Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 91

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 90
90 References 1. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Freight in America: A New 15. Cambridge Systematics Inc. Twin Cities Ramp Meter Evaluation: National Picture. Research and Innovative Technology Administra- Executive Summary. Minnesota Department of Transportation, tion. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Jan. St. Paul, MN, Feb. 2001. 2006. 16. Dunn, W. and S. Latoski. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 318: 2. Government Accountability Office. Transportation Programs: Chal- Safe and Quick Clearance of Traffic Incidents. Transportation Research lenges Facing the DOT and Congress. GAO-09-435T. Government Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., March 2009. 17. FHWA. Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced 3. FHWA. Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Strategies for Congestion Mitigation. Executive Summary. U.S. Depart- Revenue Study Commission: Transportation for Tomorrow. U.S. ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Sep. 2005. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Dec. 2007. 18. 511 Deployment Coalition. 511 America's Traveler Information 4. Weatherford, B.A., H.H. Willis, and D.S. Oritz. The State of U.S. Number: Deployment Assistance Report #1: Business Models and Cost Railroads. A Review of Capacity and Performance Data. RAND Considerations. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2008. D.C., Jan. 2002. 5. Government Accountability Office. Freight Transportation: National 19. Lee, E., K. Choi, and S. Lim. Streamlined Strategies for Faster, Less Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve Freight Mobility, GAO-08- Traffic-Disruptive Highway Rehabilitation in Urban Networks. Pre- 287, Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C., Jan. 2008. sented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 6. FHWA. An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways. Washington, D.C., 2008. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2005. 20. Government Accountability Office. Surface Transportation: Strategies Are Available for Making Existing Road Infrastructure Perform Better, 7. Chin, S.M., O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. Hwang, and R.C. Gibson. GAO-07-920, Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., Temporary Losses of Highway Capacity and Impacts of Performance: July 2007. Phase 2. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. 21. Short, J. Survey of Motor Carrier Opinions on Potential Optional Truck Department of Energy, Nov. 2004. Only Toll Lanes on Atlanta Interstate Highways. Presented at 86th 8. Rouphail, N., K. Petty, B. Eads, and J. McDermott. "Low-Cost Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, Improvements for Recurring Freeway Bottlenecks." Interim Report, D.C., 2007. NCHRP Project 3-83. Dowling Associates, Oakland, CA, Dec. 2006. 22. Clarke, R.M. Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Considerations. Presented 9. Meyer, M. Combating Congestion through Leadership, Innovation at 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, and Resources. A Summary Report. National Congestion Summit, Washington, D.C., 2000. Sep. 2007. 23. O'Laughlin, R., D. Thomas, and R.M. Rinnan. Chicago Downtown 10. Latham, F.E. and J. Trombly. Low Cost Traffic Engineering Improve- Freight Study. Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- ments: A Primer. Report No. FHWA-OP-03-078. Federal Highway emies, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2007. Administration, Washington, D.C., April 2003. 24. The Tioga Group. Goods Movement Truck and Rail Study Executive 11. Walters, C., S. Cooner, and S. Ranft. Reconsidering Freeway Bottle- Summary. Project 99-130. Prepared for the Southern California necks: Case Studies of Bottleneck Removal Projects in Texas. Texas Association of Governments, Los Angeles, CA, Jan. 2003. Transportation Institute, Austin, TX, Dec. 2006. 25. Association of American Railroads. Railroad Facts. AAR, Office of 12. FHWA. Traffic Bottlenecks: A Primer Focus on Low-Cost Operational Information and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C., 2006. Improvements. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington 26. Cambridge Systematics Inc. National Rail Freight Infrastructure D.C., 2007. Capacity and Investment Study. Prepared for American Association 13. Shafran, I. and A. Strauss-Weider. NCHRP Report 497: Financing and of Railroads, Washington, D.C., Sep. 2007. Improving Land Access to U.S. Intermodal Cargo Hubs. Transpor- 27. Immel, E. and B. Burgel. Rail Capacity in the I-5 Corridor. Presented tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., for the AASHTO Standing Committee on Rail Transportation, San 2003. Diego, CA, Oct. 2004. 14. FHWA. Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Prob- 28. Maritime Administration. Report to Congress on the Performance of lems. Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Transportation, Ports and the Intermodal System. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., July 2004. Washington, D.C., June 2005.

