DOCSLIB.ORG

GNC SWOT Analysis Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Final Report | Great Northern Corridor SWOT Analysis TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 6 (Final Report) 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 5. Report Date December 31, 2014 4. Title and Subtitle 6. Performing Organization Code Great Northern Corridor Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis Final Report 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 6 (Final Report) Olsson Associates Parsons Brinckerhoff The Beckett Group 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Olsson Associates 11. Contract or Grant No. 2111 S. 67th Street, Suite 200 Omaha, NE 68106 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Research Programs Type: Project Final Report Montana Department of Transportation Period Covered: January-November 2014 2701 Prospect Avenue P.O. Box 201001 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 5401 Helena MT 59620-1001 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract The GNC Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis Final Report is the culmination of a ten-month study of the Great Northern Corridor as requested by the GNC Coalition. The Final Report combines the key messages of the previous five Technical Memoranda, which addressed the Corridor’s Infrastructure and Operations, Freight & Commodity Flows, SWOT Analysis & Scenario Planning Workshop, Economic & Environmental Impacts Analysis, and Project Prioritization. This Final Report intends to tell the compelling story of the Corridor today and how it can strategically position itself for continued and improved performance, access, safety, and reliability in the future. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Unrestricted. This document is available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161. 19. Security Classif. (of this 20. Security Classif. (of 21. No. of Pages 22. Price report) this page) Unclassified Unclassified PAGE ii Final Report | Great Northern Corridor SWOT Analysis Disclaimer Statement This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) in the interest of information exchange. The State of Montana and the United States assume no liability for the use or misuse of its contents. The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or official policies of MDT or the USDOT. The State of Montana and the United States do not endorse products of manufacturers. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, policy or regulation. ALTERNATIVE FORMAT STATEMENT MDT attempts to provide accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person participating in any service, program, or activity of the Department. Alternative accessible formats of this information will be provided upon request. For further information, call 406/444.7693, TTY 800/335.7592, or Montana Relay at 711. PAGE iii Final Report | Great Northern Corridor SWOT Analysis Table of Contents List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Background & Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Brief History of the Corridor ................................................................................................................................. 1 Genesis of the GNC Coalition ............................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: A TRANSCONOMY Profile of the GNC ………………………………………………………………4 A Description of the GNC: Demographics and Geography................................................................................... 4 A Description of the GNC: Modal Assets and Infrastructure ................................................................................ 7 A Description of the GNC: Industries and Economy........................................................................................... 30 Some Key Corridor Industries ............................................................................................................................. 33 GNC Commodity Flows ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 3: GNC SWOT Analysis………………………………………………………………………………….54 Trends and Issues Affecting the Corridor ............................................................................................................ 54 GNC Scenario Planning Workshop ..................................................................................................................... 60 SWOT Analysis Summary ................................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 4: Impact of GNC Freight Transportation .................................................................................................. 66 Economic Impact of GNC Freight Transportation............................................................................................... 66 Environmental Considerations on the GNC Corridor .......................................................................................... 67 Benefits of GNC Rail Transportation .................................................................................................................. 67 Economic Competiveness Impact of GNC Freight Rail Service ......................................................................... 81 Logistics Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 83 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 86 Chapter 5: Preparing the GNC for the Future .......................................................................................................... 87 Identifying Essential Improvements and Initiatives ............................................................................................. 88 Pilot Project Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 94 Completion of the Project List Matrix ............................................................................................................... 100 Potential GNC Initiatives ................................................................................................................................... 100 References .............................................................................................................................................................. 105 Consolidated Exhibit References ........................................................................................................................... 109 PAGE iv Final Report | Great Northern Corridor SWOT Analysis Table of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Great Northern Corridor Overview ........................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2: GNC State Demographics ......................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 3: Top GNC Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) Ranked by GDP (USDC, Regional Data) .................. 5 Exhibit 4: GNC Tribal Lands ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 5: Great Northern Corridor Rail Network and Rail Connections .................................................................. 8 Exhibit 6: Great Northern Corridor Rail Connectivity .............................................................................................. 9 Exhibit 7: GNC Rail Density (2010 Density Code, FRA) ....................................................................................... 10 Exhibit 8: BNSF Intermodal Routes and Locations (BNSF Intermodal Facility Map) ........................................... 12 Exhibit 9: GNC Automotive Ramps and Assembly Plants (BNSF Automotive Facility Map)............................... 13 Exhibit 10: Top 10 Border Crossings, by Truck and Train...................................................................................... 14 Exhibit 11: Overview of GNC Rail and Truck Border Crossing Locations ............................................................ 14 Exhibit 12: GNC Vertical Clearance Limits ............................................................................................................ 15 Exhibit 13: GNC Rail Signal Systems ..................................................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 14: GNC Public At-Grade Crossings, by State ........................................................................................... 17 Exhibit 15: Empire Builder Overview,
Recommended publications
  • Minnesota's Railroads

