Exhibit       D
\ our
Port Commission 12:30
MeetingMM


Seattle's Maritime Cluster


May 2009








Paul Sommers, Ph.D., Seattle University
Andrew Wenzl, Ph.D., University of Washington

Executive Summary
The City of Seattle's Office of Economic Development commissioned this report to
analyze the Maritime Industry in Seattle, an industry selected for its accessible,
family-wage job base and its competitive strength in the region.
This study includes the wide range of businesses that are included in, and provide
services to, the Maritime Industry in Seattle. The Maritime Industry is called out
separately in this report, and is also included in a broader Basic Industries report,
which includes all of the industrial jobs in Seattle.

This study relies on input from many business leaders in the cluster,
as well as
statistical data from private and public sources. Key ndings are:

Maritime Employment and Wages: The maritime cluster in King County
employed 16,652 individuals in 2007. About 9,400 of these jobs were positions
eligible for covered employment insurance, and these covered jobs paid an
average wage of $70,745 on an annual basis. Other workers are employed part
time and in the shing industry many workers are compensated through
crew
shares, providing variable compensation from year to year.
Business Revenues: King County maritime businesses generated
over $5.6
billion in output in 2007.
Exports: The maritime cluster exported over $1.2 billion to foreign customers in
2006, about 25 percent of total production from the private sector industries
within the cluster.

Growth: employment of workers eligible for unemployment insurance
grew by
3.5 percent from 2002 to 2007, while the total payroll of the cluster
grew by 20
percent.
Multiplier Effects: When multiplier effects are considered, the Maritime Cluster
supported employment of 60,237 workers in King County, and generated
$10.354 billion in revenues. Purchases by three key industries in the cluster
from other industries in Washington totaled over $1 billion.
Key Areas of Concern for Industry Leaders. Through focus groups and a
survey, business leaders indicated the following major concerns:

0 Transportation: Maritime rms cited uncertainty surrounding the
Viaduct as an especially important challenge to operations and long term
planning activities.
0  Labor Shortages: Maritime rms cited an aging labor force and key
shortages in many positions, especially vessel crew members, tugboat
pilots, and marine engineers, technicians, and architects.
0  Regulatory Challenges: Firms within the maritime cluster expressed
concern that they are subject to increasingly onerous and overlapping
regulations, which are especially impactful to rms during times of growth
and capital reinvestment.

Table of Contents

Introduction
...........................................................................................................
1
Overall Impacts
..................................................................................................... 2
Industry Notes ....................................................................................................... 8
Fishing .................................................................................................................. 8
Port of Seattle Vessel Calls
..................................................................................
8
Public Sector Operations
....................................................................................
10
Maritime Cluster Supply Chain
...........................................................................
11
Mapping Seattle Maritime Cluster Firms ............................................................. 12
Focus Group Meetings
........................................................................................
18
Signicant opportunities in the Seattle Maritime Cluster ..................................... 18
Signicant challenges in the Seattle Maritime Cluster ........................................ 20
Maritime Cluster Survey
......................................................................................
23
Advisory Committee Members ............................................................................ 32

List of Tables
Table 1: Economic Impacts of the Maritime Cluster, 2007
...................................
3
Table 2: Competitiveness Indicators: Exports and Location Quotients ............... 4
Table 3: West Coast Competitiveness Comparisons
..........................................................
5
Table 4: Growth Trends 2002 to 2007
.................................................................
6
Table 5: City of Seattle Tax Receipts from the Maritime Cluster.......................... 7
Table 6: Supply Chain for the Fishing Industry .................................................. 11
Table 7: Supply Chain for Water Transportation
................................................. 11
Table 8: Supply Chain for Ship and Boat Building
............................................. 12
Table 9: Organizational structure of maritime firm respondents
.......................... 23
Table 10: Gross revenue of maritime rms
.........................................................
24
Table 11: Estimated annual gross revenue growth over the past 5 years
...........
24
Table 12: Importance of location-specic factors
................................................
25
Table 13: Likelihood of moving from Seattle
.......................................................
26
Table 14: Quality of Seattle transportation relative to other regions
....................
28
Table 15: Relative importance of key factors to Seattle maritime firms
..............
30
Table 16: Relative ratings of key factors to Seattle maritime rms
...................... 31
Table 17: Importance and condition of regional infrastructure
...........................
32

List of Figures
Figure 1: Port of Seattle Vessel Calls
..................................................................
9
Figure 2: Cruise Ship Passengers Visiting Seattle
.............................................
10
Figure 3: All Maritime Cluster Firms in Seattle and Nearby Communities
..........
13
Figure 4: Maritime Cluster Firms Classied by Industry
..................................... 14
Figure 5: Ballard and Interbay Maritime Firms
...................................................
15
Figure 6: Duwamish and SODO Maritime Firms ................................................ 16
Figure 7: Central/Downtown Maritime Firms
......................................................
17

3

Figure 8: Cost structure of maritime firms
...........................................................
25
Figure 9: Transportation usage by maritime rms: inbound/inputs ................... 27
Figure 10: Transportation usage by maritime rms: outbound/goods
.................
27
Figure 11: Employee residences in relation to maritime firm location ................ 28

Introduction
The report provides an overview of the maritime cluster located in Seattle and King
County. This cluster consists of industrial and related rms that rely
on sea-going
vessels. The various activities required to construct, maintain, and operate these vessels
are the core industries, along with the Port of Seattle which also provides
moorage
services for large trans-oceanic ships that call regularly in Seattle. Fishing is one of the
core industries, and seafood processing is also included because of strong linkages
between these two sectors and because many ofthe seafood
processors are located on the
waterfront. The cluster does not include recreational boating industries. This report
provides an update on the condition of this cluster using data from 2006. Overall
economic impacts of the cluster are presented in the next section. Subsequent sections
cover signicant features of individual industries. Results from focus group discussions

are then presented, followed by results of a survey of cluster rms.

This report was prepared with the framework of an industry cluster
as suggested by
Michael Porter, Stuart Rosenfeld, and other leading scholars. Porter
says that:
Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies,
specialized suppliers, service providers, and associated institutions in a
particular eld... Clusters arise because theyIncrease the productivity with
which companies can compete.
This report provides data on characteristics of industries that
are highly interconnected
and specialized as the Porter quote suggests. These interconnections are demonstrated in
a supply chain analysis in the report. A recent report conducted for the State of
Washington also demonstrates the strength of cluster ties in these industries; shing,
seafood processing, and water transportation are
2included among the clusters with
signicant competitive strength1n King County.2

In this report, employment within the maritime cluster is called "direct employment" and
total industry sales are called "direct output." This terminology comes from theInput-
output model used to estimate total employment and output. Total employment and
output include the multiplier1mpacts for the economic activity within the cluster itself.
This report relies on several sources of information, including
wage and payroll data
provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the US. Department of Labor, and
measures of industry output, total employment, and exports derived from the database for
King County provided by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group.4 The IMPLAN data include
information on proprietor's earnings, a particularly important component of earnings in
this cluster due to the signicant role proprietors play in shing and other small business
dominated industry segments.

