National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Literature Review
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14439.
×
Page 39

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.

18 3.1 Introduction The dimensions of the North American freight transporta- tion network reflect the dimensions and needs of the North American economy. The U.S. economy is closely tied to the Canadian and Mexican economies, and increasingly relies on international trade. For example, trade with China grew from $85 billion in 1998 to $343 billion in 2006, representative of recent trade patterns (40). In total, transportation and its related components compose about 11 percent of the total U.S. econ- omy, according to the USDOT (41). Consequently, the freight transport network in the United States has evolved to serve not only the increasing domestic freight demand but also an even higher increase in international freight movement. However, the rate of growth in freight demand has outpaced the rate of transportation infrastructure capacity expansion and mainte- nance funding levels. This chapter describes the dimensions of the freight system in terms of (i) the physical infrastructure and modal characteristics and (ii) freight mobility constraints. 3.2 Networks and System Characteristics This section describes the nature of the freight transporta- tion network for highways, rail, and water modes. To system- atically address freight mobility issues it is necessary to describe and understand the dimensions of the freight system. Some of the literal dimensions of the physical freight transportation system are depicted in Table 1. These represent physical infra- structure and important components of the freight transporta- tion system. Another important component is illustrated in Table 2, which highlights some of the physical rolling stock— trucks, locomotives, ships, airplanes, and other vehicles that carry freight across the network (41). A third component could be considered the “Intellectual Infrastructure.” This includes the logistics processes, the technology systems, the inventory- control systems, and the body of knowledge that shippers, producers, and logistics personnel use. These three compo- nents influence one another, as shippers and carriers react to congestion, distance, price, and customer demands to choose the most efficient mode and route. The following sections describe these three components for the various modes. 3.3 System Performance With the emergence of significant roadway congestion and mobility constraints and recognition of the criticality of freight movement to the nation’s economy, there is a renewed em- phasis on the development of freight performance measures. Through the use of technology that provides vehicle and ship- ment tracking, the freight transportation industry and other stakeholders can provide decision makers more detailed data and information on freight movements than was available in the past. Figure 2 shows the distribution of freight volume on the entire freight transportation system—highway, rail, and inland waterways. The figure is based on data from different modal sources and represents 2002 data for rail and water and 2007 data for highway. The figure shows the segments of the net- work with high freight volumes that indicate potential loca- tions of congestion. Clearly, all modes have locations where capacity could be limited compared to other locations in the respective networks. In 2002, FHWA initiated the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) to integrate disparate data sources to provide estimates of commodity flows, based on the origin and destination of freight movements. The original iteration of FAF, also known as FAF1, was based on 1998 data and provided estimates for commodity flow volumes at the state, regional, and interna- tional levels for 2010 and 2020. FAF2, the second generation, estimates 2002 volumes and values, provides forecasts through 2035, and is based on a host of public domain data sources. The FAF commodity origin destination database lays the foun- dation for transportation infrastructure analysis. C H A P T E R 3 Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System

19 Modal Category Length or Number Highway Interstate Highway 47,344 miles National Highway System (excluding interstates) 119,896 miles Other Roads 3,849,257 miles Rail Class I RRs 94,801 miles Regional Freight Lines 16,703 miles Local Freight Lines 28,415 miles Deepwater Ports and Inland Waterways Navigable Waterway 26,000 miles Public Ports (#) 150 Sea and River Ports (#) 230 Intermodal Terminals & Others Truck/Rail Terminals (#) 203 Oil Pipelines 64,336 miles Gas Transmission 309,503 miles Gas Distribution 1,079,565 miles Airports Public Use Airports (#) 5,286 Table 1. Selected freight infrastructure statistics (42–48). Vehicles by Mode Number Highway Combination Trucks 2,276,661 All Other Trucks 5,650,619 Rail Class I Locomotives 20,505 Class I Freight Cars 477,751 Other Freight Cars 691,329 Deepwater Ports and Inland Waterways Self-propelled Vessels 8,621 Barges (non-self-propelled) 32,381 Oceangoing ships1 426 Airports Air Carriers 8,194 1 - U.S. flag vessels 1000 gross tons or more Table 2. Freight vehicles (41, 47, 49, 50). Figure 2. Freight tonnage on freight transportation network (51).

In an attempt to make the FAF into a useful tool for measur- ing and analyzing the changing world of freight transportation, FHWA began developing annual provisional estimates of com- modity movements including all modes of transportation start- ing with the year 2005. The goal is to provide practitioners in the areas of economic development and transportation planning with the latest updates to data on goods movement. Freight transportation providers can also use FAF in long- range planning efforts. The provisional estimates are developed based on publicly available freight data sources and methods that can be fully disclosed to the general public. Table 3 shows the 2002 FAF benchmark freight volumes in millions of tons by mode, the 2008 provisional estimates, and the 2035 forecasts. Note that the 2035 numbers have not been adjusted for the current economic recession. Table 4 shows the equivalent values in billions of U.S. dollars and Table 5 compares the average ton-miles. A second major initiative, the FHWA-sponsored project titled “Freight Performance Measurement (FPM): Travel Time in Freight-Significant Corridors,” is based on the use of wire- less truck position data to measure truck speed and demand for roadways (54). This effort analyzes several million truck movements on Interstate Highway System (IHS) corridors throughout the United States and is intended to complement and provide real-time calibrations of the forecasts produced by FAF. Figure 3, an output of this project, shows the varia- tion of the average speeds on selected major freight corridors across the United States. This figure illustrates the impacts of freight mobility constraints on average truck speed. In 2008, the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies initiated project NCFRP-03, “Performance Mea- sures for Freight Transportation” (55). This research makes an effort to develop a comprehensive set of performance measures to guide public policy decisions. The scope of these measures will include many aspects of the freight transportation system including: • Freight system efficiency and effectiveness • Infrastructure capacity and condition • Safety and security • Energy use and the environment. The outcomes of these initiatives are expected to provide decision makers with a basis for identifying and evaluating potential solutions to freight mobility constraints and provide benefits to both motor carriers and the general public. 20 Mode 2002 2008 2035 Total Domestic Import & Export Total Domestic Import & Export Total Domestic Import & Export Total 19,328 17,670 1,658 21,497 19,387 2, 110 37,212 33,668 3,544 Truck 11,539 11,336 203 13,243 13,040 203 22,814 22,231 583 Rail 1,879 1,769 110 2,007 1,861 146 3,525 3,292 233 Water 1 701 595 106 632 520 112 1,042 874 168 Air, air & truck 11 3 8 13 3 10 61 10 51 Intermodal 1,292 196 1,096 1 ,661 175 1,486 2,598 334 2,264 Pipeline & unknown 3,906 3,772 134 3,940 3,787 153 7,171 6,926 245 1 - The numbers for water mode in the FAF database do not match totals in the waterborne commerce data programs (e.g., U .S. Army Corps of Engineers) because of differences in definitions and coverage. Table 3. National summary of freight volumes (million tons) (52). Mode 2002 2008 2035 Total Domestic Import & Export Total Domestic Import & Export Total Domestic Import & Expo rt Total 13,228 11,083 2,145 16,767 14,217 2,550 41,869 29,592 12,277 Truck 8,856 8,447 409 11,194 10,719 475 23,768 21,655 2,113 Rail 382 288 94 466 352 114 702 483 219 Water 102 76 26 44 27 17 152 103 49 Air, air & truck 771 162 609 1,022 206 816 5, 924 721 5,203 Intermodal 1,967 983 984 1,881 779 1,102 8,966 4,315 4,651 Pipeline & unknown 1,150 1,127 23 2,161 2,134 27 2,357 2,315 42 Table 4. National summary of freight values (billion dollars) (52).