    Minnesota's Railroads

    Information about MINNESOTA’S RAILROADS 2011-2012 http.www.minnesotarailroads.com MINNESOTA’S RAILROADS AT A GLANCE Number of railroads 19 Total mileage (8th in the nation) 4,393 Total carloads carried 2,994,400 Total tons of freight carried 203,150,000 Employees (13th in the nation) 4,222 Total wages paid $305,400,000 Average wages per employee, and fringe benefits $99,480 Railroad retirees 15,149 Payments to retirees $270.3 million Property taxes (paid in 2010) $28,900,000 Percent of Top commodities originated in state Carloads State’s total Iron ore/taconite 413,600 49% Farm products 152,700 23% Food products 86,900 11% Stone, sand, gravel 36,600 5% Chemicals 21,500 3% All other 181,900 10% TOTAL (6th in the nation) 893,300 Top commodities terminated in state Iron ore/taconite 365,800 46% Coal 142,300 28% Farm products 41,400 7% Chemicals 30,100 5% Stone, sand, gravel 19,600 2% All other 200,800 13% TOTAL (11th in the nation) 800,100 Source: Association of American Railroads for the year 2009 Cover photo: A Minnesota Northern freight train near the Wilds industrial yard in southwest Crookston, Minn. Photo taken December 29, 2009 by Carl Becker. 2 INTRODUCTION Minnesota’s Railroads — Contributing to the Economic Vitality of the State ailroads have been a part of the Minnesota Mesabi Iron Range to Lake Superior ports and inland landscape since the first train operated steel mills, enabling Minnesota’s mining industry to R between St. Paul and St. Anthony (now Min- remain competitive in world markets.
  • Libby, Montana

    Libby, Montana

    NORTHWEST GEOLOGY The Journal of The Tobacco Root Geological Society Volume 35, 2006 31st Annual Field Conference Libby, Montana August 3-6, 2006 Published by The Tobacco Root Geological Society, Inc. P.O. Box 2734 Missoula, Montana 59806 http://trgs.org Edited by: Richard I. Gibson and Robert C. Thomas Cover: Miners, Snowshoe Gulch, 1897. From Mrs. Sam Ratekin and Spokane Statesman-Review, 1959. Above: Cross section based on gravity modeling. From M.D. Kleinkopf, Geophysical Interpretations of the Libby Thrust Belt, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 1546, 1997. The Tobacco Root Geological Society, Inc. P.O. Box 2734 Missoula, Montana 59806 Officers, 2006: President: Larry Smith, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte Vice-President: James Sears, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Montana, Missoula Secretary-Treasurer: George Furniss, MT Dept. of Environmental Quality, Helena Corresponding Secretary: Emily Geraghty, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Montana, Missoula Webmaster: Dick Gibson Board of Directors, 2006: Richard B. Berg, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte, MT Bruce E. Cox, Stillwater Mining Co., Nye, MT Marie Marshall Garsjo, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ft. Worth, TX Richard I. Gibson, Gibson Consulting, Butte, MT Larry Johnson, Consultant, Missoula, MT Robert C. Thomas, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, U. of Montana-Western, Dillon, MT Conference Organizers, Libby Field Conference: Bruce E. Cox, Stillwater Mining Co., Nye, MT Marie Marshall Garsjo, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ft. Worth, TX Ann Marie Gooden, Libby, MT ISSN: 0096-7769 © 2006 The Tobacco Root Geological Society, Inc. http://trgs.org ii NORTHWEST GEOLOGY The Journal of The Tobacco Root Geological Society Volume 35, 2006 Libby Field Conference Table of Contents Author Page Title Montana DEQ 1 Libby District Historical Mine Narrative Art Montana 11 The Rainy Creek alkaline ultramafic igneous complex near Libby, MT Montana DEQ 17 Rainy Creek Historical Mine Narrative Derek L.
  • Minnesota Rail Fast Facts for 2019 Freight Railroads …

