Click for next page ( 29


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 28
28 DATA AVAILABILITY AND DISSEMINATION inclusion of these other modes--rail, air, water, intermodal, and pipeline--provides both a context for this focus (i.e., in Respondents to the practitioners' survey were asked to identifying respondents' modal interests) and completeness describe the availability and dissemination of their survey (i.e., because the other modes may influence or be influenced results to the public and to other external agencies. These by trucking). Table 13 indicates that although highway/truck questions provide some indication of the ability of data planning dominates in respondents' planning activities (36 `owners' to share data and results. of 39 responses), other modes--rail (29), marine (22), and air (21)--also figure in planning activities. Intermodal and Table 10 indicates that the large majority of respondents multimodal freight also was important, at 25 responses. (78 of 98 respondents, or 80%) made their data available to Pipeline freight was cited once. the public or to other external agencies. All but one of these respondents provided the data free of charge. The next four tables describe the data needs for each mode in turn. Table 11 summarizes how the data were disseminated. Hardcopy reports and electronic data dissemination were Table 14 describes highway/truck data needs. Count data both widely used, with the latter cited slightly more fre- were used most commonly, at 33 citations, followed by vehicle quently (73 versus 69 citations respectively). (Note that size (26) and vehicle type (23). Other characteristics about the respondents could respond to all applicable methods, mean- vehicle, its cargo and the trip also were used. Costs were not ing that many respondents made both hardcopy and elec- commonly used, although the need for these data was cited, tronic reports available.) One respondent indicated that its with freight rate data at 17 citations and line-haul costs at 16 data were available online. citations. More important among the needs were travel time reliability (21 citations), truck origin/destination patterns and number of stops (19 each), travel time (18), and trip origin/ FREIGHT DATA REQUIREMENTS destination patterns (17). Almost the same numbers of respon- dents who reported the need for a type of data did not need the Section 3 of the survey asked respondents to describe the data--notably, vehicle emission data and cost data. type of data they use or need. Table 12 lists seven different types of data, and distinguishes them according to whether Table 15 summarizes the requirements for rail freight or not respondents currently use the data, they need the data data. Origin/destination patterns and commodity data were but the data are not available, or the data are neither used nor used most commonly, at 20 citations each. For the remainder needed. The large majority of the 39 respondents indicated a of the data types, the needs generally and often significantly current use or a need for each of the seven data types. exceeded the uses: stop/delay data (17 responses), routing data, travel time, and reliability (16 each), and ramp-to-ramp costs Other key points to note: and freight rate (15 each) were the most common needs. Commodity data (30 respondents) and origin/destina- Table 16 lists the freight data requirements for air. Com- tion data (23 respondents) were used most commonly. modity and shipment data were most commonly used (11 Fewer than half the respondents used the other types responses each), followed by origin/destination patterns of data. (seven) and routing data (five). Origin-destination patterns The lowest use was reported for data on terminal (13 responses) and routing, travel time, and reliability data and intermodal transfer facilities (six respondents). (12 responses each) were the most commonly cited needs. However, this category also represented the greatest need, at 21 respondents. Table 17 lists the data requirements for marine freight. Data on shipments (18 respondents) and routing (16 Commodity data were used most frequently, at 19 citations, respondents) were next most commonly cited as needs. followed by origin/destination patterns (13), shipment data The fewest needs were recorded for commodity data (12), and equipment data (10). The most common data needs (three respondents). were for reliability and port-to-port costs (10 citations each), Cross-border data (nine respondents) and cargo data followed by travel time (9). (six respondents) were the data types most commonly cited as not being applicable. Origin/destination data Finally, respondents were asked separately about inter- (one respondent) and commodity data (two respon- modal data uses and needs. Table 18 indicates that, by far, dents) were least commonly cited, corresponding to intermodal data for combinations of trucks and other modes common usage and need. were used or needed, with the truck/rail combination elic- iting 29 responses, followed by truck/marine (24) and Section 3 asked about data for modes other than trucks. truck/airport (21). The rail/marine combination elicited 21 Although the focus of this Synthesis is on truck surveys, the responses.

OCR for page 28
TABLE 10 Data availability to the public or to external agencies GPS Roadside/ Combined Commercial Focus/ vehicle License License intercept Mail-out/ telephone/ vehicle trip Internet Personal stakeholder tracking plate match plate match Admini- surveys Telephone mail-back mail-back diary surveys surveys interviews groups surveys manual electronic strative Other Total Yes--No 18 9 8 5 1 4 9 11 3 1 3 2 3 77 Charge Yes--At a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Price Not Available 5 2 3 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 1 20 Total 23 11 11 6 2 4 13 14 3 2 3 2 4 98 TABLE 11 Data dissemination GPS Roadside/ Combined Commercial Focus/ vehicle License License intercept Mail-out/ telephone/ vehicle trip Internet Personal stakeholder tracking plate match plate match Admini- surveys Telephone Mail-back mail-back diary surveys surveys interviews groups surveys manual electronic strative Other Total Hardcopy (may also include 14 7 8 4 1 3 11 10 2 1 3 2 3 69 presentation) Electronic Data 17 9 6 4 2 3 10 9 3 1 3 2 4 73 File Summary Only 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Discussion 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Online Report/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Website Study Not Yet 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 Complete Other (not other- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 wise identified) Total 34 19 15 9 4 6 22 22 5 2 6 4 8 156 29