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 R1
NATIONAL
NCHRP REPORT 586
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Rail Freight Solutions
to Roadway Congestion--
Final Report and Guidebook
OCR for page R2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2007 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
OFFICERS
CHAIR: Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando
VICE CHAIR: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Michael W. Behrens, Executive Director, Texas DOT, Austin
Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg
John D. Bowe, President, Americas Region, APL Limited, Oakland, CA
Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Deborah H. Butler, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GA
Anne P. Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, Washington, DC
Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Angela Gittens, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL
Susan Hanson, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Harold E. Linnenkohl, Commissioner, Georgia DOT, Atlanta
Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City
Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR
Rosa Clausell Rountree, Executive Director, Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority, Atlanta
Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Senior Professor, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC
Thomas J. Barrett (Vice Adm., U.S. Coast Guard, ret.), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
Marion C. Blakey, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT
Joseph H. Boardman, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT
John A. Bobo, Jr., Acting Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT
Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
George Bugliarello, Chancellor, Polytechnic University of New York, Brooklyn, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering,
Washington, DC
J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.DOT
Sean T. Connaughton, Maritime Administrator, U.S.DOT
Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
John H. Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
J. Edward Johnson, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John C. Stennis Space Center, MS
William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Nicole R. Nason, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
Jeffrey N. Shane, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT
James S. Simpson, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S.DOT
Carl A. Strock (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
*Membership as of March 2007.
OCR for page R3
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
NCHRP REPORT 586
Rail Freight Solutions
to Roadway Congestion--
Final Report and Guidebook
Joseph Bryan
GLOBAL INSIGHT, INC.
Lexington, MA
Glen Weisbrod
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH GROUP
Boston, MA
Carl D. Martland
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Sugar Hill, NH
AND
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Columbia, SC
Subject Areas
Planning and Administration · Highway Operations, Capacity, and Traffic Control · Rail · Freight Transportation
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2007
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 586
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 8-42
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN: 978-0-309-09893-9
interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2007931909
or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the © 2007 Transportation Research Board
accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly
complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These
problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
cooperative research.
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein.
initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
Transportation.
from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was
requested by the Association to administer the research program
because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of
NOTICE
modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this
purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the
possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and
state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research
Council.
relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of
The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this
objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of
report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the
specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed
research directly to those who are in a position to use them. or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have
been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified
the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American
by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway
and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according
Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive
Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these
needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway
selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National
surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade
Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the
object of this report.
The needs for highway research are many, and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is
intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other
highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
are available from:
Transportation Research Board
Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet at:
http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 586
Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Christopher J. Hedges, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Hilary Freer, Senior Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 8-42 PANEL
Field of Transportation Planning--Area of Forecasting
Cecil Selness, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul, MN (Chair)
Leo Penne, AASHTO, Washington, DC
Stephen M. Anderson, Washington State DOT, Olympia, WA
William R. Black, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
Steve Branscum, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, Fort Worth, TX
Steven A. Brown, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY
David L. Ganovski, Maryland DOT, Berlin, MD
Richard Hollingsworth, Gateway Cities Partnership, Inc., Paramount, CA
J. Reilly McCarren, Kenilworth, IL
Thomas C. Messer, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
Khali Persad, University of TexasAustin, Austin, TX
Rolf R. Schmitt, FHWA Liaison
Elaine King, TRB Liaison
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Christopher J. Hedges
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report presents guidance on evaluating the potential feasibility, cost, and benefits
of investing in rail freight solutions to alleviate highway congestion from heavy truck traf-
fic. An extensive research effort is documented and accompanied by a set of guidelines
that present a three-phased approach to evaluating rail freight solutions: preliminary
assessment, detailed analysis, and decisionmaking. This report will be useful for trans-
portation planners in state and regional transportation agencies, freight planners in pri-
vate transportation companies, and senior decisionmakers who control the funding and
implementation of transportation investments.
Interaction between rail and other modes of freight movement continues to be an issue
for transportation planners. Concerns about reliability, flexibility, and timeliness have con-
tributed to a decline in market share for rail freight movements (despite their role as a work-
horse for international trade). On the other hand, congestion, air quality, safety, energy, and
security concerns lead planners to consider rail options. There is a particular need to ana-
lyze the impacts and opportunities for public investment in rail freight capacity to help miti-
gate roadway congestion.
Congestion in urban areas and intercity corridors is a growing concern. Truck traffic has
become a significant contributor to road congestion. In addition, many planners see rail as
an underutilized mode. Increasing the opportunities to move freight by rail could help
decrease deterioration of existing highways, while positively affecting congestion, safety, and
pollution. Federal, state, local, and private-sector transportation planners can use the prod-
ucts of this research to develop cooperative relationships, which might include cost sharing
in construction and operation of future facilities that include rail as a necessary component
of transportation corridors.
