O ■ZL ro •r- r— .— CD o 2: r3 ■< I— -^ •r- O O !3 JZ) +-> U V Lt 1— CO ro i — c .c S- s_ co c =3: OO UJ cc ro 2 *r- O ro ro CD .-0 ro h- d =D o i — m i n: v co Z3 _l OO O _l D. Q_ h- - — - I— i LO OO O s_ I— z: T3 a: uj r— o o_-— i — Q.XOO O CO UJN Q CM OO CTi UJ h- t— 1 c*- CD i>£ 2: 1 O r— el UJ OO J3_i5:iv LO 03 O- CTi ■o 1— 1— O i-h c «=C _l^— =3 cd UJ O O -c t— 1— > ■ (X. o O- i •=£ 00 1— r~- O cr> i^~ o lo o CD O O LO 00 CM o r^ O CD o CX> O O CO CD O CO o co o o o r^. 1— i—i NU3NLD r^ o o CD >^- Ol LO CO O CO co CO LO O CM CTi O CTi co CO ■* ID O LD CTi Q CD #* " " o #» — «* — #* »! — n — — M n #> fl - ffv zzr. «h- co r^ cm 00 CO CD CO i—l CO CO CD CO CM sH- «^- CM CM CD 00 CO < cn CO i—l CM CD I — 1 i-h i— i CM LO en i—i I-H CD CM o O CT> o o o CO CT. O O O _i CD o O "=3- o o o CTv r-^ CD O CO < r~— • i i LO 1 I 1— 1 1 1— 1 1 1 1 1 1 CM 1 LO O 1 1 1 CO O 1 CD LO O 1— *i A r\ #n r« n n *> #s »\ O I-H CO CM i—i ^d- ^]- CM CM CO O h- CO i-H i-H 1-H CM o <* o o o • 00 o 1 1 II "llll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II "1 00 s: i—i r^ 1-H LO UJ 00 1 — 1 \— t h- _J 1— 1 O o o o o o o o <_> 3 <3" o o o o I-- O o -iii - 1 1 1 "IIII 1 II ""III — II #* — r> O i — i CO I — 1 ■=5t" -=3" CM CO O CQ (— CO 1-H I-H I-H O CD LO o en • CO c < Cn i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 l-H 1 1 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CJ s: I — 1 1 < UJ z s UJ CD CD z: i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O LU i— i i i — LO o I—I CM CO o iiii 1 1 1 II IIII 1 " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ul 1— i — I O- OO OO UJ • O t— H cn *d- 1— • i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 CD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 s: _J t— « CO u. 3 o ^1- r-^ z: O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I O 1 1 1 1 Ul I— - CD CM erior ite arbor (13 c en Q- E 3= CO LO C CD s- s- =3 O >, CD U C S- CO) O > (ti T3 Ul O QJ f0 O0 i — CD C ID CD O fO C Ol O +-> C C (O ■— C +J s: ^ .O. +-> ■M \ O 4-> •rCQ(0^2D10> co O c +J +-> +■> O 3 zsz 3 m 3 ■sC s- O O CO L0 O -C O •!- CO £ 3 O >) QJ t •i- en as •<- CD CD CD CDin JD i— 03 CO ^ o i— cn c: cd CO 4-> C c c i/i uj +J o cno: O fO CD O C =3 O CD -C (0 CD CD C •<- "O >- (O •)-> > C O ra CD 1— It- JH u C i— i_ o CJCDC:.— CCD330 •1— ' T - r+J-O S- c in i. 3 O -C CD C S- t- r— a: 2 it- i/i oio C 3 O IB coi_cD. 1 -fox:+->3 i— -C ucuzsiao^oo •i- CO i— O =3 O O o cu rj o o cn •r- Q D_ |— •r-CD^SISIOOOOl— 1— co •r-o_iz5:s:aoo J3< UO I _l|- O- ^ CO Z 3 t—t s: o 42 LU ■ OO Q LO S- 03 +jq:uj i— c: O o_ -— -i— O Q- X CO O O UJ K Q CO CT> UJhHif- OO iZ 2: I o cxi =3; lu 00 _i s: r^ 00 o> a. cn ~o •— I— CD r-< C JD< _l 03 03 UJ LxJ (/) 1— o: > is cd lu o OS o D. _J <=C CO 1— r^ O CT> O0 CD CD 1— r— 1 CO cn O 1 00 CO LO O CD *» *» «* ^ ■==T 1 — LO =J- LO >o cn &s 1 00 CT) CD LO 00 r-^ 00 ro «d- LO LO i— •^ *» «* «■« 1 .