Clickable Ports Table

Ports Master Table

Ports Master Table

50-State Ports Infrastructure Profile
ASCE National Ports Grade: B 2025 SOURCE
State ↕ Current Ports
Spending ↕		 % National
Current Spending ↕		 Additional Spending
Needed for B ↕		 Ports
Grade ↕
Alabama$7.09B2.025%$1.73BC
Alaska$6.80B1.944%$2.48BC-
Arizona$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
Arkansas$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
California$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
Colorado$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
Connecticut$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
Delaware$8.03B2.295%$0.00BB
Florida$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
Georgia$8.76B2.503%$0.00BB
Hawaii$7.75B2.214%$0.00BB-
Idaho$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
Illinois$8.03B2.295%$0.00BB
Indiana$6.70B1.914%$0.99BC+
Iowa$5.93B1.693%$1.73BC
Kansas$5.93B1.693%$1.73BC
Kentucky$5.93B1.693%$1.73BC
Louisiana$8.76B2.503%$0.00BB
Maine$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
Maryland$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
Massachusetts$8.22B2.349%$0.00BB+
Michigan$7.04B2.012%$0.00BB-
Minnesota$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
Mississippi$6.80B1.944%$2.48BC-
Missouri$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
Montana$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
Nebraska$5.93B1.693%$1.73BC
Nevada$5.93B1.693%$1.73BC
New Hampshire$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
New Jersey$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
New Mexico$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
New York$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
North Carolina$7.75B2.214%$0.00BB-
North Dakota$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
Ohio$7.75B2.214%$0.00BB-
Oklahoma$5.93B1.693%$1.73BC
Oregon$8.03B2.295%$0.00BB
Pennsylvania$8.03B2.295%$0.00BB
Rhode Island$6.48B1.851%$0.00BB-
South Carolina$7.75B2.214%$0.00BB-
South Dakota$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
Tennessee$6.48B1.851%$0.00BB-
Texas$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
Utah$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
Vermont$5.93B1.693%$1.73BC
Virginia$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
Washington$8.97B2.562%$0.00BB+
West Virginia$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
Wisconsin$6.16B1.761%$0.99BC+
Wyoming$5.69B1.626%$2.48BC-
MODEL DATA NOTICE: ASCE's 2025 national Ports grade is B. ASCE reports more than 300 U.S. ports, 743 million tons of cargo handled in 2023, and $38 billion in future needs for 2024–2033. The state grades, national current-spending amount, B-target amount, and state allocation multipliers below are provisional model inputs, because the supplied Transit source did not contain an authoritative 50-state Ports allocation dataset. The engine keeps those assumptions separate from ASCE facts.
National Infrastructure Amount: $5.41 Trillion  •  Model National Ports Amount: $350.00B  •  Model B Target: $400.00B  •  Model Additional Requirement: $50.00B
Variable Category-Specific Allocation Percentage: Each state's Ports allocation is independently normalized from Ports grade weight × Ports-specific allocation multiplier. The engine does not copy the Transit, Rail, or Hazardous Waste allocation pattern.
PORTS GRADE
CURRENT PORTS SPENDING
ADDITIONAL NEEDED FOR B
NATIONAL SHARE

Comments

New comments are not allowed.

Popular posts from this blog

Storm Shield Strategy Simulation — Official Simulation Engine

Image
Copy Interactive Post -        Paste In Copilot          Copilot permits interactive answers and scoring.    Copy Text.  # 🌊 STORM SHIELD STRATEGY SIMULATION — UNIVERSAL INTERACTIVE ROUND TEMPLATE # (Reusable for ALL PHASES / ROUNDS — no examples, no previous data) # ROUND N — INTERACTIVE ENGINE --- ## STEP 1 — PROJECT ASSIGNMENT Copilot loads the round’s scenario and provides: - Base Score (0–100 master score framework) - Starting Budget (current approved budget level) - Current Cost Estimate - Overrun Percentage - National Impact Context (local vs national economic security) - Phase Context (e.g., Build / Financing / Contracts / Audit / Environment / Port / Real Estate / Climate / Storm Test / Final Construction / Maintenance) **User Action:** None — Copilot initializes the round. --- ## STEP 2 — RISK & COST BASELINE Copilot lists the round’s risk and cost conditions and sets: - Starting Score - Safety / Economic / Cost ...
Read more

Transit Infrastructure Grades (Quality Rankings)

Image
Aging vehicles — Old fleets causing breakdowns, delays, high costs, poor reliability. Station deterioration — Worn stations reducing safety, accessibility, comfort, and service quality. Maintenance backlogs — Deferred repairs increasing failures, costs, and operational disruptions. Capacity limitations — Insufficient service unable to meet rider demand or growth. Accessibility needs — Missing ADA features restricting mobility for disabled and elderly riders. 🚇 U.S. Transit Infrastructure Tier System (Quality Rankings) Based on Updated Transit Grades You Provided 🟢 TOP TIER — C / C− (Above National Baseline) States with relatively stronger transit systems, lower additional funding gaps, and better operational stability. California — C− Colorado — C− Connecticut — C− Illinois — C− Massachusetts — C− New Hampshire — C− New Jersey — C− ...
Read more

Clickable Transit Table

Transit — 50-State Clickable Master Table — ASCE Maryland Corrected Transit — 50-State Clickable Master Table ASCE State Grade Corrections • D+ National Average • Variable Category-Specific Allocation NATIONAL TRANSIT AVERAGE: D+ — 67.0 ASCE SOURCE 50-STATE MODEL AVERAGE 65.6 — D+ MARYLAND ASCE TRANSIT D+ NEW YORK ASCE TRANSIT D+ B− OR BETTER 0 STATES Reset STATE TITLE ↕ CURRENT TRANSIT SPENDING ↕ % NATIONAL CURRENT SPENDING ↕ ADDITIONAL SPENDING NEEDED FOR B− ↕ GRADE ↕ Alabama $9.42B 2.021% $3.29B D Alaska $8.70B 1.867% $2.93B D Arizona $8.71B 1.868% $2.56B D+ Arkansas $9.44B 2.027% $3.51B D- California $8.79B 1.886% $1.97B C- Colorado $8.63B 1.853% $2.26B C- Connecticut $8.06B 1.729% $1.81B C- Delaware $7.70B 1.653% $2.15B D+ Florida $10.05B 2.156% $2.96B D+ Georgia $9.78B 2.100% $3.16B D Hawaii $8.70B 1.867% $2.93B D Idaho $8.95B 1.920% $3.12B D Illinois $9.10B 1.954% $2.22B C- Indiana $9.52B 2.043% $3.21B D Iowa $8.95B 1.92...
Read more