Nearly $3 Billion in New Contracts Will Challenge N.Y. Region Bridgebuilding
By Esther D'Amico and Debra K. Rubin
Text size: A A
[ Page 1 of 2 ]
Construction officials in and around New York City celebrated on April 24 the award of nearly $3 billion in new bridge construction contracts as a boost to the region's economy and job growth. The awards, by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, include significant rehabs of two key bi-state crossings and the region's first major public-private partnership (P3) financing arrangement in the $1.5-billion project to replace the antiquated Goethals Bridge.
But industry observers say the infusion of regional bridge work and the intricacies of the Goethals' financing arrangement could challenge firms in supply chain, labor and subcontractor management.
Winning the Goethals project was the NYNJ Link Partnership, a joint venture of Macquarie Infrastructure, Kiewit, Weeks Marine, Massman Construction, Transfield Services North America and Parsons Corp.
The team beat two groups headed by contractors Skanska and Spain's ACS, respectively, for the 40-year, design-build-finance-maintain contract to replace the 85-year-old Goethals span between New Jersey and Staten Island. It is the authority's first new bridge since 1931 and the Northeast's "first true surface transportation project" to use a P3, says the agency.
Under the Goethals deal, the authority will make no payments until significant construction milestones are achieved. The bridge is scheduled to open to traffic in late 2016, with substantial construction completion set for the next year.
The authority has access to up to $500 million in a low-cost U.S. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan and a private-activity bond issue, it says.
"We were surprised to see that it was being done as a P3," says Mike Elmendorf, president and CEO of the Associated General Contractors of America, New York chapter. "But this is a good thing because it is a significant, expensive and a complex project—the type of project that would be ideal for a P3."
He adds that "Governor Cuomo's budget proposal [earlier this year] had some design-build finance language, but it didn't survive the budget process, so it was not enacted. if you look at the staggering infrastructure needs that we have [in New York State], the needs far outweigh the resources and P3s could help."
But one construction firm executive, who declined to speak publicly, says the complex structure of project financing and construction contracts "was a deterrent to more than one contractor in bidding this project."
The authority also awarded a $743.3-million contract to a joint-venture team of Skanska Koch Inc. and Kiewit Infrastructure Co. as part of a $1.29-billion program to increase the navigational clearance of the 81-year-old Bayonne Bridge, which also links New Jersey and Staten Island.
Work on the bridge marks the first time the agency will build a bridge's roadbed above an existing roadway as traffic continues to flow on the deck below.
The project, pending environmental review and permitting, is set to start later this year, with completion targeted for late 2015—about the same time the Panama Canal widening project is expected to finish. Increasing the bridge's height will allow new, large-scale post-Panamax vessels to gain access to New York and New Jersey ports, the authority says.
HDR and Parsons Brinckerhoff are the agency's design contractors. A project source says the engineering estimate was about $675 million. A Conti-J.H. Reid team and a venture of American Bridge, Traylor Bros. and Tutor Perini bid $803.4 million and $824.7 million, respectively.
The authority awarded a third contract, for $15.3 million, to Crisdel Group, Plainfield, N.J., to resurface the Outerbridge Crossing, another Staten Island-New Jersey span. Completion is set for later this year.
Combined, the three projects are anticipated to create more than 5,000 construction jobs and generate more than $600 million in wages, says the agency. Construction for all three bridges is set to start this year.
The new work comes as the region embarks on several other significant bridge projects, including the state's $3.9-billion replacement of the Tappan Zee across the Hudson River and a $517-million upgrade of the Kosciuszko Bridge in Brooklyn. The authority also expects work to begin next year to replace suspender cables on the New Jersey-to-Manhattan George Washington Bridge.
The agency also is starting a $236-million design-build upper-deck replacement of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge linking Staten Island and Brooklyn.
The contractor executive wonders if the workload will stretch regional resources of marine equipment and labor, particularly welders, which could disrupt bridge completion timetables that are now set to coincide with the Panama Canal opening.
Other local executives have speculated on whether the regional projects without federal funds, such as the Bayonne and Verrazano spans, would use steel fabricated in China.
New York City;
Port Authority of NY and NJ
New Tappan Zee Construction Gets $1.6 Billion Boost
Posted by: Brian DonnellyPosted date: October 31, 2013In: Development, Feature, Westchester| comment : 1
WESTCHESTER COUNTY, N.Y. – The $1.6 billion low-interest loan announced Thursday for the project to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge is the largest ever approved by the federal government’s Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA).
The project will continue to move forward with an estimated completion time of just under five years, making it one of the largest in the nation to be completed in that time frame. The installation of the new bridge’s foundation began Oct. 16 with installation of the first permanent piles.
“Approval of New York State’s request for this loan is great news for the tens of thousands of commuters who depend on the Tappan Zee every day, for communities in the Lower Hudson Valley, and for our entire state,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. “This is a huge win for New York State, creating thousands of jobs, and an endorsement of one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in our history.”
There have been 150 concepts discussed at 430 meetings dating back to 1999, all of which cost $88 million in taxpayer dollars. Since October of 2011 new design-build legislation was enacted, a project labor agreement was negotiated with construction unions and pre-construction activities commenced. Environmental review and procurement processes were also completed and extensive measures will taken to protect the environment and to monitor the impact of construction on surrounding communities, according to the Governor’s office.
A consortium of the world’s most respected design, engineering and construction firms are working with the state Thruway Authority and Department of Transportation, which approved the $1.6 million loan Thursday.
“I am excited that the DOT has approved the largest ever TIFIA loan for a transportation project and that the work on a new bridge can continue to move forward,” Rep. Nita Lowey (D – Westchester) said in a statement. “The construction will continue to create jobs and help New York’s economy grow.”
The existing bridge, built in 1955, was designed to carry up to 100,000 cars daily. But, 138,000 cars cross the bridge daily, requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance.
Extensive measures will be in place throughout the duration of the project to protect the environment and to monitor the impact of construction on surrounding communities.
State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli called on the DOT to follow up with a specific financial plan that identifies projected tolls.
“Securing the federal loan to pay for a portion of this project was a huge step,” he said. “Now the Thruway Authority must live up to its commitment to provide the public with a complete financing plan that identifies projected tolls and protects the long-term stability of the Thruway system.”
Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino also asked for more information on tolls.
“I congratulate Governor Cuomo on this good news,” he said. “The next step is how do we finance the rest of the bridge and the mass transit improvements to and from the bridge, while keeping tolls as low as possible. The governor has my full support to help the state come up with the best financing plans possible.”