3.4 Highways Infrastructure: The most recent version of the National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) represents more than 525,000 miles of public roadways including the IHS, National Highway System (NHS), National Network (NN), and other state highways. The NHS represents about 31 percent of the entire public highway network and the 47,344 miles of Inter- state highways represent about 28 percent of the NHS (42). It has been noted that the growth in overall traffic and growth in freight in particular have outpaced the expansion of the transportation system. Between 1980 and 2003, lane-miles of highways increased 5 percent while vehicle miles of travel increased 89 percent (57). The ability of the freight transporta- tion system to support increasing capacity demand remains a challenge. Capacity: To examine the ability of the highway network to meet current and future freight demand, capacity analysis 21 Mode 2002 2008 2035 Total Domestic Import & Export Total Domestic Import & Export Total Domestic Import & Export Total 4,432 4,161 271 4,749 4,419 330 8,220 7,648 572 Truck 1,246 1,224 22 1,392 1,370 22 2,463 2,400 63 Rail 1,605 1,511 94 1,735 1,600 135 3,012 2,813 199 Water 612 519 93 602 502 100 909 763 146 Air, air & truck 14 4 10 17 5 12 77 13 64 Intermodal 23 4 20 27 3 24 47 6 41 Pipeline & unknown 932 900 32 977 939 38 1,712 1,653 59 Table 5. National summary of freight ton-miles (billions) (52, 53). Figure 3. Average truck speeds on selected Interstate highways, 2009 (56).

was conducted using the FAF2 origin-destination (O-D) data. Figure 4 shows the truck traffic volumes on the freight transportation network for the 2002 base year and the fore- cast for 2035, respectively. The highway capacity impacts of the 2002 and 2035 freight truck traffic volumes are also shown in Figure 5. This figure illustrates highway congestion for 2002 and 2035. The impacts on highway capacity are expressed as the miles of highway that fall into one of the three categories based on the volume/capacity (v/c) ratios: 1. Below capacity—v/c less than 0.75 (green) 2. Approaching capacity—v/c ratio 0.75 to 1.0 (amber) 3. Exceeding capacity—v/c ratio greater than 1.0 (red) (58). Figure 6 shows the percentage of miles exceeding the capac- ity in the years 2002 and 2035. The following observations can be made: • About 3 percent of NHS miles exceeded the capacity in 2002, and this is estimated to increase to about 26 percent in 2035. • In 2002, 320 miles of rural Interstate exceeded the capacity, and the miles with heavy congestion are expected to increase to 9,442 miles in 2035, which represents 30 percent of the total rural Interstate miles. • About 2,904 miles of urban Interstate were heavily con- gested in 2002, accounting for 18 percent of the total NHS 22 a b Figure 4. Truck flow on FAF2 highway network (a) base year 2002 and (b) 2035 (58). a b Figure 5. NHS highway network congestion (a) base year 2002 and (b) 2035 (58).

• In 2002, 5,882 miles or 36 percent of urban NHS Inter- state and 3,448 miles or 11 percent of rural NHS Inter- state carry more than 10,000 trucks per day. The miles with heavy truck traffic will increase more than twofold in 2035 to 11,855 miles or 72 percent of urban NHS Interstate and 15,353 miles or 51 percent of rural NHS Interstate. • In 2002, only 6 percent of the 162,164 NHS miles experience truck traffic in excess of 10,000 trucks per day. This percent- age is estimated to rise to 20 percent in 2035. Industry Segments: The trucking industry is also the most complex and diverse mode ranging from owner-operators with one truck to very large fleets with more than 15,000 tractors. In the United States, nearly 97 percent of trucking compa- nies operate less than 20 trucks, although medium and large carriers haul the majority of freight and employ the majority of drivers (57). Motor carriers may be either private carriers, dedicated to hauling intracompany freight only, or for-hire carriers that haul goods for third parties. In 2005, the follow- ing types of motor carriers were operating in the United States: • 290,629 for-hire carriers • 504,166 private carriers • 234,892 “other” interstate carriers. Major segments within the industry include truckload (TL), less-than-truckload (LTL), and specialized. Specialized car- riers may include overweight/oversize carriers, bulk liquid carriers, and flatbed carriers. Mobility constraints affect seg- ments of the industry in different capacities. For example, TL carriers operating in many jurisdictions may be most affected by the lack of a centralized clearinghouse of road system status. Conversely, the mobility of LTL carriers may be most impacted by inadequate access to retail establishments or traffic sig- nal timing geared toward automobiles. Lastly, specialized hazardous materials (hazmat) carrier operations may be most impacted by hazmat route restrictions or hazmat-related delays at intermodal facilities. The distribution of carriers in the United States includes: • TL (52 percent) • LTL (24 percent) • Specialized, bulk/tank (5 percent) • Other specialized (19 percent) (49). Truck Vehicle Types: There are two main types of trucks: single-unit or straight trucks and combination trucks. In 2006, there were 26.9 million straight and combination trucks registered for business purposes in the United States (57). Com- mercial motor vehicles are further grouped by gross vehicle 23 0 20 40 60 80 Urban Interstate Rural Interstate Urban Non- Interstate Rural Non- Interstate Pe rc en ta ge o f H ig hw ay 2002 2035 Figure 6. Percentage of NHS highway miles exceeding capacity (58). 0 20 40 60 80 100 2002 2035 Pe rc en t M ile s o f h ig hw ay 0 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 >10,000 Figure 7. Percentage of NHS highway miles and truck volume (58). urban Interstate miles. This percentage increases consider- ably to 70 percent in 2035, corresponding to 11,534 miles of urban Interstate that will exceed the capacity. To illustrate the distribution of truck traffic on the high- way network for the years 2002 and 2035, truck volume groups used are: 1. Light Truck Traffic—0 to 5,000 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) 2. Moderate Truck Traffic—5,000 to 10,000 AADTT 3. Heavy Truck Traffic—greater than 10,000 AADTT. Figure 7 shows the percentages of highway miles carrying different levels of truck traffic. It is noted that: • Over 82 percent and 66 percent of the NHS miles in the years 2002 and 2035, respectively, carry less than 5,000 AADTT.

weight (GVW) into eight truck classes. Classes 1 through 3 are vehicles up to 14,000 GVW, Classes 4–6 weigh up to 26,000 GVW, and Classes 7–8 are vehicles that weigh more than 26,000 GVW. From 2000–2006, vehicle sales for these truck classes increased as follows: • Classes 1–3: 14 percent to 8.7 million vehicles • Classes 4–6: 33 percent to 170,000 vehicles • Classes 7–8: 12 percent to 375,000 vehicles (49). Human Resources: Trucking is a major employer across all segments of the economy. The industry provided one in thirteen private-sector jobs for 8.7 million people in 2005, a 1.2 percent increase over 2004 (52). Of these employees, 3.5 million people are professional truck drivers. Truck driver job functions vary significantly across the industry. For exam- ple, long-haul truckload drivers may be away from home for weeks at a time and travel in predominantly rural areas. Con- versely, LTL pickup and delivery drivers may travel primarily in urban areas within 100 miles of their home terminal. Despite significant differences in operating characteristics, the indus- try as a whole faces systemic operating challenges. The industry continues to face both a shortage of drivers and difficulty retaining drivers. The need for truck drivers is expected to increase by 19 percent between 2002 and 2012, outpacing the 14.8 percent expected increase in overall job growth (59). Projections suggest the driver shortage could rise to 111,000 by 2014 as 320,000 new drivers will be needed to keep pace with growth in freight volumes while another 219,000 drivers will be needed to replace drivers that either retire or leave the industry. This translates to a need for more than 54,000 new drivers per year over the next decade. Among the highlights are the following significant distri- butions of freight upon the system: • NHS is only 4 percent of all mileage but it transports an esti- mated 75 percent of all truck freight, inclusive of IHS (49). • The IHS composes 1 percent of all highway mileage but transports an estimated 43 percent of all truck freight (49). • FHWA estimates that the percentage of urban Interstate sec- tions carrying more than 10,000 trucks per day will increase from 27 percent in 1998 to 69 percent in 2020. • Approximately 53 percent of urban Interstate mileage will likely be congested in 2020 in comparison to about 20 per- cent today. Performance: Although trucking is the dominant mode, the nation’s logistics rely on the interconnected and inter- dependent nature of the various modes. Trucking is domi- nant on higher value, shorter distance trips. Trucking is also the dominant mode in terms of miles traveled, value of freight, and volume of freight. The value of a ton shipped by air and truck is $88,618; by truck and rail, $4,892; by truck alone, $775; by water, $401, and by rail alone, $198 (1). This intercon- nectivity of each mode can belie the importance of the mode, if it is only viewed by its share of weight or value. Although water shipments may represent only 5.2 percent of all ship- ments by value, they are indispensible in moving heavy, raw commodities such as chemicals, grain, and petroleum. Air freight is a small fraction of all shipments by tonnage but is essential for critically high-value freight such as electronics, or even fresh seafood. The relatively high value of the truck- rail intermodal shipments at nearly $5,000 per ton illustrates the value-added nature of intermodal freight transportation’s ability to ship high-value goods long distances in a rapid, reli- able manner. Therefore, each mode has evolved to serve an irreplaceable niche in the interconnected transcontinental freight network. The trucking industry is the largest sector of freight move- ment, carrying approximately 69 percent of all freight ton- nage, totaling 10.7 billion tons of freight and 83.8 percent of freight transportation revenue (57). According to a recent report (1), the nation’s freight ton-miles by all freight modes increased steadily at an average rate of 1.2 percent per year between 1980 and 2004. Between 2002 and 2008, the volume of domestic freight movements by truck increased by 15 percent. In 2008, trucks carried 75 percent or $10.7 trillion of total value of domestic freight (and 64 percent of all freight value) representing an increase of 27 percent above the 2002 values. Between 1980 and 2002, the number of freight trucks increased by 37 percent (i.e., from 5.8 million in 1980 to 6.2 million in 1990 to 7.9 million in 2002). Average annual distance traveled by commercial trucks also increased from 19,000 miles per truck in 1980 to 27,000 miles per truck in 2002. The growth in U.S. freight volume places pressure on the transportation system arising from congestion, delays, capac- ity management, and operational bottlenecks, and it impacts individual modes as well as multimodal freight movements. The consequence of increases in VMT is increased delay result- ing from congestion, which affects the productivity of trucking. The impacts of congestion on trucking can also be measured in terms of value-of-time and vehicle operating cost savings resulting from more efficient and reliable operating speeds on the highway system. According to the 2008 updates to the FAF commodity O-D database, Table 6 shows the top five commodities for domes- tic movements by trucks in terms of tonnage and value. Vehicle Miles Traveled: According to FHWA, in 2005 com- mercial trucks traveled an average of 13.7 percent of total rural VMT and 7.1 percent of total urban VMT (11). According to an analysis by Martin Labbe Associates for the American Trucking Associations (ATA), Class 8 trucks traveled a total of 130.5 billion miles in 2005, an average of 45,000 miles per truck (57). 24