'
I/www.Isc.hbs.edu/econ-clusters. htm (October 2003).
2http:
2,Sommers P., W. Beyers, andA. Wenzl (November 2008), Industry ClusterAnalysis for
Washington State Workforce Development Areas, Olympia. Workforce Training and Education
Coordinating Board.
3
Washington Ofce of Financial Management, 2002 Washington Input-Output Study, Olympia
WA, 2008.
4
Minnesota Implan Group data can be accessed at www.imp|an.com.

l

Note that the employment estimates shown in Table 1 for shing and seafood processing
come from the IMPLAN database for King County, and IMPLAN's estimates are
substantially higher gures than the State of Washington's Employment Security
Department reports. The lower gures from the State may reect suppression of data due
to disclosure issues, or differences in the treatment of vessel-based employment for
vessels home-ported in the Seattle area. Fishing crews are paid in crew shares rather than
a wage or salary, and therefore they may not be included in the state's quarterly covered
employment data series. Monthly employment reports from the state include employees
not eligible for unemployment insurance, but sampling issues
may result in lower counts
for shing vessels.

Also, the water transportation employment estimate in Table 1 includes 1,936 trucking
jobs attributed by Martin & Associates to port cargo operations, and 500 railroad jobs
attributed to port operations as well. Martin & Associates, in their economic impact
report for the Port of Seattle, report a higher gure for railroads than either IMPLAN or
the State show in this industry.  Accordingly, this report uses an estimate of 500 railroad
jobs based on 80 percent of the employment level in this industry in King County
reported by IMPLAN, since not all local railroad jobs are due to handling port cargo.

Overall Impacts
The economic impacts ofthe maritime cluster include business output (sales) and
employment impacts. The direct impacts are shown in the output and employment
columns ofTable 1. Total industry output was over $5.6 billion in 2007, and
employment totaled over 16,650. The largest segment in terms of business output was
the water transportation industry, followed by seafood processing and shing. In terms
of employment, shing and water transportation
are the largest employers, with seafood
processing in third place. Note that employment in this table includes sole proprietors,
part-time and seasonal employees, as well as individuals who are full-time permanent
employees of businesses. The shing industry employment gure is signicantly higher
than shown in state and federal sources; this matter is discussed below.

Total economic impact of the maritime cluster was estimated using the Washington State
Input-Output Model for 2002. This recently published version of the model provides the
most up-to-date methodology for estimating multiplier impacts of industries such as the
maritime cluster that bring signicant new income into the region. Fishing is an
extractive industry; all income from this sector is a "return" from
a renewable asset base,
and much of the industry's output is exported to customers outside King County.



5
Martin Associates, The 2007 economic impact of the Port of Seattle, report for the Port of
Seattle, Lancaster, PA, January 12, 2009.

Table 1: Economic Impacts of the Maritime Cluster, 2007
Direct  Direct                 Total
Output  Industry     Total Output Employment
Industry                  {millions 2  Employment   Impact     Impact
Fishing                     1,132     5,236        2,477     17,232
Water transportation            2,003     5,702        3,487     15,969
Seafood processing            1,390     3,655       3,074     15,759
Ship and boat building            354     2,065         778      5,749
Ship building and repairing        308     1,351
Boat building                 146      714
Cruise ship passenger spending     145     1,675        234     3,142
Public sector operations*
NOAA, Coast Guard, UW      161    1,485        304     2,386
Total                         5,639     16,652        10,354     60,237
Source: IMPLAN model, Bureau of Labor Statistics, POS Impact Report, and authors'
calculations
*2006 data for public sector operations

The ratio of total output to industry output in Table 1 provides a measure of the multiplier
impact of each industry and the cluster as a whole. The total output estimates are derived
from an input-output model analysis conducted using the Washington Input-Output
Model for 2002. The cluster as a whole has an estimated output multiplier of 1.84; the
cluster' 5 total contribution to the state economy is estimated to be $10.354 billion
as of
2007. Also, a total of 60,237 jobs in the state are due to the economic activity generated
in this cluster. The overall employment multiplier of this cluster is estimated to be 3.61.

Table 2 shows two measures ofthe competitiveness of selected industries in the cluster;
these metrics are not available for either the retail spending associated with cruise ship
visits or the public sector activities. The shing and seafood processing, water
transportation, and ship/boat building industries exported nearly $1.2 billion of their
$4.98 billion in total output in 2007, about 25 percent of total output from these
industries. In addition, many regional scientists argue that sales to the federal
government are in effect an export from a region since local taxpayers do not contribute
much to the total costs of these activities. Thus, one could include most of the public
sector activities (an additional $161 million of output) in the export column since almost
all of this activity is paid for with federal funds. However, NOAA and Coast Guard
operations based in Seattle provide a direct benet to the Seattle-based shing and water
transportation industries while simultaneously serving other mariners transiting
Northwest waters but based in other ports. Thus, it is less clear that all output in these
sectors should be regarded as exports.


6Beyers, W. and Ta-Win Lin (2008), Washington Input-Output Model 2002, Olympia: Ofce of
Financial Management (www.0fm.wa.gov/economy/io/default.asp).

3

Table 2: Competitiveness Indicators: Exports and Location Quotients
Location
Quotient
Industry                  Exports    (based
Output, 2007             as % of    on
lm act Summa          millions $    Ex orts    Out ut    out ut
Fishing                    1,132.07      155.05      14%      21.68
Water transportation           2003-14      685-79      34%       4.66
Seafood processing           1:390-23     257-41     18.5%      10.6
Ship building and repairing        308-56       89-52      29%       1.51
Boat building and repairing        145-75       45-89      31%       1.30
Total for Industries Above        4,979.75     1,233.66
Source: IMPLAN model and authors' calculations

Table 3 compares the competitive strength of key maritime industries in the
Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue MSA to the same industries in other major port cities
on the
west coast of the United States. All statistics in Table 3 are based on the covered
employment and wages statistics published by the US. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Covered employment refers to workers who
are eligible for
unemployment insurance, a more restricted denition of employment than we have used
in Tables 1 and 2. However, comparisons of competitiveness
among the west coast ports
are only possible using this data source.

The data in Table 3 show that the maritime industries in the Seattle
area are larger and
have higher location quotients than their direct competitors in the other three
west coast
cities with signicant ports. This nding has to be qualied with the note that data
suppression limits the availability of data from Los Angeles/Long Beach, and one cannot
be entirely what the size of the relevant industries is in that metropolitan
area. In
addition, the large location quotients for establishments, employment, and
wages
demonstrate the competitive strength of the maritime cluster in the Seattle/Tacoma
area.