Under NCHRP Project 08-42, a research team led by Joe Bryan of Global Insight, Inc.,
developed a Guidebook to help assess the potential for rail freight solutions to relieve road-
way congestion. The study had a number of components: a thorough review of relevant lit-
erature and ongoing research, case studies where rail freight solutions have been applied to
help relieve highway congestion, and examination of factors leading to the choice of freight
shipping mode, as well as short- and long-term trends that affect freight flow pattern. The
report provides guidance on the available sources of data that are useful for assessing rail
freight solutions and develops an analysis framework for using that data to assess the rela-
tive costs, benefits, and feasibility of rail freight investments. The final report includes a
Guidebook that incorporates the research findings into a set of tools and methods for trans-
portation planners to evaluate when it can be beneficial to invest in solutions that shift
freight traffic from highways to rail.
OCR for page R8
CONTENTS
1 Preface
3 Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview
3 1.1 Objective
3 1.1.1 Background
3 1.1.2 Report Goals
3 1.2 Elements of the Study
5 Chapter 2 Literature Review
5 2.1 Rail and General Freight Economics
5 2.1.1 Themes
6 2.1.2 Railroads and Economic Development
6 2.1.3 Declining Marginal Costs
6 2.1.4 Service Capabilities
7 2.1.5 Truckload Competition
8 2.1.6 Role of Technology
10 2.2 Intermodal Planning Including Truck and/or Rail Freight
11 2.3 Studies of Congestion Cost
12 2.4 Rail Relocation and Road/Rail Conflict
13 2.4.1 Rationalization of Rail Facilities
14 2.4.2 Redevelopment of Urban Rail Facilities
14 2.4.3 Location of Intermodal Terminals
15 2.4.4 Grade Crossings and Grade Separation
15 2.5 Benefit-Cost Assessment and Modeling
16 2.5.1 Examples of Intermodal Freight Planning Studies
18 2.5.2 Performance Models for Specific Types of Services
19 2.5.3 Guidebooks
21 2.6 Public-Private Partnerships
21 2.6.1 Brief History of Public-Private Relationships with Rail Industry
23 2.6.2 Intermodal Case Studies--Public-Private Partnerships
23 2.6.3 Perspective on Public-Private Investments
24 2.7 Concluding Observations
24 2.8 References
27 Chapter 3 Detailed Case Studies
27 Case Study 1: Pennsylvania Double-Stack Clearances
31 Case Study 2: Virginia I-81 Marketing Study
36 Case Study 3: The Betuweroute Freight Line--Netherlands
38 Case Study 4: Alameda Corridor
42 Case Study 5: Sheffield Flyover, Kansas City, Missouri
45 Case Study 6: Vancouver Gateway Transportation System
49 Case Study 7: Freight Rail Futures for the City of Chicago
52 Case Study 8: State Rail Access Programs
OCR for page R9
55 Case Study 9: Inland Ports
59 Additional References
60 Chapter 4 Shipper Needs and Structural Factors
60 4.1 Introduction
61 4.2 Shipper Needs
61 4.2.1 Service
62 4.2.2 Cost
63 4.2.3 Other Needs
64 4.2.4 Carrier Selection
66 4.3 Structural Factors
66 4.3.1 Access
70 4.3.2 Addressable Market
73 4.4 Market Segmentation
73 4.4.1 Demand Side
73 4.4.2 Supply Side
78 4.5 Diversion Opportunities
79 4.5.1 Railcar
80 4.5.2 Intermodal
81 4.5.3 Shorthaul Rail
84 4.6 Social and Economic Impacts of Diversion
85 4.6.1 Forms of Incremental Impact
87 4.6.2 Factors Affecting Incremental Impact
88 4.6.3 Modal Diversion Models
89 4.7 Summation
90 Chapter 5 Trends Affecting Freight Movement
90 5.1 Overview of Trends Discussion
90 5.1.1 Objective
90 5.1.2 Organization
91 5.2 Congestion Cost Trends
91 5.2.1 Road Travel Demand Continues to Increase
91 5.2.2 Rising Congestion as Supply Does Not Keep Up with Demand
91 5.2.3 Rising Cost of Congestion
92 5.2.4 Increasing Breadth of Congestion
92 5.3 Role of Trucks in Congestion
92 5.3.1 High-Volume Truck Routes
93 5.3.2 Truck Contribution to Total Congestion
93 5.4 Growth in Freight Activity Levels
94 5.4.1 Rates of Freight Growth
95 5.4.2 Mode Shifts
95 5.4.3 Shipment Value and Weight
95 5.4.4 Shipment Distance
97 5.4.5 Import and Export Shipment Patterns
97 5.5 Business Location Trends
97 5.5.1 Development of Rail and Urban Industry
98 5.5.2 Development of Highways and Dispersed Industry
100 5.5.3 Industry Examples
101 5.5.4 Land Development Trends
102 5.5.5 The Example of Chicago
103 5.6 Technology Trends
OCR for page R10
104 5.6.1 Intermodalism
104 5.6.2 Motor Carriage
104 5.6.3 Railroads
104 5.6.4 Marine
105 5.6.5 Commodities
105 5.6.6 Economy
106 5.7 Summation
107 Chapter 6 Data Sources
107 6.1 Introduction
108 6.2 Practicalities
109 6.3 Commodity Flow Data
111 6.4 Traffic Count Data
113 6.5 Commodity Characteristics
115 6.6 Maps and Inventories of Rail Infrastructure and Service
117 6.7 Railroad Engineering Cost Data
118 6.8 Shipper Characteristics and Needs--Establishment Data
119 6.9 Modal Service and Cost Parameters
121 6.10 Trend Data--Traffic and Economic Projections
122 6.11 Institutional and Privacy Factors
124 6.12 Data Environment
125 Chapter 7 Framework Structure
125 7.1 Planning Process Framework
126 7.2 Decision-Making Framework
127 7.3 Structured Sequence of Steps
OCR for page R11
1
PREFACE
This document, produced in fulfillment of NCHRP Project 8-42: Assessing Rail Freight
Solutions to Roadway Congestion, consists of
· A final report, which presents information collected and analyzed as part of the study
process, including a literature review, analysis of case studies, analysis of issues in freight
shipping and mode choices, analysis of trends affecting freight shipping patterns, and
evaluation of data sources.
