National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 3 - Dimensions and Characteristics of the Freight System
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Freight Mobility Constraints." 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 52

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.

40 This chapter also presents analysis of information gathered from interviews and survey. Based on the analysis, this chap- ter defines freight mobility constraints, potential causes, and performance indicators for monitoring and measuring the constraints. This chapter also discusses the different types of constraints from multimodal perspectives. 4.1 Defining and Characterizing Freight Mobility Constraints Results from the interviews and survey conducted as part of this project indicated that there is no formal definition of a freight mobility constraint. Such a definition or taxonomy is lacking among all modes both from public-sector and private industry perspectives. Freight mobility constraint is defined in different ways, but all definitions have a common theme. The following are some of the definitions: • Any infrastructure, institutional, financing, operational, or environmental deficiency that impedes—or has a significant likelihood of impeding—the safe and efficient movement of goods in a sustainable manner. • Freight mobility constraints are operational, infrastructure, or institutional issues that prevent the free/unencumbered flow of freight. • Any event, situation (e.g., construction, customs/border delays, weather-related road closures), or physical feature such as a physical design deficiency that impacts the move- ment of freight. • Impediments or obstacles, including infrastructure, reg- ulations, or congestion, that prevent freight from moving freely, quickly, and efficiently anywhere in the trans- portation system between the origin and destination of the shipment. • Any system limitation, policy decision, operational concern, or communication issue that undermines the potential flu- idity of any segment of the logistics stream. • Lack of connectivity between freight modes, congestion- laden networks, lack of technology or equipment—all of which would hinder efficient freight traffic flow. • Any internal or external factors that define the limits on the amount of freight that can be moved between two points effi- ciently, safely, and in an environmentally acceptable way. These factors include the characteristics of the physical infra- structure, operational procedures, and regulatory regimes. • Any factor or factors connected with highway operations that significantly add to the cost of moving freight, e.g., delay, truck operating costs due to congestion and terrain, undersized intermodal facilities. Based on this range of possible definitions, a freight mobil- ity constraint may be generally defined as a physical or infra- structure deficiency, regulatory action, or operational action that impedes or restricts the free flow of freight either at the network level or at a specific location. Mobility constraints create addi- tional costs or affect service levels negatively. A freight mobility constraint can be caused by physical, operational, or regulatory or policy factors. These categories of constraint types or causes are defined below. • Physical Constraints—any geometric or infrastructure con- ditions that constrain freight operators from operating at designed, safe speeds, and within legally required parameters • Operational Constraints—practices, events, or occurrences that constrain system throughput, and constrain optimal and legal operating conditions • Regulatory Constraints—Federal, state, or local regulatory requirements that restrict the flow of freight through the system. The following sections discuss the causes of freight mobil- ity constraints encountered on highways, railways, and at deepwater ports and inland waterways. Examples of the three categories of constraints are also presented. C H A P T E R 4 Freight Mobility Constraints

41 4.2 Causes and Locations of Mobility Constraints 4.2.1 Highways Many causes of freight mobility constraints on the highway system were noted by the respondents to the surveys and inter- views. While many of the constraints affect only specific loca- tions, corridors, regions, or types of facilities, others are more systemic to the interstate highway system and can impact inter- national freight movements. In addition, the causes of mobil- ity constraints are frequently interrelated. 4.2.1.1 Physical Constraints Physical infrastructure deficiencies are the most prevalent constraints cited by respondents. These deficiencies may be system-wide or site specific. Examples of physical constraints on the highway system include: • Ramp meter locations that cause trucks to stop at a ramp terminal before attempting to merge into high-speed traffic • Long, steep grades lacking passing lanes, particularly on mountainous roads • Inadequate radii of loop ramps, at intersections or drive- ways into freight generators • Obsolete freeway ramps that were built in an era of shorter trucks/trailer combinations with shorter turning radii • Inadequate vertical or horizontal clearances (low bridge clearance—insufficient height for containers) • At-grade highway rail crossings in the vicinity of freight generators • Lack of adequate ingress/egress gates at ports, intermodal terminals, or rail classification yards • Increase in intermodal freight traffic near major ports such as in Southern California without a commensurate increase in capacity to local infrastructure • Lack of sufficient rest area space for trucks • Lack of alternate routes for large trucks • Lack of available and secure truck parking. 4.2.1.2 Operational Constraints Freight mobility constraints are not limited to physical infrastructure deficiencies. Operational characteristics of both the transportation system and motor carriers’ customer bases also create freight mobility constraints. Motor carrier customers frequently require pickup and delivery appointments during peak travel periods, causing carriers to add more trucks and drivers to maintain service levels and exacerbating congestion in already congested areas. Operational characteristics of the transportation system that impose constraints may include the following: • Lack of advance signing on crossroad approaches to interchanges • Road construction activities • Lack of traffic signals timed for large truck movements in areas of heavy truck volume • Slow driver check-in/check-out at ports • Lack of 24/7 access to intermodal facilities • Poorly marked alternate routes • Inadequate traveler information on incidents and roadway status. 4.2.1.3 Regulatory/Policy Constraints Regulatory actions or public policies also play a major role in restricting truck freight movement. Public policies or regu- lations that negatively impact efficient freight movement vary in scope and range from local to international. Local route restrictions, zoning laws, and parking restrictions may limit truck access to various areas. At the state level, it may be a lack of alternate routes for trucks or alternate routes with insuffi- cient signage. A lack of regulatory harmonization between different jurisdictions (e.g., cities, states, countries) can also constrain freight movement. The most often cited national policy-based constraints are safety- and security-related restrictions and regulatory compli- ance. These policies may restrict freight mobility on several levels, create delay, and increase motor carrier costs. Inter- national shipments by land face delay at U.S. border crossings as a result of security regulations, while local security regulations limit truck access to many office buildings and government facilities. Other types of policy-based constraints impose bur- dens on the efficient movement of freight. These may include: • A lack of interoperability or reciprocity in the use of toll passes/transponders that are issued by various states; trucks will need several passes to travel between states • A lack of reciprocity between states in inspecting trucks, which results in repeated safety inspections of the same vehicle in different states • Restrictions on the use of drivers by labor agreements • Local land use and zoning laws • State roadway funding mechanisms such as toll facilities • A lack of harmonization between state size and weight regulations • U.S. border crossings and other security-related restrictions • Route restrictions on longer combination vehicles • Access/parking restrictions near office and government buildings • Hazmat route restrictions • Central business district (CBD) truck restrictions • Safety- and security-related policies that affect the avail- ability of drivers.