Table 3: West Coast Maritime Cluster Characteristics, 2007
Los Angeles/Long
Beach           Establishments  LQ   Employment   LQ   Total Wages    LQ
Fishing                      19  0.16          n/a   n/a           n/a   n/a
Seafood processing             26  0.54         n/a   n/a          n/a   n/a
Ship and boat building           37  0.34          n/a   n/a           n/a   n/a
Water transportation            70  1.27        1,796  1.01     95,022,612  0.66

San Francisco/Oakland  Establishments   LQ   Employment   LQ   Total Wages    LQ
Fishing                      13  0.35           73   0.74      3,793,250   0.43
Seafood processing             6  0.39         108  0.18      5,252,684  0.17
Ship and boat building           11  0.32          567  0.24     30,824,703  0.19
Water transportation            23  1.31        1,025  1.62    159,370,091  2.42

Portland/Vancouver   Establishments  LQ   Employment   LQ   Total Wages    LQ
Fishing                       8  0.47          n/a   n/a           n/a   n/a
Seafood processing             4  0.57          39  0.13       851,170  0.08
Ship and boat building           25  1.58          n/a   n/a           n/a   n/a
Water transportation            14  1.74         805  2.52     60,036,193  2.63

Seattle/Tacoma      Establishments  LQ   Employment   LQ   Total Wages    LQ
Fishing                     187  6.90         1,242  15.06     137,323,080  23.32
Seafood processing             64  5.74        3,884  7.85    286,169,731  14.08
Ship and boat building           63  2.50        3,723   1.86     184,713,016   1.67
Water transportation            35  2.73        2,943  5.56    179,764,408  4.06
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 4 shows the growth trends from 2002 to 2007, also based
on the covered
employment data used in the previous table. The shing and water transportation
expanded in the number of establishments and annual industry-wide payroll. In the
seafood processing and ship/boat building industries, employment levels contracted, but
total payroll and annual average wages grew. The average annual
wage in all of these
industries exceeded the countywide average for all industries, although the
average in the
seafood processing industry is only a few hundred dollars above the all-industry
average.
The average annual wage in all of these industries exceeds family
wage levels established
by a study carried out by the Northwest Federation of Community Organizations.7



7Northwest Federation of Community Organizations (www.nwfco.org); county specific estimates
are provided in an accompanying spreadsheet
(http://www.nwfco.org/pubs/2008.12.09_WA.counties.pdf).
5

llllllllllllllllllllllll  Jllllllllllllll     mmw>< _m::c<        XHAm     xwd     xnw     "Kw  dea
88         >3
888         .mzcc< =8>mm    xmv     $.de     $96     dem  xmdm
mmcm                   xmd     xmd-     $3?     XENH  xwm
ESE   mem>< _m:cc< .0298 EmE>2aEm
mmmhm><                              <3
_m:cc<        Ham'mw    mmw'mm    $93
>3              mm
mvwdm
mmmmmm                 ".9.
wmdwmdm    Bo
wmmhm><                 mmowmam               mmmdmmmm
.mzcc< =2>mm                        mmH
EmE>oEEm    mvm     omim    Sam    Km  m "mad
88  mme>< _m3::< 8.630
mom
mmw><                 $-mn
_m::c<        omm:           08.3
8lilllll|.|l||-lll|~l.lll.~|ll.l|lll|ll midnllllll|ll|ll|l|lll|lll|lll|ll    mmmms
>3
ucm
wqmmo:                 ovo
mmmmm~mm~    www.momo    m3  mmmdmodwm    EoE>anm
_m:cc< =2>mm                        3:
Bow                EwE>oEEm    mmoa    mmw'm    mmma    30        n20>oo
m
mvvd
8  wmew><  2:98
88 88    _m::c<                             .8?sz
205:                                    9:23              823
B
36                              mEmmwuoa    Son     cozmtonmcmb        53:5
a             van   3:335
22  >528.                   mcEmE    888m     2%    LESS
__< 68:8

The maritime cluster makes a substantial contribution to the City of Seattle through its
tax payments (Table 5). Two major taxes paid by these industries are the business and
occupation tax and the retail sales tax. According to data provided by the City of
Seattle's Finance Department, the maritime industries are contributing
over $3.1 million
annually through the business and occupation tax, plus in excess of $5 million through
the retail sales tax.

Table 5: City of Seattle Tax Receipts from the Maritime Cluster
Estimated City
Retail Sales
Tax Receipts
Taxable Retail    (local rate
Fishing                    8&0 Receipts          Sales      =.025!*
Fishing                        $28,530       $154,806    $3,870.15
Water transportation              $615,815     $54,136,085   $1,353,402
Seafood processing            $1,210,432     $32,647,291    $816,182
Ship and boat building             $432,989     $27,787,964    $694,699
Marine construction               $472,331     $46,424,920   $1 ,160,623
Marine fuel dealers               $362,960     $40,739,990   $1,018,500
Cruise ship passenger spendinga     n/a         $145,000,000   $3,600,000
Total                          $3,123,056     $205,491,056    $5,096,151

Source: City of Seattle Finance Department
*Local rate stated in Washington Department of Revenue, Local Sales/Use Tax
Changes (Effective January 1, 2009)









8Cruise ship passenger spending estimated by applying the city's retail sales tax rate to the
estimated spending shown in Table 1.

Industry Notes
This section provides further detail about characteristics of
some ofthe maritime
industries. The information in this section may aid readers in interpreting
some of the
data above.

Fishing
Fishing employment levels are very difcult to track for several reasons. There is no
authoritative census of the number of vessels home-ported in Seattle. The Port of Seattle
indicates that anywhere from 200 to 270 commercial shing vessels
may be moored at
Fisherman's Terminal in a particular month. However,
some of these vessels may be
home-ported elsewhere but in moored for some period in Seattle while maintenance
activities are carried out. Many vessels visit Seattle
every 2-3 years to carry out
maintenance that is less expensive to accomplish in Seattle than
up in Alaska.

Many of the shing vessels owned by companies in Seattle or King County are staffed by
workers who do not necessarily live in the area. However, employers report the number
ofworkers to the state, and the state counts them in the county of the employer's address.
If an individual owns a commercial shing vessel, the business address
may be the
owner's home, and that home may or may not be in the same city
or county where the
vessel is moored when in its home port. Most of the commercial shing conducted by
vessels moored in this area is done in the Gulf of Alaska, and vessels
may be away from
their home port for months or even years at
a time. Due to higher fuel costs in recent
years, vessels home-ported in Seattle may be left in Alaska for 2-3 years at a time,
returning to Seattle periodically for repairs that cannot be carried out'economically in
Alaska. However, as long as the business address is in Seattle
or elsewhere in King
County, employees working on such a vessel will be reported to the State of Washington.

