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

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

87 8.1 Conclusions This project developed standardized descriptions of the dimensions of the freight transportation system, defined freight mobility constraints in a multimodal context, developed crite- ria for low-cost and quickly implementable improvements to address freight mobility constraints, and developed a software application tool to help decision makers in evaluating freight mobility constraints and selecting appropriate improvements. The tool is backed by a database of improvement projects for highway, rail, and deepwater ports and implemented by differ- ent agencies. Freight mobility is constrained not only by physical infra- structure inadequacies but also by operational, regulatory, policy, technological, and financial limitations. The capac- ity of the existing freight transportation system can be increased through innovative operational strategies, performance- improving regulatory and policy changes, and low-cost cap- ital improvements. Definition of Freight Mobility Constraint A freight mobility constraint can be defined as “a physical or infrastructure deficiency, regulatory requirement (Federal, state, or local), or operational action that impedes or restricts the free flow of freight either at the network level or at a spe- cific location.” Mobility constraints increase costs, contribute to system inefficiencies, and delay on-time freight delivery. The three main types of constraints are: • Physical Constraints—any geometric or infrastructure con- ditions that constrain freight operators from operating at designed, safe speeds and within legally required parameters. Examples include inadequate capacity of the transportation system to meet traffic demand (e.g., mainlines, interchanges, rail sidings, port terminals) and geometric restrictions or limitations affecting safe and efficient mobility. • Operational Constraints—practices, processes, events, or occurrences that constrain optimal throughput, and efficient operating conditions. Examples include poor signal phasing, port gate processes, technological limitations, outdated sig- naling systems, and inadequate traveler information. • Regulatory Constraints—Federal, state, or local regulatory requirements that, while intended to provide an environ- ment for safe and secure operation, have unintended con- sequences that restrict the flow of freight through the sys- tem. Examples include safety and security requirements, truck restrictions, zoning policies, air quality restrictions, and labor contractual limitations. The predominant type of freight mobility constraint (phys- ical, operational, or regulatory) depends on the primary mode of freight movement. Regulatory restrictions (in particular Federal, state, and local land use and environmental laws and regulations) and operational limitations (including techno- logical limitations/inadequacies) are the most common types of mobility constraints affecting all modes. Criteria for Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Improvement Although many innovative, low-cost efforts are being imple- mented by public and private agencies, there are no unique criteria to define what constitutes a low-cost improvement directed to enhance freight mobility. A “low-cost and quickly implementable” improvement to address freight mobility con- straints may be defined as: an action that modifies existing geometry and operational features of the freight transportation infrastructure system and that can be implemented within a short period without extended disruption to traffic flow. Such an improvement may be physical, operational, or regulatory, as long as it enables greater through- put from existing facilities. These actions may be spot (or location- specific) improvements or may be limited to short sections of the C H A P T E R 8 Conclusions and Suggested Research

88 physical infrastructure. Likewise, they may be specific to a given supply chain process point, regulation, or mode; they may also affect multiple modes of freight movement. Furthermore, low- cost improvements do not involve massive reconstruction of infrastructure that usually takes many years to complete. Mode-specific criteria for low-cost, quickly implementable improvements to address freight mobility constraints may be as follows: • Highways—a low-cost and quickly implementable improve- ment does not require special programming, environmen- tal clearances, or right-of-way acquisition and is within budget limitations, enabling implementation at a district level. A low-cost improvement project is typically a spot improvement and generally costs $1 million or less, and is considered “quickly implementable” when it can be com- pleted in 1 year or less. • Railroads—a low-cost and quickly implementable improve- ment project depends on the category of the railroad. For a short-line railroad, a low-cost improvement project is one that is less than $500,000 and able to be completed in less than 6 months. For a regional railroad of modest size, projects costing less than $2 million and that could be completed within a year would fit the criteria. For a Class I railroad, the cost would be $1 million to $10 million and the project could be completed within 2 years. • Deepwater Coastal Ports and Inland Waterways—low-cost improvements are typically economic-incentive-based pro- grams that influence demand, changes in operations and processes (including the use of advanced technologies), and projects that encourage modal shift. Physical low- cost improvements are coordinated with highway and rail improvements both within and outside the terminal. A low- cost and quickly implementable improvement across both deepwater ports and inland waterways is defined as costing up to $1 million and able to be completed within 2 years. The type of improvement is not determined by the type of constraint. Operational improvements can be used to address physical constraints and vice versa. Similarly, regulatory and policy actions can be implemented to remove operational and physical constraints. Policy-type improvements are con- sidered under the regulatory type, while economic-based actions that affect price and market-based solutions are clas- sified as operational improvements. These definitions are generic, and while physical improvements are quite distinct, certain types of improvements could fit either regulatory or operational categories. Methodology A major output of this research is a methodology that deci- sion makers can use to identify, categorize, and evaluate quickly implementable, low-cost capital, operational, and regula- tory or public policy actions designed to enhance freight mobility by addressing identified constraints. The methodol- ogy is embodied in a computer-based application tool (avail- able on the CD-ROM bound into this report) where decision makers make selections to define the constraint and select possible actions to address it based on previously imple- mented improvements elsewhere. The software is designed with a wizard-style user interface that facilitates navigation through the program. The user can also view sample projects where the actions have been implemented or proposed. The tool is backed by a database of information on historical low- cost improvements. Catalog of Improvements The tool was applied to develop a catalog of low-cost actions or classes of actions that can be quickly implemented to address freight-system mobility constraints especially along corridors or at locations that impact freight mobility at a national level. The theme in developing the catalog of actions was to iden- tify proven low-cost improvements that have the potential to enhance freight mobility to noticeable extents even though such actions may not by themselves necessarily remove the constraint entirely. The catalog of improvements targets locations or corridors where major constraints within each modal freight transportation network occur. Improvements presented in the catalog are generic, however, implementa- tion at a particular location would require consideration of specific site characteristics and operational practices. Simi- larly, given the uniqueness of each deepwater port, an effec- tive action at one port may not necessarily be effective at another port. 8.2 Recommendations for Further Research The methodology is data driven and therefore, to serve a use- ful purpose, the database needs to remain dynamic and be con- tinuously updated. It is therefore recommended to develop a mechanism to keep updating and adding new actions to the database as additional information becomes available. No such mechanism currently exists to collect and process low-cost freight mobility constraint improvement projects. Research is needed to develop a mechanism for collecting and reporting project data to update the database on a continuous basis. A standardized process similar to the Highway Performance Monitoring System is suggested to define, describe, or measure low-cost freight mobility constraint improvement projects. A web-based application is recommended to facilitate the process. To enhance the usefulness of the tool and to facilitate updates to the database, it is further recommended that the

89 tool be converted to a web-based software application tool once sufficient data are included in the database. A collabo- rative effort among modal stakeholders will be needed to develop and utilize the data collection mechanism and to facil- itate continuous update of the database. Such a mechanism will include a feedback screen to capture strategies selected by policy/decision makers to resolve mobility issues. This infor- mation will contribute to the database and add intelligence to the application. In its current form, the tool is developed as standalone software that is available on CD-ROM or via download from the TRB website (www.trb.org). It is also suggested to the extent possible, the geographic specificity of the locations of implemented low-cost improvement projects be included so that the tool can be converted to a GIS web-based application to improve its utility. The methodology was developed acknowledging that it would be integrated into the standard Project Development Process, which each state DOT and MPO is required to have in order to use state or Federal funds to implement such proj- ects. Research is needed to guide the integration of the tool with the project development process.