    Minnesota Rail Fast Facts for 2019 Freight Railroads …

    Freight Railroads in Minnesota Rail Fast Facts For 2019 Freight railroads ….............................................................................................................................................................19 Freight railroad mileage …..........................................................................................................................................4,233 Freight rail employees …...............................................................................................................................................4,281 Average wages & benefits per employee …...................................................................................................$122,140 Railroad retirement beneficiaries …......................................................................................................................12,900 Railroad retirement benefits paid ….....................................................................................................................$331 million U.S. Economy: According to a Towson University study, in 2017, America's Class I railroads supported: Sustainability: Railroads are the most fuel efficient way to move freight over land. It would have taken approximately 8.8 million additional trucks to handle the 158.3 million tons of freight that moved by rail in Minnesota in 2019. Rail Traffic Originated in 2019 Total Tons: 88.6 million Total Carloads: 1,111,200 Commodity Tons (mil) Carloads Metallic Ores 52.4 636,600 Farm Products 12.2 118,400 Food Products
  • Wind Powering America Fy08 Activities Summary

    Wind Powering America Fy08 Activities Summary

    WIND POWERING AMERICA FY08 ACTIVITIES SUMMARY Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Dear Wind Powering America Colleague, We are pleased to present the Wind Powering America FY08 Activities Summary, which reflects the accomplishments of our state Wind Working Groups, our programs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and our partner organizations. The national WPA team remains a leading force for moving wind energy forward in the United States. At the beginning of 2008, there were more than 16,500 megawatts (MW) of wind power installed across the United States, with an additional 7,000 MW projected by year end, bringing the U.S. installed capacity to more than 23,000 MW by the end of 2008. When our partnership was launched in 2000, there were 2,500 MW of installed wind capacity in the United States. At that time, only four states had more than 100 MW of installed wind capacity. Twenty-two states now have more than 100 MW installed, compared to 17 at the end of 2007. We anticipate that four or five additional states will join the 100-MW club in 2009, and by the end of the decade, more than 30 states will have passed the 100-MW milestone. WPA celebrates the 100-MW milestones because the first 100 megawatts are always the most difficult and lead to significant experience, recognition of the wind energy’s benefits, and expansion of the vision of a more economically and environmentally secure and sustainable future. Of course, the 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report (developed by AWEA, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and other stakeholders) indicates that 44 states may be in the 100-MW club by 2030, and 33 states will have more than 1,000 MW installed (at the end of 2008, there were six states in that category).
  • Chapter 27 – the Roaring Sixties

    Chapter 27 – the Roaring Sixties

    Chapter 27 The roaring Sixties The Anaconda Aluminum Co. smelter came into the 1960s running at 87.5% of capacity after implementing a successful downstream expansion during a time of weak aluminum markets. Cautious at first, the Anaconda Company approached the decade with a modest expansion by one potline at first, then followed up with two more simultaneously. Supporting the company’s bullish optimism were a strong and growing market and a new source of hydroelectric power not far from the Flathead Valley. By 1960, Anaconda was in sixth place among U.S. aluminum producers for existing capacity or capacity under construction at 65,000 tons per year and 2.4% of total U.S. capacity. Total U.S. capacity was 2.6 million tons. The top five U.S. producers included Alcoa with 1 million tons or 38.6%; Reynolds with 701,000 tons or 26.4%; Kaiser with 609,000 tons or 23%; Ormet with 180,000 tons or 6.8%; and Harvey Aluminum with 75,000 tons or 2.8%. 1 Growth in the surrounding community was moving ahead of the plant. According to the 1960 census, Columbia Falls was the fastest growing city in Flathead County, increasing in population by 70% over the past decade to 2,126 residents. Growth was related to new jobs created in Columbia Falls, particularly by the new AAC plant and the lumber industry. 2 The smelter employed 560 workers with an annual payroll of $3.8 million. Columbia Falls’ four lumber mills – Plum Creek, F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber, Rocky Mountain Lumber, and Superior Buildings – employed about 400 workers in year-round operations while another 200 workers brought logs in from nearby forests.
  • Understanding Energy in Montana