State Investigation Finds Caltrans Clamped Down on Bay Bridge Critics
Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA)
Text size: AA
Jan. 22--SACRAMENTO -- Caltrans systematically squelched serious allegations about the structural safety of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge, concluded an investigation commissioned by the state Senate Transportation Committee.
Caltrans managers marginalized dissenters, fired critics, reassigned outspoken engineers and urged those involved to avoid putting details of problems or issues in writing that would have to be disclosed under the state's Public Records Act, the report concluded.
The white paper, titled "The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge: Basic Reforms for the Future," was based largely on interviews with multiple engineers who worked on the bridge and released Wednesday in advance of the committee's Friday investigatory hearing in Sacramento.
The largest public works project in California history, the $6.4 billion bridge opened Labor Day weekend some 10 years late and at a cost nearly fivefold the original estimate. After factoring construction bond financing costs, the total price-tag will reach $13 billion.
"It is the finding of this investigation that there appears to have been chronic attempts to keep many of the serious safety allegations quiet, put aside and not dealt with in an open, businesslike manner in the public's interest," wrote Roland De Wolk, a veteran journalist and former Bay Area television news producer contracted by the state Senate to produce the report.
In addition, the Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee -- a partnership of Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the California Transportation Commission charged with overseeing the project -- was given "extraordinary" exemptions from the state's open government laws that led to a lack of transparency and accountability.
Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, who commissioned the white paper and is holding hearings about the project, expressed anger but not surprise at the findings.
"In my experience, particularly in state government, large agencies are insular and have fear or disregard of the public and the public's representatives," DeSaulnier said. "Now, we are finding out that not only did the bridge cost too much and take too long, but there was a willful attempt to make sure the public didn't know what was going on."
Said bridge spokesman Andrew Gordon on Wednesday, "The Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee is reviewing the report and looks forward to responding to the report and answering the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee's questions on Friday."
Gordon also said that for those who are interested, thousands of pages of public documents related to the construction of the new span are available for review at BayBridgeInfo.org.
Among those quoted in the white paper and scheduled to testify Friday is MACTEC engineer and quality inspector James Merrill, whose international employer was under contract in 2008 to inspect the bridge deck welds' quality at the plant in Shanghai where they were being fabricated.
As has been reported in numerous media outlets over the years, the welds were riddled with hundreds of cracks. Repairs would put the bridge two years behind schedule and ultimately add $100 million to the span's price tag.
But Merrill told De Wolk in his first interview about his work on the bridge that, at the time, Caltrans managers said he was "being too rigorous" in his findings. The state later reorganized its inspection process in China, and when MACTEC's 10-year contract expired, it hired another company.
An independent pre-audit of the firms the state chose to replace MACTEC -- Caltrop and its subcontractor, Alta Vista Solutions -- concluded that the new vendor lacked sufficient qualifications for the work until it hired former MACTEC inspectors, De Wolk wrote.
Merrill also described how he personally inspected and found defective the infamous anchor rods fabricated in Ohio that later snapped in a key seismic stabilizer on the bridge, adding millions more to the price tag and nearly derailing the Labor Day opening.
He said he suggested more testing, but "I got told we weren't doing any testing and stop mentioning it," Merrill told De Wolk.
A 25-year Caltrans engineer, Douglas Coe, corroborated Merrill's account of the weld conflicts in China and is also expected to testify Friday.
Coe and Merrill are quoted in the white paper saying the new bridge is safe but that the decks will require expensive retrofits well before the promised 150-year life span of the bridge.
Caltrans Principal Construction Manager Pete Siegenthaler, Caltrans Toll Bridge Program Manager Tony Anziano and Metropolitan Transportation Commission Executive Director Steve Heminger all disagreed with the two engineers' assessments, telling De Wolk the cracks were repairable and have been fixed.
The 50-page draft report includes a timeline, details of other controversies about the bridge and numerous links to relevant documents online.
It also offers recommendations for legislators based on lessons learned from the bridge, including the establishment of an independent bureau of inquiry to investigate allegations about the safety of public projects.
Contact Lisa Vorderbrueggen at 925-945-4773, email@example.com, ibabuzz.com/politics or Twitter.com/lvorderbrueggen.
(c)2014 the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.)
Visit the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.) at www.contracostatimes.com
Distributed by MCT Information Services
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
* Low Bid may equate to cost over-runs for the selected design.
* Low Bid could end up being another boondoggle akin to the Panama Canal consortium's bid under-cutting Bechtel & others
* NYCDCC can't supply enough qualified Welders, as yet and must accelerate training and certification to avoid the costly Q.C. problems and inevitable delays and cost over-runs which will come w/o proper training.
* GC's, Owners (both public & private), A/E firms all love drafting the Q.C. reg's & programs into the General Conditions and then typically under-fund the programs if at all with the budgeting necessary to prevent non-conforming work. Reality always dictates three(3) things: Cost, Schedule and Owner Revenue drive and subsume all other activity, including massive cost over-runs and defective construction.
Originally posted March 17, 2012
* What have the D.C. representatives and Business Agents/Managers done to ensure that the 22.9% minority hiring goals have been achieved.
* Do they have an action plan and method of accounting for this contract requirement?
* What level of compliance have they achived to date for the NYCDCC?
* What direction and specific input has the EST/President McGinnis and VP Cavanaugh provided and furnished to the OWL department relative to the mandatory EEOC requirements and Executive Order 11246 for minority hiring given the OWL system have not followed the contract requirements to date?
* What remedial action shall the D.C. take to ensure the contract will not be violated iin the future with regard to minority hiring?
ATTACHMENT 5 TO APPENDIX IV
Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure
Equal Employment Opportunity (Executive Order 11246)
In addition to the affirmative action requirements of the Special Provision titled "Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications" as set forth elsewhere in this proposal, the contractor’s attention is directed to the specific requirements for utilization of minorities and females as set forth below.
a. Goals for minority and female participation are hereby established in accordance with 41 CFR 60-4.
b. The goals for minority and female participation expressed in percentage terms for the
contractor’s aggregate work force in each trade on all construction work in the covered area, are as follows:
Goals for minority participation in
each trade (per-cent)....22.9%
Goals for female participation in
each trade (per-cent)........6.9%
c. These goals are applicable to all the contractor’s construction work (whether or not it is Federal or federally assisted) performed in the covered area. If the contractor performs construction work in a geographical area located outside of the covered area, it shall apply the goals established for such geographical area where the work is actually performed. With regard to this second area, the contractor also is subject to the goals for both its federally involved and non-federally involved construction. The contractor’s compliance with the Executive Order and the regulations in 41 CFR Part 60-4 shall be based on its implementation of the Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications Special Provision and its efforts to meet the goals.