4.2.1.4 Locations of Constraints In developing low-cost, quickly implementable improve- ments to address freight mobility constraints on the highway system, it is important to understand not only the causes but also the locations within the freight transportation network where these constraints are most severe and prevalent. Urban and metropolitan areas were identified as being the source of the majority of mobility constraints. In particular, the north- eastern United States has the most infrastructure deficiencies, perhaps due to the age of the infrastructure and urban areas that are located closer together. It was, however, noted that large urban and metropolitan areas offer alternate routes more frequently than small to mid-sized areas. In addition to regions of the country, respondents noted that mobility constraints significantly impact several different types of facilities. Facilities with the most inefficient freight movements include marine ports, U.S. land border cross- ings, major bridges in the Northeast, and unionized facilities, according to the data collected. Congestion on the highway system is most apparent at bot- tlenecks such as interchanges, as opposed to mainline highway links. The locations of most physical constraints include: • Interchanges, particularly ones with at-grade merge and weave conditions such as occur at cloverleaf interchanges • Areas of “lane drops” where trucks must change lanes to continue a through movement • Short acceleration and deceleration lanes, which do not allow trucks to gain adequate speed to merge into traffic or to slow down outside of a general purpose lane • Steep grades • Metered freeway on-ramps • Intersections with inadequate numbers of turn lanes or through lanes. The locations of operational constraints include the following: • Construction zones • Signalized intersections • Weigh stations • Toll facilities • Port terminals • Border crossings • Intermodal connectors • Rail yards. 4.2.2 Railroads The respondents were also asked to list and rank constraints that significantly impact rail freight mobility. The top ranked freight mobility constraints are: • Constrained Capital Budgets—The number one barrier is constrained capital budgets. This is why the industry has put so much of its public and government relations effort into getting across the message that their financial returns must be adequate to support reinvestment in the industry. Rail- roads need to achieve returns greater than the cost of raising new capital, in order to avoid loss of capital through decreas- ing sales of common stock, wearing out of track and equip- ment, and eventual abandonment of facilities. • Skilled Labor—The second ranked barrier is the task of sup- plying skilled labor. Demographic trends mean that a great many seasoned railroad employees are at retirement age. While replacement of labor with high-productivity capital equipment continues at a rapid pace, the hiring and train- ing tasks facing railroads are of large scope and challenging content. • Federal and State Regulations—The industry has pushed for more use of performance-based safety regulations with automated monitoring—in place of the age-old regime of command and control rules backed up with visual inspec- tions. One respondent noted the implications of commu- nity objections to increased rail—the largest constraint on rail-based mobility is likely to be local regulation, and in particular the desire of towns to avoid hosting freight han- dling facilities. This is happening on a small scale with small transload facilities on short lines and on a grand scale with the resistance of northern Illinois suburbs to the increased use of the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway (EJ&E) as a freight route. This issue has major implications for the rail industry and its ability to solve freight mobility issues for the country. Rail infrastructure consists of track and structures, terminals or yards, locomotives, cars, and signals and communication systems. Thus constraints to the movement of freight by rail can be defined in terms of these infrastructure components: • Mainline throughput capacity restrictions seem to be the most serious freight mobility constraint facing railroads at this time, although the opinion was far from unanimous. • Terminals and their switching efficiency seem to be the next most persistent constraint. While merchandise or mani- fest trains (sometimes referred to as “loose car” railroad- ing) requiring handling in classification yards seem to be in decline relative to unit and double-stack trains (DSTs), bottlenecks persist in car switching, train marshalling, and running maintenance/train servicing functions handled in railroad terminals. Considerable tension exists between short-line operators and the large (Class I) railroads at the point of their inter- face—typically, a terminal or switching facility owned by the Class I. If the terminal is congested, the owner’s super- 42