· A Guidebook, which presents tools and methods that transportation planners can use
to examine the potential for rail freight as a way to help control the growth of roadway
traffic congestion.
The last chapter of this final report describes the structure used in the Guidebook. It serves
as a bridge to the Guidebook, an introduction to its content, and an overview of the analyt-
ical method that planners can use to apply rail freight solutions to roadway congestion.
Note: URLs were current at the time of report submission.
OCR for page R129
120
travel speeds, the number of drivers, and hours of service reg- is generally costly and difficult to ascertain rail freight per-
ulations. Overnight trucking service with a single driver is formance by direct field observation, because of the long
typically difficult for rail to divert, as is the premium team variability of run-times and the difficulty of tracking the
service where two drivers alternate shifts. Longer distance operations without using one of the railroad's proprietary
trucking service that involves a layover for a single driver information systems.
(thus, with a dock-to-dock average speed lower than about 50 There are also two major types of cost data: (1) accounting
mph) can often be diverted with rail intermodal. Beyond data, which may be available from shippers or carriers willing
intermodal, rail service tends to compete on characteristics to make them public or share them through an intermediary
other than speed, such as costs, safety, size of shipment, and conducting a study on behalf of a public agency; and (2) cost
other factors. model data, which are calibrated by a knowledgeable party
Rail service characteristics can vary with the type of rail based on known expense and operating factors. Price data are
service purchased, proximity to major yards and mainlines, rarely possible to observe directly and therefore must be
train frequencies, and other system-wide factors. Thus, pre- obtained through modeling, interviews, and other coopera-
dicting the service level in a given rail lane is much more dif- tive methods.
ficult than for trucking. If the rail freight diversion proposed
relies on existing services, then the railroads would usually
Levels of Accuracy and Precision
have a fairly good time estimate for the shipment. If new
service is being planned, then the sponsor may have more For typical rail freight diversion applications, service
flexibility over cost and service levels--with the caveat that times need to be known to within one day, or perhaps half
truck-equivalent service levels tend to be more expensive a day. Service time precisely to the hour is usually less
except in high-volume service lanes. Generally, the best way important than the reliability factor. Under unconstrained
to validate proposed service levels is through careful opera- conditions, a train may be able to move from siding to sid-
tions planning, followed by test runs designed to determine ing in a standard number of hours; however, for a feasible
the feasibility of the operating plan and its impact on other service plan, the number of intermediate switching moves
railroad operations. and the probability of delay at each location must be
The major Class I railroads (and the two Canadian majors, accounted for. Even for bulk commodities, a missed deliv-
CN and CP) are required to report service performance lev- ery can lead to problems at the receiving plant unless a suf-
els to the STB on a weekly and quarterly basis. Although these ficient stockpile is maintained--which drives up the total
numbers are available from a website maintained by the logistics costs. Thus, errors in reliability estimations may
AAR4, the highly aggregated performance data are of limited lead to excessive costs being incurred by the shipper, result-
value for predicting service levels within particular service ing in a seemingly promising operation becoming an uneco-
lanes. Nonetheless, they are a good indicator of broad service nomical one.
trends (e.g., whether the probability of a regular shipment For intermodal diversion, time performance can be espe-
arriving on time is increasing or decreasing). cially critical, since the truck-like performance it aims for is
often associated with low levels of inventory. Nevertheless,
typical services still are discussed in terms of morning, after-
How can the data be collected?
noon, or evening delivery, instead of a specific hour within
There are two major types of service performance data: which the shipment must arrive. While there are premium
(1) empirical results, which must come from the carrier, the intermodal products that do guarantee certain time windows
shipper, the agent, or another interested party who has kept and cut-offs, those normally are geared to the requirements
historical records such as the sources mentioned above; and of a particular customer or group.