The hours of minority and female employment and training must be substantially uniform throughout the length of the contract, and in each trade, and the contractor shall make a good faith effort to employ minorities and women evenly on each of its projects. The transfer of minority and female employees or trainees from contractor to contractor or from project to project for the sole purpose of meeting the contractor’s goals shall be a violation of the contract, the Executive Order and the regulations in 41 CFR Part 60-4. Compliance with the goals will be measured against the total work hours performed.
d. A contractor or subcontractor will be considered in compliance with these provisions by
participation in the Authority’s Affirmative Action Plan. Provided that each contractor or
subcontractor participating in this plan must individually comply with the equal opportunity clause set forth in 41 CFR 60-1.4 and must make a good faith effort to achieve the goals set forth for each participating trade in the plan in which it has employees. The overall good performance of other contractors and subcontractors toward a goal in an approved plan does not excuse any covered contractor’s or subcontractor’s failure to make good faith efforts to achieve the goals contained in these provisions. Contractors or subcontractors participating in the plan must be able to demonstrate their participation and document their compliance with the provisions of this plan.
The contractor shall provide written notification to the Authority within ten business days of award of any construction subcontract in excess of $10,000 at any tier for construction work under the contract resulting from this solicitation pending concurrence of Authority in the award. The notification shall list the names, address and telephone number of the subcontractor; employer identification number; estimated dollar amount of the subcontract; estimated starting and completion dates of the subcontract; and the
geographical area in which the contract is to be performed.
4. Covered area.
As used in this special provision, and in the contract resulting from this solicitation, the geographical area covered by these goals for female participation is the State of New York. The geographical area covered by these goals for other minorities are the counties in the State of New York as indicated in Table 1.
The contractor is hereby notified that it may be subject to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) reporting and record keeping requirements as provided for under Executive Order 11246 as amended. OFCCP will provide direct notice to the contractor as to the specific reporting requirements that he will be expected to fulfill.
Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing Project , pg. 1 & 2
PART 1 - AGREEMENT
Contract D214134 PIN: 8TZ1.00 Appendix IV – Federal Requirements, Attachment 5
9 March 2012
Obama Outlines $302B, Four-Year Transport Bill Proposal
By Tom Ichniowski
Text size: A A
White House fact sheet on transportation proposal
Obama Feb. 26 speech on transportation proposal (White House transcript)
House Ways and Means release on Camp's tax-reform proposal (links to draft text, summary, cost estimate)
President Obama has plunged into the suddenly hotter discussion over a new surface-transportation bill, unveiling the outline of a proposed $302-billion, four-year highway-transit reauthorization measure.
Obama’s plan, announced on Feb. 26, came about two hours after House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) released his proposal to provide a $126.5-billion, eight-year infusion to the ailing Highway Trust Fund.
Construction and transportation industry officials welcomed the two announcements, but said they wanted to see more details and—more importantly—see the proposals turned into enacted legislation soon. Without new revenue, the trust fund's highway account is projected to dip into a deficit as early as August.
The Obama proposal includes $199 billion for highway construction, $72 billion for transit, $19 billion for passenger rail and $7 billion for highway safety, according to a White House fact sheet.
Other elements are $9 billion for new rounds of the Dept. of Transportation's five-year-old TIGER grant program and $4 billion in direct federal aid for the popular TIFIA loan program for highway, bridge and other major projects.
Under the Obama proposal, revenue from the existing federal motor-fuels taxes and other user fees that feed the trust fund would be supplemented by a one-time $150-billion infusion from corporate tax changes.
Camp's trust-fund boost is part of his wide-ranging draft plan to overhaul the federal tax code. The highway funds would come from corporate tax changes.
Some in Congress may be reluctant to tackle the complex, controversial issue of tax reform, particularly in an election year. But Camp told reporters Feb. 26, "I don't think we can afford to wait."
The Obama's plan's $150 billion would fill the trust fund gap and boost surface-transportation spending by almost $90 billion over four years compared with “current projected levels," according to the White House fact sheet.
The White House also said that Obama “is open to all ideas” for surface-transportation funding and will work with Congress on the issue.
Obama and the White House provided few specifics but said the plan will be part of his fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, slated to be sent to Congress on March 4.
Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, told reporters that one possible source for increased infrastructure funding would be ending current tax provisions "that are an incentive for companies to ship jobs overseas."
Speaking Feb. 26 at the Union Depot rail station in St. Paul, Minn.—whose renovation was partly funded by a TIGER grant—Obama noted that time is pressing. Federal lawmakers must pass a new highway-transit bill by Sept. 30, when the current statute, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, expires.
Obama said, “If Congress doesn’t finish a transportation bill by the end of the summer, we could see construction projects stop in their tracks.”
The burst of infrastructure news generally drew praise from construction, transportation and union groups. Stephen Sandherr, Associated General Contractors of America CEO, said in a statement, “The president clearly understands that any new transportation bill must include new sources of revenue to meet the needs of our aging transportation system.”
But Sandherr added that “the most significant impact of these announcements should be to motivate Congress and the president to fix the Highway Trust Fund before this summer and to enact a new, fully funded, long-term measure before September 30.”
Bud Wright, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials executive director, said, “"The crisis facing the Highway Trust Fund and our national transportation infrastructure is very real. It is good news that the Administration and congressional leadership in both houses are looking seriously at strategies to invest in transportation and maintain the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the programs it supports."
Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said, "For too long, the duct-tape approach by Congress has destabilized the construction industry, stalled projects, cost jobs and slowed our economy. More discussion and debate is welcome, but ultimately there must be action....”
Pete Ruane, American Road & Transportation Builders Association president and CEO, said, "It is imperative that Congress and the president direct their energies at finding a Highway Trust Fund solution before the [DOT] is unable to reimburse states this summer for road and transit projects that have already been approved."
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.)—who is leading that chamber’s highway-transit bill push—said Camp’s Highway Trust Fund proposal “could play a meaningful role” in a new transportation measure.
Shuster also said he hopes Camp’s and Obama’s plans “will bring increased focus to the challenges facing the Highway Trust Fund and the importance of the federal role in our national transportation system.”
Along with his legislative proposal, Obama announced a new, sixth round of the TIGER grants. Congress approved $600 million for the program in fiscal 2014. DOT said the deadline for applications for round six is April 28.
Story updated on Feb. 27 with White House spokesman comments, additional links
February 10, 2014
b>MAHOPAC — Peter Creegan, a union leader in the $3.9 billion project to replace the Tappan Zee Bridge, was on life support Monday afternoon after falling off the roof of his house on Friday.