43 visor may move his own trains in preference to the short lines. In this manner, the short-line operation may become congested as well, and its crews may “time out” on the hours of service law. Since the short line does not own the facility, it may feel it has no ability to improve the situation. • Signaling and telecommunications upgrades are a major area in which increased investment is needed. There are sev- eral issues: First, it is often difficult to obtain skilled man- power for the design, installation, and maintenance of the industry’s signaling equipment, much of which is outdated. Second, technology is advancing at a pace that sometimes causes managers to be concerned that new investments will be obsolete quickly. Third, developments such as Positive Train Control (PTC) are expensive, would need to be imple- mented over extensive territory, and should be interopera- ble among connecting but also competing railroads. Communications, signaling, and information (CS&I) projects always seem to be on the critical path for capacity additions—and similarly, worker skills in CS&I seem always to be among the most constrained. • Locomotive and freight car investments are considered to constrain freight mobility by rail. While equipment is mobile, i.e., not fixed in location (which reduces one kind of resource misallocation risk), it is also peripatetic (i.e., it is hard to constrain to its highest and best uses, as good asset utilization principles require). It is always a challenge for railroads to balance the supply of equipment with the demand for it. Innovations such as shipper-provided rolling stock, efficient pooling of intermodal and auto-rack cars through TTX Company (which supplies railcars and related freight car management services to the North American rail industry) , and de-prescription of per diem rates have helped to make provision of rolling stock more efficient. Improved near- and mid-term forecasting of customer demand for equipment would help. These efforts could be further enhanced by implementation of reservation and auction systems yet to be developed. • Proper information for operational management has been a problem in the rail industry over the years. New investments are being made more or less continuously, but opportuni- ties for improvement still exist. Some contend that most of the interruptions to velocity come at and around interchange points. Much of the friction is caused by interference with people movements (passenger trains, peak hour traffic, etc.). Competition between passenger and freight rail is increasing, causing substantial interruptions to flow in urban areas. The mismatched availability of labor and related resources between the transport modes at the inter- change points exacerbates the problem. Survey respondents representing short-line rail and regional railroads identified the following as the most severe and per- sistent freight mobility constraints: 1. Signaling restrictions or optimal signaling 2. Lack of locomotive power and freight cars 3. Switching inefficiency 4. Speed restrictions in urban areas 5. Vertical double-stack restrictions. 4.2.3 Deepwater Ports and Inland Waterways Factors limiting the ability of external transport carriers (ship, rail, and truck) to access a terminal facility in a timely and efficient manner and to optimize the freight movement through the terminal constitute a constraint. This includes any factor that causes delay in either receipt or delivery of cargo. Another substantial constraint on mobility comes from the mismatched structure of labor resource availabilities in the various elements of the transport chain. Ship operators, longshoremen, motor carriers, railroad crews, warehouse operators, and other inter- ested parties work on substantially different and mismatched schedules, and efficient transfer cannot take place unless there is synchronization. Of relevance to inland waterways cargo movements are factors that cause traffic restrictions. For example, insufficient clearance or flooding that can cause traffic to slow or stop will result in delay. Freight mobility constraints result from the inadequacy of the capacity of freight (intermodal) connectors to meet demand as well as regulatory and operational factors. The main freight mobility constraints facing port termi- nal operations can be generally categorized as regulatory and operational, e.g., driver shortage, information technology (IT)/ information lag. The respondents all agreed that safety regu- lations do not impede efficient port terminal operations. Planning and environmental regulations (e.g., requirements related to clean air biodiesel fuel) in and of themselves do not impose unwarranted burdens on mobility and operations. The bigger burden is the erratic and unpredictable fashion in which the environmental laws and regulations are applied in the development of mobility projects. As with environmental regulations, the security regulations in themselves are not considered to be significant burdens on mobility. Security regulations and requirements add to oper- ating and transport costs, and cause modest inefficiencies in the use of space at transport nodes. However, their overall impacts on mobility and velocity are modest and manageable. The following causes of constraints were identified. 4.2.3.1 Operational Constraints The following are examples of significant constraints that emanate from operational problems: • Mismatched structure of labor resources resulting in inef- ficient transfers