Fishing industry employment reported in Table 1 includes proprietors and workers who
are not covered by unemployment insurance. However, the payroll numbers reported in
Table 3 and 4 are only for workers covered by unemployment insurance, generally the
employees ofthe larger rms in the industry who have year-round salaried employees.
Independent shing vessels typically hire seasonal workers who are paid in "crew
shares;" like vessel owners and captains, these workers earn a share of the gross prots of
the vessel which depend on how many sh are caught
as well as the market price of these
products.

Port of Seattle Vessel Calls
While overall vessel traffic in the Port of Seattle grew substantially from 2001,
a cyclical
low point, through 2005 when total calls reached nearly 1,350. However, in the last two
years trafc has dropped back to about 1200 vessel calls in 2007 (Figure 1). The recent
declines reect changes in which international lines call in Seattle rather than competitive
ports, and overall shifts in imported and exported goods shipped by sea as exchange rates
change, and fuel price increase that may have contributed to the decline in 2007.

Fi ure 1: Port of Seattle Vessel Calls






q" 0;" a;  v '96"
ca   0)
>               959
N,  ":5  N9'9 {699

Source: Port of Seattle

Despite the decline in overall vessel calls, there has been dramatic growth in cruise ship
visits since 2000. Growth in the total number of cruise ship passengers continued in 2006
and 2007 (Figure 2), offsetting some of the decline in other trafc visiting this seaport.

Fi ure 2: Cruise Shi Passengers Visiting Seattle
QOQOOO

800000

700,000 l  7,
,
, 7
,

,
7

600,000 1
'
500,000                   W
,,

'
400,000                       7
7

300,000
X             ,
,   ,,
,
,
,7
,
,
7
7  ,
,
l
200,000                    ,  ,
7

7

7

:00,000 i
,._V___.___,l,,       I
: .
w            w
,
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: Port of Seattle

Public Sector Operations
Private sector industries in the maritime cluster are signicantly assisted by three public
sector operations based in Seattle:
0  US. Coast Guard

0  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

0  University of Washington
All of these public sector operations benet
a wide range ofmaritime industries located
not just in the Seattle area but up and down the west coast and elsewhere. However, the
federal government has placed regional headquarters for its two key maritime agencies in
Seattle both due to its key location for providing navigational and vessel assist/rescue
services in the Northern Pacic, and to take advantage of the support services for vessel
operators located in Seattle. The University of Washington has substantial sheries and
ocean sciences teaching and research departments, much of which is supported by federal
research dollars. These UW operations include research vessels based in Lake Union.
NOAA's budget for Seattle-based operations was approximately $76 million in FY2006;
approximately 1,400 individuals work at NOAA's facilities on the shores of Lake Union
and Lake Washington. The University of Washington's Ocean and Fisheries Sciences
school has a budget of about $85 million and faculty and staff totaling 570. About $78
million of the budget is for research and $70 million of that is provided from federal
grants and contracts.



10

Maritime Cluster Supply Chain
Table 1 above shows the multiplier impact of the maritime industries
on other industries
in the state. The three tables below provide further detail, showing the 10 industries
most
impacted by purchases from three core industries in the cluster: shing, water
transportation, and shipbuilding. These three industries purchased over $1 billion of
goods and services from other Washington businesses in 2002. The largest purchases,
considering purchases from all three industries, were for transportation services,
petroleum products, nancial services, and various products supplied by wholesalers.
Table 6: Su  I Chain forthe Fishin Indust
Top 10 Supply Industries in Washington                   millions $    % of all
_____M
Petroleum and Coal Products                           65.1     22.5%
Construction                                       51 .1     17.6%
Wholesale                                    41.5     14.3%
Credit lntermediation and Related Activities                     27.5      9.5%
Waste Management/Other, and Agriculture Services             13.0      4.5%
Truck Transportation                                  12.6      4.3%
Other Finance and Insurance                            12.1      4.2%
Ship and Boat Building                                  7.7      2.7%
Legal /Accounting and Bookkeeping /Management Services         7.7      2.7%
Educational Services                                  7.1      2.4%
Total                                              287.7     100.0%
Source: Washington Input Output Model 2002


Table 7: Su  I Chain for Water Trans ortation
Top 10 Supply Industries in Washington                  millions $    % of all
urchases
Support Activities for Transportation, Warehousing and Storage     94.7       20.4%
Other Transportation/Postal Ofces                       72.0       15.5%
Other Finance and Insurance                         60.3       13.0%
Waste Management/Other, and Agriculture Services           54.7       11.8%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing                      40.6        8.7%
Administrative/Employment Support Services                30.0        6.5%
Fabricated Metals                                  21.4        4.6%
Ship and Boat Building                               17.0        3.7%
Legal /Accounting and Bookkeeping /Management Services       16.0       3.5%
Telecommunications                             10.0       2.1%
Total All Industries                                    464.0       100.0%

Source: Washington Input Output Model 2002



ll

Table 8: Supply Chain for Ship and Boat Building

% of all
Top 10 Industries                                  millions $   purchases
Wholesale                                   44.1     14.3%
Retail                                                 37.2       12.0%
Legal [Accounting and Bookkeeping /Management Services        24.9      8.0%
Machinery Manufacturing                             22.4      7.3%
Credit lntermediation and Related Activities                    21.2       6.9%
Waste Management/Other, and Agriculture Services             17.2      5.6%
Construction                                      16.8       5.4%
Administrative/Employment Support Services                 14.9      4.8%
Other Information                                    13.8       4.5%
Other Finance and insurance                           12.1      3.9%
Total                                             309.1      100.0%
Source: Washington Input Output Model 2002

Mapping Seattle Maritime Cluster Firms

This section contains maps depicting the location of rms in the Seattle maritime cluster.
These maps were produced though a combination of data from InfoUSA,
a public
business database, as well as the City of Seattle, where available. It is important to note
that because these do not reect complete administrative data; there
are likely to be
maritime rms that are not reected in these maps since neither data
source used to
prepare the maps has a comprehensive listing of rms connected to this cluster.
InfoUSA's selection criteria are not clear; the City of Seattle data only contain rms that
have tax accounts with the City. Essentially, we used the City data to capture the
locations of rms in two industries whose NAICS codes are fairly broad and include
rms not part of the maritime cluster. With a few exceptions,9 retail
or consumption-
oriented maritime activities, such as sales of yachts, boats, and other personal watercraft,
and the sale of goods and services aimed at recreational boaters,
are excluded from this
analysis.

The rst map below shows the location of Seattle region maritime cluster rms. Note the
high level of concentration in the Ballard, Fremont, and Magnolia areas ofNorthwest
Seattle, along the waterfront in downtown Seattle, and in the Duwamish and SODO
districts of South Seattle.