Creegan, 52, fell from the roof of his two-story Trout Brook Place home in Mahopac Falls around 9:40 p.m., Carmel police said. A police officer and Mahopac Falls Volunteer Ambulance personnel responded to a 911 call placed from the home, Carmel police Lt. Michael Cazzari said.
Creegan is the business agent for Iron Workers Ornamental Local 580 and vice president of the Building and Construction Trade Council of Westchester and Putnam Counties.
George Drapeau, spokesman for the Construction Industry Council, said Creegan was trying to fix a leak when he slipped and fell.
Drapeau said Monday that Creegan remained on life support at Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, where a steady stream of visitors has been at his bedside.
Ross Pepe, president of the Construction Industry Council of Westchester and Hudson Valley, called Creegan’s accident “devastating to all of us in the building and construction trades.”
“Peter has always been the first person we could reach out to for help and advice,” Pepe said in a statement. “His wisdom, enthusiasm and candor made him truly remarkable, and he has always been a pleasure to work with and a privilege to know.”
Creegan and his wife, Claudine, a teacher, have a grown daughter, Lauren. They have lived in Mahopac for about 20 years. Creegan, who grew up in Somers and graduated from Somers High School, unsuccessfully ran for Carmel Town Council in 2011.
He followed his father, John, into the ironworker’s trade. The two were profiled by The Journal News last year in a report that recounted how John Creegan helped build the current Tappan Zee in the 1950s and how his son, Peter Creegan, has taken on a key role in coordinating workers for its replacement.
The Left Coast Lifter, re-named I Lift NY arrival:
Project Timeline (general milestones):
TARRYTOWN, N.Y. (CBSNewYork/AP) – President Barack Obama visited the Tappan Zee Bridge on Wednesday and announced a series of measures aimed at improving the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
During a speech along the banks of the Hudson River, Obama touted his administration’s fast-tracking of the bridge, which is now under construction to replace the Tappan Zee, and then announced a plan to speed up 11 other infrastructure projects in cities including Boston, Pensacola, Fla., and Seattle.
“We’re cutting bureaucratic red tape that stalls good projects from breaking ground,” Obama said.
The president also said he plans to launch a new national permitting center to implement reforms and create a “public dashboard” so that Americans can track the progress of infrastructure projects. He said none of the measures require approval from Congress.
“We can build better, and we have to,” Obama said. ‘We have ports that aren’t ready for the next generation of cargo ships. We’ve got more than 100,000 bridges that are old enough to qualify for Medicare. We’ve got leaky pipes that lose billions of gallons of drinking water every single day, even as we’ve got a severe drought in much of the West. Nearly half our people don’t have access to transit at all. And I don’t have to tell you what some of our airports look like.”
The president said poor infrastructure could take a toll on the nation’s economy as companies decide where to locate facilities.
“First-class infrastructure attracts first-class jobs,” Obama said.
“Over the past 50 years … our investment in transportation has shrunk by 50 percent,” he added. ” … You know what other countries are doing? European countries now invest twice as much as we do. China invests four times what we do in transportation.”
Obama also tried to apply pressure on federal lawmaker to do more. He called on Congress to extend federal funding for transportation projects and approve his plan to rebuild transportation infrastructure, supporting millions of jobs.
“Rebuilding America, that shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” Obama said. “One study recently found that over time we’ve fallen to 19th place when it comes to the quality of our infrastructure. I don’t like America being 19th. I don’t like America being second. I want us to be first, because businesses are going to come where there’s good infrastructure.”
Earlier, the president said the Tappan Zee project was long overdue.
“At times, you can see the river through the cracks in the pavement,” he said. “Now, I’m not an engineer, but I figure that’s not good.
‘Workers are building a replacement. The first new bridge in 50 years. It’s called the New NY Bridge, which is fine as a name. But for your next bridge you should come up with a little something more fresh,” the president added.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who introduced Obama, said the process leading up to the construction of the Tappan Zee was frustrating.
“It has been outdated,” Cuomo said of the span. “It’s been unsafe. It’s been in need of repair for many, many years.
“We spent $80 million and 10 years talking about replacing the bridge. But we just couldn’t get it done. It was seemingly too complex. It was too big. We couldn’t even get it started. To me, it was a metaphor for what had happened to our state. Political gridlock, government paralysis, fear and indecision had taken control,” the governor added.
The Tappan Zee, which opened to traffic in 1955, is being replaced at a cost of $3.9 billion. The financing largely comes from bonds paid for through higher tolls.
A $1.6 billion federal loan was recently approved to help pay for the Tappan Zee replacement project, which was on the drawing boards for more than a decade until the White House put it on a list of fast-track projects in 2012.
The president’s visit is part of a week-long attempt by the White House to focus the nation’s attention on what the administration describes as a looming crisis.
Some Tarrytown residents said they were mixed on the plan to fund infrastructure improvements.
“I’m not for it, but we got to pay for it somehow,” Derrick Duncanson said.
“Instead of having troops all over the world and bases all over the world, cut back on that and use the money for the crumbling infrastructure,” resident Frank D’Angelo added.
“I think that that’s one of the areas that’s been really neglected. And I feel that somebody has to pay for it, and I’m willing to,” resident Joyce Greene said.
THE OBAMA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx kicked off the week Monday by warning that the Highway Trust Fund, which relies on gasoline taxes that haven’t been raised in 20 years, could run dry in August.
Vice President Joe Biden added his voice Tuesday, telling local leaders in St. Louis that “we’ve stalled” on infrastructure as he promoted a $410 million renovation to the famous Gateway Arch that’s being funded largely by donations. Biden was to speak at a Rapid Transit center in Cleveland on Wednesday.
The Obama administration has proposed a four-year, $302 billion transportation plan. Of that amount, half would be in addition to the programs paid for with fuel taxes.
A proposal would also let states put tolls on federal interstate highways such as I-95 in New York and Connecticut, CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer reported.
The New Jersey Turnpike is already a toll road because it was grandfathered in.
That additional spending would come from revenue raised by closing corporate tax loopholes and by making other changes in business taxes, a long-shot idea in a politically divided Congress.
Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said it’s imperative to pass the president’s plan.
“When I look at some of the bridges in our region, you see highways, you see rusting, ineffective repairs, so we have to take this seriously,” she told WCBS 880′s Sean Adams.
Later Wednesday, Obama was to headline a pair of high-dollar fundraisers for Democrats.
He was to spend the night in Manhattan before attending Thursday’s dedication of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center.
A FLEETING GLIMPSE
Some residents lined roads in Tarrytown hoping to catch a glimpse of Obama as he passed in his motorcade.
For some, it was just a split second that they’ll remember for a lifetime, CBS 2′s Dick Brennan reported.