• Lack of truck appointment pickup and dropoff systems • Lack of expanded port gate hours • Lack of willingness to culturally accept working in off- peak hours • Difficulty adjusting operations to cargo flow peak demand periods • Differences in shippers, port, and trucker operating hours • Inadequate trained labor • Equipment failures and maintenance requirements • IT/information lag times. 4.2.3.2 Regulatory Constraints Following operational constraints, regulatory constraints were found to be a problem considering that regulations can affect physical capacity and operational conditions. Two regu- latory issues cited are related to security and air quality requirements. Terminal operators must have sufficient areas to accommodate Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) x-ray machines. The extra movement of a container onto a chassis to pass it through the screening equipment is also an extra step in moving freight within the yard. The air quality requirements in Southern California requiring biodiesel fuel can be problematic for terminal operators as they and their partners in the supply chain, e.g., vessel operators and truck drivers, strive to come into compliance. 4.2.3.3 Physical Constraints Physical capacity at the port terminals is of the least concern of the three constraint types. The following physical constraints were identified: • Access to streets and highways outside the gate • Terminal layout land access • Barriers to rail efficiency • Wharf conditions • Gate configurations • Lack of channel depth. On the inland waterways, physical capacity is frequently restricted by weather conditions including fog. Using delay as an indication of mobility constraint, the respondents noted that the longest delays occur at the marine terminals. The wharves and the approaches to the (inland waterway) waterside were also identified as choke points in marine freight mobility. The respondents representing deepwater ports and inland waterways identified the following physical freight mobility constraints that are often encountered: • Inadequate terminal capacity • Physical barriers to rail operations • Empty container storage and movement • Inadequate local street and highway access from terminal • Inadequate waterway or channel depths • Inefficient terminal layout. These are ranked in decreasing order of occurrence. Among the potential operational constraints, Transporta- tion Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) requirements were identified by only a few respondents (less than 30 percent) as having an impact on freight mobility. Each port is unique in terms of configuration and operation. Therefore improve- ments that may be effective in addressing mobility constraints at one port may not necessarily be effective at another location. 4.2.4 Labor Unions The labor unions across all modes agreed that any factor that defeats optimization of operations and causes delay is a “freight mobility constraint.” The framework within which the man- agement and labor relationship is structured varies from mode to mode dependent on historical, legal, and modal operational requirements. However, contractual terms of labor agreements are noted to be major constraints. In general, labor faces oper- ational and physical constraints more than regulatory ones. The following are cross-cutting commonalities among labor unions. 4.2.4.1 Physical Constraints Insufficient Infrastructure Capacity. Motor carriers, rail- road workers, waterways labor, lock and dam operators, and longshore clerks and checkers all indicated the lack of suffi- cient capacity to move cargo efficiently through their systems as a major constraint. Channel conditions at deepwater ports and along inland waterways must be deep enough so that ves- sels can pass safely while heavily laden with containerized or bulk cargo. The lack of sufficient clearances and channel width at deepwater ports not only is a freight mobility constraint but also has safety implications. Lack of Maintenance of Existing Equipment and Facili- ties. Scheduling equipment outages for maintenance can cause backups across all modes. Roadways, railroads, port ter- minals, locks and dams, and waterways terminals routinely experience some maintenance cycle shutdowns. Better plan- ning and coordination across modes and involving labor in the planning would improve the situation. 4.2.4.2 Operational Constraints Labor Utilization. The labor unions have special concerns with how some current contractual requirements impede effi- cient crew utilization. For example, the problems with excess 44

