Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

92.1 Introduction This chapter documents previous research and practices regarding freight mobility issues. For each of the three prin- cipal surface transportation modes of freight movement, the literature review attempts to capture definitions of mobility constraints, definitions of low-cost improvements, and strate- gies to address mobility constraints. Finally, the literature review documents examples of low-cost improvements imple- mented to improve freight mobility. An annotated bibliogra- phy is also provided in Appendix B. 2.2 Highways/Trucking 2.2.1 Defining the Freight Mobility Problem on Highways and Roadways A number of factors contribute to constrained freight mobil- ity, which, when combined, have significant adverse economic, environmental, safety, and security impacts. One factor is the growing demand for freight transportation, as reflected by the increasing volume of domestic and international freight that is moved on the nation’s transportation system. According to USDOT estimates, the volume of goods moved by truck and rail is projected to increase 98 percent and 88 per- cent, respectively, from 2002 levels by 2035. As a result of increasing freight demand, congestion is rising and is expected to increase in the future. This congestion will have a number of negative impacts. For example, producers, shippers, and consumers will suffer the higher economic costs of an ineffi- cient freight transportation system (5). FHWA (6) categorized freight mobility problems related to bottlenecks in the following four constraint types: • Interchange constraints • Highway capacity constraints • Geometry constraints (i.e., steep grade) • Intersection-related constraints. In addition, non-recurring events are also known to con- tribute to delay. The most common of these events are listed below along with the percentage share of each event type (7): • Non-fatal crashes (45.5 percent) • Work zones (24.3 percent) • Breakdowns (12.0 percent) • Weather (9.0 percent). Freight mobility constraints can be caused by physical, oper- ational, or regulatory factors. Recent National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3-83, “Low- Cost Improvements for Recurring Freeway Bottlenecks,” iden- tified the following as some of the physical or geometric features that contribute to the occurrence of freeway bottlenecks (8): • On-ramp sections with no auxiliary lane additions or with short deceleration lanes • Weaving sections, particularly out of dropped lanes • Lane drops on basic segments, or following off-ramps or tunnel sections, where free flow speed may be reduced • Horizontal curves, where vehicle paths may cross into the next lane • Long upgrades, particularly in the presence of heavy vehicles • Narrow lanes on older freeways • Lateral obstructions, which reduce free flow speeds. 2.2.2 Definition of Low-Cost Highway Improvements While certain improvements may be considered as low- cost, there is no general definition of the characteristics of such activities. The Minnesota DOT (9) used the following four cri- teria to identify “short-term, low-cost congestion-reduction strategies” for specific bottleneck locations: 1. Projects were required to have the potential of a 50 percent reduction in congestion C H A P T E R 2 Literature Review

2. Project timelines were required to be within 2–3 years 3. Costs were required to be less than $15 million 4. Safety could not be decreased as a result of the project. Latham and Trombly (10) defined low-cost traffic engineer- ing improvements to be “project(s) or strategy(ies) that generally [require] an investment in the range of $10,000 to $50,000.” The authors also noted that “Low-cost traffic engi- neering improvement techniques are typically spot applica- tions or are limited to shorter sections of roadway that do not cover an entire length of an arterial corridor. Some of these strategies include pavement markings, static and dynamic sign- ing, roadway lighting, raised medians, curb cuts, roadway geo- metric changes, or lane controls. These strategies provide the guidance, warning, and control needed for drivers to ensure safe and informed operation through traffic bottlenecks or congested areas.” Regardless of cost, three categories of improvements are identified in the literature: (i) physical, geometric, and engi- neering improvements; (ii) operational and technology improvements; and (iii) regulatory- or public policy-based improvements. The following sub-sections describe these three categories and illustrate them with examples. 2.2.3 Examples of Physical Low-Cost Improvements Walters et al. (11) documented three case studies in Texas that are considered to be low-cost improvements. 1. Improvements to a section of an urban highway where weaving and horizontal curve problems occur. To address the problem, an exit ramp was replaced with an entrance ramp to remove the weaving problem at a cost of $660,000. The improvement reduced the cost of delay on the ramp by $700,000 annually. 2. Mobility constraint due to lane drop and weaving on a congested exit ramp. The low-cost improvement was to add an auxiliary lane so that the entrance/exit lane did not end at the exit. This required a change in the designated use of an outside shoulder. The total cost was $150,000. The benefits in delay mitigation were calculated to be $200,000 annually. 