Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 11
11 Sample and Responses SOURCES FOR LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATA The survey was distributed to all state DOTs, as well as to The literature review and sources of data mainly focused on selected MPOs that were known to be active in recent freight U.S. practice and experience. However, the freight transpor- planning activities. These were the primary intended audi- tation surveys and data collection practices in several other ence. To further broaden the coverage, the survey also was regions such as Canada, the European Union, and Australia sent to selected marine and airport authorities, academics, provided helpful insight on the state of the practice. In such and commercial freight data purveyors. In total, 74 individ- cases, resources were also compiled based on international ual agencies were contacted. experience. The greatest number of responses (46) was received from Relevant publications and reports were located by vari- state DOTs. This number includes three DOTs that did not ous search methods, including the following five sources of participate in the survey but that indicated separately that information: they are not involved in freight surveys (i.e., the subject was "not applicable" to them). This number also includes · Online Transportation Research Information Service responses from two different offices of the California DOT, (TRIS); which chose to respond separately: in the ensuing discus- · DOT and MPO websites; sion of the results, the two responses have been combined · Documents provided by DOTs, MPOs, academic insti- only where appropriate. Each of the other sampled agencies tutions, and the Project Panel; responded only once. The greatest rate of return was repre- · Academic and practitioner contacts identified by the sented by the 45 state DOT respondents, at 88%. Overall, consultant and the Project Panel; and 55 of the solicited agencies responded, for a response rate · The consultant's internal library. of 74%. Table 1 in the previous chapter presents the rates of return by agency type.