William M. Woodruff

These comments are being submitted on behalf of Kirby Corporation. Kirby is the nation's largest operator of inland tank barges, with a fleet of over 900 barges and 250 towing vessels. Kirby has extensive operations on the GIWW that would be impacted by this proposed change to regulations. Kirby strongly opposes the proposed modification to the drawbridge regulations for the Bayou Blue Bridge. It is important to note that the vessels transiting this reach of the GIWW would not have any viable alternative but to wait for the bridge to open, while bridge user can use the fixed span bridge across the GIWW that is approximately 5 miles west of the bridge in question. The bridge owner could also improve the opening and closing speed of the bridge to improve its efficiency in passing vehicular traffic. The GIWW is a major artery of commerce that is especially active in the transport of petroleum, chemical and petrochemical products. The proposal will reduce by 5 hours, or 19%, the time available for tows to move on the waterway. In essence, this proposal seeks to reduce by 19% the capacity of this vital waterway, which transports, across its entire reach, some 120+ million tons of cargo each year with a value in the billions of dollars. The actual impact may be greater, since there is only a 30 minute window between the two afternoon closures. Allowing the time needed to open and close the bridge and the potential need for tows to hold up some distance from the bridge while waiting, it is quite probable that the traffic waiting could not be cleared safely during a 30 minute window. This means that tows could be delayed 3.5 hours or more, depending on how much traffic has backed up and the time needed to clear traffic headed in each direction. There are significant safety issues to bottling up traffic on either side of the bridge. There are waterfront facilities on either side of the bridge and there are bends in the waterway on either side. This will impact where tows can hold up and complicates safety when traffic resumes following a closure. Where safety requires that tows push into the bank while waiting, this increases the prospects for erosion and property damage in areas on either side of the bridge. If this rule is to be adopted, mooring buoys should be provided to provide a safe place for tows to hold while waiting for the bridge. The vessels waiting will be wasting fuel during the periods of delay. Compressing traffic on the channel increases the probability of accidents, especially when faster vessels are overtaking slower vessels in a crowded environment. Closures at the bridge may also reduce the efficiency of operations at the locks where the GIWW meets the Mississippi River by causing periods of time where no vessels are available for lockage, followed by a large number of vessels which may arrive at the same time, multiplying the delay effect of the bridge closures. The Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association estimates the daily operating rate of a typical GIWW tow at $7800 per day, plus fuel. If one assumes that 11.9 tows will be delayed by these rules an average of 2 hours each, this amounts to a daily loss of over $7500, plus fuel costs, that will be borne by barge companies and their customers as a consequence of the proposed closure periods. On the contrary, if one assumes that all of the 339 vehicles that transit the bridge during the proposed closure period were to go around to the fixed span bridge to the west and that this would require them each to consume an additional gallon of fuel, even at $4 per gallon the cost of this would only amount to $1356 per day. The information presented in the Federal Register notice does not indicate how many of the 339 vehicles that transit during the proposed closure periods each day are in fact delayed due to bridge openings or how long they must wait on average. It seems that this is the true measure against which the significant cost delays to maritime commerce and safety must be weighed. If indeed these proposed closures are to facilitate the movement of school busses, data should be provided to indicate the number of busses that use the bridge each day, how often they are delayed and the average time of delay. The additional time needed to use the alternate bridge should also be addressed. In sum, the availability of a nearby fixed span bridge, the significant cost and safety impacts to navigation, the lack of data quantifying the delays to vehicular and school bus traffic caused by passing marine traffic and the diminution of the capacity of the GIWW by some 19% suggest that the proposed rule is ill advised. Kirby Corporation requests that the proposed rule not be promulgated and that the bridge be required to open upon request for vessel traffic.