(2) performance simulations, which can be estimated with Operating costs are an important factor in determining
knowledge of current operating practices, plans, and infra- whether services can be sustained. Prior to investment in
structure conditions by either a consultant or the carrier's expensive infrastructure, comparative analyses of modal costs
operating managers, but must be validated by actual service should be conducted. The cost savings of moving from truck
performance or test runs. Ultimately, the data must be to rail need to be significant in order to allow an annual
obtained from one of these sources. Unlike passenger rail, it contribution toward paying off the infrastructure. If the cost
savings are not significant, then even if the infrastructure is
4
constructed, the traffic may not materialize. Thus a com-
The website at http://www.railroadpm.org/ features such performance
measures as Total Cars On Line, Average Train Speed, Average Termi- pelling case is required before an investment decision is
nal Dwell Time, and Bill of Lading Timeliness. Performance measures made--but having made such a case, and given the magni-
of shortlines have not generally been available. tude of infrastructure costs, minor errors in rail operating
OCR for page R130
121
costs are unlikely to change the fundamental conclusions in The previous chapter of this report presented a cross sec-
a freight diversion project. tion of trend and forecast information and cited relevant
sources that may be consulted. For the tracking of traffic con-
gestion, it displayed data from the Texas Transportation Insti-
6.10 Trend Data--Traffic and
tute, whose annual Urban Mobility Study7 is the standard
Economic Projections
compilation of developments across the nation. TTI indexes
What is the problem? What kind of data and ranks traffic congestion problems for the 85 major U.S.
would be useful? urban areas, and its data can be compared and extended in
time series. However, forecasting future traffic congestion
In planning, trend data are sometimes used to illustrate a
based exclusively on its current trend is not advisable beyond
future scenario and to convince the stakeholders that changes
about 5 years; to understand the extent of long-range conges-
are needed now to prepare for the future. Congestion tends to
tion, long-term economic trends should be used.
worsen with economic growth, and if rail freight investment
For more information on forecasting future freight con-
can keep ahead of growth while highway investment remains
gestion, a good source is the NCHRP report 8-43: Guidebook
stagnant, railroads will become comparatively more attractive
on Statewide Freight Planning. Although this manual does
to some shippers. Trend data are therefore needed to illustrate
not specifically deal with rail freight, using the methodologies
the effect of both highway and railroad congestion if nothing
demonstrated therein to understand where future congestion
were to be done, and the payoff from taking action.
and bottlenecks may occur could be helpful. Once these
In general, trend data fall in two broad categories: (1) eco-
potential hotspots are identified, the methods in this Guide-
nomic trends and (2) traffic trends. Economic trends serve to
book can help planners decide if a rail freight diversion
suggest how fast the economy might grow in future and can
scheme is apt to alleviate the likely problem.
be used to infer how costs, service levels, and other attributes
of freight transportation may change over a long planning
horizon. Traffic trends serve a shorter term purpose--if con- How can the data be collected?
gestion is growing by a certain percentage per year on one
The economic and traffic trends rely on numerous data
highway route, it can be conjectured that the congestion will
sources, and it is generally not cost-effective to duplicate the
continue to grow at a similar rate until the facility becomes
data collection effort. Economic trends require data about
comparatively less attractive versus substitutable facilities or
trade activity, which is collected by the Department of Com-
versus alternatives such as supply source substitution.
merce through business reporting requirements. Traffic
trend data and projections may be based on Highway Perfor-
Are there readily available sources mance Monitoring System (HPMS) and automated data col-
for the data? lection devices. The source data are publicly available.
Economic forecasting is a specialized discipline, and fore-
casting data are made available both by governmental agen- Levels of Accuracy and Precision
cies and commercial vendors. Past economic trends can be
Economic and traffic trends are usually reliable, if their
found in various reports made available by the Department
data are sound and their dynamics are accurately understood.
of Commerce,5 Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Eco-
Projecting from trends is another story, because of the under-
nomics and Statistics Administration, in addition to private
lying presumption that past events will continue on a logical
economic research resources. However, the federal-level data
course toward a future conclusion, which is not always the
may not contain enough regional detail, and state-level data
case. More sophisticated forecasting tries to anticipate course
should be consulted. Many states have official projections of
changes and the interaction of trends, and while inevitably
population and other economic drivers, and some have
imperfect, it will give a better result. Econometric forecasts of
invested in forecasts directly aimed at transportation or rea-
this type can be purchased from a number of sources, and
sonably pertinent to it. In addition, a number of regional eco-
banks and news services like the Wall Street Journal offer
nomic models are available6 in the marketplace.
comparative performance ratings for vendors.
In many cases, predicting economic growth itself is not as
5
See http://www.commerce.gov/ and http://www.bea.doc.gov/ for more important as predicting political decisions. Lack of highway
details on the types of data provided.
6
investment is one catalyst for rail freight investment; how-
Examples include REMI from Regional Economic Models, Inc.;
REDYN from Regional Dynamics, Global Insight (DRI*WEFA); Fair
7
Model (Yale University)--as well as many consultants who produce See http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/ for more details
forecasts based customized versions on one or more different models. about this study.