tion (FRA), Class I railroads represent only 1 percent of the railroad companies, own 72 percent of the network of rail- roads in the country, and generate more than 90 percent of the rail revenue (47). The Class I railroads also own 36 percent of all freight cars. A recent study conducted by the Associ- ation of American Railroads (AAR) (60) concludes that the railroads’ current network is reaching its capacity and that rail congestion will occur if the system is not expanded. Railroad capacity is determined by many factors including the amount of railroad track and rolling stock, the number and power of locomotives, maintenance, staffing levels, and a wide variety of operating strategies (4). There is currently a great deal of interest in railroad capacity now and in the future. Several factors explain the interest: • Traffic growth, both observed and forecast, raises the ques- tion of whether railroads will have adequate capacity to enable continued handling of the growing business. • Tightening of capacity in 2007–2008 has made it possible for railroads to increase freight rates. (When there is excess capacity, railroads historically have lowered rates in the attempt to attract business; when there is a shortage of capacity, rates rise to balance supply and demand.) • Given that rail is 2 to 2.5 times more fuel efficient than trucks (61), and because highways are increasingly con- gested, many policymakers want to encourage the shift of some truck traffic onto railroads—which is more likely if railroads have adequate capacity and can meet needed service levels. • Advocates of increased rail passenger service understand that availability of rail track capacity is a critical issue for expansion of passenger services. • Rail freight is often assumed to have other benefits, includ- ing environmental (lower emissions per ton-mile), an excellent safety record, low-cost rate levels for bulk goods, and movement of hazardous materials on private right- of-way (i.e., not mixed in with cars and trucks on the high- way system). Investment: As private enterprises operating both owned equipment and infrastructure, American railroads must raise From 1999 to 2004, annual truck VMT for all classes of trucks grew at an average rate of 3 percent year to year. However, in 2005 truck VMT declined 8.1 percent to 287.2 billion miles (1). The cause of declining truck VMT may be related to increases in congestion, changes in operating schema, 1000-mile trip conversions to intermodalism, or some combination of these factors. As VMT growth and increases in commercial motor vehicle registrations likely will continue to outpace infrastruc- ture investment increases, the need for low-cost and quickly implementable solutions will also grow. Improvements in freight flows likely improve all vehicle flows; reducing opera- tional impediments can lower business costs, in turn reducing both unit prices for the consumer and inflationary pressures for the economy. 3.5 Railroads Railroad Industry Ownership Profile: Ownership of rail- roads is almost exclusively private, and the existing industry is the result of hundreds of company mergers over the last century and a half. The most important exception to private ownership is the Alaska Railroad, a state-owned operation since it was purchased for $22.3 million and transferred from the Federal government in 1985. Other states and municipal- ities own segments of railroads leased to private operators or joint terminal companies. Amtrak is not a freight railroad, but operates its passenger service on tracks owned by freight railroads (except in the Northeast Corridor and a track seg- ment in Michigan it owns outright). Physical Infrastructure: Rail infrastructure consists of track and structures, yards, locomotives, cars, and signals. The rail network has shrunk considerably, from 254,000 miles of Class I railroads in 1916 to 140,810 miles in 2006. Classifi- cation of railroads is historically by size and Table 7 shows the breakdown by ownership of the rail network, number of employees, and revenue. Currently there are 559 railroads operating in the United States consisting of 7 Class I railroads, 33 regional carriers, and 519 local railroads. In addition, two Canadian Railroads have U.S. operations large enough to qual- ify as Class I if they were separate entities under U.S. corpo- rate status. According to the Federal Railway Administra- 25 Rank In Terms of Tonnage In Terms of Value 1 Gravel Machinery 2 Nonmetal mineral products Mixed freight 3 Cereal grains Motorized vehicles 4 Waste/scrap Electronics 5 Gasoline Textiles/leather Table 6. Top five commodities moved by truck in 2008 (52). Class Number Route-Miles Employees Revenue (Billion $) Class I 7 94,801 167,581 50.3 Regional 33 16,713 7,742 1.7 Local 519 28,415 11,634 2.0 Total (USA) 559 139,929 186,957 54.0 Canadian 2 561 - - Total 561 140,490 186,957 54.0 Table 7. Scale of rail operations.

conducting business. The fundamental purpose of rail dereg- ulation in the 1970s was to enable the railroads to behave like other businesses in the American private enterprise system, that is, to earn revenues adequate to keep existing capital in the industry and to attract new investment for expansion and facilities rehabilitation. After the collapse of the Penn Central and other bankrupt companies in the early 1970s, the Federal government took responsibility for reorganizing rail service in the Northeast. The planning process resulted in abandonment of thousands of rail route-miles and government expenditures of some $8 billion to acquire, rehabilitate, and cover operat- ing losses for its new creation, Conrail. Until the Staggers Act was passed in 1980, however, Conrail continued to lose about $1 million/day. Since the Staggers Act, railroads have made a remarkable renaissance (see Figure 8). Conrail was sold to the public in an initial public offering (IPO) in 1987, and in 1998–1999 was divided between Norfolk Southern (∼ 60 per- cent) and CSX Corporation (∼ 40 percent). The large Class I railroads are now earning close to their cost of capital and are able to support their huge investment requirements from retained earnings. Human Resources: Railroads have reduced employment dra- matically, which is a key source of productivity improvement in the industry. One major factor in reducing employment was the Presidential Emergency Board 219 finding of 1991 26 Types of Freight Cars Class I Private Cars Regional and Local Totals Box Cars 76,066 15,008 41,034 132,108 C overed Hoppers 114,100 270,145 20,517 404,762 Flat Cars 95,083 52,528 21,724 169,335 Refrigerated 19,017 - 2,414 21,431 Gondolas 99,837 82,544 21,724 204,105 Hoppers 71,312 75,040 12,069 158,421 Tank Cars - 255,137 - 255,137 Totals 475,415 750,402 119,482 1,345,299 Table 8. Freight car ownership. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 19 64 19 66 19 68 19 70 19 72 19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 In de xe d: 1 98 0 = 1. 0 Productivity Volume Revenue Price Productivity = Revenue Ton-Miles per Constant $ of Operating Expense Volume = Revenue Ton-Miles Revenue = Constant $ Operating Revenue Price = Constant $ Operating Revenue per Revenue Ton-Mile* * Includes the effect of changing commodity mix, average length of haul, and freight car ownership - among other factors. ICC Regulation Impact of Rail De-Regulation 2.5 to 3-fold Improve- ment in Productivity Doubling of Volume Total Revenue Growth Initially Constrained by Lower Prices 50% Lower Prices Figure 8. Performance of the American railroad post-Staggers Act of 1980 (62). large amounts of capital and reinvest in operations and ca- pacity. In 2006, industry capital investments were close to $8.5 billion—over 16 percent of operating revenues. Few major industries reinvest at this rate. Included in capital ex- penditures are purchase and major overhaul of locomotives; railroads have nearly 24,000 locomotives in service. The indus- try has access to over 1.3 million freight cars; this figure includes freight cars owned by railroads large and small, leasing compa- nies, and shippers. Table 8 shows the distribution of ownership by type of freight car. Reinvestment by the private enterprise railroads is a func- tion of their ability to earn revenues in excess of their cost of