3. Addition of a lane to the inside shoulder in a highly con- gested urban highway to add capacity. The cost of this addi- tional lane was approximately $130,000, the majority of which was reported to be spent on re-striping the section of highway. The delay reduction benefits were calculated to be $600,000 annually, and there was an additional safety benefit found through a decrease in crashes at the location. FHWA (12) also reported that similar low-cost improve- ments implemented elsewhere mitigated congestion. Examples include the following: • Truck-Related Bottleneck in Washington State—Washing- ton SR 167 in Federal Way in the Puget Sound region exhib- ited a bottleneck caused by a steep grade that dramatically reduced truck speeds. A lane was added on the grade to accommodate slow-moving trucks. • Florida—An interchange with short weaving sections caused queuing on the ramp that often extended to the freeway mainline. The problem was addressed by adding a right-turn lane and a signalized right-turn lane. • Maryland’s Quick Fix at Interstate 70/Interstate 695— Inadequate capacity of the I-70/I-695 interchange outside of Baltimore, Maryland, resulted in traffic on the east- bound approach from I-70 to I-695 backing up on to the mainline of I-70, restricting flow of through traffic. A quick-fix solution was to widen the ramp up to the bridge. This provided adequate storage to relieve the backup onto the mainline. To reduce delays and improve highway access to a major intermodal facility, Corwith Yard in Chicago, Illinois, the sig- nal system at the intersection was updated and synchronized to allow trucks to make turns safely. These improvements eliminated the delays to trucks getting into the yard (13). 2.2.4 Low-Cost Operational/Technology Improvements FHWA (14) suggests that improving the management and operations of transportation systems is a cost-effective way to influence the bottlenecks that affect freight. The following 12 low-cost operational remedies have been identified (12): 1. Using a short section of the shoulder as an additional travel lane 2. Re-striping the merge/diverge areas to better serve demand 3. Reducing lane widths to add a travel and/or auxiliary lane 4. Modifying weaving 5. Metering or closing entrance ramps 6. Speed harmonization (adjusted speed limits when congested) 7. Zippering, self-metering that promotes fair and smooth merges 8. Improving traffic signal timing on arterials 9. Improving arterial corridors using access management principles 10. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes 11. Providing traffic diverging information 12. Implementing road pricing to bring supply and demand into alignment. Ramp metering was ranked as the most utilized low-cost operational improvement among transportation agencies. This is followed by auxiliary lanes and then HOV lanes. In general, 10

the study results suggest a trend toward ramp metering as a low-cost bottleneck improvement (12). The practice is said to both decrease delay and to decrease the number and severity of crashes (thus decreasing traffic incident delay). To assess the benefits and costs of ramp metering, Minnesota DOT con- ducted a test of the effectiveness of the system that is deployed in the Twin Cities region. Several of the ramp meters were turned off during this experiment, and increases in delay, along with decreases in safety, were the end result; it was determined through this study that use of ramp metering in the Twin Cities saves $40 million annually (15). The greatest benefits of such a system for the trucking industry are likely found on trips through urban areas, where trucks would face fewer and less severe bottlenecks caused by vehicles that are entering the highway. Interviews of state and local transportation agencies (8, 12) showed that the addition of auxiliary lanes ranked second among participants, and is listed as a good solution to the following issues: • Heavy on-ramp demand • Lane drops • Horizontal/vertical curves • Inadequate accelerated and/or decelerated lanes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) (5) suggests that “limited parking for delivery to be received adds delay” to freight movement. It can be inferred from this statement that a low-cost method of increasing freight mobility/efficiency at the point of delivery is therefore to remove automobile park- ing and/or designate freight delivery parking areas. Changes to the characteristics of signals are also discussed in the literature. Low-cost improvements to traffic signals to prevent crashes (and subsequently increase mobility) include: • All-red intervals • Installation of 12-inch signal heads (increased from 8-inch) • Installation of additional signal heads at a different level (e.g., post mounted) • Changing location of traffic signals, or adding back plates to increase visibility (10). Signal improvements have been successfully used to increase the efficiency of left turns in Maryland. At an approximate cost of $5,000 per improvement, the state has implemented the following improvement types: • Two turn phases per cycle • Half-cycle variation • Directional lead-lag (10). GAO (5) found that traffic incident management programs have the ability to increase freight mobility through the effi- cient clearing of accidents and restoration of vehicle movement along roadways. Dunn and Latoski (16) also offered several low-cost, training-based examples of traffic incident manage- ment enhancements, including: • Integrating private towing and recovery companies into training programs • Training approaches such as video and stakeholder-specific instructional presentations • Incident management response team debriefings to identify lessons learned. Traveler information is available in several forms (e.g., changeable electronic message signs, radio broadcasts, 511). Commercial motor vehicle operators may have additional sources of information as well, including the support received through dispatchers and other trucking operations personnel, as well as through communications with other truck drivers (e.g., over CB radio or cell phone). FHWA (17) identified several types of information that can be disseminated to travelers in order to decrease congestion in certain areas, including: • Weather information • Variable speed limit signs • Information related to roadway diversions, alternative routes, emergency evacuations, and construction. Systems such as 511 and electronic message signs can pro- vide details on traffic incidents and travel times. Whether or not to categorize such activities as low cost is debatable. In a large metropolitan area, for instance, the initial cost of a 511 system is estimated to be over $40 million, with annual costs of approximately $2.5 million (18). Finally, work zone management techniques can have an impact on freight mobility issues related to highway construc- tion. As an example, work zone management software, week- end and night construction, and incentives for early comple- tion can successfully decrease the time in which a section of roadway is disrupted (19). 2.2.5 Examples of Low-Cost Operational Improvements • Georgia DOT’s Low-Cost Efforts to Improve the Atlanta Downtown Connector—In this example, low-cost im- provements were implemented to reduce delay and improve mobility on a 4-mile section of downtown freeway con- nector in Atlanta, Georgia. The improvements include re- striping and extension of a divider wall to add ramp storage and reduce weaving at three ramps and installation of four southbound entrance ramp meters in that section. The result was that the ramp meters saved a weekly average of 11

22.4 percent in time during the afternoon peak period. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of severe congestion hours was reduced by 37.7 percent (12). • Syracuse, New York—Traffic signals were upgraded at 145 locations with the following results: – 15.7 percent decrease in stops – 16.7 percent reduction in travel time – 18.8 percent reduction in delay (9). It was found that the cost of optimizing traffic signals ranges from $500 to $3,000 per intersection, while the bene- fit to trucks moving within the City of Syracuse is likely val- ued much greater on an annual basis. • Latham and Trombly (10) documented several examples of low-cost operational improvements that have potential to address mobility constraints. The following are a few examples: – Florida on US 1—by decreasing the number of median openings, fewer vehicles create slow-downs in left-lane traffic by exiting, entering, and even crossing traffic by use of a median. Such a change also likely has safety benefits for trucks as well. – Detroit, Michigan—an exclusive left-turn lane was added at one intersection, along with other minor improve- ments including signal upgrades, at a cost of $36,100. Such an improvement has the potential to allow cars and trucks to turn left in a faster manner and may decrease traffic signal queues. – The City of Knoxville, Tennessee, Traffic Engineering Department—has successfully implemented a number of low-cost traffic engineering improvements over the years, e.g.,  Installing sight distance mirrors, where more expen- sive earthwork to remove the sight distance obstacle is not feasible  Providing longer all-red intervals in the signal timing where such things as bridge decks interfere with signals  Placing signal heads to provide a better view of red signals in locations with limited sight distance to sig- nal faces  Providing narrower lane widths to provide additional lanes  Providing detector-actuated flashers for sight distance problems that would require very expensive earthwork to correct. – The Public Works Department of the City of Spring- field, Missouri—installed and evaluated low-cost traffic engineering improvements to correct safety problems at intersections. These treatments range in cost from $150 to $5,000, e.g.,  Install mast arm to mount signal heads overhead to improve visibility  Install lane use signs  Realign signal and relocate “Stop Ahead” sign to improve visibility. – Detroit and Grand Rapids Low-Cost Improvement— American Automobile Association (AAA) Michigan ini- tiated a program to identify and treat locations in the cities of Detroit and Grand Rapids with frequent crashes and congestion. Over the past six years, AAA Michigan examined 253 intersections and low-cost safety improve- ments were implemented at 112 sites. Actions imple- mented at the intersections included the following:  Implementation of all-red intervals  Replacement of 8-inch signal heads with 12-inch sig- nal heads  Relocation of signal heads to improve visibility by realigning two signal heads facing each other, realign- ing the signal heads over each lane of travel, or mount- ing the signal heads using box span installations  Installation of secondary post-mounted signal heads to improve visibility at some locations  Installation of back plates on traffic signals to improve visibility at some locations  Installation of left-turn lanes through re-striping of approach lanes and exclusive left-turn phases, where needed  Removal of on-street parking. 