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 12
12
CHAPTER THREE
FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS: STATE OF THE PRACTICE
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 2
APPLICATIONS AND MODES CONSIDERED IN FREIGHT
This chapter describes the state of the practice as determined TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS/DATA
from the practitioner surveys. Following this introduction, Intermodal/
the discussion is organized according to the six survey Cross-
sections: Application/ Truck/ modal/
Mode Highway Rail Air Marine Multimodal Total
1. Applications of existing data collection are described Infrastructure
in Applications. Capacity 43 26 19 19 27 134
Planning
Modeling 39 11 7 6 9 72
2. Survey methods and data characteristics are described Cost-benefit
in State of the Practice for each of the different types 24 17 7 10 12 70
Analysis
of surveys that are included in the study scope. The Land Use
20 6 8 8 9 51
Survey Costs section discusses survey costs for each Planning
of the survey types. The Data Availability and Dis- Operations
semination section reviews data availability and and/or Safety 32 17 14 10 15 88
Analysis
dissemination.
Environmen-
25 16 14 12 16 83
tal Impacts
3. Practitioners' freight data requirements are discussed Policy 38 28 24 25 29 144
in Freight Data Requirements.
Total 221 121 93 90 117 642
4. Practitioners' use of public and commercial data
sources is presented in Use of Existing Data Sets. Several observations may be made regarding this table:
5. Practitioners' use of ITS technologies for surveys · The range of applications was broad, with 642 applica-
and data collection is described in Use of Intelligent tions cited. The dominant applications were policy (144
Transportation System Technologies. citations) and infrastructure capacity planning (134).
Modeling was well down on the list, at 72 citations; oper-
6. Finally, User Assessment of Data presents practitio- ations/safety analysis (88) and environmental impacts
ners' assessment of how well current surveys and data (83) each garnered a greater number of citations. All
meet their needs. The section also provides a discus- types of applications were cited, with cost-benefit anal-
sion of lessons learned. ysis cited almost as frequently as modeling (70 times)
and land use planning cited the fewest (51) times. This
It is important to note that the information was provided broader range is consistent with the findings of a 2004
in confidence. Accordingly, individual respondents or facili- study of urban freight data needs, which pointed out that
ties are identified only generally (e.g., "state DOT"). Appen- the data are needed for infrastructure planning, opera-
dix A provides a complete summary of the survey results tions, safety, and environmental issues, in addition to the
and is a web-only document. more traditional applications in planning and modeling.
That study also grouped data needs into five categories:
cargo; road transportation; major freight generators
APPLICATIONS and corridors; non-road transportation modes; and eco-
nomic, land use, and socioeconomic data (1).
Table 2 tabulates the purposes and transportation modes that · Trucks/highways were the dominant mode, at 221
respondents consider in their freight transportation surveys citations. However, each of the other modes also was
and/or data assembly. Note that respondents were asked to important. Rail was next, at 121 citations. Intermodal,
identify all relevant applications and modes. cross-modal, and multi-modal had 117 citations. Next
OCR for page 13
13
was air (93), and finally marine (90). Again, the domi- ing by seven respondents (the same number that cited manual
nance of trucking and the range of modes are consistent license plate matching), and Global Positioning System (GPS)
with the breadth of interest cited in the 2004 study (1). vehicle tracking by five respondents. Commercial vehicle trip
· Table 2 does not include the following "other" diaries were cited only by four respondents. Other survey
applications: types comprised [truck] toll revenues, motor carrier identifi-
Understanding the economic importance of trans- cation surveys, and multimodal freight studies.
portation facilities and needs
Supporting the activities of a freight study or of a
freight task force (i.e., a freight council)
Performance measures and management (from both
user and owner perspectives)
Customer satisfaction and marketing among users
Provide "voice" to shippers
Informing plans and policies, including routing,
service coverage areas, bottlenecks, corridor stud-
ies, master plans, systems plans, and goods move-
ment action plans
Assisting in data fusion and trend analysis (also a
function of the need to collect all types of data) FIGURE 1 Types of surveys conducted by respondents.
Identifying gaps and priorities
Toll feasibility analysis Table 3 compares the applications for which the surveys
Reporting for the calculation of fees, including were (or were to be) used. Respondents were asked to indicate
statewide rail safety fee all applications, and the number of citations--306--indicated
Analysis of the movement of hazardous materials that the surveys commonly were used for many applications.