(after threatened strikes and lock-outs) that facilitated reduc- tion of standard train crews from four to two if only limited switching would be needed en route. Railroads are heavily unionized, and both wages and working conditions are usu- ally defined in contracts between individual railroads and their employees’ bargaining units. There has been a significant reduction in the number of bargaining units in recent years. Today, the United Transportation Union and the Brother- hood of Locomotive Engineers are the largest rail unions, but other industry workers are represented by a significant number of other labor unions. Table 9 summarizes wage and employ- ment data for the industry. These trends indicate that: • The Class I railroads are only 7 out of more than 500 U.S. railroads but they handle 93 percent of rail freight in the United States (45). • Major U.S. rail corridors will require additional rail capac- ity and right-of-way. • Railroads will be seeking to optimize their capacity through new technology. • The railroads face a continuing capital shortage despite their growth. • Partnering with public agencies on major corridor projects will become more valuable to the railroad and the public. Performance: Railroads have often been described as the nation’s first big business. They are unique or remarkable in other respects as well. If measured by ton-miles (the statistic measuring a movement of a ton of goods 1 mile) railroads are the largest general freight mode in the United States. According to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (64), railroads moved 47 percent of intercity freight measured in ton-miles and 30 percent measured in terms of tons; this figure excludes air freight and pipelines. Motor carriers originate more tons of freight and earn more revenues than railroads by a consider- able margin, but railroads have long average hauls and carry many heavy, bulky commodities of lower value per pound. For reasons such as this, average fare levels (prices) are consid- erably lower than is the case for motor carriers. Table 10 char- acterizes train lengths, average tonnage, and average lengths of haul over the past 50 years. FRA reports that in 2006, the railroads generated $54 bil- lion in revenue and set a new record for freight traffic with 1.77 trillion revenue ton-miles, up 4 percent from 2005. How- ever, these accomplishments are relatively recent and are the result of decades of struggle, retrenchment, bankruptcies, deregulation, and slow rebirth of the American rail industry. In 1920, the American rail industry was the largest U.S. employer with two million workers (65) compared to 187,000 in 2006. Although the current American rail network is 44 percent smaller in terms of miles, America’s freight railroads gener- ated 93 percent more ton-miles of freight in 2006 than they did in 1980, and they did so with 32 percent fewer route-miles, 63 percent fewer employees, 16 percent fewer locomotives, and just 7 percent more gallons of diesel fuel (60). Increases in rail productivity in the two decades indicate increased utilization of railroad infrastructure through technological innovation and improved operations (4). These trends have resulted in the railroads operating fewer tracks but having much higher train volumes. Train lengths have also increased, so that it is common to see trains up to 2 miles in length. The AAR reports that between 1980 and 2006 freight volumes, profitability, and on-time performance 27 Year Average Cars per Train Average Tons per Train Average Tons per Carload Average Length of Haul (miles) Productivity per Carload (ton-miles) 1955 65.5 1,359 42.4 447 19,035 1960 69.6 1,453 44.4 461 20,522 1965 69.6 1,685 48.9 503 24,621 1970 70 1,821 54.9 515 28,311 1975 68.6 1,938 60.8 541 32,894 1980 68.3 2,222 67.1 616 41,352 1985 71.8 2,574 67.7 665 44,971 1990 68.9 2,755 66.6 726 48,313 1995 66.3 2,870 65.3 843 55,032 2000 68.6 2,923 62.6 843 52,803 2005 68.9 3,115 61 894 54,473 % change 5.2 129.2 43.9 100.1 186.2 Table 10. Trends in train and freight car productivity (4). Employees 1980 Benchmark 2005 2006 Employees—all RRs (000) 532 232 237 Class I (000) 458 162 168 Wages / Year Class I ($) $ 24,695 $ 66,975 $ 68,141 Table 9. Employment and wages (63).

have significantly increased, coinciding with deregulation under the Staggers Act of 1980. At the same time, rail em- ployee productivity rose 427 percent, locomotive productiv- ity rose 128 percent, and productivity of each mile operated rose 185 percent. Overall productivity measured in ton-miles per dollar of inflation-adjusted operating expenses also rose 167 percent since deregulation (60). These successes have made railroads profitable, but they still struggle to earn their cost of capital as railroads earn only about 7 percent on net capital, according to FRA (47). For decades, American railroads earned the lowest rates of return of any major U.S. industry. Between 1960 and 1979, the average annual return on shareholder equity was 2.3 percent (65). U.S. railroads have estimated that up to 40 percent of their revenues are devoted to capital assets, a percentage which is significantly higher than most industries. The high cost of maintenance for track, rolling stock, and yards requires sub- stantial capital investments, which are not liquid or mobile. Investing in a line represents a significant long-term invest- ment for a railroad. Railroads’ reluctance to invest in or cost- share on projects has also been constrained by the intense competitive pressures they face for rates. Because railroads compete with barges and trucks, they have not raised rates commensurate with inflation. Furthermore, deregulation and related changes (easier abandonments, transfer of passenger services to Amtrak and commuter agencies, Northeast reorganization of bankrupt railroads, etc.) enabled ending many inefficient operations. Rate deregulation allowed “pricing away” (de-marketing) unprofitable traffic, closing junctions, and changing divi- sions, among other actions. Dennis (66) examined the rel- ative importance of the various factors that may underlie the decline in railroad rates since the Staggers Act. Factors noted to contribute to the decline in rates include changes in commodity (e.g., increasing percentage of bulk com- modities), increased length of haul, and increased private ownership of equipment. The productivity gains resulting from deregulation could be attributed to deployment of technology and more efficient operations. Spychalski and Swan (67) also observed that the dramatic change in the structure of the U.S. rail freight industry since economic deregulation was accompanied by the concentration of the Class I rail industry and a subsequent, significant decline in rates. Boyer (68) also showed that modal shifts between truck and rail were relatively minor because the relative prices did not change. In other words, changes in traffic for a given mode could be attributed to induced demand rather than to modal shifts. The USDOT’s FAF2 estimated that domestic freight move- ments by rail between 2002 and 2008 increased by about 5 per- cent, whereas exports have increased by about 90 percent and imports increased by only 8 percent (52). This increas- ing demand is spurred by general growth in the economy and increasing foreign trade. This presents an increase in total tonnage of freight moved by rail from 1.8 trillion tons in 2002 to 2.0 trillion tons in 2008. This growth is forecast to increase to 3.5 trillion tons by 2035. During the same period, the value of exports increased by over 63 percent and the value of imports increased by 7 percent (52). Figure 9a shows the 2007 train volumes compared to the 2007 capacity and Figure 9b shows the 2035 estimated train volumes compared to 2007 capacity. This assumes that capac- ity of the rail freight remains unchanged. The figures show locations with severe capacity problems. Railroads carry a broad range of commodities, with vastly different shipping characteristics, intrinsic value, and geo- 28 a b Note: Level of Service (LOS) A through F approximates the conditions described in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Figure 9. Performance of freight rail system (a) 2007 and (b) 2035 (26).

graphic networks or markets. In this sense, railroads are the most complex mode of transport. Major categories of com- modities captive to rail include coal, chemicals, farm products, and transportation equipment. According to the AAR, mixed shipments, which include intermodal shipments, have recently become the largest single revenue category (60). Table 11 de- scribes the range of commodity groups and railcar equipment types used by railroads for moving freight. Table 12 shows the top five commodities moved by rail in terms of tonnage and value. These are derived from the 2008 updates to the FAF commodity O-D database for domestic movements. 3.6 Intermodal Intermodal shipments inherently rely on two or more modes, typically rail and truck, rail and ship, or truck and air, and are generally time-sensitive commodities. Inter- modal connectors are critical elements of an integrated freight transportation system. According to FHWA’s NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors (44), there are 517 freight-only terminals on the NHS, which include 253 ports (ocean and river), 203 truck/ rail terminals, and 61 pipeline/truck terminals. In addition to these freight-only terminals, 99 major freight airports, which handle both passengers and freight, were included in the list of NHS connectors that were inventoried. These 616 inter- modal freight terminals represent 1,222 miles of NHS connec- tors. NHS connectors are short, averaging less than 2 miles in length. The most recent version of the NHPN identified 1,323 connectors on the NHS, which includes both passen- ger and freight intermodal connectors. Traffic volume on these connectors ranges between 100 and 110,000 vehicles per day. NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors (44) noted that nearly one-third of total connector miles were judged to be in need of additional capacity. Approximately 38 percent of connector miles needed pavement work, which includes resurfacing and reconstruction of lanes and shoulders. The most frequently cited deficiencies of the intermodal connectors were prob- lems with shoulders, inadequate turning radii, and inade- quate lane width. Connectors to ports have twice the percent- age of mileage with pavement deficiencies when compared to non-Interstate routes. Connectors to rail terminals had 50 per- cent more mileage in the deficient category. Connectors to air- port and pipeline terminals appeared to be in better condition with about the same percentage of mileage with pavement deficiencies as those on non-Interstate NHS routes. This may be due to the higher priority given to airport access because of the high volume of passenger travel on these roads. Intermodal shipments from the coasts into the heartland have been predicted to at least double in the coming decades. Prior to 2008, the booming trade with China, the growth in India, and the general global economic trade expansion por- tended significant expansion in the rail intermodal shipments. Panama is expanding the Panama Canal, which will allow the largest Asian container ships increased access directly to the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico ports. Such trends could signif- icantly increase intermodal traffic on the eastern and southern U.S. coasts, as has already occurred on the West Coast. On the 29 Commodity Characteristics Types of Commodities Types of Freight Cars Bulk Dry Cargo, Uncovered Coal, Sand & Gravel Hoppers, Gondolas Bulk Liquid Cargo Chemicals, Ethanol HFCS Tank Car Pressurized Gas Toxic Hazardous Materials, Propane Pressurized Tank Car Bulk Dry Cargo, Covered Grain, Soda Ash, Some Fertilization Covered Hoppers Manufactured Goods, Protected Autos—Setup, Auto Parts, Some Foods, Newsprint, Paper Box Cars, Auto-Rack Manufactured Goods, Uncovered Pipe, Agricultural Equipment, Some Building Products Flat Cars, Gondolas, Center Beam Flats Refrigerated Frozen Food, Fresh Fruits or Vegetables Refrigerated Box Cars Containerized Goods Imported Goods Container Flat Cars Trailers on Flat Cars Domestic Goods Trailer Flat Cars Table 11. Commodities and types of freight cars. Rank In Terms of Tonnage In Terms of Value 1 Coal Motorized vehicles 2 Cereal grains Coal 3 Metallic ores Plastics/rubber 4 Fertilizers Basic chemicals 5 Basic chemicals Base metals Table 12. Top five commodities moved by rail (2008) (52).