9
A small fraction of the rms represented as "Seafood" on these
maps may be retail operations
which are not vertically integrated with seafood processing operations.

12

Figure 3: All Maritime Cluster Firms in Seattle and Nearby Communities
Seattle Maritime Cluster Firms, 2008








Maritime Firms.















l3

The next map shown below shows the maritime rms with
a higher level of industrial
detail across regions. Symbols, shown in the legend on the left hand side of the map, are
used to represent rms in key maritime industry sub-sectors. This map shows some of
the differences in principal maritime activities
across regions, such as the strong presence
of shing rms in the Ballard/Interbay region.

Figure 4: Maritime Cluster Firms Classified by Industry
Seattle Maritime Cluster Firms, 2008




.Maxltlme Firms
0 Marine Fuel
A  Flshlng
I Water Transportation
o Pom/TerminalsILogist-ee

t Shipbuilding

' Seafood
C Marine Construction




The maps shown on the next several pages provide
a higher level of geographical detail,
showing the three key maritime sub-regions with the City of Seattle.






14

The map below shows the Ballard and Interbay region. Note the strong complex of
shing and fuel supply in the area, as well as the diversity of activities across sub-cluster
groups.

Figure 5: Ballard and Interbay Maritime Firms
Seattle Maritime Cluster Firms, 2008: Ballard and Interbay






- '
Maritime Firms
Hausa-u . Marin. Fuel
A Fishing

MmTransport-non
0 Pomrrormlmlsllpoislm'
'k  smpmm

A Seafood
O MarimConmcon ;.
A











15

The next map shows the detail for the Duwamish/SODO region. The principal maritime
activities in this region differ in scope from those in Ballard/Interbay shown above. For
instance, port, terminal, and logistics are highly concentrated in this area, as are water
transportation rms.

Figure 6: Duwamish and SODO Maritime Firms
Seattle Maritime Cluster Firms, 2008: Duwamish and SODO







Maritime Firms
want
0 Marin. Fuel
A Fishing
I Water Transportation
0
* Shlpbulldlng

A Seafood
Marlno Construction ' '










l6

The map below depicts the diversity of maritime activities in the Central/Downtown
area.
Not surprisingly, water transportation, ports, terminals, and logistics
are most
signicantly represented in this area, with the headquarters of some seafood rms also
represented.

Figure 7: Central/Downtown Maritime Firms
Seattle Maritime Cluster Firms, 2008: Central/Downtoiivn


















l7

Focus Group Meetings

Focus group meetings were held with representatives in key substantive
areas of the
Maritime Cluster. These included the following:

Fishing
SQMPP'N?'  Marine support industries
Deep draft water transportation
Shallow draft water transportation
Marine construction
Passenger vessels
Public sector operations

The focus group meetings allowed for a more nely detailed consideration of challenges
and opportunities facing rms in the Seattle maritime cluster. The focus
groups also
participated in the development of the survey, the results of which are discussed in detail
in the section below. In general, the focus group meetings were open-ended; a focus
group guide was used by the facilitator to ensure that a common set of topics was covered
in each of the sessions. While some common challenges and opportunities
were
discussed, it is clear that each industry or sub-cluster faces some unique issues. The
common opportunities and challenges heard throughout the focus group meetings are
noted below.

Significant opportunities in the Seattle Maritime Cluster

1) Resource development in Alaska

Alaska's natural resource and tourism activities have grown signicantly in recent
decades. The key resource industries in Alaska include oil and gas extraction and
exploration, mining, sheries, and tourism activities. Each of these has a signicant
impact on economic activity in the Seattle region due to the strong maritime relationship
between Seattle and Alaska. This relationship was mentioned repeatedly throughout the
focus group meetings. Seattle has a unique role as a hub for Alaskan trade; many goods
headed for Alaska wholesale and retail markets are transported from Seattle
area
warehouses by barge to Alaska. In addition, Seattle is a center for specialized maritime
service industries which support the resource activities. For decades, work boats from
Alaska often utilize specialized marine services (including nancial, insurance, legal, and
engineering), repair and maintenance facilities and "mobile" repair businesses, and
marine fueling locations in the Seattle area. Vessels that spend most of their time in
Alaska visit Seattle every 2-3 years to take advantage of these services. As
a
consequence, Seattle has the largest and most extensive array of maritime services of any
city on the west coast. Ship Canal and Lake Union locations are particularly favored for

18

moorage and yards to work on vessels because the esh water environment reduces
maintenance costs.

There was some concern mentioned, particularly during the dramatic rise in fuel prices
during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2008, that many shing boats have been staying up in
Alaska and re-fueling there instead of voyaging back to Seattle during the off-season.
The subsequent decline of fuel prices in the 4th quarter of 2008
may well have reversed
that trend. Regardless, Seattle retains a signicant competitive advantage for signicant
maintenance and repair activities, as boats continue to return to Seattle from Alaska
during the off-season, or at longer intervals of 2-3 years, to take advantage of local
expertise and lower pricing.

Exploration in Alaska and the Arctic Circle is also an important part of the public sector
activity based in the Seattle region. NOAA continues to voyage to the Arctic regions for
nautical charting activities, including scientic monitoring of global climate change
conditions. Some in the shing focus group mentioned that some aspects of climate
change could support additional resource activities in Alaska, which could have a
positive impact on maritime activities in Seattle.

2) Strong growth in ship building and boat yard activig

The strong cyclical trend in ship building has resulted in employment gains in ship and
boat yards in the Seattle area. Increased environmental regulations have contributed to
this surge in ship building by placing restrictions and limitations
on new construction and
maintenance and repair activities. The surge in demand for new vessels caused by both
organic market demand growth and cyclical renewal cycles has been across many
categories of vessels, including shallow draft and passenger vessels. This demand is
leading to strong gains in ship building and maintenance activity. However, the cycle
leading to the need for new vessels is leading to some signicant challenges for some
rms. For instance, the pressure of environmental regulations has led these rms in the
past to continually retrot their vessels, beneting local and regional maintenance and
repair rms. However, once the useful life of the vessel has been exhausted and retrot
is no longer a possibility, these rms face difcult decisions regarding whether to make
substantial capital investments in new vessels. Some rms operating vessels in the
region noted that the added expense of new vessels due to environmental requirements
will likely prevent their rms from expanding their eet or even replacing vessels
as they
age and become uneconomic to repair. Many of these decisions are currently being made
or will be in the near future, and will have a signicant impact on many maritime sub-
clusters, especially those in the shing and passenger vessels groups.