“It was really cool,” one girl said.
“Definitely thought he wanted to get a glimpse of everyone,” Said Matt Hammer. “He wanted to see everyone coming out today.”
School kids, who got out of school early, were buzzing about the visit.
“I think that’s a once-in-a-lifetime experience,” said Lena Swenson, of Tarrytown. “Even if you don’t like the president, it’s still pretty cool.”
“And also, we had a half-day of school, and that’s pretty cool,” added Nicole Kern.
In the end, the president never really came near the heart of Tarrytown, but that was OK for those who caught a fleeting glimpse of history.
“Special moment,” said Marion Robinson, who said she went out in the morning to get a good spot and kept getting moved by the Secret Service.
“It was a split second, but it was worth it because it’s history,” said Andrea Robertson, of Tarrytown. “It’s nice.”
The president was in and out of Tarrytown in an hour.
how are these jobs being doled out. are they bringing in everyone from out of town of ny
"I Lift NY" super crane moved beneath bridge
In reply to this post by "FREE TRADE"
One World Trade to Open Nov. 3, But Ceremony is TBD
Nine years after ground was broken on North America’s tallest building, One World Trade Center is set to open its doors Nov. 3 to publisher Condé Nast, its principal tenant, according to people familiar with the date.
Just don’t expect any fanfare—at least at first.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is developing the tower, is planning an official ceremony to mark the occasion later in November, after the Nov. 4 election, representatives of the agency said. The Port Authority is controlled by the governors of the two states.
“Governor Cuomo’s and Governor Christie’s offices have been contacted and we are trying to find a mutual date that works,” said Chris Valens, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “But obviously the end of October is highly problematic for anyone who is at all aware of government and political reality.”
The decision comes after the two governors’ offices and others involved spent weeks going back and forth about dates, ultimately failing to agree on one before Condé’s move, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.
Of course, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have been busy. Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, faces reelection on Nov. 4, while Mr. Christie is the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and has been traveling frequently to other states.
Condé’s move on Nov. 3 doesn’t include the entire company. It is planning to move in multiple waves from its midtown offices, ultimately finishing up in January.
-Erica Orden and Josh Dawsey contributed to this article.
WILLARD STEWART, PETITIONER v. DUTRA
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of
appeals for the first circuit
[February 22, 2005]
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a dredge is a "vessel" under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 44 Stat. 1428, 33 U. S. C. §902(3)(G). We hold that it is.
As part of Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project, or "Big Dig," the Commonwealth of Massachusetts undertook to extend the Massachusetts Turnpike through a tunnel running beneath South Boston and Boston Harbor to Logan Airport. The Commonwealth employed respondent Dutra Construction Company to assist in that undertaking. At the time, Dutra owned the world's largest dredge, the Super Scoop, which was capable of digging the 50-foot-deep, 100-foot-wide, three-quarter-mile-long trench beneath Boston Harbor that is now the Ted Williams Tunnel.
The Super Scoop is a massive floating platform from which a clamshell bucket is suspended beneath the water. The bucket removes silt from the ocean floor and dumps the sediment onto one of two scows that float alongside the dredge. The Super Scoop has certain characteristics common to seagoing vessels, such as a captain and crew, navigational lights, ballast tanks, and a crew dining area. But it lacks others. Most conspicuously, the Super Scoop has only limited means of self-propulsion. It is moved long distances by tugboat. (To work on the Big Dig, it was towed from its home base in California through the Panama Canal and up the eastern seaboard to Boston Harbor.) It navigates short distances by manipulating its anchors and cables. When dredging the Boston Harbor trench, it typically moved in this way once every couple of hours, covering a distance of 30-to-50 feet each time.
Dutra hired petitioner Willard Stewart, a marine engineer, to maintain the mechanical systems on the Super Scoop during its dredging of the harbor. At the time of Stewart's accident, the Super Scoop lay idle because one of its scows, Scow No. 4, had suffered an engine malfunction and the other was at sea. Stewart was on board Scow No. 4, feeding wires through an open hatch located about 10 feet above the engine area. While Stewart was perched beside the hatch, the Super Scoop used its bucket to move the scow. In the process, the scow collided with the Super Scoop, causing a jolt that plunged Stewart headfirst through the hatch to the deck below. He was seriously injured.
Stewart sued Dutra in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Jones Act, 38 Stat. 1185, 46 U. S. C. App. §688(a), alleging that he was a seaman injured by Dutra's negligence. He also filed an alternative claim under §5(b) of the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. §905(b), which authorizes covered employees to sue a "vessel" owner as a third party for an injury caused by the owner's negligence.
Dutra moved for summary judgment on the Jones Act claim, arguing that Stewart was not a seaman. The company acknowledged that Stewart was "a member of the [Super Scoop's] crew," 230 F. 3d 461, 466 (CA1 2000); that he spent "[n]inety-nine percent of his time while on the job" aboard the Super Scoop, App. 20 (Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment); and that his "duties contributed to the function" of the Super Scoop, id., at 32. Dutra argued only that the Super Scoop was not a vessel for purposes of the Jones Act. Dutra pointed to the Court of Appeals' en banc decision in DiGiovanni v. Traylor Brothers, Inc., 959 F. 2d 1119 (CA1 1992), which held that "if a barge ... or other float's purpose or primary business is not navigation or commerce, then workers assigned thereto for its shore enterprise are to be considered seamen only when it is in actual navigation or transit" at the time of the plaintiff's injury. Id., at 1123 (internal quotation marks omitted). The District Court granted summary judgment to Dutra, because the Super Scoop's primary purpose was dredging rather than transportation and because it was stationary at the time of Stewart's injury.
On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that it too was bound by DiGiovanni. 230 F. 3d, at 467-468. The court reasoned that the Super Scoop's primary function was construction and that "[a]ny navigation or transportation that may be required is incidental to this primary function." Id., at 468. The court also concluded that the scow's movement at the time of the accident did not help Stewart, because his status as a seaman depended on the movement of the Super Scoop (which was stationary) rather than the scow. Id., at 469.
On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dutra on Stewart's alternative claim that Dutra was liable for negligence as an owner of a "vessel" under the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. §905(b). The Court of Appeals again affirmed. It noted that Dutra had conceded that the Super Scoop was a "vessel" for purposes of §905(b), explaining that "the LHWCA's definition of 'vessel' is 'significantly more inclusive than that used for evaluating seaman status under the Jones Act.' " 343 F. 3d 10, 13 (CA1 2003) (quoting Morehead v. Atkinson-Kiewit, 97 F. 3d 603, 607 (CA1 1996) (en banc)). The Court of Appeals nonetheless agreed with the District Court's conclusion that Dutra's alleged negligence was committed in its capacity as an employer rather than as owner of the vessel under §905(b).