45 “limbo time”; that is, the time used up by rail workers after they have completed a 12-hour shift to wait for transport to their home base and for which they are not compensated. Greater labor-management collaboration and increased accounta- bility could eliminate the problems of “limbo time” and stranded crews. Labor Supply and Training. There has been shortages in experienced labor supply particularly for inland waterway operations. The Federal employees who operate the nation’s locks and dams are experiencing retirement of older, seasoned personnel with pressure from the Department of Defense (DOD) to contract out their work rather than to hire and train Federal employees. Union specialist lock operators and mechanics are fre- quently on single-person shifts to operate the facilities and must have expertise in the total operational facility as they are the first responders to any difficulties at the facilities. The union representing these workers has worked with manage- ment at the local level to counteract contracting out to inex- perienced workers. The Teamsters have responded to mobility constraints by allowing motor carriers more flexible use of Teamster drivers. For example, the Teamsters now allow companies to put empty trailers on rail equipment, whereas before, the con- tract required motor carriers to use road drivers to do so. Also, to reduce travel during peak congestion times, the union strongly advocates that trucking companies and their cus- tomers allow evening and weekend deliveries. Productivity and Use of Technical Tools. Technical tools are being developed within all modes to facilitate greater pro- ductivity of people and equipment. The labor unions have supported these moves particularly as it improves other con- cerns such as labor allocation pools that must respond to daily or weekly changes in demand; operational communication processes between labor and management; business transac- tion paperwork that labor is responsible to complete; and facil- itation of safety in the field with electronic warning systems. Unfortunately, their successes depend upon the accuracy of the information communicated among the participants in manag- ing the goods movement process and in warning of system delays. The railroads are working with the Federal government to devise new safety warning systems and are developing com- munications systems that can operate in “blackout” areas. The clerks and checkers at deepwater port terminals are being trained in the new computer systems and it is expected that as younger members join the workforce, they will reflect their generation’s use of computer skills and technical tools. Management-Labor Communications. The challenge of addressing goods movement constraints and resulting delays involves multiple variables frequently including a lack of com- munication to involve those in the field with those who are making decisions that affect them. Labor unions work cooper- atively with management to varying degrees. The legacy con- tractual and once-regulated modal relationships can impede discussions of ways to resolve problems. On the other hand, the cooperative efforts of longshoremen and seafarers to work with management in meeting the needs of critical national demands to keep cargo flowing through our nation’s ports and waterways has reduced risks and shared the costs of training. Communication among goods movement partners, labor, and management appear to be gaining a foothold in the most recent contract negotiations. 4.2.4.3 Regulatory Constraints Several of the unions cited the new DHS requirements for all modal workers to have a TWIC as a problem. These con- cerns include the fact that monitors are not yet in place to read the electronic identification cards and so labor must be used to check these cards for persons entering and leaving transportation facilities such as port terminals. Such persons include railroad workers who are not yet sure if the railroads will cover the cost of their cards or if the railroads will place the burden upon the ports to escort non-TWIC-carded indi- viduals into and out of the port. 4.2.5 Summary 4.2.5.1 Causes of Constraints The survey results clearly indicate that overall, DHS secu- rity requirements do not significantly impede freight move- ments by highway and rail. However, deepwater port, inland waterway, and labor union respondents indicate that DHS security requirements somewhat impede efficient freight move- ments (Figure 13). More than 65 percent of respondents indicate that Fed- eral, state, and local land use and environmental regulations impede efficient freight operations to noticeable extents. As noted in Figure 14, these regulations appear to affect freight movements through the deepwater ports more than by rail and highway. Land use restrictions inhibit provision of park- ing facilities particularly in urban areas, thus constraining mobility of freight vehicles on the highway system. Federal and state safety regulations are noted to impede effi- cient freight operations to noticeable extents by all modes, as shown in Figure 14. With regards to land use and environmen- tal regulations, freight movements through deepwater ports and by inland waterways are shown to be impacted more than movements by rail and highway (Figure 15). In general, Fed- eral and state regulatory requirements, including safety, secu- rity, environmental, and land use do impede freight mobility to noticeable extents.

46 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Highways Railroads Deepwater Ports Pe rc en t o f R es po nd en ts None Not Much Somewhat Very Much Figure 13. Impact of DHS requirements. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Highways Railroads Deepwater Ports Pe rc en t o f R es po nd en ts Impede Very Much Impede Somewhat No Impact Improve Somewhat Improve Very Much Figure 14. Effects of Federal and state safety regulations. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Highways Railroads Deepwater Ports Pe rc en t o f R es po nd en ts Impede Very Much Impede Somewhat No Impact Improve Somewhat Improve Very Much Figure 15. Effects of land use and environmental regulations.