19

3) Public sector maritime operations growth in the region

The United States Coast Guard Sector Seattle is expanding, which has the potential to
positively benet employment in the Seattle region. NOAA is undergoing a eet
recapitalization plan which has the potential for increased employment and output for
Seattle are ship and boat yards, maintenance and stafng, and dockside opportunities for
local contractors. However, a re destroyed the docks NOAA
was leasing from a private
vendor on the eastern shore ofLake Union, and as the long term lease for this facility
was
up for re-bidding, the vendor has not re-built the docks and the vessels are currently
dispersed1n separate locations. Unless a new long term leaselS negotiated with this
vendor, there15 a risk that NOAA could move its vessels away from Seattle to alternative
west coast locations.

On December 1, 2008, Washington State Ferries (WSF) awarded a contract to Todd
Shipyards to build an auto ferry for the Port Townsend-Keystone route on an 18-month
delivery timeline. WSF is expected to award additional contracts for three larger vessels
in 2009. This cyclical replacement of the WSF eet will likely keep ship and boat yards
handling new construction vessels busy in the near term. These ferries are expected to be
built from 2009 to 2011.

Significant challenges in the Seattle Maritime Cluster

1) Transportation and land use issues, particularly uncertaint_v_ related to the Viaduct

The Alaskan Way Viaduct was consistently the most important issue raised when
transportation was discussed in the focus groups and on the online survey. However, the
use of the Viaduct differs greatly across the sub-component groups of the maritime
cluster. Many maritime rms in the Ballard/Interbay region utilize inputs from the
SODO and Duwamish area and use the Viaduct continuously. One representative noted
that when the Viaduct is closed, it takes his trucks V2 hour longer to reach him than when
it is open. Even those industry groups which do not directly utilize the Viaduct conveyed
concerned about the potential trafc spillover impacts of a Viaduct construction
process
on surface streets. Others mentioned uncertainty over the Viaduct as an impediment to
expansion plans.

2) Labor force shortages and the aging of the skilled maritime workforce

Many areas of the maritime cluster have been subjected to local labor shortages and an
aging of the skilled labor force, with the average age of tug boat pilots reaching nearly 60
years of age.0The most recent data available for ship and boatyard workers1s from
2002, with the average age for these workers at 45 years of age. Although educational
and training institutions (such as the Pacic Maritime Institute, Youth Maritime Training

10Source: Pacic Maritime Institute
11
Source: Global Security

20

Academy, Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington Marine Affairs and
Oceanography, and Puget-sound area community college programs) Were mentioned as
benecial, in many cases they are insufficient to meet the needs of skilled labor force in
maritime trades and professional services. Areas mentioned
as having shortages of
qualied personnel include shing crews, crew members on public' sector operations
vessels, skilled labor in ship construction, maintenance, and repair, tugboat pilots, marine
engineers and technicians, and naval architects. Competition across trades is intense.
Ship and boat yard rms in particular discussed their difculty in nding labor, and
highlighted their challenge in competing with other blue collar trades, principally
construction which has traditionally paid higher wages for this class ofworkers than ship
and boat building rms.

Maritime rm responses to labor shortages include the poaching of employees from other
rms, national recruitment searches, relationships with training providers, and in-house
training programs. Many of the positions with shortages have high relative or "family"
wages, and there is a sense that there may be potential for greater institutional
involvement within the region for occupational training and education tailored to these
areas of labor demand.

3) Regulationa particularly the overlap and lack of suitabilig of regglations

Overlapping and inconsistent regulatory frameworks were cited as challenges in nearly
all of our focus group meetings. The Shoreline Master Program updates
were cited as a
source of concern, because it provides a major impediment to expansion planning.
Although willing to comply with regulation, some have been unable to expand on their
property because of the lack of agreement among agencies on shoreline planning issues.
Many of these rms are willing to pay for shoreline mitigation, but have been unable to
get mitigation actions approved because regulations are still in the planning stage. Many
focus group participants mentioned that local, state, and federal regulations
are far too
stringent and impact businesses most when they are attempting to expand and add
workers to their payroll.

The TWIC (Transportation Worker Identication Credential) was mentioned
as a
challenge, particularly to rms hiring seasonal or temporary labor. TWIC identications,
which are screened and issued by the TSA, are monitored by the US. Coast Guard.
Firms mentioned difculty and delays by the TSA in obtaining these credentials for their
employees.

Within the deep draft space, particular concern was levied about differing levels of
security regulation between ports in the United States and other countries. There is
concern that differences in security regulatory frameworks could cause ports in the
United States to be at a competitive disadvantage in low cost delivery and time in transit.


21

4) Taxation and land use

Because of the diversity of rms in the maritime cluster, tax policy varies widely
across
sub-components. Areas of concern mentioned in relation to taxing policy include
property taxes (and associated land use pressures) B&O taxes, parking taxes, and sales
taxes. However, many respondents felt that taxing issues were less onerous and of less
concern than regulatory issues. One issue raised consistently during focus
group
meetings were issues related to land use and development pressures, and many maritime
rms feel pressured from numerous fronts.

First, direct tax effects are being faced by maritime rms. The increase in property taxes
has gradually eroded some rms' ability to justify further capital investment
on these
properties, particularly in a environment characterized by expected uidity in future
zoning decisions. These decisions are further challenged by regulations which place
particular pressure and limitations on the activities of water-dependent maritime rms.
What they feel is often a myriad and maze of regulations and
opaque regulatory
environment was discussed widely across focus groups. While most rms acknowledged
the need for regulation, they complained across the board that it is particularly the
inconsistency and incongruity of regulations which both add onerous costs to operations
and make expansion plans lengthy and administratively costly to consider.

Second, there has been mounting indirect pressure from surrounding land uses in
formerly industrial districts, which was discussed in many of the focus groups. This
pressure can take many forms, ranging from noise complaints to property acquisition
proposals that seek to unlock latent value of maritime parcels from either a present or
projected future best-use perspective. Because many new mixed-use or residential uses
are being approved in close proximity to industrial uses, there is a great deal of concern
that noise and quality of life issues may cause conict
among land uses. Maritime firms
in the Ballard/Interbay area are especially impacted by the limited distance between
industrial and residential zoning, and are concerned about further impacts related to the
continued development of the Burke-Gilman path through the heart of these maritime
industrial areas om both a safety and business risk perspective.








22

Maritime Cluster Survey

An online survey was developed and used to gain insight into the challenges,
opportunities, and perspectives of rms in the maritime cluster in the Seattle region. This
survey was disseminated via both a snowball methodology through key contacts in the
maritime industry and by utilizing online databases. Out of 64 maritime rms solicited
for participation, 29 lled out the survey, reecting a
response rate of 45.3 percent. All
communications in relation to the online survey stressed condentiality of individual
responses. Therefore, the ndings from the survey are presented in this report in
aggregate form only. Some highlights of the survey responses are presented below.

The rst couple of questions presented in the survey are concerned with the structure of
maritime establishments in the Seattle region. As shown in Table 9 below,
many
establishments (precisely half of those in the survey) in the maritime cluster in Seattle
are
single establishment rms. Another third are the headquarters of a rm with
establishments elsewhere, indicating a concentration of head ofce rms in Seattle.

