in fact essential to meet peak requirements—and to 
assure-system flexibility. In a 1976 report prepared 
by the National Research Council, the following 
conclusions were reached with respect to the issue 
of excess port capacity: * 
“The panel has concluded that it cannot 
quantitatively determine the existence of 
redundancy. Redundancy implies excess 
capacity, and it is impossible to provide an 
adequate measure for the capacity of a 
port. There are many reasons for this ¢\ 
measurement problem: One is that the iS 
nature of cargo ships and productivity of 
facilities will vary greatly through time. 
Cargoes are not uniform. Peaking—the 
concentration of demand during limited 
periods of time—occurs in port operations 
as in:all other aspects of transportation. 
It is [{unJeconomical and, in some instances, 
physically impossible to provide for the 
maximum peaks. At the same time, it is 
undesirable that undue waiting time, lead- 
ing to costly delays to vessels and cargo, 
occur because of the failure to provide 
for periodic peaks. Such delays, if com-  ;°* 
mon, could result in traffic being diverted OAL 
to competing ports or, in some instances, 
not moving at all. 
Excess capacity, in one sense, does not 
exist even though a port or terminal may 
have 100 percent utilization of its capacity 
for only short periods of time, if ever. 
Consideration of peak activities, other than 
for very infrequent occasions, is an im- 
portant element of port planning. Capacity 
must be supplied in order to provide ade- 
quate service to the shipping public as 
weil as to anticipate possible national 
emergencies, when even the largest ports 
may be crowded. 
Another important reason, in the judg- 
ment of the panel, for providing capacity 
in excess of normal demands is to create 
competition among the various ports and 
port services to the advantage of the ship- 
ping public. That is, the public can be 
reasonably assured not only of continued 
availability of port services in the event 
of accidents or other closures or reduc- 
tions but also of competitive rates and 
ae 
KK 
The technological developments associated with 
the use of later merchant-vesect-amt-tnrermicdal 
cargo. handling procedures have raised fundamental 
questions regarding the appropriateness and_viabil- 
ity of the Federal port “policy_of nondiscrimination. 
Rising dredging costs, associated with strict_new 
spoil disposal requirements, and i increasing s upport 
for better-plannt ational 
trade requirements have lessened _support-for-strict 
adherence to this traditional_policy. While port in- 
terests generally favor a continuation of the tradi- 
tional Federal role, there is clearly growing support 
\for a_strong 
a respect to-U. S-port-development. This support arises 
from i increasing recognition of the need to give better 
voice to regional_and 1 national trade_considerations 
‘in seeking a more efficient port system, the need to 
manage limited port development resources “more 
carefully, and the need to assure full consideration 
fi demands for competing uses of the coastal zone 
Although the Army Corps of Engineers histor- 
ically has played the most prominent Federal role in 
the U.S. port development, more than 50 Federal 
entities have been identified as having some impact 
on or responsibility for port development or regula- 
tion today. Hence, while Government port-related 
responsibilities are fragmented among levels of Goy- 
ernment nit, they are—also_fragmented—at_the-Federal 
level among various agencies. 
In most cases, of course, the port-related activities 
of these agencies are carried out @s a component or 
auxiliary feature of some other program directed 
to t ort 
development. For example, port and harbor develop- 
ment projects supported by the Economic Develop- 
ment Administration of the Department of Com- 
“merce are undertaken principally to help local 
communities reduce unemployment. However, port- 
and harbor-related projects constitute a significant 
portion of total EDA public works expenditures and, 
therefore, represent a significant aid to water trans- 
portation development even though such develop- 
ment is not the primary motivation for Federal 
involvement. From the beginning of fiscal year 1966 
through the end of fiscal year 1976, for example, 
EDA obligated almost $125 million for port and 
harbor public works projects.’° This represents more 
than 6 percent of total EDA public works obligations 
over the period. 
~ OF the 50 or so Federal organizations having some 
YW 
é F 3 5 4)/port- -related responsibilities, only four are considered 
Sy Sieg Onis, Tine Sallaypes Rese colin a ye major participants in U.S. port development. While 
of options that would not be available un- (es \ 
[Seem coumettiee ontnued: \ {yother agencies may influence port development 
P P Saat ge \“ through their programs, these four carry out activ- 
8 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, 
Maritime Transportation Research Board, Panel on Future Port 
‘Requirements of the United States. Port Development in the 
United States. Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences, 
1976, p. 128. 
C 
AN 
9 Henry S. Marcus, op. cit. note 6, p. 40. 
10U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development 
Administration. 1976 Annual Report, Washington, D.C., March 
25,1977, p. 34. 
V-5 
