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 66
66
REFERENCES
1. Victoria, I., and M. Walton, Freight Data Needs at the 13. Meyer, M.A.I., Port of Los Angeles Baseline Transporta-
Metropolitan Level and the Suitability of Intelligent tion Study, Port of Los Angeles, Calif., 2004, p. 19.
Transportation Systems in Supplying MPOs with the
14. Washington Transportation Plan Update Freight Move-
Needed Freight Data, Center for Transportation Research,
ment, Washington State Department of Transportation,
University of Texas at Austin, 2004.
Olympia, 2008.
2. Allen, J., and M. Browne, Review of Survey Techniques
15. Austin Area Freight Transportation Study, MACTEC
Used in Urban Freight Studies, University of Westmin-
Engineering & Consulting Inc., and Alliance Transporta-
ster, London, U.K., 2008.
tion Group, Inc., Alpharetta, Ga., 2008.
3. U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environ-
16. A rellano Associates et al., Multi-County Goods Move-
mental Protection Agency, Travel Survey Manual, Travel
ment Action Plan: Technical Memorandum 2b: Public
Model Improvement Program, Washington, D.C., July 1,
Outreach--Survey No. 2 Report, Arellano Associates,
1996.
Chino, Calif., 2008.
4. Statewide Truck Lanes Needs Identification Study, Tech-
17. Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study, Technical
nical Memorandum 1: Data Collection, HNTB Corpora-
Memorandum #1, Analysis of Arizona's Freight Depen-
tion, Cambridge Systematics Inc., and GeoStats, LP for
dent Industries, Wilbur Smith Associates, 2007.
Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, 2007.
18. Kansas Statewide Freight Plan, Cambridge Systematics,
5. Port of Portland and Oregon Department of Transporta-
Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 2008.
tion, Roadside Intercept Survey, Cambridge Systematics,
Cambridge, Mass., Sep. 8, 2005. 19. Virginia Statewide Multimodal Freight Study, Phase I,
Interview Summaries, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.,
6. Ahanotu, D., and A. Mani, Freight Data Synthesis, Report
Cambridge, Mass., 2009.
No. CDOT-2008-3, Final Report, Colorado Department
of Transportation, Denver, 2008. 20. Wilbur Smith Associates et al., Atlanta Regional Freight
Mobility Plan Final Report, Wilbur Smith Associates,
7. Port of Portland and Oregon Department of Transporta-
2008.
tion, Roadside Intercept Survey, Cambridge Systematics,
Sep. 8, 2005. 21. M
ulti-County Goods Movement Action Plan; Technical
Memorandum 2a: Stakeholder Opinion Survey of Goods
8. Port of Portland and Oregon Department of Transporta-
Movement Issues, Arellano Associates, Chino, Calif.,
tion, Task 4--Gate and Establishment Survey Plan Mem-
Apr. 30, 2008.
orandum, Cambridge Systematics, Cambridge, Mass.,
Sep. 16, 2005. 22. Enhancing Consideration of Freight in Regional Trans-
portation Planning--Final Report, Cambridge Systemat-
9. Jessup, E.W., K.L.W. Casavant, and C.U. Lawson, "Truck
ics, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 2007.
Trip Data Collection Methods," Oregon Department of
Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, 23. Short, J., Survey of Motor Carrier Opinions on Potential
Salem, 2004. Optional Truck Only Toll (TOT) Lanes on Atlanta Inter-
state Highways, CD-ROM, 86th Annual Meeting of the
10. Special Report 276--A Concept for a National Freight
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan.
Data Program, Transportation Research Board, National
2125, 2007.
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, 114 pp.
24. Huang, Y.-H., M. Roetting, J.R. McDevitt, D. Melton,
11. Hancock, K.L., Freight Demand Modeling, Tools for
and G.S. Smith, "Feedback by Technology: Attitudes and
Public-Sector Decision Making, Summary of a Confer-
Opinions of Truck Drivers," Transportation Research
ence, Transportation Research Board of the National
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 8, Nos.
Academies, Washington, D.C., Sep. 27, 2006.
45, 2005, pp. 277297.
12. Harrison, R., N. Hutson, J. West, and J. Wilkie, Charac-
25. Ko, B., S.S. Washburn, and D.S. McLeod, "Performance
teristics of Drayage Operations at the Port of Houston,
Measures for Truck Level-of-Service: An Exploratory
Report SWUTC/08/473700-00075-1, Southwest Region
Survey Analysis," Transportation Research Record:
University Transportation Center, University of Texas at
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2130,
Austin, 2008, 28 pp.
Transportation Research Board of the National Acade-
mies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 120128.
OCR for page 67
67
26. Washington State Truck Parking Survey Summary 41. Wilbur Smith Associates, Global Insight, Georgia Insti-
Report, PRR, Inc., Seattle, Wash., Apr. 4, 2008. tute of Technology, Street Smarts, Atlanta Regional
Freight Mobility Plan, Atlanta Regional Commission,
27. Moore, D., and J.Y. Wang, 2008 Economic Impact of I-5
Freight Mobility Plan, Feb. 2008, 119 pp.
and I-90 Highway Closures on Shipping, Freight, and
Trucking Businesses, Data Report 08-016, Social and 42. Mani, A., and J. Prozzi, "State of the Practice in Freight
Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State Data: A Review of Available Freight Data in the U.S.,"
University, Pullman, 2008. Center for Transportation Research, Austin, Tex., 2004.