2.2.6 Low-Cost Regulatory/Public Policy Improvements One approach to improve freight mobility with a low-cost focus involves changes in regulation. Adding new rules and regulations governing the use of the freight transportation system may in turn decrease congestion, thereby improving freight mobility. Regulatory changes and public policy-ori- ented programs can be utilized to modify traveler behavior, and thus mitigate freight mobility constraints. Most notably, such programs and laws can address capacity issues that cause congestion by decreasing the annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of passenger vehicles, and thus increase the effective “supply” of highway for use by freight operators. An exam- ple of this is found in a GAO report (20), which cites several public policy-based solutions to surface transportation mobility constraints that could improve freight mobility, including using public information and programs to encour- age the following: • Use of mass transit • Carpooling • Teleworking. From a public-sector position, such programs are low cost and quickly implementable, especially in comparison to multi- 12

million dollar infrastructure projects. The most effective tool of governance used in such a situation is public information, such as advertising campaigns to encourage use of mass tran- sit, telecommuting, or similar changes in behavior. Use of additional tools such as local, state, and Federal tax expendi- tures that benefit participating companies, and encourage additional participation, will add to the cost of such programs. The end result, however, may be beneficial to freight mobility. Transportation finance mechanisms also play a role in freight mobility. The cost of tolls, for instance, often cannot be passed from the for-hire trucking sector to customers. Thus, a toll road often presents itself to the industry as a mobility constraint, especially when the decision is made to bypass a tolled interstate as a result of the low willingness to pay among trucking compa- nies (21). A low-cost, quickly implementable solution to such constraints may be found through the use of simple and more traditional methods of collecting highway revenue (e.g., motor fuel taxes). Finally, there has been a growing public policy discussion (22) related to changes in size and weight regulations for commercial motor vehicles. The focus of the discussion is to increase the size of truck configurations (through, for instance, increased use of double and triple trailer configurations) and weight (by allowing more weight than is currently legal with- out requiring a special permit), which has the potential to result in the movement of the same amount of freight that is currently moved, but with fewer tractors and lower emission rates per ton-mile. The benefits of such a policy change may be felt the greatest at freight origins and destinations, where space can often be limited. In addition, there are likely signif- icant benefits in long haul operations. 2.2.7 Examples of Low-Cost Regulatory Improvements • Downtown Chicago Facility Regulations—Many build- ings are considered freight traffic hotspots due to inade- quate loading facilities. O’Laughlin et al. (23) suggest the following standard policies for new buildings, intended to improve the efficiency of freight mobility: – Comprehensive loading zone plan—e.g., physical inven- tory of loading zones – Use metered freight loading zones (with graduated fees) – Add loading zones in “hot spots” – Designate areas with on-street parking as loading zones before 9 or 10 AM – Increase parking violation fines during rush hour for obstructing traffic movements – Initiate an enforcement program focused on non- commercial vehicles parked in dock areas – Distribute promotional materials to buildings with “where to call” information (reporting violations). 2.3 Railroads 2.3.1 Freight Capacity Rail infrastructure consists of track and structures, termi- nals or yards, locomotives, cars, and signals. The Tioga Group (24) identified major factors affecting railroad capacity to include: • Number of tracks • Number and length of sidings • Number of crossovers and other connections • Type of signaling • Speed limits • Grade and curvature. Shortages of freight rail cars or locomotives also reduce the capacity of the rail system. Similarly, excess numbers of cars and locomotives can be costly to rail operations. Between 1985 and 2005, the number of rail freight cars stabilized between 1.2 million and 1.4 million, while the average capacity of rail cars grew from 53.7 tons to 97.2 tons (25). Also the number locomotives increased by about 27 percent between 1992 and 2005 (4). This is a reflection of the continuous growth in freight demand and the use of freight cars with greater max- imum payloads. Also, better signaling and communication help improve utilization of existing tracks. Thus constraints to the movement of freight by rail can be defined in terms of these infrastructure components in addition to labor compo- nents that together provide rail services. According to a recent study (26), investment requirements for rail are driven by three factors: demand, current system capacity, and infrastructure expansion costs. USDOT estimates that the demand for rail freight transportation will almost dou- ble by 2035 with 2002 as the base year. The growing demand for freight