We granted certiorari to resolve confusion over how to determine whether a watercraft is a "vessel" for purposes of the LHWCA. 540 U. S. 1177 (2004).
Prior to the passage of the Jones Act, general maritime law usually entitled a seaman who fell sick or was injured both to maintenance and cure (or the right to be cared for and paid wages during the voyage, see, e.g., Harden v. Gordon, 11 F. Cas. 480, 482-483 (No. 6,047) (CC Me. 1823) (Story, J.)), and to damages for any "injuries received . . . in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship," The Osceola, 189 U. S. 158, 175 (1903). Suits against shipowners for negligence, however, were barred. Courts presumed that the seaman, in signing articles of employment for the voyage, had assumed the risks of his occupation; thus a seaman was "not allowed to recover an indemnity for the negligence of the master, or any member of the crew." Ibid.
Congress enacted the Jones Act in 1920 to remove this bar to negligence suits by seamen. See Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U. S. 347, 354 (1995). Specifically, the Jones Act provides:
"Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply." 46 U. S. C. App. §688(a).
Although the statute is silent on who is a "seaman," both the maritime law backdrop against which Congress enacted the Jones Act and Congress' subsequent enactments provide some guidance.
First, "seaman" is a term of art that had an established meaning under general maritime law. We have thus presumed that when the Jones Act made available negligence remedies to "[a]ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment," Congress took the term "seaman" as the general maritime law found it. Chandris, supra, at 355 (citing Warner v. Goltra, 293 U. S. 155, 159 (1934)); G. Gilmore & C. Black, Law of Admiralty §6-21, pp. 328-329 (2d ed. 1975).
Second, Congress provided further guidance in 1927 when it enacted the LHWCA, which provides scheduled compensation to land-based maritime workers but which also excepts from its coverage "a master or member of a crew of any vessel." 33 U. S. C. §902(3)(G). This exception is simply "a refinement of the term 'seaman' in the Jones Act." McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U. S. 337, 347 (1991). Thus the Jones Act and the LHWCA are complementary regimes that work in tandem: The Jones Act provides tort remedies to sea-based maritime workers, while the LHWCA provides workers' compensation to land-based maritime employees. Ibid.; Swanson v. Marra Brothers, Inc., 328 U. S. 1, 6-7 (1946).
Still, discerning the contours of "seaman" status, even with the general maritime law and the LHWCA's language as aids to interpretation, has not been easy. See Chandris, supra, at 356. We began clarifying the definition of "seaman" in a pair of cases, McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, supra, and Chandris, supra, that addressed the relationship a worker must have to a vessel in order to be a "master or member" of its crew. We now turn to the other half of the LHWCA's equation: how to determine whether a watercraft is a "vessel."
Just as Congress did not define the term "seaman" in the Jones Act,1 it did not define the term "vessel" in the LHWCA itself.2 However, Congress provided a definition elsewhere. At the time of the LHWCA's enactment, §§1 and 3 of the Revised Statutes of 1873 specified:
"In determining the meaning of the revised statutes, or of any act or resolution of Congress passed subsequent to February twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, ... [t]he word 'vessel' includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water."3 18 Stat., pt. 1, p. 1.
Sections 1 and 3 show that, because the LHWCA is an Act of Congress passed after February 25, 1871, the LHWCA's use of the term "vessel" "includes every description of water-craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water." Ibid.
Section 3's definition, repealed and recodified in 1947 as part of the Rules of Construction Act, 1 U. S. C. §3, has remained virtually unchanged from 1873 to the present.4 Even now, §3 continues to supply the default definition of "vessel" throughout the U. S. Code, "unless the context indicates otherwise." 1 U. S. C. §1. The context surrounding the LHWCA's enactment indicates that §3 defines the term "vessel" for purposes of the LHWCA.
Section 3 merely codified the meaning that the term "vessel" had acquired in general maritime law. See 1 S. Friedell, Benedict on Admiralty §165 (rev. 7th ed. 2004). In the decades following its enactment, §3 was regularly used to define the term "vessel" in maritime jurisprudence. Taking only the issue presented here--whether a dredge is a vessel--prior to passage of the Jones Act and the LHWCA, courts often used §3's definition to conclude that dredges were vessels.5
From the very beginning, these courts understood the differences between dredges and more traditional seagoing vessels. Though smaller, the dredges at issue in the earliest cases were essentially the same as the Super Scoop here. For instance, the court could have been speaking equally of the Super Scoop as of The Alabama when it declared:
"The dredge and scows have no means of propulsion of their own except that the dredge, by use of anchors, windlass, and rope, is moved for short distances, as required in carrying on the business of dredging. Both the dredge and the scows are moved from place to place where they may be employed by being towed, and some of the tows have been for long distances and upon the high seas. The dredge and scows are not made for or adapted to the carriage of freight or passengers, and the evidence does not show that, in point of fact, this dredge and scows had ever been so used and employed." The Alabama, 19 F. 544, 545 (SD Ala. 1884).
See also Huismann v. The Pioneer, 30 F. 206 (EDNY 1886). None of this prevented the court from recognizing that dredges are vessels because they are watercraft with "the capacity to be navigated in and upon the waters." The Alabama, supra, at 546; see also The Pioneer, supra, at 207; The International, 89 F. 484, 485 (CA3 1898).
This Court also treated dredges as vessels prior to the passage of the Jones Act and the LHWCA. It did so in a pair of cases, first implicitly in The "Virginia Ehrman" and the "Agnese," 97 U. S. 309 (1878), and then explicitly in Ellis v. United States, 206 U. S. 246 (1907). In Ellis, this Court considered, inter alia, whether workers aboard various dredges and scows were covered by a federal labor law. Just as in the present case, one of the Ellis appellants argued that the dredges at issue were "vessels" within the meaning of Rev. Stat. §3, now 1 U. S. C. §3. 206 U. S., at 249. The United States responded that dredges were only vessels, if at all, when in actual navigation as they were "towed from port to port." Id., at 253. Citing §3, Justice Holmes rejected the Government's argument, stating that "[t]he scows and floating dredges were vessels" that "were within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States." Id., at 259.