— H CD cn ■ — 1 00 1— CO CO 1 — 1 CD LO 00 cn CO *g cc UJ | 1 *\ LU c*5 t— < s: LO 7?. h- s: h- (— O -^L ^ h— < 1 — 1 _J LU 1 LU 1 cC CD «E CD 1— CC f— CC CD CD O O LU O LU O CD ^ I CD LO «•— > _j 03 O CTi 5-8 =3 +-> | " * LO CO O 0O cn cn (— r- 1 — 1 O LO O CD CD 00 r^ CNJ q: C£ en CM O =t •» si CXI 1 < DC LiJ ^j- cn ro 2T 2 r~- CTi r~- LU CD CTi LO LO CD ^ 1 — 1 Q LU r-vi _l 1 — CTi CT> CO *— ■> <£ 03 LO CD cn &« 1 — 1 4J ro CO LO CXI c_> O ^ ci > w _^ LU h- r— 1 00 Q- 00 00 LU • CTi -3- 00 1 — 1 cn CNJ r-^ "=J- \— • ^r I — 1 1 — i 2: * 1 1 — 1 M CJ <=c Ll_ 2 00 CXI O rt <£. 00 LO CD 1 C\J 00 1 — 1 s~s ^ O ■=d- 1 — 1 00 00 LU t— ** rv s. — ^ CD ro CD s_ 03 •1 — JD OO c S- LU LU 03 03 NZ SI > zc =t <: 1 — 03 _J ^ >> C 00 CO CD 03 c _J 1— i— C -i- •r- S_ ■=c . cn UJ D_ 1 — 1 4- CD i^ o 1 O i — << 1 CTi -Q _l UJ r^ 00 03 > CTi ■o r— t— UJ ■ — i c «c Q 1 — - 03 UJ OO cc 1— 13 CD CC O D_ O UJ OO o D- O cc Q_ O jz: 1— I o CD O CO q: LD r^- 00 CD CD 3 cc oo • 1 1 « | 1 1 1 •> 1 •> r\ I #1 LU o?5 LU S CNJ CO 1—1 on 00 ^ r— s: t- i — i 1 — ) C\J 2: ^ r— _J UJ _i U- >—i < (_> < _J I— Ci 1— Ct. i — t O o O O O UJ U- c_> O CD r^ CO Lf> O co I— CL- r— D. A * 1 1 1 1 1 •> 1 1 * 1 -2L lo o LT) O CNJ o CO cn CD CC <£ C_> o CD CD CV) O OOO O CNJ , — o O O CO UD O uo O «* <—• ^ 03 o CD LO ■ — 1 CD O CM CO CT> CNJ ^S _J +-> ^ #* a a 1 1 1 ^ ^ «\ *> a A 10 ZD O LD O ou i — 1 00 l-O t— ( uo CD r^ CO r— CO 1— 1 co CNJ 00 — - 1 — 1 o CD q: • O r~~~ r-» st- CD si 1 1 ' 1 LO 1 1 co 1 1 1 1 1 CO _1 r»s CNJ •re 1 — 1 CNJ UJ ■ZL O O UJ 3 o O CD 1 1 1 cn 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CTi O CTi cn UJ r-4 i — i _i , — o O r>. r-~ ^-> I 1 1 CT> LO CD 1 00 1 1 1 1 1 CNJ CTi o O K «■> •> « 1 — 1 UJ I— r». CT> CNJ O — - Q_ 1 — 1 CO oo oo UJ h- CC r^ CD r~- »— » • CM 1 1 CNJ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 «^t- _J 2: 1 — 1 1 — 1 CD u_ 2 O LO LO o O) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CnJ CNJ CD 2j * " * o: CnJ LO r^ <=c CD _j r~- CD CD CD r-^- 03 CNJ CNJ O UO CTi -— > +J 1 1 I — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CD CNJ CO &§ UJ O « A « LO ~zz UJ r— CNJ LO r-~- — ■ CD S- 03 >> •r— JD 00 CO CD T3 03 £Z S- UJ UJ re S- CO C CD C 1 — 03 03 ^/ -*: o -(-> *«v. O •i— j*: 00 C +-> 03 =5 > zn <: e£ S- i— o -C -r- S- 00 Z3 •r- C30 03 •!- CD 1 — C O -Q 1 — CO _i 2: O 03 00 +-> S- cu C 03 O 03 cn O O CD •!— T3 03 >> a 00 >- <+- CD 3 (U > O 3 c •1- S- s- > 03 CD +-> 00 CD 03 c _i h— (— M- c r— Q.I— O r— ■r— -r- -C 4-> C O CD S_ 1— XZ c •>- ■r- S-