OCR for page R131
122
ever, if congestion becomes too severe, citizens may demand introduces institutional and privacy issues. Some of these
highway or mass-transit improvements. When planning rail issues are explored below.
freight investments, many such factors should be taken into
account and weighed through a scenario analysis. Planners
should prefer not to rely on a single set of traffic or economic
Privacy Concerns
assumptions being completely correct or base the viability of Private-sector carriers in both trucking and rail are rightly
a specific rail freight plan on a single scenario. The best rail concerned that their competitors might use information
freight plans will view an investment case under a range of about the flows on their network (and by inference, about
development assumptions and test its success across them. their customers) to their own advantage. The negative effects
can include customer poaching, disruption of density, and
6.11 Institutional and Privacy loss of network balance. This type of competition also may
Factors result in destructive price wars that can harm individual car-
riers or delay reinvestment by an industry. Shippers of freight
To develop a successful rail freight diversion scheme or have similar concerns. In addition, rail carriers may worry that
other rail freight solutions, three basic types of data are any new reporting of market data begins an unwelcome return
needed. The planner should have an understanding of (1) the of government oversight, such as prevailed prior to the Stag-
markets in which freight travels and levels of demand; (2) the gers Act.
supply cost of providing freight services and infrastructure For reasons such as these, the STB waybill sample is pro-
to meet that demand at appropriate levels of service; and tected by law. Decisions on using its detailed version are
(3) the economic trend data that reflect how the supply and
reviewed by the Federal Railroad Administration, and state-
demand, the associated congestion, and the area's economic
level governments have access only in a controlled fashion.
development can be expected to change in the near and fur-
On the occasions when a private enterprise is permitted to
ther future. There are a series of sources for satisfying each,
make use of these data, strict guidelines must be adhered to.
with options that can be scaled to the size or phase of a proj-
In most cases, the data processing must be done by an inter-
ect or program, from small or preliminary to very large or
mediary, who then must use the data only for the specified
well advanced.
purpose and destroy it after the work is completed. When pri-
State DOTs, MPOs, and other organizations should make
mary data from motor carriers have been tapped for some
an active effort to make freight data collection part of their
public studies, it has been done voluntarily, instead of on the
regular data collection efforts. In some cases, data collected for
compulsory basis that applies to the rail waybill. Nevertheless,
passenger facility performance monitoring and/or for opti-
mization of facility maintenance strategies can be used to pro- restrictions and protections have been built in for the benefit
duce informative freight data streams. Alternately, it may be of cooperating truck lines: information has been aggregated,
possible to add features to a data collection program that will intermediaries have been employed to avoid subjection to the
partially feed freight planning applications. Freight activity is Freedom of Information Act, and reuse has been prohibited.
also heavily connected to economic activities; thus, as part If state DOTs and other governmental organizations
of an area-wide economic development or re-development expect to develop the trust of industry in conducting plan-
effort, data streams might have already been collected that ning studies and sharing data and plans to mutual advantage,
could assist freight planning. Since ownership of these data these privacy concerns must be taken very seriously. Demon-
could lie outside the domain of DOTs, it is important to estab- strating a good understanding of the issues and why privacy
lish contacts in other public organizations with overarching is necessary, honoring the commitments, having a codified
responsibility for economic development and become famil- policy on how data may be used and distributed, and never
iar with the information they may have available. Examples of using data in less than good faith will go a long way toward
such organizations include building a successful and fruitful relationship with industry
partners. In joint planning, it is always important to achieve
· Local economic development agencies (e.g., the Boston a win-win outcome; the industry cannot `win' if the data pro-
Redevelopment Authority); vided for planning purposes are not treated with care and
· Local port authorities (e.g., the Delaware River Port caution by trusted agencies.
Authority); and
· Multi-state agencies (e.g., the Tennessee Valley Authority).
Financial Data
Developing a data program and encouraging working rela- Publicly held companies are required to report certain
tionships with entities that may become sources of information financial data to the Securities and Exchange Commission
OCR for page R132
123
(SEC), for example, on the Form 10-K.8 However, 10-K spare capacity on a not-yet-congested portion of railroad is
information typically is not very useful to the transportation still an expensive commodity, even if infrastructure upgrades
planner, as it is rolled up for the whole corporation (most are not immediately required for new traffic. Public agencies
likely a multi-state enterprise), and there are ways to report wishing to use capacity on private railroads must understand
the information such that it is difficult to understand the that not only do they have to cover the operating cost of the
company's cost structure. In addition, some very large freight train, they must offer a premium to out-bid any future use of
carriers are held by private entities, who are under no obliga- that capacity the railroad may have planned. A pragmatic
tion to disclose financial results to the SEC. On the other solution to this problem is to have the public agency upgrade
hand, railways in the United States are required to submit a piece of private railroad infrastructure at public expense, in
R-1 reports annually, which set forth a substantial body of lieu of premium payment for a spare train path.
financial and operating statistics, some of it like conventional In some cases, loading a network with additional traffic can
balance sheet and income statements, and some of it quite cause sometimes-subtle effects that lead to increased costs.
different and oriented, for example, to operating assets. (Dis- For example, spare capacity may be required at strategic
continuance of the comparable if less detailed M-1 reporting points about the network to prevent cascading congestion
for motor carriers was noted above.) when long-distance traffic is delayed. The cost of this capac-
Railroad capital programs normally are published annually ity is usually borne by the railroad. Cascading congestion can
and can both be helpful and unhelpful to the public planner. be extremely expensive, requiring many more crews and
The capital budgets will be defined in terms of number of ties power units to move the same amount of freight compared to
to install, bridges to rebuild, and sidings or track miles to add. an uncongested network. Increasing traffic can dramatically
In addition, ongoing projects may have special line items that increase the cost of recovering from such an incident and is a
highlight the investment that railroads are planning using cost that public planners should be aware of when aiming to
their own capital. However, it is generally difficult to extract use apparently untapped capacity.