transportation has direct impacts on the capacity of the rail freight system. Freight shippers and carriers are espe- cially concerned about the future capacity and productivity of the freight system. In addition to the growing demand for freight transportation, increasing congestion on the highway system could cause some freight to be diverted to rail. How- ever, escalating time constraints to move shipments or raw materials through the supply chain may minimize these diver- sions. To absorb the growth, it was estimated that railroads must add capacity to handle tonnage 88 percent above cur- rent volume. Major rail infrastructure improvements relate to line and facility expansion. Line expansions include: • Upgrades to the Class I railroads mainline tracks and signal control systems • Improvements to significant rail bridges and tunnels (con- struction of new parallel bridges and tunnels, overhead 13

clearance projects which typically involve raising highway bridges crossing rail lines to permit movement of double stacked intermodal container trains) • Upgrades to short-line and regional railroad tracks and bridges to accommodate heavier (286,000 pound) freight cars. Facility expansion includes: • Expansion of carload terminals, intermodal yards, and inter- nal gateway facilities owned by railroads • Expansion of Class I railroad service and support facilities. Rail line capacity is determined by the following factors: • Number of tracks—double track allows trains to pass in opposite directions without stopping • Number and length of sidings • Type of signaling—centralized traffic control yields higher capacity • Speed limits • Grade and curvature • Traffic mix. According to Immel and Burgel (27), measures of perfor- mance would include: • Average speed • Hours of delay • Delay ratio. 2.3.2 Freight Mobility Constraints Railroads are beginning to experience severe capacity con- straints in areas where commuter and intercity passenger rail services share tracks with freight railroads (28). The follow- ing are some rail freight mobility constraints identified in the literature. • Inadequate sidings • Switching conflicts especially for mixed-speed operation on single or dual track • Yards and port terminals • Lack of funding for track upgrades • Outdated communication and signaling systems. Immel and Burgel (27) noted that rail capacity is also affected by (i) speed and length of trains, (ii) differing priorities, and (iii) the number and types of facilities in the same area served by the rail lines. Thus, adding capacity may require changes in operating practices and investment in tracks, signals, and other facilities that directly impact capacity. A recent study (26) examined current levels of rail freight capacity. It focused upon the 52,340 miles of primary rail corri- dors, which carry the majority of the nation’s freight traffic. Although the large majority of the current system is operating at an acceptable level of service, the amount of excess capacity on the rail network has diminished through two decades of growth, the study reports. It forecasts that if the 2035 rail freight volumes were to occur on today’s rail network, 30 percent of the major rail network would be operating above capacity and cre- ating severe congestion. Because of the interrelated nature of the nation’s rail network, this congestion would affect every region of the country. The cost to keep pace with the level of growth was estimated to be $148 billion in constant dollars through 2035. Of this amount, the study estimates the railroads could contribute about $96 billion from expected income and opera- tions. That leaves an investment gap of $39 billion, or $1.4 bil- lion annually, to meet the rail capacity needs through 2035. 2.3.3 Low-Cost Improvements There is no clear definition of what constitutes a low-cost action or strategy directed at addressing freight mobility con- straints in the available literature. However, certain improve- ments to rail capacity are obviously needed to accommodate future freight growth. The cost of these improvements varies from low to very expensive. Some of the improvements that could be considered “low-cost” because they fall within the low end of the cost spectrum include: • Track improvements, e.g., improve passing sidings • Changes in control types (e.g., from No Signal to Centralized Traffic Control) • Upgrade of communication system • Track maintenance • Branch line upgrades • Expansion of carload terminals • Joint use of facilities—pairing mainlines to provide direc- tional running thereby increasing capacity • Trackage rights agreements to improve efficiency of oper- ations without necessarily increasing capacity • Use of larger cars—further improvement may not be pos- sible, at least for the Class I railroads. This option is also limited by capital/operating cost trade-offs. The development of high-speed rail corridors, additional main lines, strategic overhead grade crossings, remote switch- ing from the cab, and radar in all locomotives to prevent rear- end collisions now presents a unique opportunity to develop an extremely efficient intermodal freight system with sub- stantial energy, environmental, and competitive advantages that will benefit all modes of transportation and help mitigate capacity issues. 14