Administration of grants and loans By far the most common application was infrastructure or
Calibration of a combined land use, economic and facility planning, with 88 of 296 citations (30%). Demand
transportation model management and traffic safety applications were next, at 52
Refinement of a strategic investment system plan. and 49 citations respectively. Logistics planning, land use
· The importance and broad application of data are encap- planning, and air quality management followed, at 34, 26, and
sulated in one respondent's comment that "the ways in 24 citations respectively. These applications generally were
which decision makers seek freight data and ask ques- well distributed across all survey types. Several other pur-
tion is limitless. There are no areas of freight data that poses also were cited, although never exceeding five citations:
do not apply. The proprietary nature of freight data and notably, modeling was cited by only five respondents.
the myriad of freight transportation projects [dictate]
that freight data of all types [must] be captured." Table 4 indicates that many respondents conducted sev-
eral types of surveys and data activities jointly. Roadside/
Table 2 describes both data that were collected by the intercept surveys (40 citations), telephone surveys (20), mail-
respondent and data that were assembled from other sources. back surveys (18), personal interviews (26), and focus group/
In comparison, only 37 of the 56 respondents (66%) indi- stakeholder surveys (18) most commonly were conducted with
cated that they actually administer or fund the data collec- other survey types, notably personal interviews (31), telephone
tion: in other words, a significant number of respondents use surveys (26), and focus group/stakeholder surveys (25).
data from other sources, and agencies may both collect and
assemble data. Table 5 describes the geographic coverage of the surveys.
The coverage ranged from facility- and corridor-specific to
There was a range of activities among the respondents urban, state, national, and international in scale. Statewide
who administered or funded surveys and data collection. The coverage was cited most commonly (43 occurrences), fol-
practitioners' survey indicates that at least some agencies sup- lowed by corridor-specific and regional (26 and 25 citations
ported more than one type of survey and data activity. As respectively). One additional respondent specified corridor-
Figure 1 indicates, roadside/intercept surveys were most fre- specific across this respondent's state. These tendencies gen-
quent (25 citations), followed by focus and stakeholder groups erally were prevalent across all survey types.
and personal interviews (18 citations each) and almost half
conducted personal interviews (17 respondents). Next were Table 6 describes the modes that were covered in the
mail-out/mail-back surveys (14), telephone surveys (12), and surveys. Trucks dominated, at 105 responses, followed by
combined telephone and mail-out/mail-back surveys (7). rail (34), marine (28), intermodal (27), and air (24). Three
Among newer electronic technologies, Internet (web) surveys respondents covered all modes. Again, these tendencies gen-
were cited by 12 respondents, electronic license plate match- erally were prevalent across all survey types.
OCR for page 14
TABLE 3
14
Survey applications
Com- License
Com- mercial GPS License plate
Roadside/ Mail-out/ bined tele- vehicle Personal Focus/ vehicle plate match
intercept mail- phone/ trip diary Internet inter- Stakeholder tracking match elec- Admini-
surveys Telephone back mail-back surveys surveys views groups surveys manual tronic strative Other Total
Land Use Planning 3 4 1 1 0 1 7 6 1 0 2 0 0 26
Infrastructure/Facility
24 9 10 6 0 3 11 12 2 2 3 1 5 88
Planning
Traffic Safety
13 5 4 3 0 3 5 7 2 2 2 1 2 49
Operations
Demand Management 17 5 5 2 2 1 7 7 2 0 2 1 1 52
Air Quality
6 3 2 1 1 0 3 4 1 0 0 1 2 24
Management
Logistics Planning 8 3 4 3 0 1 6 6 0 0 1 1 1 34
Modeling 1 1 2
Validation of Other
3 1 1 5
Data
Routing Analysis 2 2
Economic Impact/Per-
2 2
formance/ Activity
Facility Management 1 1 1 3
Communications 1 1 2
Policy/Planning/
1 1 2
Programming
Customer Satisfaction/
Business Development/ 1 1 1 1 1 5
Market Research
Outreach/Potential Proj-
1 1 2 4