These early cases show that at the time Congress enacted the Jones Act and the LHWCA in the 1920's, it was settled that §3 defined the term "vessel" for purposes of those statutes. It was also settled that a structure's status as a vessel under §3 depended on whether the structure was a means of maritime transportation. See R. Hughes, Handbook of Admiralty Law §5, p. 14 (2d ed. 1920). For then, as now, dredges served a waterborne transportation function, since in performing their work they carried machinery, equipment, and crew over water. See, e.g., Butler v. Ellis, 45 F. 2d 951, 955 (CA4 1930) (finding the vessel status of dredges "sustained by the overwhelming weight of authority"); The Hurricane, 2 F. 2d 70, 72 (ED Pa. 1924) (expressing "no doubt" that dredges are vessels), aff'd, 9 F. 2d 396 (CA3 1925).
This Court's cases have continued to treat §3 as defining the term "vessel" in the LHWCA, and they have continued to construe §3's definition in light of the term's established meaning in general maritime law. For instance, in Norton v. Warner Co., 321 U. S. 565 (1944), the Court considered whether a worker on a harbor barge was "a master or member of a crew of any vessel" under the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. §902(3)(G). In finding that the "barge [was] a vessel within the meaning of the Act," the Court not only quoted §3's definition of the term "vessel," but it also cited in support of its holding several earlier cases that had held dredges to be vessels based on the general maritime law. 321 U. S., at 571, and n. 4. This Court therefore confirmed in Norton that §3 defines the term "vessel" in the LHWCA and that §3 should be construed consistently with the general maritime law. Since Norton, this Court has often said that dredges and comparable watercraft qualify as vessels under the Jones Act and the LHWCA.6
Despite this Court's reliance on §3 in cases like Ellis and Norton, Dutra argues that the Court has implicitly narrowed §3's definition. Section 3 says that a "vessel" must be "used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water." 18 Stat., pt. 1, p. 1. In a pair of cases, the Court held that a drydock, Cope v. Vallette Dry Dock Co., 119 U. S. 625, 630 (1887), and a wharfboat attached to the mainland, Evansville & Bowling Green Packet Co. v. Chero Cola Bottling Co., 271 U. S. 19, 22 (1926), were not vessels under §3, because they were not practically capable of being used to transport people, freight, or cargo from place to place. According to Dutra, Cope and Evansville adopted a definition of "vessel" narrower than §3's text.
Dutra misreads Cope and Evansville. In Cope, the plaintiff sought a salvage award for having prevented a drydock from sinking after a steamship collided with it. 119 U. S., at 625-626. At the time of the accident, the drydock, a floating dock used for repairing vessels, was "moored and lying at [the] usual place" it had occupied for the past 20 years. Id., at 626. In those circumstances, the drydock was a "fixed structure" that had been "permanently moored," rather than a vessel that had been temporarily anchored. Id., at 627. Evansville involved a wharfboat secured by cables to the mainland. Local water, electricity, and telephone lines all ran from shore to the wharfboat, evincing a "permanent location." 271 U. S., at 22. And the wharfboat, like the drydock in Cope, was neither "taken from place to place" nor "used to carry freight from one place to another." 271 U. S., at 22. As in Cope, the Court concluded that the wharfboat "was not practically capable of being used as a means of transportation." 271 U. S., at 22.
Cope and Evansville did no more than construe §3 in light of the distinction drawn by the general maritime law between watercraft temporarily stationed in a particular location and those permanently affixed to shore or resting on the ocean floor. See, e.g., The Alabama, 19 F., at 546 (noting that vessels possess "mobility and [the] capacity to navigate," as distinct from fixed structures like wharves, drydocks, and bridges). Simply put, a watercraft is not "capable of being used" for maritime transport in any meaningful sense if it has been permanently moored or otherwise rendered practically incapable of transportation or movement.
This distinction is sensible: A ship and its crew do not move in and out of Jones Act coverage depending on whether the ship is at anchor, docked for loading or unloading, or berthed for minor repairs, in the same way that ships taken permanently out of the water as a practical matter do not remain vessels merely because of the remote possibility that they may one day sail again. See Pavone v. Mississippi Riverboat Amusement Corp., 52 F. 3d 560, 570 (CA5 1995) (floating casino was no longer a vessel where it "was moored to the shore in a semi-permanent or indefinite manner"); Kathriner v. Unisea, Inc., 975 F. 2d 657, 660 (CA9 1992) (floating processing plant was no longer a vessel where a "large opening [had been] cut into her hull," rendering her incapable of moving over the water). Even if the general maritime law had not informed the meaning of §3, its definition would not sweep within its reach an array of fixed structures not commonly thought of as capable of being used for water transport. See, e.g., Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. ___, ___ (2004) (slip op., at 7) ("When interpreting a statute, we must give words their 'ordinary or natural' meaning" (quoting Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 228 (1993))).
Applying §3 brings within the purview of the Jones Act the sorts of watercraft considered vessels at the time Congress passed the Act. By including special-purpose vessels like dredges, §3 sweeps broadly, but the other prerequisites to qualifying for seaman status under the Jones Act provide some limits, notwithstanding §3's breadth. A maritime worker seeking Jones Act seaman status must also prove that his duties contributed to the vessel's function or mission, and that his connection to the vessel was substantial both in nature and duration. Chandris, 515 U. S., at 376. Thus, even though the Super Scoop is a "vessel," workers injured aboard the Super Scoop are eligible for seaman status only if they are "master[s] or member[s]" of its crew.
The Court of Appeals, relying on its previous en banc decision in DiGiovanni v. Traylor Brothers, Inc., 959 F. 2d 1119 (CA1 1992), held that the Super Scoop is not a "vessel," because its primary purpose is not navigation or commerce and because it was not in actual transit at the time of Stewart's injury. 230 F. 3d, at 468-469. Neither prong of the Court of Appeals' test is consistent with the text of §3 or the established meaning of the term "vessel" in general maritime law.
Section 3 requires only that a watercraft be "used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water" to qualify as a vessel. It does not require that a watercraft be used primarily for that purpose. See The Alabama, supra, at 546; The International, 89 F., at 485. As the Court of Appeals recognized, the Super Scoop's "function was to move through Boston Harbor, ... digging the ocean bottom as it moved." 343 F. 3d, at 12. In other words, the Super Scoop was not only "capable of being used" to transport equipment and workers over water--it was used to transport those things. Indeed, it could not have dug the Ted Williams Tunnel had it been unable to traverse the Boston Harbor, carrying with it workers like Stewart.
Also, a watercraft need not be in motion to qualify as a vessel under §3. Looking to whether a watercraft is motionless or moving is the sort of "snapshot" test that we rejected in Chandris. Just as a worker does not "oscillate back and forth between Jones Act coverage and other remedies depending on the activity in which the worker was engaged while injured," Chandris, 515 U. S., at 363, neither does a watercraft pass in and out of Jones Act coverage depending on whether it was moving at the time of the accident.