28. Ohio Department of Transportation, 20032004 Ohio 43. S
pecial Report 277: Measuring Personal Travel and
Statewide General Establishment Survey, Technical Goods Movement--A Review of the Bureau of Transpor-
Memorandum, NuStats, Austin, Tex., 2004. tation Statistics' Surveys, National Research Council of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, 133
29. Department for Transport, Review of Road Freight Sta-
pp.
tistics--National Statistics Quality Review Series, Report
No. 30, United Kingdom Department for Transport, Lon- 44. 2
007 Commodity Flow Survey, Survey Overview and
don, 2004. Methodology, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2009.
30. Department for Transport, "Guidance Notes on Com-
pleting the Continuing Survey of Road Goods Transport 45. Southworth, F., A Preliminary Roadmap for the Ameri-
(GB) Questionnaire," United Kingdom Department for can Freight Data Program, Draft, Oak Ridge National
Transport, London, 2008. Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 2004.
31. Surveys and Methodology: National Survey of Transport 46. Transportation Research Circular E-C119: North Amer-
of Goods by Road, Central Statistics Office Ireland, Dub- ican Freight Transportation Data Workshop, K. Han-
lin, May 10, 2009. cock, Ed., Transportation Research Board Freight
Transportation Data Committee and International Trade
32. N
ational Survey of Transport of Goods by Roads, Cen-
and Transportation Committee, Transportation Research
tral Statistics Office, Cork, Ireland, May 10, 2009, p. 1.
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
33. N
ational Survey of Transport of Goods by Roads, Cen- 2007, 62 pp.
tral Statistics Office, Cork, Ireland, May 10, 2009, p. 2.
47. Allen, J., and M. Browne, Survey Forms Used in Urban
34. National Survey of Transport of Goods by Roads, Cen- Freight Studies, University of Westminster, London,
tral Statistics Office, Cork, Ireland, May 10, 2009, p. 3. 2008.
35. Allen, J., G. Tanner, M. Browne, S. Anderson, G. Christ- 48. Jensen, M., M. Williamson, R. Sanchez, A. Newton, C.
odoulou, and P. Jones, Modelling Policy Measures and Mitchell, and M. Hallenbeck, WSDOT Intermodal Data
Company Initiatives for Sustainable Urban Distribu- Linkages Freight ITS Operational Test Evaluation--Fi-
tion--Final Technical Report, Transport Studies Group, nal Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Wash-
University of Westminster, London, 2003. ington, D.C., 2003.
36. A hanotu, D.M.A., Freight Data Synthesis, Report No. 49. Jones, C., D. Murray, and J. Short, Methods of Travel
CDOT-2008-3, Final Report, Colorado Department of Time Measurement in Freight-Significant Corridors,
Transportation, Boulder, 2008. CD-ROM, Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meeting of
the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
37. Hunt, J.D., K. Stefan, A.T. Brownlee, J.D.P. McMillan, A.
Jan. 913, 2005.
Farhan, K. Tsang, D. Atkins, and M. Ishani, A Commer-
cial Movement Modelling Strategy for Alberta's Major 50. McCormack, E.H., and M.E. Hallenbeck, "ITS Devices
Cities, Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Used to Collect Truck Data for Performance Bench-
ON, Canada, 2004. marks," Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1957, Transporta-
38. Hunt, J.D., A.T. Brownlee, and M. Ishani, Edmonton
tion Research Board of the National Academies, Wash-
Commercial Movements Study, Canadian Transportation
ington, D.C., 2006, pp. 4350.
Research Forum, Woodstock, ON, Canada, 2004.
51. Srour, F.J., and D. Newton, "Freight-Specific Data
39. 2000 Commodity Flow Survey Report, International
Derived from Intelligent Transportation Systems: Poten-
Results Group, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2001.
tial Uses in Planning Freight Transportation Systems,"
40. Subregional Freight Movement Truck Access Study-- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
Final Report, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., Santa portation Research Board, No. 1957, Transportation
Ana, Calif., 2004. Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2006, pp. 6674.
OCR for page 68
68
52. Roorda, M., S. McCabe, and H. Kwan, A Shipper-Based 56. Casavant, K., and E. Jessup, Development of a Washing-
Survey of Goods and Service Movements in the Greater ton State Freight Data System, Washington State Depart-
Golden Horseshoe (GGH)--Report I: Survey Design ment of Transportation, Olympia, 2007.
and Implementation, Ministry of Transportation--Trans-
57.Browne, M., J. Allen, S. Anderson, and A. Woodburn,
portation Planning Section and Region of Peel, Bramp-
"Night-Time Delivery Restrictions: A Review," Recent
ton, ON, Canada, Sep. 14, 2007.
Advances in City Logistics. The 4th International Confer-
53. Starcrest Consulting Group LLC, "Draft Methodology ence on City Logistics, E. Tanaiguchi and R.G. Thomp-
for Estimating Heavy-Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Activity son, Eds., Langkawi, Malaysia, July 1214, 2005, Elsevier,
at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach," The Port of Kidington, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2006, pp.
Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles, Calif., 2006. 269281.
54. Fischer, M.J.C., and M.J. Han, NCHRP Synthesis 298: 58.Patier, D., and Routhier, J.-L. Best Urban Freight Solu-
Truck Trip Generation Data, Transportation Research tions II; D 3.2. BESTUFS Best Practice in Data Collec-
Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., tion, Modeling Approaches and Application Fields for
2001. Urban Commercial Transport. University of Lyon, Aug.
31, 2008.
55. Allen, J.U., M.U. Browne, T.U. Cherrett, and F.U.
McLeod, Review of UK Urban Freight Studies, Univer-
sity of Westminster and University of Southampton,
United Kingdom, 2008.