East Coast, the Port of Norfolk, Virginia, has aggressively been upgrading the facility to handle larger intermodal ships. Measuring the performance of intermodal facilities is key to understanding possible improvements to productivity and efficiency at such locations. Intermodal facility performance measures can be placed into two categories: those measures related to movement to or from a facility and those related to goods movement between modes (44). In the first category, FHWA (44) suggests that the condi- tions on the connector roadways between the NHS and the intermodal facility should be measured. Such measures might include average travel time between the facility and the NHS, average travel rates along the connector (this would include an average of all hours, as well as breakouts by time of day, peak vs. non-peak, weekend vs. weekday, etc.), the reliability of movement on connectors, and total hours of delay experi- enced on a connector. The second category, which focuses on the measurement of activity within an intermodal facility, is referred to by FHWA as “freight transfer time between modes” (44). Exam- ples include: • Transfer time • Wait times/queuing at facilities • Turning radius or mobility within facility (which is related to delay and transfer times) • Volume-to-capacity ratios within a facility (including capac- ity measures specific to railroad, truck, ship, or air) (69). Table 13 shows the top five commodities moved by mul- tiple modes (intermodal) in terms of tonnage and value. These are derived from the 2008 updates to the FAF com- modity O-D database for domestic movements. The “Other intermodal” category includes movements involving the water mode. 3.7 Deepwater Ports The structure of the U.S. maritime industry, including its domestic waterways component, is complex. The industry involves multiple public and private interests that operate under business models and public institutional models to support global and domestic commerce that keep the U.S. economy and the nation secure. Ports are the intermodal nodes of these operations and experience congestion to vary- ing degrees depending upon factors related to physical, oper- ational, and regulatory constraints. Physical Infrastructure: Terminal acreage on which operators can work ships and store and move inbound and outbound cargo is a baseline indicator of the “on-the-ground” volumes any one terminal can handle. The length of wharf and the depth of a berth limit the size of a vessel that can be accommodated at that port. The number of cranes and type of yard equip- ment affect efficiencies—the more cranes that can work a vessel at once and well-utilized equipment systems in a yard, the better operational speed. The most recent information on U.S. ports’ infrastructure is found on their websites. Whether rail is on-dock or near the vessel or the cargo requires handling first by a short-line railroad to a place outside the terminal where large trains are built by larger railroads is a physical differentiator, as the latter increases time and cost. The number of gates through which trucks pass to drop off and pick up cargo can restrict operations if there is insufficient capacity for peak hour traffic and trucks back up onto local roads. More recently, national port sec- urity requirements call for container x-rays and there appear to be more visual inspections taking place at ports for in- bound cargo. U.S. ports that handle bulk, break bulk, and containerized cargo develop plans and capital improvement programs work- ing with the terminal operators and other stakeholders includ- ing the public and government agencies to deliver physical infrastructure improvements at the port. One group of ports must work within a well-defined and limited footprint (usually in an urban area) and the other group has available land near the port for expansion. A third type of port facility is a “green- field” port developed on land away from urban areas with little to no existing port infrastructure. Industry Segments: Major segments within the industry are delineated within the context of type of cargo and type of vessel. The internationally accepted descriptions of cargo types are listed below (70): • Bulk: Homogeneous cargo that is stowed loose in the hold of a ship and is not enclosed in a shipping container or box, bale, bag, cask, or the like • Break Bulk: Conventional, non-containerized cargo that is shipped in units of one (such as non-containerized machin- 30 Mode Rank In Terms of Tonnage In Terms of Value Air & Truck 1 Machinery Electronics 2 Electronics Machinery 3 Chemical products Precision instruments 4 Textiles/leather Misc. mfg. prods. 5 Other agric. products Transport equipment Truck & Rail 1 Cereal grains Motorized vehicles 2 Coal Chemical products 3 Other agric. products Other foodstuffs 4 Waste/scrap Waste/scrap 5 Other foodstuffs Mixed freight Other Intermodal 1 Coal Electronics 2 Metallic ores Misc. mfg. prods. 3 Cereal grains Precision instruments 4 Fuel oils Pharmaceuticals 5 Gravel Machinery Table 13. Top five commodities moved intermodally (2008) (52).

ery or trucks) or whipped in units or packages (such as pal- letized or boxed cargo) • Containerized: Cargo placed within a container, i.e., a single rigid, sealed, reusable metal box in which merchan- dise is shipped by vessel, truck, or rail • General: Products or commodities that are not conducive to packaging or consolidation e.g., timber, rolled newsprint, agricultural equipment • Refrigerated: Perishable cargo such as food or pharma- ceuticals shipped in a refrigerated, temperature controlled container, commonly referred to as a “reefer” • Roll-on, roll-off (RO/RO): Cargo that rolls on wheels onto vessels specifically designed to accommodate such movements. This list is not all encompassing but is sufficient for the purposes of understanding the general industry segments. Generating Economic Benefits and Economic Security: As MARAD has reported, the trade activity of the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach alone created 3.3 mil- lion jobs across the nation in 2005, a 200 percent increase from 1994. Nationwide, state and local taxes generated from trade activity grew from an estimated $6 billion in 1994 to more than $28 billion in 2005 (46). According to the Amer- ican Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), in 2007, “port activity contributed more than $3.15 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while 13.3 million Americans worked in port-related jobs that generated nearly $650 billion in annual personal income and $212.4 billion in Federal, state, and local taxes (71). International trade drives the ports and waterways indus- try and as the nation’s GDP grows, so do international trade volumes. MARAD states that the combined value of foreign trade (imports and exports) represented 13 percent of GDP in 1990 and by 2006 it had risen to 22 percent. Should this trend continue, the value of U.S. foreign trade could reach 35 percent of the nation’s GDP in 2020 and perhaps 60 per- cent in 2030. Since currently 95 percent of foreign trade by weight is moved by ship, the nation’s ports and waterways will continue to play a critical role in our national economy and our national economic security. The American water- ways network is used to move more than 2.3 billion tons of domestic and foreign cargo each year, primarily using private terminals for bulk products and commodities (71). Deepwater Port Operating Structure: There are currently 121 deepwater U.S. ports, including those in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, on Lloyd’s Maritime list. This list excludes inland ports and Great Lakes ports. The deepwater ports handle all types of cargo in containers, in bulk vessels, on break bulk or general cargo ships, and in RO/RO vessels. Liquid and dry bulk cargo is shipped in large vessels and therefore a large amount of tonnage is reflected at those ports at which they call. The ports and waterways maritime industry is driven by private-sector companies and public port authorities that enter into contractual business arrangements with each other to move in-bound and out-bound cargo through a port. In the United States, deepwater public port authorities fall into two categories: the landlord port or the operating port. The AAPA defines these as follows: • Landlord port. At a landlord port, the port authority builds the wharves, which it then rents or leases to a ter- minal operator (usually a stevedoring company). The operator invests in cargo-handling equipment (forklifts, cranes, etc), hires longshore laborers to operate such lift machinery, and negotiates contracts with ocean carriers (steamship services) to handle the unloading and load- ing of ship cargoes. • Operating port. At an operating port, such as Charleston, South Carolina, the port authority builds the wharves, owns the cranes and cargo-handling equipment, and hires the labor to move cargo in terminal storage sheds and yards. A stevedore hires longshore labor to lift cargo between the ship and the dock, where the port’s laborers pick it up and bring it to the storage site (71). Recently, private-sector companies have invested in termi- nal development and have worked with the port authorities to privatize port development opportunities. It is widely rec- ognized that for every public port authority in the United States, there is some slightly different factor in how they are structured, the level to which they are directly a government- run agency, or how they generate revenue and what they can do with that revenue. Shipping Trends: The number of vessel calls is an indicator of the capacity of an individual port to accommodate a level of business over a year. By comparing year over year statistics along with the type of vessel making the call, variations can indicate growth or decline in the deepwater business in the United States. In 2007, 6,867 oceangoing vessels made 63,804 calls at U.S. ports. Vessel calls were up 13 percent from 5 years earlier. Of the 2007 calls, 34 percent were by tankers, 31 percent were by container ships, 17 percent were by dry bulk vessels, and 10 percent were by RO/RO vessels. Also in 2007, 88 percent of the tanker calls were by double-hull tankers, up from 58 per- cent since 2002. Liquid natural gas (LNG) carriers accounted for less than 1 percent of the calls, but were the fastest grow- ing segment over the last 5 years (72). Foreign Waterborne Commerce Tonnage and Value: The total value of U.S. foreign waterborne commerce, counting both imports and exports, was $1.393 billion in 2007, an increase of 9 percent over the 2006 amount of $1.275 billion. This was 31

