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 30
30
TABLE 12
Freight data used or needed
Need
Currently But Not N/A (do not
Freight Data Use Available use or need)
Commodity detail (e.g., formal classification system) 30 3 2
Cargo detail (e.g., aggregate categories, hazardous and nonhazardous cargo, empty vs.
18 10 6
non-empty)
Origin-destination detail (e.g., states, ZIP codes, counties, shipper detail, traffic analysis
23 10 1
zone, customs port of exit/entry)
Shipment detail (e.g., weight, volume, value, mode of transport, average length of haul,
number of stops per trip, time-sensitive shipment, truckload or less-than-truckload ship- 13 18 4
ments, empty shipments)
Routing details (e.g., major routes used, number of stops, interim trip origin and destina-
13 16 5
tions, vehicle routing, hazardous materials vehicle routing)
Cross border data (e.g., origin/destination patterns, commodity, vehicle type, shipment
15 10 9
characteristics, mode, stop/delay data)
Terminal and intermodal transfer facilities (e.g., truck volumes entering/exiting, conges-
tion-related delays on access roads, length of queue on access roads, incident rates on 6 21 5
access roads, travel time contours around the facility, capacity of facility)
TABLE 13 equivalent units). Finally, one respondent noted that much
Modes considered in planning of the data must come from the private sector, which would
incur additional cost.
Mode Responses
Truck/Highways 36
Rail 29 USE OF EXISTING DATA SETS
Air 21
Section 4 of the survey asked respondents to review a list of 21
Water (marine port, barge, short sea ship- 22
ping, ferry) public and commercial (private) American data sets that cov-
ered the major freight modes (truck, rail, marine, and air). The
Intermodal/Multimodal 25
purpose was to determine which of these existing sources,
Other (pipeline) 1 external to the respondents' organizations, were used; that is,
as a possible alternative to in-house data collection. Respon-
dents also were asked to assess the data sets that they used.
Respondents described their needs for intermodal data.
Although some had data that covered certain (though not all) Thirty-five respondents indicated that they used these
characteristics of each mode, such as origin, destination, vol- external data sets to "populate [their] freight databases."
ume, and counts, the full multimodal profile and the details Table 19 shows the usage of the 21 public and commercial data
of the intermodal transfer were lacking. One respondent sources. The most frequently used data set was the Freight
expressed these gaps as "upstream origin, downstream des- Analysis Framework (U.S.DOT, 33 responses), followed by
tination, transfer time, transfer cost, commodity, shipment the U.S. Commodity Flow Survey (31) and TRANSEARCH
details, intermodal facility location, and operation time. Insight Database (25).
[Origin-destination information] for intermodal freight is
often available for individual links, but not for the complete Table 20 describes the purpose for using the public and
intermodal trip." Other specific needs were intermodal move commercial data sets. The most common purpose was for
counts; number of container/trailer lifts; commodity ton- infrastructure/facility planning (30 responses), followed by
nage (weight), type, and value; routing (for all modes); and demand management (14), traffic safety and operations (10),
characteristics of dray trips, including local activity. and land use planning and logistics planning (9 each). There
were also several "other" purposes, which comprised policy
In addition, respondents wanted activity measured for and development, long range planning, corridor planning, proj-
differentiated by facility and non-facility cargo and vehicles. ect planning, modeling (including model updates), market
They wanted up-to-date data that could be available in dif- research, cost benefit analysis, commodity flow analysis,
ferent measures, such as short tons and TEUs (twenty-foot freight statistics and studies.
OCR for page 31
31
TABLE 14
Highway/truck freight data use and needs
Need But Not
Data Type Currently Use Available N/A
Vehicle Type 23 6 7
Vehicle Size 26 5 5
Average Vehicle Speed 16 9 11
Vehicle Emission Data 6 15 14
Traffic Counts and Classification Data 33 1 2
Cargo Type 19 10 5
Payload Weight 15 11 8
Shipment Value 12 13 8
Truck O/D Patterns 15 19 1
Trip O/D Patterns 16 17 1
Travel Time 11 18 6
Travel Time Reliability 5 21 10
Number of Truck Stops for LTL Shipments 0 19 15
Incident Data 17 7 11
Line-haul Costs 3 16 15
Drayage Costs 4 14 16
Freight Rate (e.g., cost per ton-mile) 4 17 13
Other 2 1 12
N/A = not available, O/D = origin/destination.
TABLE 15 TABLE 16
Rail freight data use and needs Air freight data use and needs
Currently Need But Not Need
Data Type Use Available N/A Currently But Not
O/D Patterns 20 9 0 Data Type Use Available N/A
Commodity 20 9 0 O/D Patterns 7 13 1
Equipment Details Commodity 11 11 0
12 11 6
(e.g., car type) Shipment
Shipment (e.g., (weight, vol- 11 8 1
weight, volume, 11 12 6 ume, value)
value) Routing Data 5 12 4
Routing Data 9 16 4
Travel Time 2 12 6
Travel Time 4 16 9
Reliability 2 12 6
Reliability 2 16 10
Air Freightage 1 11 8
Stop/Delay Data 2 17 10
Drayage Costs 2 11 7
Ramp-to-ramp Costs 1 15 13
Freight rate
Freight Rate (e.g., (e.g., cost per 1 11 8
4 15 10
cost per ton-mile) ton-mile)
Other 0 3 10 Other 1 6 8
N/A = not available, O/D = origin/destination. N/A = not available, O/D = origin/destination.