Table 9: Or anizational structure of maritime rm res
. . ndents



The only establishment of the rm

An establishment of a rm
headquartered outside of the region

An establishment ofa rm
headquartered elsewhere in the region

The headquarters of a rm with
establishments elsewhere

Total

Tables 10 and 11 present data on gross revenue levels and growth of these rms,
a
signicant portion of which have very strong levels of gross revenue. This reects the
diversity of rms within the Seattle maritime cluster, which has a number of moderately
sized rms with single establishments as well as major national and multi-national rms
with broad markets and tremendous revenues. As shown in Table 10, maritime rms in

23

Table 10: Gross revenue of maritime firms



1   Less than 1 million


2  Between 1 and 10 million


3  Between 10 and 20 million


4 Greater than 20 million










4  11-20%


20-50%


Greater than 50%



24

Seattle have experienced strong gains in annual gross revenue growth, with 96% of those
surveyed experiencing positive gross revenue growth over the period.

In order to understand the components of maritime rm expenditures, the
survey asked
rms to estimate the percentage contribution of various elements to their overall
expenses. Figure 8 below shows that maritime rms surveyed have relatively signicant
labor costs, with nearly 42 percent of expenses owing to labor.

Figure 8: Cost structure of maritime rms







The survey also sought to understand the reasons why rms in the maritime industry
located in Seattle. To address this, respondents were asked to rank the factors (1 being
the most important), the results ofwhich are shown in Table 12 below. Two important
facets are drawn out from the responses to this question. First, proximity to the maritime
industry was far and away the most-oft cited rationale for location in Seattle. This speaks
to the strength of the local maritime cluster. Second, the three top cited factors --
proximity to the maritime industry, proximity to market, and location near or on water --
were far more important than the other choices.

Table 12: lm . . rtance of location-s -ecific factors 
#  Answer                              Average Value

1   Proximity to maritime industry 

2  Proximity to market

3  Location near or on water                    3.18

4 Proximity to labor/employee residences         4.91

5  Proximity to residence ofprimary owner(s)        5.09

6
Proximity to key transportation corridors          5.23
7  Need to have a presence in Seattle for reputation     5.45

8  Special zoning districts                      7.50


25

The question addressed in Table 13 below
was generated to gain a sense ofwhere rms
see themselves in the years to come, in terms of location. It is noteworthy that no rm
stated an expectation to move in the next ve
years, while 12 percent characterized their
expectation ofmoving as either "highly likely" or "moderately likely". Perhaps also
worthy of note, however, is that only about one-third of rms responded to this question
"no". Nearly half ofrespondents characterized their likelihood ofmoving
as "unlikely",
indicating that many of these rms have some level of uncertainty in their future location
decisions.

Table 13: Likelihood of movin - from Seattle




Highly Likely 

Moderately Likely       8%
l
Unlikely                               48%

l
36%


4%

191%,
To address the importance of transportation to maritime rms, the
survey asked about the
relative shares of modes of transportation to overall transportation
usage. This question
was asked both for inbound inputs and supplies, as well as outbound products and
services. Figure 9 below shows the composition of transportation usage for inbound
inputs and supplies for Seattle maritime rms. It shows that 2/3 of inbound inputs and
supplies are brought to the rms by trucks, with 1/6 by marine and small fractions
(roughly 5%) being brought by the other modes, including air, automobile, and rail.


26

Figure 9: Transportation usage by maritime rms: inbound/inputs







Figure 10 shows the same chart for outbound products and services. These outbound
shipments are largely conducted through marine transportation, with a signicant share
also via truck. Air transportation garners a modestly higher share of outbound
transportation than inbound. Most importantly, note the very different manner in which
outbound products and services from maritime rms in Seattle
are shipped. Figure 2 and
3 indicate that Seattle maritime rms to a signicant degree receive inputs and supplies
by truck and send outbound products and services by both marine and trucking modes of
transportation. This is likely due in part to the strong shipbuilding and marine
construction components in the industry.

Figure 10: Transportation usage by maritime firms: outbound/goods







The importance of marine transportation to the industry in Seattle is shown in Table 14,
which summarizes the ndings from a question which asked respondents to rate the
quality of transportation in the Seattle region relative to other regions in the United
States. As shown below, the quality ofmarine transportation and air transportation
are

27

rated especially highly by respondents, while other forms of transportation received
substantially lower mean ratings.
Table 14: Quali  of Seattle trans - ortation relative to other r
3 ions
Deficient   Fair   Good  Excellent  Mean
0.0%

0.0%

23.5%
Truck            33.3%

Automobile         57.1%
Other (describe)  0.0%  100.0%

Figure 11 shows the location of employees relative to rms in the Seattle maritime
cluster. From the focus groups, it was clear that high costs of living and difculty nding
affordable housing in the Seattle area is a challenge for maritime business
owners,
frequently leading to pressure to increase wages. As shown below, a signicant
percentage of employees in these rms live some distance away, with 69% living greater
than 10 miles from work.

Figure 11: Employee residences in relation to maritime rm location








Tables 15 and 16 provide critical insights into the importance and condition of key
demographic and transportation factors affecting maritime rms. This provides a
yardstick, so to speak, in understanding the specic issues which are most affecting
maritime rms. Table 16, sorted by mean rating, shows the distribution of
responses in
assessing these factors. It shows the tremendous importance of the Alaskan Way Viaduct
to maritime rms, which was repeated as a critical factor in nearly all of the focus
group
meetings as well. Also rating especially highly in importance was the quality and

28

availability of labor, marine transportation, interstates and highways, and zoning
supportive of business.

Table 16 presents the same set of factors as shown previously in Table 15, but asks
respondents to evaluate the current conditions of these factors for their businesses. Rated
very highly were non-highway transportation and business factors such as proximity to
customers and suppliers. Major highways and surface streets were rated very low,
especially Highways 167 and 520, Interstate 5, and surface streets in both the Ballard-
Interbay and the Duwamish/SODO (South of Downtown) regions.
