the case even though 2007 total tonnage of 1.375 million met- ric tons declined 0.5 percent from the 2006 figure of 1.382 met- ric tons (71). According to the 2008 updates to the FAF2 O-D database (52), the volume of international imports (measured in tons of freight) through seaports has grown by about 14 percent between 2002 and 2008 while exports decreased by about 1 percent during the same period. This increase in volume of imports is expected to continue and has operational and envi- ronmental implications for drayage practices. Truck drayage is an integral part of the intermodal freight transportation net- work and the demand for short-haul trucking continues to rise with the growing trend of cargo freight. Containerized Cargo: Containerized cargo is generally made up of goods of higher value than bulk cargo. The ports through which containers travel are critically important to getting this high value cargo to its destination on time, safely, and without damage or loss. From 2002 through 2007, U.S. foreign con- tainer trade increased by 51 percent and in 2007, the top ten ports alone accounted for 89 percent of U.S. container trade. Figure 10 shows the variation of the tonnage in million met- ric tons of container freight for the top five seaports in the United States. Types of Freight: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) receives data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that is collected from manifest information provided to U.S. Customs and Border Protection as cargo is imported to or exported from the United States. By weight, 95 percent of all goods entering the United States come via waterborne commerce. Table 14 lists the top five commodities shipped in 2008 as either imports or exports regardless of the type of vessel. These figures represent all waterborne foreign trade and include containerized, bulk, break bulk, and all other types of cargo. For the containerized trade in 2007, Table 15 lists the top five import commodities and the top five export commodi- ties by tonnage, 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) and value in U.S. dollars. With containerized cargo, large volume and weight do not necessarily mean high value. The highest im- port value on the import table, for example, is in furniture, mattresses, supports, lamps, and lighting fitting, while the total tonnage is less than the number one commodity in ton- nage, non-metallic mineral products. However, the volume in TEUs for furniture, mattresses, supports, lamps, and light- ing fitting is the highest on the list. This is one reason why 32 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 M et ric T on s ( mi llio ns ) New York/ New Jersey Los Angeles/Long Beach Seattle/Tacoma SavannahHouston Figure 10. Tonnage of freight through top five U.S. ports (50). Rank In Terms of Tonnage In Terms of Value 1 Cereal grains Crude Petroleum 2 Crude petroleum Basic chemicals 3 Gravel Cereal grains 4 Fuel oils Other agric. products 5 Gasoline Gasoline Table 14. Top five commodities moved by water (2008) (52).

container ports in the United States report their volume sta- tistics principally in TEUs, as it has become a common way of comparing themselves with competitive container ports worldwide. Performance Measures: In 2003, MARAD conducted a sur- vey to gauge international carriers’ perceptions of “mainstream container services.” Twenty-one of the 22 carriers serving the trade responded. The respondents were asked to evaluate U.S. ports in comparison to Canadian ports according to 14 fea- tures common to most container ports. Several of the indica- tors mentioned in project interviews were related to physical and operational constraints. These included the following: • Security • Use of technology • Vessel turnaround time • Rail access away from the terminal • Hours of operation • Road access at the terminal • Road access away from the terminal • Cost per move • Truck gate time, queuing lanes (74). There is constant competition among carriers, terminal operators, and ports to increase volume over previous years and to maximize profits. The Georgia Ports Authority (75) noted that U.S. ports are well aware of this and have increas- ingly hired persons with work experience in the railroad, trucking, global marketing, and warehousing and logistics industries. Given the emergence of significant competition from newly developed or planned ports in Canada and Mexico, U.S. ports are increasingly emphasizing their roles in facilitating veloc- ity flows through to the supply chain’s ultimate destination. Whether containers enter the United States through West Coast or East Coast ports or from Canada or the U.S. Gulf Coast, it is usually a race to provide rail and roadway connec- tions for on-time delivery to the heartland business centers in Chicago and other major cities. Stakeholders: Ports in urban areas in particular are feeling the pressure from competing land uses for ferry systems, cruise terminals, “gentrification” housing, retail develop- ments, and cultural attractions. The unique challenges faced by these ports mean that an array of stakeholders beyond those in the shipping business have a “stake” in future port operations. Table 16 lists stakeholders that have an interest in how ports operate, how they are regulated, what impacts they have on the community, and what businesses and labor they require to support their operations. These stakeholder interests relate to terminal activities waterside, “inside the fence” meaning “on-terminal,” “outside the fence” meaning in the immedi- ate surrounding and further inland areas, and internationally as the United States complies with international standards and requirements that are so critical to global trade. New Technologies: U.S. companies and international busi- nesses are constantly developing new technologies and ways to enhance the movement of cargo not only from port to port but also throughout the point-to-point intermodal supply chain. This has meant an increase in jobs for Americans in shipyards, on port terminals, in related warehousing indus- tries, and in logistics management to cite just a few interre- lated job-generating centers that are needed to keep freight flowing throughout the country. 33 Rank Imports Exports Commodity Million Tons Thousand TEUs Billion $ Commodity Million Tons Thousand TEUs Billion $ 1 Non-metallic mineral products 10.1 933.7 6.36 Waste and scrap 14.1 1,472.9 8.40 2 Furniture, mattresses, supports, lamps, lighting fitting 8.6 1,872.1 23.03 Plastics and rubber 9.7 1,342.2 18.95 3 Metallic ores and concentrates 7.6 551.3 11.68 Paper and Paperboard and Products 4.6 568.4 4.01 4 Base metal in primary or semi- finished forms 6.8 791.1 20.40 Gravel and crushed stone 4.6 342.8 0.86 5 Alcoholic beverages 6.6 486.5 12.28 Animal Feed and products of animal origin 4.4 435.4 1.72 Table 15. U.S. container trade—top five commodities ranked by tonnage (73).

Established structural and operational relationships among supply chain service providers are rapidly changing in a highly technology-driven society. Forces of change in the intermodal transportation environment are driving new and emerging technologies and regulations related to vessel size and opera- tions, the environment, security, and safety. As these dynamic forces bring challenges to bear upon the ports and waterways operators to provide sufficient capacity and regulatory com- pliance, they must ever strive to provide their customers with greater system efficiencies and less cost. Human Resources: From 2002 through 2007, 16,300 jobs have been added in the water transportation and port ser- vice industries (Table 17). In 2007, transportation accounted for about 39 percent of the combined employment, up from 36 percent in 2002 (50). Table 17 breaks out the employment figures between those that work in the port services area and those that work in the inland waterways. These 2007 figures show a total of 99,800 jobs for port services, of which a little less than half or 45,200 are in cargo handling jobs. For the water transporta- 34 U.S. Deepwater Ports Stakeholder Groups Waterside Inside the Fence Outside the Fence International Federal Agencies and Elected Officials X X X X State Agencies and Elected Officials X X X Local Agencies and Elected Officials X X Public Citizens and Neighborhood Organizations X X X X Port Authorities X X X X Terminal Operators X X X X Carriers X X X Shippers X X X Labor—Unionized X X X X Labor—Non-Union X X Railroads X X Trucking Companies X X Customs Brokers X X X Logistic Providers X X X X Insurance Providers X X X X Warehousing X Fuel Suppliers X X Maintenance Companies X Engineers X X Security Firms X X Technology Firms X X X X Maritime Exchange Organizations X X Pilots X Tribal Organizations X X Table 16. Stakeholder groups and their locational focus of interest for U.S. deepwater ports. Segment 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 % Change 2002-2007 Transportation 52.6 54.5 56.4 60.6 62.7 64.3 22.2 Ocean, Coastal & Lakes 32.3 33.7 35.2 37.3 39.1 40.0 23.8 Inland 20.3 20.8 21.2 23.3 23.6 24.3 19.7 Port Services 95.2 93.8 91.5 93.9 99.3 99.8 4.8 Cargo Handling 39.6 40.8 40.8 42.8 45.6 45.2 14.1 Other 55.6 53.0 50.7 51.1 53.7 54.6 -1.8 TOTAL 147.8 148.3 147.9 154.5 162.0 164.1 11.0 Table 17. Employment in water transportation and port services, 2002–2007 (Thousand Jobs) (50, 76).