2.3.4 Examples of Low-Cost Rail Improvements The following are some examples of improvements that could be classified as low-cost and quickly implementable and that have positive impacts on freight mobility. Even though these projects are not specifically classified as such, the cost, in relative terms, and the period of implementation would sat- isfy the requirements of such a definition. • Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Effi- ciency Program (CREATE) Project EW-4: BRC/NS Signal Upgrade—This project involved upgrading the Belt Rail- way Company of Chicago (BRC) and Norfolk Southern (NS) signal systems to power switches and signals along a segment of track. The result of this improvement is that average train speeds increased from 10 to 20 miles per hour. The bottleneck at this location is now significantly alleviated as this segment can handle twice the number of trains, an increase from 23 to 46 freight trains per day (29). • Improve Passing Siding: West Durban, North Carolina— Upgraded and extended the passing siding track in West Durban from 6,500 feet to more than 9,000 feet. Realigned track to straighten curve to increase speed from 45 mph to 65 mph and accommodate two tracks. Constructed a total of 12,500 feet of new track. The existing track became the new siding. No. 20 turnouts were installed to allow all trains to travel faster through the siding. The cost was $3.6 mil- lion. Extending the siding improved capacity and reliability of service and saved 30 seconds of travel time per train (30). • Install Traffic Control System, North Carolina—A new centralized train traffic control system was installed between Greensboro and Cary, North Carolina, to automate train dispatching, improve rail capacity, and increase train speeds from 59 mph to 79 mph. Cost was $8 million. The result is improved traffic flow and reliability allowing trains to oper- ate at a maximum speed of 79 mph saving 5 minutes of travel time per train (30). 2.4 Water Ports and Inland Waterways This section presents a synthesis of published information on freight mobility issues regarding freight transportation through the sea ports, inland waterways, Great Lakes, and intercoastal waterways. 2.4.1 Marine Transportation System The marine transportation system (MTS) is defined to include interrelated components of the national transporta- tion system, such as shipping, ports, inland waterways, and their connections to rail and highway transportation modes and system. MTS includes 361 public and private deepwater and intercoastal waterway ports and over 24,000 miles of inland and coastal navigable waterways (28). There are about 70 deep-draft port areas along the U.S. coasts (31). Within these ports there are about 2,000 major terminals that are mostly privately owned and operated (32). While deep sea routes are the primary means of moving international freight, the rivers, coastal, and Great Lakes waterways are equally important means of moving domestic freight and for provid- ing outbound feeder traffic for international shipping (33). 2.4.2 System Capacity Knatz (34) noted that port capacity has two important dimen- sions: the short-term capability to respond to interruptions in the supply chain and the ultimate capacity to handle the nation’s long-range forecasts of trade. GAO (35) also observed that the U.S. maritime freight transportation system primarily consists of waterways, ports, the intermodal connections (i.e., inland rail and roadways) that permit freight to reach maritime facilities, and the vessels and the vehicles that move cargo within the system. The marine infrastructure is owned and operated by an aggregation of state and local agencies and private com- panies with some Federal funding. International freight is an important aspect of the U.S. economy. The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems facilitate mobility through an extensive network of infrastructure and operators as well as through the vehicles and vessels that permit passengers and freight to move within the systems. The U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) (28) noted that as larger ships put increased pressure on ports, greater container volumes and customer expectations would require an effective, efficient, and integrated total transportation sys- tem. For inland waterways, there is sufficient capacity, although congestion is increasing at small, aging, and increasingly unre- liable locks. Port terminals function as nodal points within MTS with the basic function of transferring and storing freight. Le-Griffin and Murphy (36) noted that as the demand for international trade and global logistic services continues to increase, port capacity can be expanded by improving productivity and operational efficiency of terminal facilities. 2.4.3 Performance Indicators Ports are dissimilar and even within a single port the current or potential activities can be broad in scope and nature, so that the choice of measure of performance can be difficult. There is no acceptable standard method of measuring performance that is applicable to every port (37). Inconsistencies in performance data make it difficult to compare operational efficiencies of U.S. 15