29

Table 15: Relative im . ortance of ke factors to Seattle maritime rms
Not      Slightly     Somewhat
Question                                                     Extremely
Important                                                              N/AMean                                                        Important   Important    Important             lmportant

>The Alaskan Way 
18                                            4.3%
Viaduct                                       21.7%    69.6%
.
4  Quality of labor force                    13.0%    21.7%    65.2%
.
3   Availability of labor                          13.0%     34.8%     47.8%
.
1 1   Eggggsglab'h'y f                 0.0%        9.5%       33.3%      52.4%     0.0%    4.3

19  >Interstate 5                     0.0%      8.7%     56.5%    30.4%    4.3%   4.3
Quality of and access to
17                               4.3 A)a      26.1%     26.1%
the regional highways                                          43.5%    0.0%   4.1

5   12,332::"PP""' f       4.5%      0.0%      18.2%     40.9%     36.4%    0.0%   4.0

24  Eg'xggym'        0.0%     17.4%     8.7%     30.4%    43.5%   0.0%  4.0

14  gi'grggnd ""55 t     0.0%     4.8%     28.6%     42.9%    23.8%   0.0%   3.9

6  5:33:10" and "PM" f    8.7%     4.3%     21.7%    39.1%    26.1%   0.0%   3.7

15  :uggiagggerbay        9.1%      4.5%      22.7%     40.9%     22.7%    0.0%   3.6

12  fgsggzgab'h'y f    4.5%     13.6%     36.4%     22.7%     18.2%    4.5%   3.5

9  Sufi'gfg'cleavaab'hty 0f   13.0%     8.7%     17.4%    39.1%    21.7%   0.0%   3.5

16  :3;'::'$::':0D0        4.8%     19.0%     23.8%     33.3%     19.0%    0.0%   3.4

20  >Interstate 90          8.7%    17.4%     26.1%    21.7%    26.1%   0.0%  3.4

1    Proximity to customers        13.0%      21 .7%        8.7%       26. 1%      30.4%     0.0%    3.4

f immmdal
13  $13118              9.1%      18.2%      45.5%     13.6%     9.1%           3.1

2  Proximity to suppliers      13.0%    26. 1%     8.7%     47.8%    4.3%    0.0%   3.0

Conict between
8   commercial vehicles and     21.7%     13.0%     26. 1%     26. 1%            4.5%           8.7%    4.3%   3 .0
autos

23  >Highway 509          18.2%    22.7%     18.2%    31.8%    9.1%    0.0%   2.9

7  :'tifitaggth "cycles and    34.8%     8.7%     21.7%     13.0%     17.4%   4.3%   2.8

25  >Highway 520          20.0%    33.3%     20.0%    13.3%    13.3%   0.0%   2.7
1
21  >Highway 167          22.7%    31.8%     22.7%     18.2%     4.5%    0.0%   2.5

10  3:13:33? "allab'l'ty f    30.4%     30.4%      17.4%     4.3%     13.0%    4.3%   2.5

22  >Highway 18          22.7%    31.8%     31.8%    4.5%  L  4.5%         2.5       4.5%J




30

Table 16: Relative ratin - s of ke factors to Seattle maritime rms
' Question                 Poor  Deficient  Fair   Good  Excellent  Mean
'
1 1
Quality and availability of marine
transport
1   Proximity to customers                0.0%                                 19.0%     4.0

2  Proximity to suppliers          0.0%                    13.6%   3.9

12
Quallty ancl avallability of a1r
(10%                 19.0%   3.9
transportatlon

10  36:12: and ava'lab'llty ""11     0.0%   11.1%  16.7%  72.2%   0.0%   3.6

13  Availability of intermodal service    5.3%   0.0%   31.6% 52.6%
10.5%   3.6

9
Quality and availability of truck
.                                     4.8%     4.8%    28.6%   61.9%    0.0%      3.5
SCIVICC
20 >Interstate 90              0.0%  15.8%  42.1% 31.6%  10.5%   3.4

4  Quality of labor force         8.7%   8.7%       52.2%  8.7%   3.4

3  Availability oflabor             8.7%   21.7%   8.7%  56.5%   4.3%    3.3

23  >Highway 509              0.0%   5.6%  61.1%  27.8%  5.6%   3.3

14  2.3;" "and a535t1a1      0.0%         21.7%          4.3%   65.2%  30.4%   0.0%   3.3

24 >Aurora Avenue/ Highway 99     4.8%   9.5%  52.4% 23.8%  9.5%   3.2

18  >TheA1askanWayViaduct       18.2%   9.1%   31.8%  22.7%  18.2% 3.1'

17  Quillty f.and ""5"" the
0.0%  15.0%  65.0% 20.0%  0.0%   3.1
reglonal h1ghways
22 >Highway 18              0.0%   11.8%  70.6%  17.6%  0.0%   3.1
Cn1tbetween mmerial
8                            0.0%   20.0%  60.0%  20.0%   0.0%    3.0
vehicles and autos
5  Zoning supportive of business      0.0%   18.2%  63.6%  18.2%   0.0%    3.0

19  >Interstate 5                 4.3%   13.0%  60.9% 21.7%
0.0%   3.0
15 > Ballard/Interbay surface streets    4.8%   9.5%   66.7%  19.0%   0.0%    3.0

25  >Highway 520              9.1%   9.1%  63.6%  18.2%  0.0%   2.9

16  >Duwamish/SODO surface streets   4.8%   14.3%  66.7%  14.3%   0.0%   2.9

21  >Highway 167               5.9%   11.8%  64.7%  17.6%   0.0%   2.9

7  Eggegifitazslth blcydes and        0.0%   45.0%  35.0%  20.0%   0.0%   2.8

6  condition and capacity of streets    4.3%   39.1%  43.5%  13.0%   0.0%   2.7



31

Table 17: Importance and condition of transportation and regional infrastructure
{ TheAiaskanWayinaduct                                     'l
Qualityoflaborfcrce
Availabilityoflabor

Qualityand ataiiabilityofmarine transport
Aurora AtenueIHighwayQtl
Qualityofand access to the regional highways
Quaiityotand accesstolocal streets
Zoning supportive oibusiness
Bailardl interbaysurface sheets

Condition and capacity ofstreets
Quaiilyand atailabilityofiruck service
I Importance
Prcn'milytc customers
DuwamishlSODO surface streets                                                              I Condition
Quaiityandavailabilityotairtransportation
Proumitytosuppliers
lnterstatetitl

Conict between commercial whicies and autos
Highway509
Ataiiabitityofintennodal sem'oe
Conictwith bicycles and pedestrians
Highway520
Highway167
Qualiiyandataiiabilityctrailsenice
Highwayi8 





32

Advisory Committee Members
Warren Aakervik Jr. Ballard Oil
Rich Berkowitz, Transportation Institute
Darrell Bryan, Victoria Clipper
Kevin Clark, Argosy Cruises
David Harsila, Alaska Independent Fishermen's Marketing Association
Steve Hughes NRC Corporation
Stephen Isaacson, GE Capital
Lise Kenworthy, Attorney
Bruce King, Attorney
John Lockwood, Todd Pacic
Pat McGarry, Manson Construction
Mike Moore, Pacic Maritime Shipping Association
Kris Mullan Alaska Frontier
,
Peter Philips, Philips Publishing Group
Rick Shrew, Western Towboat
Kim Suelzle, City Ice
Bruce Sunhholrn, Harris Electric
Brian Thomas, Kvichak Marine Industries
Sue Williams, Jensen Maritime
Jan Jacobs, American Seafoods














33

4..