specific cost numbers from such documents. Moreover, pub-
lic agencies rarely are invited into the strategic planning
Data Collection is a Cost
process at private railroads, so public planners may believe
that they have little influence. In addition to the concerns discussed above, two further
Still, many Class I railroads have a government relations issues may give carrier management pause in respect to shar-
department. Taking a proactive approach to railroad capital ing data:
planning at a state level can yield fruitful results. In several
states, there are standing funds available for railroad infra- · Rate of Return on Data Collection Activities. Developing
structure upgrades, which can be a good way to become a relationship with public authorities and finding new
engaged in railroad capital planning. With a stake in the freight with public support can be profitable activities for
process, it becomes much easier to acquire financial data railroads in the long run. Even so, rail managers may think
needed for planning and budgeting on the public side; also, they lack the current resources to manage a data collection
planners will develop a better understanding of whether rail exercise or may doubt that new business is going to arise
freight diversion plans can work or not and how much they from the effort. Even in a business development environ-
may cost. ment, managers will be reluctant to do extensive data col-
lection or grant high priority to the proposals of public
planners unless the prospects of rewards are substantial.
Railroad Capacity and Reliability
When requesting data, it is helpful to state upfront what
Public planners are aware that it can be difficult to per- the rewards might be--for instance, by showing that
suade railroads to release seemingly `spare' capacity on their investment funds will become available through a certain
tracks that is not currently in use because, once an operating feature or channel. Railroad partners may be more likely to
agreement is entered into, it will be difficult for the railway to engage in data collection if such data are made a part of the
remove that traffic, replace it with more profitable business, application for a specific grant or if the data are being
and not cause a public-relations problem. Without removing offered on the understanding that public officials will pur-
existing traffic, infrastructure upgrades typically are required sue available funds and take over some of the development
when additional capacity is needed. These can be time- work based on the data.
consuming and costly, especially in metropolitan areas. Thus, · The Litigation Threat. Freight carriers, like other corpo-
rations, have a healthy respect for the legal system, and
8
See http://www.sec.gov/answers/form10k.htm for more details. The some of their caution with information release may stem
Securities and Exchange Commission is at http://www.sec.gov/. from the lack of clearly codified limits on how data may be
OCR for page R133
124
handled. The U.S. Census, and the STB waybill sample more than analysis. Because the systems are intended mainly
achieve successful data collection in part because there are for internal use, there may be limited standardization on
clear laws on how the public may use and disseminate the what kind of data are kept, how they are kept, and what for-
data. Confidentiality is guaranteed and exemptions mat they are kept in. Public planners should understand that
plainly exclude certain data-mining activities. Steps such data simple to generate in an environment powered by latter-
as those outlined in the discussion of privacy issues will day data centers are not necessarily easy for every carrier to
allow public planners to assuage concerns about litigation compile, despite their best intentions.
exposure. The establishment of clear contracts limiting With that in mind, it is important to be patient and flexi-
the application of data for planning purposes and the use ble when requesting data that may require downloading from
of vetted intermediaries to process it help to create a legacy systems. It is possible that carriers in these environ-
trusted framework for information exchange. ments will have to expend substantial effort to find the data
being sought by public planners. Once the data are found,
they might be available only as a line-printer output, requir-
6.12 Data Environment
ing optical character recognition software to translate into
There are special issues concerning the electronic data machine-readable form. It is likely that carriers would want
environment in railroad and motor carriers alike that are to further process such data before handing it to the public
worth understanding. Some data systems are legacies from planner, in order to elide commercially sensitive information,
development early on in the computer revolution, when each and this imposes an expense on the carrier. Offering com-
carrier sought to acquire IT capability for its own internal pensation for such expenses or maintaining a confidential
financial planning and operations purposes. As such, data data-processing expertise in house can be ways to ensure that
formats occasionally predate the concept of relational data- data collected by the private sector for private purposes are
bases and data mining and are driven by transactions far not lost as a planning resource.
OCR for page R134
125
CHAPTER 7
Framework Structure
All of the preceding sections on research literature, case · Processes for Public Investment Planning. Traditionally,
studies, mode choice factors, freight trends, and data together most state DOTs and MPOs have focused their infrastruc-
provide a structural foundation for the final product of this ture planning largely on highways and given less attention to
project, which is a Guidebook for planners. This last chapter rail investment, for the fundamental reason that they control
of the Final Report describes the structure of an analysis investment in highways while they typically do not own or
framework that forms the foundation and structure for the control investment in railroads or rail right of way.
Guidebook. This structure has three dimensions: However, there is a growing recognition that (1) more
multi-modal public planning is needed for freight move-
· Planning Process Framework. The methodology described ment; (2) such planning should include rail as well as
in the Guidebook must be designed to address the relevant highway options for freight movement; and (3) rail freight
issues and needs faced by transportation planners at both planning, if done well, can help address a wide range of
public agencies and private transportation companies. issues relating to security, congestion, safety, and air quality.