ports. Factors affecting port efficiency, which is a reflection of freight mobility, include the following (28): • Labor efficiency (cargo moved per unit of labor) • Land use efficiency (cargo storage per unit of land) • Waterside access limitations • Capacity of port road and rail connections • Inland transportation availability • Cargo handling capability. Le-Griffin and Murphy (36) further noted that the exter- nal factors influencing the productivity of container terminal operations include landside capacities and performance of intermodal rail and highway systems. Indicators of terminal gate productivity measures are gate throughput measured by container/hour/lane and truck turnaround time measured by truck time in terminal. 2.4.4 Mobility Constraints As freight demand increases, congestion is expected to increase on major freight transportation networks, particu- larly where intermodal connections occur. Furthermore, with increasing international trade and with larger container ships being built, there will be more pressure on the already con- gested road and rail connections to major U.S. seaports. The constraints and/or challenges facing port terminal operators, shippers, and other stakeholders involved in international shipping and domestic freight movement by mode include the following (28): • Poor or inadequate rail infrastructure—Congestion to rail shipments—common impediments include low overpass bridges that restrict specific rail cars; availability of single- track/single-operator port service; mainline rail terminals and yards that are distant from ports; lack of on-dock rail handling facilities • Lack of staging areas especially during peak cargo flow • Landside access—congestion on highway approaches to ports; turning lanes and radii on local roads are of increas- ing concern • Maintenance dredging • Lack of state and Federal funding • Intermodal connectivity • Inadequate or unclear highway signage for port terminal and access routes • Connectivity—rail infrastructure connections at ports are often privately owned—these present special challenges for coordination with the Class I rail carriers and motor carriers • Inadequate communication between terminal operators and drayage trucking firms; also communications among Federal agencies within a given port cause delays • Difficulty of effective management and operation of the transportation system • Funding is mode specific, and congestion at intermodal connections is not easily addressed. 2.4.5 Low-Cost Improvements There is no clear definition of what constitutes a low-cost action or strategy directed at addressing freight mobility con- straints in the available literature. However, the following actions directed at improving freight mobility (28) could be characterized as such given the potential relatively lower costs compared to massive projects associated with seaport termi- nal projects: • Operational Strategies – More efficient port utilization—make the port “agile” by using “sprint” trains to take intermodal cargo directly from dockside to more remote inland locations for stor- age and sorting prior to distribution. The expectation is increased cargo capacity on waterfront acreage without the necessity of new construction, new equipment, or changes in labor. – Improved signage—Poor signage results in unproductive time spent on roads, increased fuel consumption, and increased cost of shipping. While better signage will not eliminate traffic congestion, it could provide an effective short-term solution to reduce some highway congestion and improve safety. – Disparate communication systems that are typically user or mode specific and that lack horizontal interfaces with other partners involved in the shipping process. – Expansion of terminal gate hours, e.g., through the PierPASS program. • Physical Strategies – Modernize locks and dams to regulate water flow and facilitate commerce (inland waterways). – Improve marine terminal capacity and access to rail, road, and pipeline. – Deploy advanced computer, communications, and nav- igation technologies. • Regulatory Strategies – Increase number of hours and shifts that terminal gates are open. – Reduce container dwell time. 2.4.6 Examples of Low-Cost Improvements Most low-cost improvements to address freight mobility con- straints encountered at the deepwater ports and on the inland waterway system are typically economic-incentive–based pro- 16

grams that influence demand, changes that improve efficiency of operations and processes (including the use of advanced technologies), and projects that encourage modal shift. Phys- ical improvements are coordinated with highway and rail improvements both within and outside the terminals. The following are examples of such programs: • Congestion Pricing—The PierPASS OffPeak program was implemented in July 2005 at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as an incentive-based program to shift move- ment of international containers from peak weekday hours to evenings and weekends. All 12 international container terminals in the two ports established five new shifts per week (Monday–Thursday: 6 PM to 3 AM and Saturday: 8 AM to 6 PM). Traffic Mitigation Fees of $50 per 20-foot container and $100 per all other sizes of container are charged for daytime peak hour movements (Monday– Friday: 3:00 AM to 6:00 PM) (38). • Trucking Appointment System—Many terminals in the United States, Latin America, and Europe use an Internet- based system (e.g., Forecast® system) to provide real-time information for trucking companies to streamline gate pro- cessing, enhance truck driver turntime, and reduce customer service costs. Shippers, consignees, brokers, and others receive advance information on import container availabil- ity, vessel schedules, activity reports, and booking status. This program enables improved planning and resource manage- ment and streamlines gate transactions (39). 17