Comparing Projects, Districts, and Divisions

From CIRPwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Selection of entities to be ranked

As described in Section 2.2, the CPT user can specify the entities (Divisions, Districts, Projects, or Reaches) to be analyzed by selecting the respective tab on the CPT Home page. This section will present several examples of using this feature to quickly compare waterborne commerce figures at the Project, District, and Division levels, respectively.

After choosing Project-level analysis from the CPT Home screen, choose LRD from the Division menu and then select the Buffalo District (LRB). Next, select all LRB Projects, as shown in Figure 42.

Fig. 42 – CPT Project Selection within Buffalo District


Tips for faster query times

Under the Preferences tab, select 2007 only to help with query times. When selecting Projects which much higher tonnage levels than those in LRB, it might be necessary to limit the query further by choosing a subset of traffic types and/or commodities.

Viewing of details for entries in Rankings table

Once Preferences have been saved, click the Rankings tab to see the LRB Projects compared to one another, as shown in Figure 43.

Fig. 43 – LRB Project Rankings for 2007


As indicated by the absence of tabs, the CPT Flow and Rollup features are not yet available for the Project, District, and Division levels. Subsequent versions of CPT will likely incorporate the Rollup feature at these higher levels, while the Flow feature will remain at the Reach level of analysis for the foreseeable future. As with other Rankings tables discussed in previous sections, any entry can be clicked on for further details. Figures 44-46 show the tables and charts on the Details page for Cleveland, OH.

Fig. 44 – Details tables for Cleveland, OH, 2007


Explanation of Details tables and charts

The figures in these tables are equivalent to those that would be obtained were the user to perform a Rollup query on all of the individual sub-reaches within the Cleveland project.

The draft profile charts for the Cleveland Project in Figs. 45 and 46 are interesting because they show that most of the $-value of cargo uses the deeper drafts available at Cleveland (26 - 27 ft). Furthermore, this high $-value is due to a comparably small amount of imported manufactured metals and flat-rolled iron and steel products, as can be determined by sorting the Harbor Details table by $-value. This information places a higher degree of importance on the deeper drafts at Cleveland Harbor than might otherwise be given.

Fig. 45 – Draft Profile for Tonnage at Cleveland, OH, 2007


Fig. 46 – Draft Profile for $-value at Cleveland, OH, 2007


Just as a demonstration of the insights that can be quickly gleaned using CPT to analyze the USACE navigation portfolio at the Division level, Figures 47 – 49 show the draft profile charts for tonnage for SWD, NAD, and LRD, respectively. Note that in each instance the Tonnage Mode under Preferences was set to Docked so as to get a better indication of cargo movements into, out of, and within each Division.

Fig. 47 – Division Draft Profile for Tonnage for SWD


Fig. 48 – Division Draft Profile for Tonnage for NAD


Fig. 49 – Division Draft Profile for Tonnage for LRD