· Decision-Making Framework. The methodology described · Methods to Identify Transportation Issues and Assess Po-
in the Guidebook must be structured to encompass the tential Solutions. Before expanding multi-modal invest-
benefit and cost considerations involved in the mode choice ment analysis for freight movement, it is necessary for state
decisions made by freight shippers and the investment and regional transportation planning agencies to (1) clar-
decisions made by public agencies. ify the range of possible transportation issues that should
· Structured Sequence of Steps. The methodology must pro- be addressed, (2) define the range of potentially feasible rail
vide a structured series of steps that can be adapted to apply and highway solutions to be assessed, and (3) apply appro-
to a broad set of circumstances ranging from simple to priate methods to assess their relative benefits and costs.
complex multi-modal projects. For instance, while there is a current emphasis on address-
ing problems of growing highway congestion, planners
The Guidebook is also available for download from the need workable ways of assessing these needs and identify-
NCHRP section of TRB's web site (www.trb.org). ing feasible rail-freight solutions for them.
· Approaches for Private-Public Cooperation. Given the
private ownership of many railroad and truck-rail inter-
7.1 Planning Process Framework
modal facilities, it is necessary for rail freight planning to
As the gap between highway demand and capacity is fore- involve both private and public sectors. At the same time,
cast to accelerate in the future, there has been increasing key representatives of cargo shipping, trucking, and
recognition of the importance of multi-modal planning and, railroad companies also have a strong interest in seeing
specifically, the need for more attention to rail freight issues improved planning and investment, as they are keenly
and opportunities in the transportation planning process. aware of the current shortcomings and needs for
This has led both public agency planners and private trans- improvement in existing road and rail infrastructure sys-
portation company officials to recognize a need for tools and tems serving freight movement. Thus, there is clear
methods that they can use to address freight transportation opportunity for enhancing private-public cooperative re-
planning issues. These needs fall into three broad topic areas: lationships in freight infrastructure planning.
OCR for page R135
126
To address these three sets of needs, the guide must (and distribution of benefits and costs, as well as effectiveness,
does) have separate sections providing: (1) screening crite- among public and private parties. That is necessary to enable
ria to identify situations where analysis of rail freight solu- the public-private cooperation required for any strategy
tions is warranted, (2) steps for calculating benefits and involving shippers, railroads, and roadway planning/oper-
costs of rail freight alternatives, and (3) instructions on how ating agencies and to help ensure its success.
the information can be best used as part of a broader pub-
lic-private dialogue between transportation agencies and To carry out this process, the Guidebook lays out a strat-
railroads. egy involving three phases of analysis:
· Preliminary assessment: situations where rail solutions ap-
7.2 Decision-Making Framework
pear feasible,
The core of the guide is a set of steps for assessing the rela- · Detailed analysis: evaluation of rail options, and
tive benefits, costs, and practical feasibility of implementing · Decision-making: Multi-criteria and benefit-cost analysis.
alternative policies, programs, or investments to encourage
rail freight solutions as a way of reducing roadway congestion. These phases are shown in Table 7-1 and explained in the
Figure 7-1 shows the elements of decision-making. It can be text that follows.
summarized as follows: Phase 1--Initial Screening. In general, public agencies are
looking for particular rail projects or programs that can help
· The first part of the process is to identify applicable situa- to relieve highway congestion. As such, there is a need for
tions where rail freight solutions are potentially applicable guidance in identifying the types of situations where rail might
and focus only on them. help; expected benefits associated with congestion relief; and
· The second part of the process is to evaluate rail freight al- the specific types of projects or programs that might be ap-
ternatives by considering the technical feasibility (benefit propriate given local conditions. These assessments are part of
measurement) perspective of planners and the practical the first phase of the analysis, which focuses on determining
feasibility (funding and regulation) perspective of deci- whether there is a reasonable chance that the costs of rail proj-
sion-makers. ects or programs can be justified in terms of their contribution
· The third part of the process is to develop funding and im- to congestion relief. This phase involves carrying out five steps
plementation plans that account for differences in the to (1) screen for relevancy of rail freight solutions, (2) gauge
Figure 7-1. Decision-Making Process for Rail Freight Investment.
OCR for page R136
127
Table 7-1. Major phases of the decision-making process.
Main Question
Phase Major Activities Methodology
& Desired Outcome
1 Preliminary - Can rail help relieve - Review information on freight
assessment: highway congestion by facilities & traffic flows
situations where handling more freight?
rail solutions - Use framework to identify
appear feasible - Identification of promising problems& potential solutions
rail projects or programs - Use simple models to estimate
aimed at specific solutions costs & benefits of potential
to congestion problems solutions
2 Detailed analysis: - Do benefits of proposed
evaluation of rail - Estimate project costs and
actions justify their costs? impacts on rail service
options
- Analysis of costs & benefits - Traffic diversion study
of rail solutions, including
economic & environmental - Benefits analysis
factors.