tion segment, a total of 64,300 jobs were found providing services along the inland waterways, ocean, coastal water- ways, and lakes in positions that were not classified as port services. Of this total for 2007, 24,300 are employed in the inland waterway industry segment. 3.8 Inland Waterways Inland river ports and terminals are designed to load and unload barges that are pushed or pulled by towboat along the nation’s navigable waterways. The Inland Rivers, Ports, and Terminals (IRPT) Association defines an inland river port as an intermodal transportation center. It finds that the river port is “first of all, an intermodal transportation and distribu- tion center. Its secondary activity is industrial production and processing” (77). Grains, petroleum, LNG, ore, and gravel are but a few of the major commodities moved by tug and barge along the waterways not only from port to port but also internationally. The Great Lakes ports handle similar bulk cargoes on vessels specifically designed for Great Lake transport. In the United States, the inland waterway freight trans- portation system generally consists of three types of systems: Coastal and Intracoastal Waterways, the Great Lakes Sys- tem, and Inland River Systems. These systems are further dis- cussed below. 3.8.1 Coastal and Intracoastal Waterways In the United States, “coastal waterway” is a term com- monly used by the freight community to describe the coastal shipping routes along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts and in- tracoastal waterways just inland of the coastline. By contrast with deepwater ports, coastal waterways ports are of a smaller scale and do not typically haul containerized cargo, nor do they handle vessels with deep drafts. The Intracoastal Waterway runs along the Eastern Atlantic seaboard and along the Gulf Coast. It is comprised of two seg- ments: the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). Most of the traffic moving through the GIWW includes shallow-draft dry bulk and tank barges, while most of the traffic along the AIWW consists of recreational boaters and a limited extent of commercial ves- sels (33). Along the northern portion of the Atlantic coast, petroleum products and industrial heavy fuels are moved between the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states primarily along the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Canal, and Cape Cod Canal. The coastal and intracoastal waterways and ports are used by shallow-draft vessels originating from or destined to inland rivers and are used for transferring loads or picking up goods. The network of the coastal and inland waterway system is approximately 25,000 miles, with about 13,000 miles belong- ing to the network of coastal and intracoastal waterways and 12,000 dedicated to inland waterways traffic (78). 3.8.2 Great Lakes System The Great Lakes System is made up of seven waterways linked at a dozen lock sites. Oceangoing vessels gain access to the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway. In terms of tonnage, the largest ports within the Great Lakes System include Duluth-Superior, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. The terminals at these ports generally handle dry bulk cargoes, including iron ore, grain, coal, sand, stone, and lumber. Spe- cial vessels, known as “lakers,” can range as long as 1,000 feet and carry up to 70,000 tons of gross cargo. Some oceangoing vessels operated on the Great Lakes, however, often do not exceed 35,000-dead weight tonnage (dwt) capacity (33). Due to weather extremes and climate associated with the Great Lakes, navigation is seasonal and typically lasts no longer than 8 months. Given the common boundaries of Canada and the United States around the Great Lakes, there is an international aspect to the shipment of cargo through the St. Lawrence Sea- way and around the Great Lakes. 3.8.3 Inland Rivers and Waterways The network of inland rivers and waterways moves a sig- nificant portion of tonnage across the continental United States, mostly in dry bulk, commodities, and fuels. The three largest inland river systems include the Mississippi River sys- tem, Columbia-Snake Rivers in Washington and Oregon, and the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers in the Alabama- Gulf region (33). The Mississippi River system, including the Ohio and Missouri tributary systems, is the largest inland freight waterway in the United States. The system extends to approximately 6,000 miles and connects freight to 17 states. It is maintained by the USACE. All inland river systems are shallow-draft systems and chan- nel depths are not typically greater than 12 feet. Such depth is what prevents oceangoing vessels from utilizing inland water- ways. Also characteristic of inland water systems are the types of vessels that utilize them, specifically barge and tug, and towboats. These vessels are typically narrower and navigable with pusher-style towboats, which navigate them to the locks. Each barge can carry between 1,000 and 1,800 tons of cargo. Grain elevators and coal depots are major terminals for these vessels (33). The IRPT Association uses the following river basin des- ignations to organize its board of directors. It assists those unfamiliar with the waterways systems, as seen in Figure 11, to visualize and understand the interconnected waterways systems. 35

• Upper Mississippi (North of Ohio River) • Lower Mississippi (South of Ohio River) • Ohio River • Illinois River • Missouri River • Arkansas-White-Red-Ouachita Rivers • Southeast Rivers (Tennessee, Tennessee-Tombigbee, Black Warrior-Tombigbee, Coosa, Alabama, Tri-Rivers) • Gulf Intracoastal • Pacific Coast (Columbia, Snake, Sacramento, Vancouver) • Unclassified. 3.8.4 Locks and Dams Locks are man-made structures that allow vessels to move between higher waters backed up by a dam structure and lower waters below the dam structure. The dams work to maintain navigable water levels, and the locks open and close mechan- ically to allow vessels to move up and down the river systems. These locks and dams are built and maintained by the USACE under appropriations from the U.S. Congress and using the Inland Waterways Trust Fund “user fee” or “user tax” on the waterways industry based on fuel consumed in inland water- way transportation. As the U.S. MARAD notes, “much of our lock and dam infrastructure was built 50–80 years ago in an era when vessels were much smaller” than they are today (72). USACE is working with the Inland Waterways Users Board, comprised of industry members, including shippers and car- riers, to make recommendations to Congress concerning the prioritization of inland navigation projects. The aging infra- structure and inadequacy of funding is of major concern to the maritime industry. In terms of trust fund value, the Inland Waterway Trust Fund earned $101.5 million in fiscal year 2007. This included $91.1 million paid by the barge and towing industry and $10.4 million in interest. The Fund also disbursed $159.8 mil- lion for construction projects leaving a balance of $209.4 bil- lion, its lowest level since 1993 (73). The USACE owned or operated 257 lock chambers at 212 sites at the close of fiscal year 2005; however, only 195 sites with 240 chambers received funding for repairs or upgrades. Nineteen Fox River locks (17 locks and 2 guard locks) were transferred to the State of Wisconsin in 2004. Many of the 212 lock sites serving navigation include multi-purpose dams, and of them, 46 lock-associated dams currently produce hydro- electric power. Many of the locks west of the Mississippi River have higher lifts than those in the east due to the younger age of the infrastructure in the western United States. For example, in Oregon, the John Day Lock has the highest lift (110 feet) of any U.S. lock in comparison to the collective 404-foot lift of all 29 locks on the upper Mississippi River (73). Table 18 shows the locations and characteristics of the inland water- way facilities. Physical Infrastructure: As previously indicated, an inland port is considered to be an intermodal transportation and 36 Figure 11. U.S. marine highways (46).