ects/Perceptions
Origin-Destination Data
1 1 1 3
for Freight
Variety 1 1 2
Other, Not Specified 1 1
Total 79 34 29 20 4 11 43 43 9 4 10 5 15 306
OCR for page 15
TABLE 4
Incidence of joint surveys
GPS
Roadside/ Com-bined Com-mercial Personal Focus/ vehicle License License
intercept Tele- Mail-out/ telephone/ vehicle trip Internet inter- Stakeholder tracking plate match plate match Admini-
surveys phone mail-back mail-back diary surveys surveys views groups surveys manual electronic strative Other Total
Roadside/Intercept
7 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 3 1 1 0 20
Surveys
Telephone Surveys 3 5 3 2 1 0 6 2 1 1 0 0 2 26
Mail-out/Mail-back
3 2 2 1 0 1 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 17
Surveys
Combined Telephone
2 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 9
Mail-out/Mail-back
Commercial Vehicle
Trip Diaries (e.g., trip 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
logs)
Internet Surveys 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5
Personal Interviews 9 4 4 1 0 2 5 3 1 1 0 0 1 31
Focus and Stakeholder
3 3 4 0 0 2 4 3 1 1 2 0 2 25
Groups
GPS Vehicle Tracking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
License Plate
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Match--Manual
License Plate
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Match--Electronic
Traffic Counts 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 11
Administrative Data 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Other (PIERS data) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 40 20 18 7 2 6 26 18 6 7 5 1 6 162
15
OCR for page 16
TABLE 5
16
Geographic scope of surveyS
Commercial
Roadside/ Combined vehicle Focus/ GPS vehicle License License
intercept Mail-out/ telephone/ trip diary Internet Personal stakeholder tracking plate match plate match Admini-
surveys Telephone mail-back mail-back surveys surveys interviews groups surveys manual electronic strative Other Total
Facility-specific
(bridges and 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
tunnels)
Facility-specific
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
(marine ports)
Corridor-specific 7 1 3 1 0 1 4 4 1 2 1 0 1 26
Urban Area 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6
Regional 5 5 4 0 2 0 2 3 0 1 1 0 2 25
Statewide 10 5 4 4 0 3 6 8 0 0 0 2 1 43
Statewide and
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Corridor-specific
National 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
International 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Total 27 12 12 7 2 4 14 15 3 3 3 2 5 109
TABLE 6
Modes surveyed
Commercial
Roadside/ Combined vehicle GPS vehicle License
intercept Tele- Mail-out/ telephone/ trip diary Internet Personal Focus/stake- tracking plate match License plate Admini-
surveys phone mail-back mail-back surveys surveys interviews holder groups surveys manual match electronic strative Other Total
Truck 25 10 10 4 4 2 12 14 3 7 7 2 5 105
Rail 4 5 1 2 7 11 0 1 3 34
Air 4 4 0 2 7 6 0 1 0 24
Marine 5 5 1 2 8 5 0 1 1 28
Intermodal 2 4 2 3 4 9 0 1 2 27
All Modes 1 0 0 2 3
Shippers/Market
1 1 2
(all modes)
Autos and
1 1
Buses
Other (not
1 1
specified)
Total 25 26 29 9 4 11 39 45 3 7 7 6 14 225
OCR for page 17
TABLE 7
organizations surveyed
Roadside/ Combined Commercial Focus/ GPS vehicle License License
intercept Mail-out/ telephone/ vehicle trip Internet Personal Stakeholder tracking plate match plate match
surveys Telephone Mail-back mail-back diary surveys surveys interviews groups surveys manual electronic Administrative Other Total
Vehicle
5 6 4 0 1 9 9 2 2 2 2 3 45
Operators
Shippers/
8 7 3 1 2 11 11 0 1 1 1 3 49
Receivers
3PLs 5 3 1 0 1 3 8 0 0 0 1 3 25
Service Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 6
Terminals/Ports 6 5 1 0 2 7 10 1 1 0 1 3 37
Distribution
4 3 1 1 1 5 9 0 0 0 1 3 28
Centers
Other 0 0 0
Ocean Carriers 1 1
Public 1 1 2
Manufacturing,
Warehouse,
2 1 1 4
Retail,
Transportation
Communit Eco-
nomic 1 1 2
Development
Planning Agency 2 2
Passenger
1 1
Vehicles
Railroads, Motor-
1 1 1 1 4
Carriers, Trailer
Freight Forward-
1 1
ers, 4PLs
Facility Owners 1 1
Drayage
1 1
Operators
Border
1 1
Managers
Transportation-
1 1
Managers
Military 1 1
Corridor Advo-
1 1
cacy Group
Users 1 1
Total 0 33 27 12 4 9 38 54 3 4 4 7 19 214
17
