At the Port Level, Most Key Stakeholders Have Limited Involvement in VTS 2000

Given that the Coast Guard is not yet at the point of determining what VTS 2000 equipment will be installed at each port, it is perhaps not surprising that many key stakeholders we interviewed said they had little or no involvement in VTS 2000. However, among those who supported VTS 2000, many said their support was conditional. As table 3 showed, views on funding such a system were mixed. In general, because stakeholders we interviewed perceived that other VTS alternatives could be less costly than VTS 2000, they were somewhat more disposed to consider paying for a VTS alternative. These concerns include the private sector’s ability to fund the initial start-up costs of such a system, the private sector’s exposure to liability, and the Coast Guard’s role in planning and overseeing a privately funded system. A report produced by the state of Florida states that “any interim [VTS] system should be established in conjunction with the Coast Guard since a system without Coast Guard support will have no real authority and may not conform with other U.S. Coast Guard systems.”
While support for the Coast Guard’s involvement in privately funded systems was widespread, opinions were somewhat divided over what form this involvement should take. Important questions about the VTS program currently remain unanswered, including how many ports need the system, how much it will cost, and whether other cost-effective solutions are available. Given the (1) high development costs for the program (estimated at up to $145 million) and (2) the large number of proposed sites that show relatively low net benefits from acquiring new VTS 2000 systems, determine whether the safety benefits of VTS 2000 can be achieved more inexpensively by installing other VTS systems, perhaps patterned after existing, recently upgraded Coast Guard systems. The scope of its operation depends in part on the river conditions. Ten of the 17 ports under consideration for VTS 2000, however, currently have some form of VTS system or radio-based information system. II provided additional information on the Port Needs Study). Additional copies are $2 each. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Coast Guard's vessel traffic service (VTS) 2000 program, focusing on: (1) the status of the program; (2) the extent to which major stakeholders support the programs; (3) whether major stakeholders who do not support VTS 2000 acquisition and funding are interested in acquiring other VTS systems; and (4) the issues that could affect privately funded VTS systems.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) VTS 2000 presents large-scale uncertainties as to the demand for the system or how much it will cost because the Coast Guard does not have adequate information on how many ports will operate VTS 2000; (2) VTS 2000 development plans have not reached the stage where specific components have been selected for ports; (3) at many proposed locations, the economic benefits of installing VTS 2000 are unclear; (4) VTS 2000 stakeholders stated that they have had no involvement with the program; (5) support for VTS 2000 is mixed because potential stakeholders believe that it will be too expensive for their ports and users would be unfairly targeted; (6) supporters of other VTS systems believed that alternate systems would be less expensive or existing systems were sufficient; (7) ports without VTS favor adding some form of VTS capability, but are reluctant to fund it; and (8) the privatization of VTS depends on the private sector's ability to fund the system, exposure to liability, and the Coast Guard's ability to oversee the transition.