47 From the motor carriers’ perspective, the top three policy- or regulatory-related issues that have the most significant impact on freight mobility are: 1. Inadequate truck parking (determined by land use control) 2. Hours-of-Service regulations (safety regulation) 3. Speed limit differentials between cars and trucks (safety consideration). 4.2.5.2 Major Constraint Types The predominant type of freight mobility constraint depends on the primary mode of freight movement. Figure 16 shows the ranking of the five categories of constraints by modal operators. Technological limitations or inadequacies were separated from other operational constraints in order to better understand how technology can improve freight mobility. It is clear from Figure 16 that technology is a sig- nificant factor in freight mobility by all modes. Similarly, financial limitations are important detractors to improved freight mobility. Also, regulatory requirements are consid- ered to be major constraints affecting freight movement by all modes. For the motor carrier industry, however, operational limi- tations are the topmost constraints. Physical or infrastructure deficiencies are not considered the most critical constraints affecting freight mobility. Physical infrastructures are fixed assets that oftentimes may require major expenditures to expand their capacities. Therefore, for a given transportation infrastructure system, it would be expected that optimal oper- ations can be achieved through operational and regulatory improvements. Respondents across all modes (excluding motor carriers) indicated that lack of skilled labor (including drivers, crews, etc.) is the most common operational impact of freight mobil- ity constraints. 4.3 Measures or Indicators of Mobility Constraint The performance measures used in monitoring and iden- tifying freight mobility constraints vary by mode and agency. In terms of public- and private-sector perspectives, espe- cially for highways, the performance indicators are different. State DOTs and MPOs present the public-sector perspectives for the highway mode and the motor carriers present the private-sector perspectives. Public-sector agencies imple- ment improvements to address constraints to facilitate safe, secure, and efficient movement of freight. The private sector, on the other hand, uses different measures to monitor and identify constraints to their operations and reacts by taking measures that minimize the effects of constraints on the safe, secure, and efficient movement of freight. The following sections discuss the measures for highways, railroads, deepwater ports, and inland waterways. 4.3.1 Highways In general, state transportation agencies do not have a well- defined set of measures or indicators for freight mobility con- straints. There are no defined thresholds such as those that agencies use for other system-adequacy criteria. Typical high- way agency criteria often considered when selecting projects include volume/capacity (v/c) ratios greater than 0.9, present 0 1 2 3 4 5 State DOT & MPO Railroads Deepwater Ports Motor Carriers W ei gh te d Ra nk in g Regulatory restrictions Technological limitations/inadequacy Physical capacity Operational limitations Financial limitations Figure 16. Ranking of constraint types by mode.

serviceability index (PSI) ratings below 3, or structural defi- ciency rating of a bridge below 5. Some implicit measures or indicators exist in the states where freight programs select projects. The criteria by which they select projects to enhance freight mobility are de facto indicators of freight congestion. For instance, Oregon DOT measures a proposed project’s ability to alleviate a freight mobility constraint according to whether a proposed trans- portation project: • Reduces transportation costs for Oregon businesses or improves access to jobs and sources of labor • Results in an economic benefit to the state • Is a critical link connecting elements of Oregon’s trans- portation system that will measurably improve utilization and efficiency of the system. Proposed projects are scored by teams of DOT and outside officials to determine which submitted projects best meet the stated goals. Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System Highway Connector (83) projects are selected based on the relative severity of fac- tors such as Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), v/c ratios, and the amount of economic activity occurring near a pro- posed location. Growing congestion, combined with the facil- ity’s role of providing access to an important freight generator, becomes one of the criteria used to select it as a freight mobil- ity project. Utah DOT (84) uses a set of criteria in identifying its low- cost, quickly implementable freeway improvement projects. The projects are not specifically freight improvement projects. They are general highway improvement projects, but they help freight because of the high volumes of trucks on Utah high- ways. Trucks compose up to 55 percent of total traffic volumes on the state’s Interstate highway system. Utah DOT quali- tatively selects possible locations for improvement based on recommendations from staff, which include factors such as observed congestion, the lack of environmental or right-of- way constraints, the rapidity of implementation, and the rela- tively low cost of the proposed improvement. A quantitative ranking is then applied to the proposed projects based on the following criteria: • Average daily traffic • Volume-to-capacity ratio • Crash history. The Ohio DOT (85) selects its major new capacity projects through the Transportation Review Advisory Council. The Council has adopted formal criteria by which it ranks projects. The highest ranked projects are given preference for selection once overriding impediments such as excessive cost, environ- mental constraints, or a lack of community support are con- sidered. In other words, the criteria are not the sole factors in selecting projects but they play a significant role in ranking candidate projects. The factors used by Ohio DOT have at least three criteria directly related to freight mobility. The total factors include: • AADT • AADTT • Volume-to-capacity ratio • Whether the project completes a gap on a statewide eco- nomic corridor • Crash history • Connectivity to other modes. The criteria of AADT, corridor completion, and inter- modal connectivity all tend to benefit freight-heavy proj- ects. The intention behind these criteria is to improve freight mobility to enhance the state’s economic competitiveness. Beyond these implied indicators of mobility constraint, the agency officials across all states in the survey cited what they consider to be general indicators of freight mobility constraints: • Comments from freight industry members about the con- gestion they experience at locations such as steep grades, congested intersections, and inadequate interchanges • Poor turning radii at intersections and driveways • Queues of trucks at specific bottlenecks • The lack of regulatory coordination between neighbor- ing states in terms of truck inspection, enforcement, and regulation • Decreases in observed operating speeds • Decreases in reliability as measured by travel time variability. The FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations sponsors the Freight Performance Measures (FPM) initiative, which is managed by the ATRI. Under this initiative, wireless truck position reports from several hundred thousand trucks are collected and analyzed. As a component of the FPM research, ATRI analyzed a list of 30 significant U.S. freight bot- tlenecks that were previously identified by FHWA. Actual truck speeds for these bottlenecks were aggregated to deter- mine the impact of congestion on average truck speeds over a 1-year timeframe. Based on these results, the original bottle- necks were re-ranked by severity. These are discussed in Chap- ter 7 of this report. From the private-sector (i.e., motor carrier industry) per- spective, motor carriers utilize several measures to monitor the efficiency of fleet operations, including customer-related 48