    Understanding Energy in Montana

    UNDERSTANDING ENERGY IN MONTANA A Guide to Electricity, Natural Gas, Coal, and Petroleum Produced and Consumed in Montana DEQ Report updated for ETIC 2009-2010 Report originally prepared for EQC 2001-2002 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................page i Introduction ............................................................................................................page iii Comments on the Data ..........................................................................................page iv Glossary ........................................................................................................page v Summary.........................................................................................................Summary-1 Electricity Supply and Demand Summary .......................................................Summary-2 Electric Transmission Grid Summary ..............................................................Summary-4 Natural Gas Summary.....................................................................................Summary-6 Coal Summary ................................................................................................Summary-8 Petroleum Summary......................................................................................Summary-10 Electricity Supply and Demand in Montana..................................................................... 1 Electricity Data Tables..................................................................................................
  • BNSF Railway Company Leased Lines and Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries

    BNSF Railway Company Leased Lines and Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries

    BNSF Railway Company Leased Lines and Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries Class I Railroad Annual Report To the Surface Transportation Board For the Year Ending December 31, 2017 ACAA-R1 BNSF Railway Company 2650 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76131 ANNUAL REPORT OF BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017 Name, official title, telephone number, and office address of officer in charge of correspondence with the Board regarding this report. (Name) Jon I. Stevens (Title) Vice President & Controller (Telephone number) (817) 352-4975 (Area (Area Code) code) (Telephone (Telephone Number) number) (Office address) 2650 Lou Menk Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 76131 (Street and number, City, State, and ZIP code) NOTICE 1. This report is required for every class I railroad operating within the United States. Three copies of this Annual Report should be completed. Two of the copies must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration, 395 E Street, S.W. Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20423, by March 31 of the year following that for which the report is made. One copy should be retained by the carrier. 2. Every inquiry must be definitely answered. Where the word "none" truly and completely states the fact, it should be given as the answer. If any inquiry is inapplicable, the words "not applicable" should be used. 3. Wherever the space provided in the schedules in insufficient to permit a full and complete statement of the requested information, inserts should be prepared and appropriately identified by the number of the schedule.
  • America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers

    America's Natural Nuclear Bunkers

    America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers 1 America’s Natural Nuclear Bunkers Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 Alabama .............................................................................................................. 12 Alabama Caves .................................................................................................. 13 Alabama Mines ................................................................................................. 16 Alabama Tunnels .............................................................................................. 16 Alaska ................................................................................................................. 18 Alaska Caves ..................................................................................................... 19 Alaska Mines ............................................................................................... 19 Arizona ............................................................................................................... 24 Arizona Caves ................................................................................................... 25 Arizona Mines ................................................................................................... 26 Arkansas ............................................................................................................ 28 Arkansas Caves ................................................................................................
  • Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities

    Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities

    Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities Fishery Management Council Coordinating Committee May 18, 2021 Brian Hooker | Office of Renewable Energy Programs Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Energy OCS Lands Act: "… vital national resource … expeditious and orderly development … environmental safeguards" Energy Policy Act of 2005: "… energy from sources other than oil and gas …" Alaska OCS Pacific OCS Gulf of Mexico OCS Atlantic OCS 2 Biden Administration Offshore Wind Energy Goals o March 29, 2021 the White House issued a “whole-of-government approach” to offshore wind energy development including: o Establishing a Target of Employing Tens of Thousands of Workers to Deploy 30 Gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of Offshore Wind by 2030 (BOEM). o Partnering with Industry on Data- Sharing (NOAA). o Studying Offshore Wind Impacts. (NOAA). 3 Renewable Energy Program by the Numbers Competitive Lease Sales Completed: 8 Active Commercial Offshore Leases: 17 Site Assessment Plans (SAPs) Approved: 11 General Activities & Research Plans Approved: 2 Construction and Operations Plans (COPs): • Under Review 14 • Anticipated within next 12 months 2 Regulatory Guidance: 11 Leasing Under Consideration: 7 Steel in the Water: 2020 4 Atlantic OCS Renewable Energy: “Projects in the Pipeline” Project Company 2020 Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Pilot South Fork Vineyard Wind I Revolution Wind Skipjack Windfarm Empire Wind Bay State Wind U.S. Wind Sunrise Wind Ocean Wind Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Park City Wind Mayflower Wind Atlantic Shores Kitty Hawk 2030 OCS-A 0522 5 Pacific OCS Renewable Energy State Project Nominations California Humboldt Call Area 10 California Morro Bay Call Area 11 California Diablo Canyon Call Area 11 Hawaii Oahu North Call Area 2 Hawaii Oahu South Call Area 3 6 U.S.
  • (MATL) 230-KV Transmission Line Comments/Response

    (MATL) 230-KV Transmission Line Comments/Response

    DOE/EIS-0399 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) 230-kV Transmission Line VOLUME 2 COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT September 2008 United States Department of Energy State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality COVER SHEET Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are co-lead agencies; the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, is a cooperating agency. Title: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) 230-kV Transmission Line (DOE/EIS-0399) Location: Cascade, Teton, Chouteau, Pondera, Toole, and Glacier counties, Montana. Contacts: For further information about this Final EIS, contact: Ellen Russell, Project Manager, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-9624, or [email protected]. For general information on DOE’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, at the above address, (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756. For general information on the State of Montana Major Facility Siting Act process, contact: Tom Ring, Environmental Science Specialist, Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), PO Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901, or (406) 444-6785. For general information on the State of Montana Environmental Policy Act process, contact: Greg Hallsten, Environmental Science Specialist, at the above address, or (406) 444-3276. Abstract: MATL proposes to construct and operate a merchant 230-kV transmission line between Great Falls, Montana, and Lethbridge, Alberta, that would cross the U.S.-Canada border north of Cut Bank, Montana.
  • Bibliography of United States Landslide Maps and Reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb1 Open-File Report 85-585 This Re

    Bibliography of United States Landslide Maps and Reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb1 Open-File Report 85-585 This Re

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bibliography of United States landslide maps and reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb 1 Open-File Report 85-585 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. 1 Menlo Park, California Contents Page Introductlon......................................... 1 Text References...................................... 8 Bibliographies With Landslide References............. 8 Multi State-United States Landslide Maps and Reports. 8 Alabama.............................................. 9 Alaska............................................... 9 American Samoa....................................... 14 Arizona.............................................. 14 Arkansas............................................. 16 California........................................... 16 Colorado............................................. 41 Connecticut.......................................... 51 Delaware............................................. 51 District of Columbia................................. 51 Florida.............................................. 51 Georgi a.............................................. 51 Guam................................................. 51 Hawa i i............................................... 51 Idaho................................................ 52 II1i noi s............................................. 54 Indiana.............................................
  • Final Section 4(F) Evaluation February 23, 2006

    Final Section 4(F) Evaluation February 23, 2006

    NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT Findings of Fact and Conclusions/ Final Section 4(f) Evaluation February 23, 2006 Minnesota Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Northstar Corridor Development Authority the Metropolitan Council and the Federal Transit Administration Northstar Project Office 155 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 755 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 215-8200 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF ISSUE...........................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................1 1.0 ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND........................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................3 3.0 CHANGES IN THE PROJECT SINCE THE EA/DRAFT 4(F) WAS RELEASED ...............4 4.0 ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS TO THE EA/DRAFT 4(f) EVALUATION............................5 4.1 Alternative Definition…………………………………………………………………………...5 4.2 Farmlands Section........................................................................................................................5 4.3 Wetland Mitigation Plan..............................................................................................................5 5.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ..............................................................................7 5.1 Agency Comments.......................................................................................................................7