distribution center. Its secondary activity is industrial pro- duction and processing. The river locations are designated by miles along the river so that ports and terminal locations will be listed as being located at a particular mile post along a par- ticular river (77). However, the physical facility is more than just a place to load and unload barges and tankers. The inland port system includes railway, roadway, airway, pipeline, and waterway. Distribution facilities include storage structures such as transit sheds, warehouses, open storage, tanks, and bulk storage. Table 18 shows the distribution of physical infrastruc- ture of inland waterways in the United States. The 12,000 miles of inland waterways operate as a system much like highways, and commerce moves on multiple seg- ments. They not only serve commercial navigation but also provide hydropower, flood protection, municipal water sup- ply, agricultural irrigation, recreation, and regional develop- ment in many cases. The Port of Louisiana stretches 54 miles along the Mississippi River. It is the largest tonnage port in the western hemisphere and comprises facilities in St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, and St. James Parishes. In contrast, Duluth-Superior is the largest inland port on the Great Lakes and is one of the premier bulk-cargo ports in North America. However, its navigation season usually begins in late March and continues until mid-January. Inland Waterway Operating Structures: There are 360 inland commercial ports and terminals in the United States includ- ing the Great Lakes and coastal waterways (71). These inland waterway systems play an important role in the distribution of freight between deepwater ports and the highway and rail systems. Much of the cargo carried on inland waterways con- sists of dry bulk, commodities, and fuels. Generally, distri- bution of such cargo occurs at either an inland river port or inland river terminal, which are described below. • Inland River Port. The IRPT Association defines an inland port as a complex of adjacent or nearly adjacent terminals operating under some degree of influence or control by a state (or interstate) chartered port commission or authority. In most cases, the port commission/authority sells or leases the land used by a terminal company much the same as an industrial developer does in an industrial park. Generally, the word “port” is meant to include the terminals in the area which the authority developed and “terminal” refers to isolated facilities that are not in an organized port area (79). • Inland River Terminal. Terminals are located on the water- front for the purpose of loading and unloading barges. Each such individual terminal is an intermodal transportation hub. Terminals come in three types: (i) a general purpose terminal is designed to handle a wide variety of commodi- ties often in bundles, coils, large bags, drums, pallets, and such. Most ports will have only one terminal but some large ports may have several. Because there may be many cus- tomers, they are also often called public terminals; (ii) spe- cial purpose terminals are specially designed to handle only one type of commodity and they accordingly have a capac- ity to move large tonnages rapidly. Examples are grain, fer- tilizer, coal, petroleum products, cement, sand and gravel, stone, and similar terminals, all of which can easily be iden- tified by their permanent liquid or pneumatic pipeline or conveyor system; and (iii) industrial terminals, unlike the others, are not a part of the intermodal system but are designed to service a specific industrial plant or processing facility. Industrial plants at an inland port or at isolated terminal locations have an unusually significant beneficial effect on the local and regional job market. This, in turn, has a strong effect on the economy (77). Industry Segments: Tugboats, towboats, barges, and tankers make up the inland waterway fleet of vessels that work together to move bulk agriculture products and chemical and petro- leum products on the nation’s waterway systems. The type of waterway also defines the industry segment, e.g., Great Lakes, Coastal and Intracoastal, and Inland Waterways. The Center for Ports and Waterways in 2007 identified the entire inland waterway system as including the ports, terminals, rail, and truck components of moving cargo from point to point within the system. They note that certain types of analysis can be done on a system-wide level, but that when it is desirable or necessary to focus on only certain segments, it is best to focus on the Mississippi River Basin, Ohio River Basin, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and the Columbia-Snake River Sys- tem (80). In 2005, 91 percent of internal tonnage was carried along these waterways. This report does note USACE statis- tics for these waterways. Commerce Tonnage and Value: Activities and cargo han- dling along the inland waterways and at the ports and termi- nals within the system are measured over time by the amount of tonnage carried per mile of waterway and the number of trips per ton-miles. It is not the value of the cargo that is a dis- tinguishing factor so much as the amount of tonnage handled over time. Table 19 lists the total tonnage, ton-miles, and trip ton-miles by waterway for 2006. Figure 12 shows the share of 37 Type of Facility Great Lakes Inland (Shallow) Atlantic (Shallow) Gulf (Shallow) Pacific (Shallow) Commercial Facilities 600 2321 587 1093 363 Cargo 378 1576 198 475 151 Service 170 484 274 505 171 Unused 52 261 115 113 41 Lock Sites1 4 1 14 44 9 Lock Chambers1 6 1 14 44 13 1 Locks, including five control structures, owned and/or operated by the USACE at the close of FY 2005. Table 18. Geographic distribution of U.S. inland waterway facilities (73).

the domestic freight tonnage movements among the major segments of the inland waterway system based on 2006 data. As noted previously, value is less important on the inland waterways because so much of what moves is relatively low- value bulk tonnage. Some of those bulks (e.g., refined petro- leum products, grain) can have quite high value but there are also movements of aggregates and sand and materials with very low unit values. Except on the Columbia-Snake River system, there are no significant volumes of containerized goods mov- ing on the inland water system (and even there it is small) so the focus on tonnage is entirely appropriate. From a national systems perspective, inland water transport is significant because of the savings it offers compared to massive truck or even train movements. Types of Commodities: Table 20 lists the major waterborne commodities moved by the inland waterways in millions of short tons and the percentage change. Stakeholders: Users primarily include the navigation indus- try, shippers, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), recreation boaters, and the military. Among the inland waterway freight com- munity, approximately 20 percent of coal and 60 percent of grain exports are shipped through the inland waterway net- work (78). User groups such as the American Waterway Oper- ators (AWO) track data and statistics associated with the use of the nation’s inland waterways. Table 21 shows the various inland waterways stakeholder groups. The Inland Waterway Users Board is an independent, Federal Advisory Committee. The purpose of this user/stakeholder group is to formalize recommendations to the U.S. Congress and Secretary of the Army on the spending and priorities from the Inland Water- ways Trust Fund for construction and rehabilitation projects on fuel-taxed waterways (82). 38 Commodity Coastwise Lakewise Internal Million Tons % Million Tons % Million Tons % Coal 9.8 -0.9 20.8 -1.5 177.5 -2.4 Coal Coke ** -100.0 0.4 -44.8 5.7 11.7 Crude Petroleum 36.8 -18.0 ** 0.0 32.7 -1.1 Petroleum Products 109.1 -2.6 1.5 4.4 126.9 5.2 Chemical and Related Products 9.6 -7.0 0.1 -13.9 48.9 -2.6 Forest Products (i.e., wood chips, saw) 1.9 -16.6 ** -73.8 5.0 -20.7 Pulp and Paper Waste ** -97.7 ** 0.0 ** -76.8 Sand, Gravel and Stone 8.7 3.3 25.0 -6.1 87.4 2.4 Iron Ore and Scrap 0.5 -32.0 42.9 6.4 11.2 3.4 Non-Ferrous Ores & Scrap ** ** ** 0.0 5.8 -7.4 Sulphur, Clay and Salt ** -96.4 0.9 -17.7 7.4 -2.4 Primary Manufactured Goods 10.6 17.2 4.3 10.2 30.9 0.6 Food and Farm Products 5.3 -13.3 03 4.9 73.6 3.9 All Manufactured Equipment 9.4 -2.2 0.1 ** 9.5 -3.3 Waste and Scrap, NEC ** ** ** 0.0 1.4 -1.9 ** denotes tonnage less than 50,000 tons or extreme percentage change. NEC = Not Elsewhere Classified; % = percentage change between 2005 and 2006. Table 20. U.S. domestic waterborne traffic by major commodities in 2006 (73). Mississippi Main Stem 50% Ohio River 27% Columbia Snake 6% Gulf Intracoast Waterway 12% Other 5% Figure 12. Composition of internal tonnage by waterway (million short tons) (81). Waterway Length (miles) Million Short Tons Billion Ton-Miles Billion Trip Ton-Miles Atlantic Coast 1142 2.8 0.2 0.3 Gulf Coast 1992 180.9 25.3 92.1 Mississippi River System 8292 1508.5 412.56 1110.8 Pacific Coast 1192 68.9 5.6 12.5 Table 19. Performance of inland waterways— 2006 (73).

Industry Employment: In 2006, the Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics (BLS) reported 22,540 occupations associated within the Inland Waterway Transportation industry. The indus- try grew by 1,450 more occupations in 2007. Transportation and material moving occupations make up about 75.8 per- cent of the inland waterway industry employment, while the remaining 24.2 percent consist of occupations associated with management, business operations, sales operations, installation and maintenance, administration, and service- related occupations (76). 39 U.S. Inland Waterways Stakeholder Groups Riverside/Great Lakes/Coastal & Intracoastal Waterways Landside at Terminal Related Industrial and Economic Develo pment Areas Pipelines Federal Agencies and Elected Officials 1 X X X X State Agencies and Elected Officials X X X X Local Agencies and Elected Officials X X X Public Citizens and Neighborhood Organizations X X X X Port Authorities X X X X Terminal Op erator X X X X Carriers X X X Shippers X x X X Labor — Unionized X X X X Labor — Non - Union X X Railroads X X Trucking Companies X X Customs Brokers X X Logistic Providers X X X Insurance Providers X X X X Warehousing X Grain and Raw Mate rial Elevator Operators X X Fuel Suppliers X X X Petrochemical and Petroleum Industry X X X X Maintenance Companies X Engineers X X X Security Firms X X X Technology Firms X X X X Pilots X Tribal Organizations X X 1 - Federal agencies include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which monitors commodity prices and production levels Table 21. Stakeholder groups and focus of interest for U.S. inland waterways.

Next: Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints »
Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) Report 7: Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints explores standardized descriptions of the dimensions of the freight transportation system, identifies freight mobility constraints in a multimodal context, highlights criteria for low-cost and quickly implementable improvements to address the constraints, and includes a software tool to help decision makers in evaluating constraints and selecting appropriate improvements.

The software tool is available for download in a .zip format. A user guide for the software is also available for download.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!