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 32
32 TABLE 17 TABLE 19 Marine freight data use and needs Usage of public/commercial data sources Need Do You Use? Currently But Not Public/Commercial Data Sources Yes Data Type Use Available N/A Airport Activity Statistics of Certified Route O/D Patterns 13 5 4 Air Carriers--U.S. Bureau of Transportation 10 Commodity 19 3 0 Statistics Equipment Details (e.g., vessel Border Crossing Data--U.S. Bureau of Trans- 10 4 7 18 type) portation Statistics Shipment (e.g., weight, volume, Commodity Flow Survey (CFS)--U.S. Bureau 12 6 3 value) of Transportation Statistics and the Census 31 Bureau Routing Data 7 7 7 Freight Analysis Framework (FAF)--U.S.DOT 33 Travel Time 5 9 8 Freight Commodity Statistics--Association of Reliability 4 10 8 13 American Railroads Port-to-port Costs 4 10 8 IANA Report--Intermodal Association of 3 Drayage Costs 6 7 8 North America Freight Rate (e.g., cost per ton- Industry Trade Data and Analysis--Interna- 6 8 7 mile) tional Trade Administration, U.S. Department 8 of Commerce Other 7 4 8 N/A = not available, O/D = origin/destination. LTL Commodity and Market Flow Database-- 5 American Trucking Association MARAD--U.S.DOT Maritime Administration 7 TABLE 18 Maritime Administration Office of Statistical 7 Intermodal freight data uses and needs and Economic Analysis Intermodal Combination Responses National Roadside Survey/Commercial Vehi- 4 cle Surveys None 2 North American Trucking Survey (NATS)-- Truck/Rail 29 5 Association of American Railroads Truck/Airport 21 Port/Import/Export Reporting Service 7 Truck/Marine Port 24 (PIERS)--Journal of Commerce Rail/Marine Port 21 Rail Waybill Sample--Surface Transportation 22 Board Rail/Airport 11 RAILINC--American Association of Other 2 1 Railroads State Estimate of Truck Traffic--FHWA 9 Table 21 describes the perceived shortcomings of the Transborder Surface Freight Data--U.S. data. The most commonly cited shortcoming in several data 10 Bureau of Transportation Statistics sets was insufficient detail or inappropriate scale (25 respon- TRANSEARCH Insight Database 25 dents). Other common shortcomings included high cost (21 respondents), incomplete coverage of freight mode, move- TransStats: The Intermodal Transportation ment, or commodity that is carried (19), datedness of the Database--U.S. Bureau of Transportation 8 Statistics data (17), and small sample size and incomplete geographi- cal coverage (16 responses each). Eight respondents noted Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS)-- 8 U.S. Census Bureau (discontinued as of 2002) that the data had been developed for another purpose and were not adaptable, and five respondents indicated that the Waterborne Commerce of the United States-- 21 definitions were not applicable to their needs. Other short- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comings (one citation each) were the "headquarter effect" associated with the PIERS data (i.e., the data reflected an administrative office location, not the location of the actual USE OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM freight activity), the inadequacy of the reporting tool, the TECHNOLOGIES use of consultant resources (i.e., the knowledge base, if not also the actual database, is not in house), and not all of the The potential of ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) data were compiled. technologies to reduce data collection costs, increase sample
OCR for page 32
33 size, improve data quality, and reduce intrusion and respon- TABLE 22 dent burden has attracted considerable attention in the freight Usage and quality of ITS technologies planning community. Section 5 of the survey examined the What Is the Potential use of ITS for freight surveys. Twenty respondents indicated for Integration with that they used ITS to collect freight data. Do You Other Data Collection Use? Initiatives? ITS Technology Yes High Medium Low TABLE 20 Purpose for using public or commercial data Advanced video image 2 1 0 1 sources processing Purpose of Use Responses Aerial videos 2 1 1 1 Land Use Planning 9 Automated vehicle classifi- 9 5 2 2 cation (AVC) Infrastructure/Facility Planning 30 Automatic vehicle identifi- Traffic Safety Operations 10 2 0 1 2 cation (AVI) technologies Demand Management 14 Automatic vehicle location 1 0 0 1 Air Quality Management 6 (AVL) system Logistics Planning 9 Cellular phone coordinates 2 1 1 1 (probe vehicles) Other 9 Closed-circuit cameras 4 0 3 2 (CCTV) TABLE 21 Electronic toll collection 4 0 3 2 Shortcomings of available data equipment Shortcomings of Available Data Responses Environmental sensor 1 0 1 1 stations Sample size/number of samples too small 16 Global positioning system Incomplete geographical coverage 16 3 1 1 0 (GPS) equipment Incomplete coverage of freight mode, License plate matching 19 4 2 1 2 movement, or commodity that is carried systems Out of date 17 Radio frequency 0 0 0 1 Insufficient detail or inappropriate scale 25 identification Developed for another purpose and cannot Smart cards 1 0 1 1 8 adapt to my needs Vehicle tracking and navi- 1 1 0 1 Cost is too high 21 gation systems (VT&NS) Definitions not applicable to my needs 5 Weigh-in-motion (WIM) 15 4 7 1 technologies Other 3 Sensors (e.g., loop detec- tors, acoustic sensors, infra- 12 6 4 2 Table 22 shows weigh-in-motion (WIM) technologies at red sensors, and radar/ 15 responses and sensors at 12 responses were the most com- microwave sensors) monly used ITS technologies, followed by automatic vehicle classification (AVC) at 9 responses. AVC and sensors had Respondents expressed both benefits to linking freight the highest potential for integration with other data collec- survey data with data from informatics and barriers to mak- tion initiatives (with 5 and 6 ratings respectively of "high" ing these linkages. Table 23 lists the benefits. It should be potential) followed by WIM (4 rated as "high" and 7 rated noted that all respondents found some benefit to making these as "medium"). linkages. There were 10 citations each in having the benefit of improved data validation/quality control, increased accu- Six of the 20 respondents indicated that they currently racy and data quality, and more comprehensive data. Nine link freight survey data with data from informatics such as respondents cited greater cost-effectiveness in data collec- roadway, on-board vehicle, and/or wide area sensors that can tion, eight noted the reduced time between data collection provide data on flows by mode, location, routing, and time and their availability, and six noted a reduced need for sur- of day. Eleven respondents did not make these linkages, two veys and other data collection. Finally, there was one cita- did not know, and one did not answer this question. tion each of the benefit accruing from having the informatics