49 performance metrics. Customer-related metrics include how often a carrier delivers or picks up on time, the service times to move freight from the point of origin to the final destina- tion, or revenue per truck per day. Fleet operations metrics include stops per driver (in metro- politan areas only) per day, the cost to provide service to an area, and the amount of time a driver is delayed. Other metrics focus on operational efficiency and equipment use and may include: • Percentage of truck engine idle time • Average speed per truck • Truck utilization (miles per tractor per day) • Billed versus unbilled miles (indicator of out-of-route miles or non-revenue-generating miles). Other measures used by carriers to monitor the impact of mobility constraints on performance are driver stress (conges- tion is a significant factor leading to driver stress) and driver retention/turnover rates, typically higher in heavily congested areas. 4.3.2 Railroads The following rail industry metrics are used to gauge per- formance and to indicate mobility constraints: 1. Train speed—measures the line-haul movement between terminals. The average speed is calculated by dividing train- miles by total hours operated, excluding yard and local trains, passenger trains, maintenance of way trains, and ter- minal time. Train speed is a good measure of mobility; however, data on train speed are not readily available except at aggregate levels. 2. Terminal dwell time—is the average time a car resides at the specified terminal location expressed in hours. Dwell time measures delay and indicates mobility problems. However, data on dwell time are not generally available and may be difficult to interpret for low-cost improvement projects. 3. Safety—the most important performance objective, for most respondents. Whereas this measure does not indicate mobility, performance is used to gauge freight mobility. 4. Customer service—customer satisfaction is the second most often used metric and one of the most important management performance objectives. In addition, railroads sometimes use percentage of on-time arrivals, car cycle times, and cars moving on correct trains as customer ser- vice metrics to measure performance. 5. Financial results—take various forms, such as measure- ment of the precursor operating ratio (expenses divided by revenue) or, for public companies, earnings per share or stock price. Some of the suggested metrics (velocity, cus- tomer satisfaction, revenue growth) are drivers of financial performance, while stock price is a derivative. 4.3.3 Deepwater Ports and Inland Waterways Several indicators were noted to be of importance to processes and to overall supply chain costs and operations for ports: • Traffic volume demand and response cycle monitoring to adequately plan for and handle surges, clogs, dead times. • On-time arrival percentage of time for ships, labor, trucks, and rail. • Dwell time in days, i.e., the number of days the cargo sits in the terminal. • Overall supply chain transportation velocity because uneven freight velocity is the key indicator for goods requiring syn- chronization and controlled integration into manufacturing or retail streams. As one respondent stated, “low freight velocity is the key indicator for high-value retail goods, but it is difficult to quantify or identify as it (the supply chain) encompasses many players, routes, modes, and transfer points.” • Available competitive transportation options, because the customer is looking for the cheapest route from origin to destination. Competition can be as simple as the num- ber of rail lines serving one port or the shipping by rail costs at one port in the United States and one port in Canada. One respondent cited the fact that rail rates are currently $400/box cheaper at a port in Canada and are far cheaper than those rail rates charged in a nearby U.S. port. The U.S. port customers are moving discretionary cargo to Canada to take advantage of the cheaper rail rates. • Cost volatility related to suddenly increasing costs, e.g., fuel, insurance, security requirements. • Customer satisfaction, as unhappy customers due to delays or lapses in pickup and other terminal operator responsi- bilities can mean a loss of customers. • Labor supply or enough trained workers who are available when needed and are stable without unrest and threats of strikes for higher pay. 4.3.4 Summary Figure 17 shows the ranking of the performance measures in decreasing order of use in monitoring freight mobility systems