Granted, the Court has sometimes spoken of the requirement that a vessel be "in navigation," id., at 373-374, but never to indicate that a structure's locomotion at any given moment mattered. Rather, the point was that structures may lose their character as vessels if they have been withdrawn from the water for extended periods of time. Ibid.; Roper v. United States, 368 U. S. 20, 21, 23 (1961); West v. United States, 361 U. S. 118, 122 (1959). The Court did not mean that the "in navigation" requirement stood apart from §3, such that a "vessel" for purposes of §3 might nevertheless not be a "vessel in navigation" for purposes of the Jones Act or the LHWCA. See, e.g., United States v. Templeton, 378 F. 3d 845, 851 (CA8 2004) ("[T]he definition of 'vessel in navigation' under the Jones Act is not as expansive as the general definition of 'vessel' " (citations omitted)).
Instead, the "in navigation" requirement is an element of the vessel status of a watercraft. It is relevant to whether the craft is "used, or capable of being used" for maritime transportation. A ship long lodged in a drydock or shipyard can again be put to sea, no less than one permanently moored to shore or the ocean floor can be cut loose and made to sail. The question remains in all cases whether the watercraft's use "as a means of transportation on water" is a practical possibility or merely a theoretical one. Supra, at 11-12. In some cases that inquiry may involve factual issues for the jury, Chandris, supra, at 373, but here no relevant facts were in dispute. Dutra conceded that the Super Scoop was only temporarily stationary while Stewart and others were repairing the scow; the Super Scoop had not been taken out of service, permanently anchored, or otherwise rendered practically incapable of maritime transport.
Finally, although Dutra argues that the Super Scoop is not a "vessel" under §902(3)(G), which is the LHWCA provision that excludes seamen from the Act's coverage, Dutra conceded below that the Super Scoop is a "vessel" under §905(b), which is the LHWCA provision that imposes liability on vessel owners for negligence to longshoremen. The concession was necessary because the Court of Appeals had previously held that §905(b)'s use of the term "vessel" is " 'significantly more inclusive than that used for evaluating seaman status under the Jones Act.' " 343 F. 3d, at 13 (quoting Morehead v. Atkinson-Kiewit, 97 F. 3d, at 607). The Court of Appeals' approach is no longer tenable. The LHWCA does not meaningfully define the term "vessel" as it appears in either §902(3)(G) or §905(b), see n. 2, supra, and 1 U. S. C. §3 defines the term "vessel" throughout the LHWCA.
At the time that Congress enacted the LHWCA and since, Rev. Stat. §3, now 1 U. S. C. §3, has defined the term "vessel" in the LHWCA. Under §3, a "vessel" is any watercraft practically capable of maritime transportation, regardless of its primary purpose or state of transit at a particular moment. Because the Super Scoop was engaged in maritime transportation at the time of Stewart's injury, it was a vessel within the meaning of 1 U. S. C. §3. Despite the seeming incongruity of grouping dredges alongside more traditional seafaring vessels under the maritime statutes, Congress and the courts have long done precisely that:
"[I]t seems a stretch of the imagination to class the deck hands of a mud dredge in the quiet waters of a Potomac creek with the bold and skillful mariners who breast the angry waves of the Atlantic; but such and so far-reaching are the principles which underlie the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty that they adapt themselves to all the new kinds of property and new sets of operatives and new conditions which are brought into existence in the progress of the world." Saylor v. Taylor, 77 F. 476, 479 (CA4 1896).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
The Shipping Act of 1916 defines the term "vessel" for purposes of the Jones Act. See 46 U. S. C. App. §801. However, the provision of the Jones Act at issue here, §688(a), speaks not of "vessels," but of "seamen." In any event, because we have identified a Jones Act "seaman" with reference to the LHWCA's exclusion, see 33 U. S. C. §902(3)(G) ("a master or member of a crew of any vessel"), it is the LHWCA's use of the term "vessel" that matters. And, as we explain, the context surrounding Congress' enactment of the LHWCA suggests that Rev. Stat. §3, now 1 U. S. C. §3, provides the controlling definition of the term "vessel" in the LHWCA.
As part of its 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA, Congress amended the Act with what appears at first blush to be a definition of the term "vessel": "Unless the context requires otherwise, the term 'vessel' means any vessel upon which or in connection with which any person entitled to benefits under this chapter suffers injury or death arising out of or in the course of his employment, and said vessel's owner, owner pro hac vice, agent, operator, charter or bare boat charterer, master, officer, or crew member." 33 U. S. C. §902(21). However, Congress enacted this definition in conjunction with the third-party vessel owner provision of §905(b). Rather than specifying the characteristics of a vessel, §902(21) instead lists the parties liable for the negligent operation of a vessel. See McCarthy v. The Bark Peking, 716 F. 2d 130, 133 (CA2 1983) (§902(21) is "circular" and "does not provide precise guidance as to what is included within the term 'vessel' ").
Congress had used substantially the same definition before, first in an 1866 antismuggling statute, see §1, 14 Stat. 178, and then in an 1870 statute "provid[ing] for the Relief of sick and disabled Seamen," §7, 16 Stat. 170.
During the 1947 codification, the hyphen was removed from the word "watercraft." §3, 61 Stat. 633.
See, e.g., The Alabama, 19 F. 544, 546 (SD Ala. 1884) (dredge was a vessel and subject to maritime liens); Huismann v. The Pioneer, 30 F. 206, 207 (EDNY 1886) (dredge was a vessel under §3); Saylor v. Taylor, 77 F. 476, 477 (CA4 1896) (dredge was a vessel under §3, and its workers were seamen); The International, 89 F. 484, 484-485 (CA3 1898) (dredge was a vessel under §3); Eastern S. S. Corp. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 256 F. 497, 500-501 (CA1 1919) (type of dredge called a "drillboat" was a vessel under §3); Los Angeles v. United Dredging Co., 14 F. 2d 364, 365-366 (CA9 1926) (dredge was a vessel under §3 and its engineers were seamen).
See, e.g., Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U. S. 527, 535, and n. 1 (1995) (indicating that a stationary crane barge was a "vessel" under the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act); Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Gizoni, 502 U. S. 81, 92 (1991) (holding that a jury could reasonably find that floating platforms were "vessels in navigation" under the Jones Act); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U. S. 523, 528-530 (1983) (treating coal barge as a "vessel" under the LHWCA, 33 U. S. C. §905(b)); cf. Senko v. LaCrosse Dredging Corp., 352 U. S. 370, 372 (1957) (assuming that a dredge was a Jones Act vessel); id., at 375, n. 1 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (same).
Isn't this old news just more %$ posted by the idiot? This isn't a place for typing practice.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|