3 Decision-making: - Is this project or program
Multi-criteria & as good as or better than - Consider alternatives
benefit-cost other approaches? including rail, highway
analysis investments, and public policy
- Comparative analysis of
regarding taxation & finance.
major alternatives
magnitude of the road congestion problem, (3) characterize nothing and living with congestion, building more highways,
the local pattern of freight shipping, (4) characterize available expanding the capacity of existing highways, or using tolls,
rail resources, and (5) use "sketch planning" approaches to fees, or regulations to restrict traffic flows. Second, each
assess the potential viability (benefit and cost) of available option must be considered from the perspective of its
options. economic, political, and practical feasibility for the various
Phase 2--Detailed Analysis. Only if there seems to be participants. This includes consideration of the levels and
potential for a particular project or program should the types of benefits that might accrue to each party and confir-
analysis proceed to Phase 2 for a more detailed analysis of mation of the sufficiency of benefits for shippers to accept a
the proposed options. The logical place to begin is by look- change of mode. It requires direct interaction with the ship-
ing at specific rail investment options and estimating how ping community in any of several ways and an assortment of
they could affect cost or any of the service factors that influ- steps for the assurance of traffic volumes. Third, for the pub-
ence total logistics costs. The next step is to use a logistics lic evaluation component, additional analysis of social and
cost or mode-split model to determine whether service broader economic impacts might be needed. Thus, Phase 3
improvements, if obtained, would be likely to affect makes use of procedures for comparing alternatives in a
road/rail choices and, if so, to estimate how many trucks broader context that may include regional economic models
might be diverted to rail. Given the potential diversion, it is and/or multi-criteria assessment tools.
then possible to estimate the effects on highway perform-
ance using various highway models. The changes in highway
7.3 Structured Sequence of Steps
performance can then be compared to the costs associated
with the rail initiatives to see if further consideration is The Guidebook consists of sections that readers can con-
warranted. Thus, Phase 2 makes use of (1) rail cost or per- sult or ignore as appropriate for their particular situations.
formance analysis, (2) logistics cost or mode-split analysis, The sections fall into the following groups:
(3) highway performance analysis, and (4) economic and Initial Grounding. Guidebook Chapters 1 and 2 provide a
financial evaluation. basic grounding in freight analysis issues.
Phase 3--Decision-making Support. The final phase
puts results in the context of decision choices. First, findings · Chapter 1(Introduction) defines the coverage of this guide.
must be placed in the context of other options, such as doing It classifies the types of situations, issues, and solutions that
OCR for page R137
128
can be considered in planning and evaluation of rail freight · Chapter 4 (Guidance for Public-Private Dialogue) discusses
solutions to traffic congestion. needs, uses, and procedures for bringing highway and
· Chapter 2 (Background: Context) provides information for freight planners in discussion with representatives of insti-
readers who are not already experts on rail freight plan- tutional players and private-sector freight operators in
ning. It discusses the process of rail freight planning and order to design cooperative strategies that can be accept-
factors affecting rail/truck diversion. able to key parties.
General Guidance. Guidebook Chapters 3 and 4 provide Technical Analysis Methods. The Guidebook's final chap-
the basic core guidance on technical analysis and discussions ter provides material for advanced use in analyzing options
to ascertain the potential for rail freight to help reduce traffic and presenting results in ways that can gain support among
congestion growth. diverse parties.
· Chapter 3 (Guidance for Evaluation of Alternatives) outlines · Chapter 5 (Detailed Analysis Methods) describes the avail-
a series of five basic analysis steps that can be conducted by ability and application of various analysis tools, methods,
planners at relatively low cost to screen available rail freight and data sources for assessing road and rail options,
options for reducing congestion and identify when further diversion between them, and the relative benefits and
discussion and analysis are warranted. costs involved.
OCR for page R138
Guidebook for Assessing
Rail Freight Solutions to
Roadway Congestion
OCR for page R139
CONTENTS
G-1 Introduction
G-1 1.1 Rail Freight as a Solution to Congestion
G-3 1.2 Objective and Organization of this Guide
G-7 Background: Context for Rail Freight Planning
G-7 2.1 Rail Freight Planning and Policy Issues
G-11 2.2 Diversion Obstacles
G-14 2.3 Diversion Levers
G-16 2.4 Examples of Rail Freight Solutions
G-20 Guidelines for Preliminary Evaluation of Alternatives
G-20 3.1 The Three Phase Approach
G-21 3.2 The Five Steps for Preliminary Screening
G-45 3.3 Further Steps for More Detailed Assessment
G-47 Guidelines for Public-Private Dialogue
G-47 4.1 Cooperation First
G-52 4.2 Conflict Resolution
G-55 4.3 Distribution of Labor
G-56 4.4 Institutional Development
G-61 4.5 Designing Transactions
G-68 4.6 Winning Support
G-73 Methods for Detailed Analysis
G-73 5.1 Assess Congestion Levels and Reduction Needs
G-77 5.2 Identify Carrier Cost and Service Levels
G-84 5.3 Analyze Overall Logistics Costs
G-89 5.4 Estimate Truck to Rail Diversion
G-92 5.5 Calculate Traffic & Economic Benefits
G-103 5.6 Representation of Benefit-Cost Findings
G-112 Additional Resources