50 D riv er D el ay Tr uc k Id le T im e Av er ag e Tr uc k Sp ee d D riv er D el ay P ay 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 O n- Ti m e Pi ck up a n d/ or D el ive ry D riv er Ut iliz at io n/ m ile s O n- Ti m e Te rm in al D ep ar tu re … O ut -o f-R ou te M ile s St op s pe r D riv er W ei gh te d Ra nk in g Motor Carriers Le ve l o f s er vic e O n- tim e pi ck up /d el ive ry St op p er h ou r O n- tim e ar riv al /d ep ar tu re D el ay 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Id le ti m e D w el l tim e(h rs/ da ys ) Av er ag e sp ee d Tr af fic v ol um e Le ve l o f se rv ic e W ei gh te d Ra nk in g Railroads G at e tra ns ac tio ns p er d ay Av er ag e sp ee d Le ve l o f s er vic e O n- tim e ar riv al a n d/ or d ep ar tu re Tr af fic v ol um e 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Id le ti m e Tr uc k… O n- tim e… D w el l… Li fts p er … D el ay W ei gh te d Ra nk in g Deepwater Ports and Inland Waterways Average speed Delay Level of service Percentage of trucks Traffic volume 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 W ei gh te d Ra nk in g State DOTs and MPOs Figure 17. Ranking of performance indicators. and in identifying constraints. The performance measures vary by mode but there are some similarities between rail and deep- water. For freight movement by highway mode, delay is a com- mon measure used by both the public and private sectors in monitoring and identifying freight mobility constraints. For rail and deepwater ports, on the other hand, idle time is most commonly used, while delay is seldom used to monitor and identify constraints. Table 22 summarizes the major causes of freight mobility constraint by mode and shows the top ranked performance measures. Table 23 presents examples of freight mobility con- straints by type (physical, operational, and regulatory) and by mode from public- and private-sector perspectives. The next chapter develops the criteria for low-cost and quickly implementable improvements to address the freight mobility constraints discussed in this chapter.

51 Mode Primary Causes Metrics/Indicators Highways • Regulatory constraints • Land use controls and regulations • Parking restrictions • Speed limits • Safety regulations • Hours-of-service regulations; • Highway geometry (e.g., outdated interchange and intersection designs to meet traffic demand and requirements of longer trucks; roundabouts near freight facilities) • Inadequate system management including outdated/inadequate traffic signal systems • Inadequate capacity to meet increasing demands • Poor road signage including warning signs State DOTs and MPOs • Average truck speed • Delay to traffic • Level of service • Average daily traffic/truck traffic including percentage of trucks • Truck trips per day Motor carriers • On-time customer pickup/delivery • Driver delay • Driver utilization/mile • Truck idle time • Average truck speed Railroads • Regulatory constraints (Federal and state) • Inadequate physical capacity • Constrained capital budget • Lack of skilled labor • Poorly structured labor work rules • Idle time • Average train speed • Level of service • Terminal dwell time • On-time customer pick-up and/or delivery Deepwater port and inland waterways • Regulatory constraints (e.g., land use controls and regulations) • Inadequate capacity of intermodal connectors (truck and rail) • Inadequate traffic system management on intermodal connectors • Terminal gate operating hours • Port terminal processing requirements • Security and air quality regulations • Idle time • Gate transactions per day • Truck trips per day • Average speed • On-time pick-up and/or delivery • Level of service • Dwell time in hours or days Table 22. Primary causes of mobility constraints by mode.

52 Mode Physical Constraints Operational Constraints Regulatory Constraints Highways Inadequate mainline capacity – inadequate number of lanes Narrow roadway or lanes Inadequate traveler information – Lack of timely traveler information on incidents, weather, temporary road closures, construction zones Parking restrictions Truck lane restrictions Speed limit restrictions Inadequate turning intersection radii and/or channelized turns Poor road signage Route restrictions for long combination vehicle and other trucks Inadequate weaving sections Poor signal phasing Land use controls and regulations Long, steep grades with no passing lanes Lack of warning signs on crossroad approaches DHS and other security requirements Short interchange ramps Lack of 24/7 access to intermodal facilities Hours-of-service regulations No turning lanes at intersections On-street parking, bus or other roadside activities too close to intersections Lack of interoperability in use of toll passes Insufficient parking for trucks Inadequate loading zones Differences in truck size and weight regulations Lack of alternate routes for large trucks Lack of drivers Lack of reciprocity in truck licensing and inspection Railroads Mainline throughput capacity Signaling restrictions or less than optimal signaling – outdated/inefficient signaling & telecommunications Federal and state regulations Inadequate sidings length Terminals switching efficiency Labor issues – supply, training, and utilization No passing siding Inadequate investments in locomotives and freight cars Lack of funding Speed restrictions in urban areas Lack of skilled labor Deepwater port and inland waterways Inefficient terminal layout/terminal gate configurations Lack of labor /crew supply Labor unions and contractual limitations Inadequate capacity of intermodal connectors Lack of truck appointment pickup and dropoff systems Restrictive security requirements Small, aging, unreliable locks (lock capacity) Restricted terminal gate operating hours Restrictive air quality requirements Lack of channel depth Inefficient terminal layout Flooding and insufficient clearance (inland waterways) Lack of electronic communication in rural areas (inland waterways) Table 23. Common mobility constraints by mode.

Next: Chapter 5 - Low-Cost, Quickly Implementable Improvements »
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!