OCR for page 90
91 29. Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency 50. Maritime Administration. U.S. Water Transportation Statistical (CREATE) Program. Accessed Sep. 23, Snapshot. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008. 2008. 30. North Carolina Department of Transportation Rail Division. 51. FHWA. Tonnage on Highways, Railroads, and Inland Waterways: 2002 Accessed June 15, 2008. Map. Office of Freight Management and Operations: U.S. Depart- 31. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Dredging Needs Study of U.S. ment of Transportation. Washington, D.C. Ports and Harbors: Update 2000. Report 00-R-04. Institute of Water gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/tonhwyrrww2002. Resources, USACE, Alexandria, VA, 2003. htm Accessed Aug. 2008. 32. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Maritime Trade and Transpor- 52. FHWA. FAF2 Provisional Annual Commodity Origin-Destination tation 1999. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Data and Documentation. Office of Freight Management and U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1999. Operations. U.S. Department of Transportation. www.ops.fhwa. 33. Special Report 279: The Marine Transportation System and the Federal Accessed Aug. Role: Measuring Performance, Targeting Improvement. Transporta- 2008. tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 53. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation Sta- 2004. tistics, 2008. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, 34. Knatz, G. National Port Planning: A Different Perspective. In Trans- U.S. Department of Transportation. portation Research Record 1963. TRB, National Research Council, national_transportation_statistics/ Accessed June 2008. Washington, D.C. 2006, pp. 5255. 54. Short, J. and C. Jones. Utilization of Wireless Truck Position Data 35. Government Accountability Office. Surface and Marine Transpor- to Determine Demand for Highways. Proc. 10th International tation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Conference on the Application of Advanced Technologies in Trans- Challenge. GAO-02-775. Government Accountability Office, portation. Athens, Greece, 2008. Washington, D.C., August, 2002. 55. Project description for NCFRP-03, "Freight Performance Mea- 36. Le-Griffin, H.D. and M. Murphy. Container Terminal Productivity: sures." Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Experiences at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Proc. Washington, D.C., 2007. National Urban Freight Conference, Long Beach, CA. Feb. 2006. 56. FHWA. Freight Facts and Figures 2008. Office of Freight Manage- Accessed Oct. 3, ment and Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washing- 2009. ton, D.C., 2008. 37. Wang, T-F., D-W. Song, and K.P.B. Cullinane. The Applicability of 57. American Trucking Associations. American Trucking Trends: 2006. Data Envelopment Analysis to Efficiency Measurement of Con- American Trucking Associations. Arlington, VA, 2007. tainer Ports. Proc. International Association of Maritime Economists, 58. Battelle. FAF2 Traffic Analysis. Final report prepared for FHWA Panama Conference, Nov. 2002. p. 6. Office of Freight Management and Operations. U.S. Department of 38. PierPass. Accessed July 25, 2008. Transportation. Washington, D.C., 2007. 39. Roche Lte, Groupe-Conseil and Levelton Consultants Ltd. Terminal 59. Global Insight Inc. The U.S. Truck Driver Shortage: Analysis and Appointment System Study. Prepared for Transportation Develop- Forecasts. Prepared for American Trucking Associations, Alexandria, ment Centre, Transport Canada. Ottawa, March 2006. innovation/tdc/summary/14500/14570e.htm. Assessed Dec. 3, 2009. VA, May 2005. 40. U.S. Department of Commerce. Trade Stats Express. International 60. AAR. U.S. Freight Railroad Productivity, Briefing Paper. Association Trade Administration. Accessed June 12, 2007. of American Railroads, Feb. 2008. 41. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Pocket Guide to Transportation asp?Content_ID=285 Accessed on April 17, 2008. 2008. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. 61. ICF International. Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 2008. Efficiency on Competitive Corridors. Final Report prepared for Federal 42. Battelle. FAF Capacity Analysis: Scenario Analysis Results Report. Railroad Administration. Washington, D.C., Nov. 2009. Project report submitted to Office of Freight Management and 62. Association of American Railroads. Railroad Facts Book. Association Operations. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., of American Railroads, Office of Information and Public Affairs, 2002. Washington, D.C., 19642007. 43. FHWA. Measuring Improvements in the Movement of Highway and 63. Association of American Railroads. 2007 Railroad Facts Book. Asso- Intermodal Freight. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washing- ciation of American Railroads, Office of Information and Public ton, D.C. 2000. Affairs, Washington, D.C., 2008. 44. FHWA. NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report to Congress. 64. Congressional Budget Office. Freight Rail Transportation: Long-Term U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2000. Issues. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Washington, D.C., Jan. 45. AASHTO. Freight-Rail Bottom Line Report. AASHTO, Washington, 2006. D.C., 2003. 65. Stover, J.F. American Railroads, 2nd ed. The University of Chicago 46. Maritime Administration. America's Marine Highways Map. U.S. Press, Chicago, IL, 1997, p. 194. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 66. Dennis, S.M. Changes in Railroad Rates Since The Staggers Act. gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhp_map/mhp_ Transportation Research Part E 37, 2000, pp. 5569. map.htm Accessed March 23, 2010. 67. Spychalski, J.C. and P.F. Swan. U.S. Rail Freight Performance 47. FRA, Office of Policy and Communications. Freight Railroads Back- Under Downsized Regulation. Utility Policy, Vol. 12 Issue 3, 2004, ground. pp. 165179. pdf Accessed April 30, 2008. 68. Boyer, K.D. Why Do Freight Transportation Demand Curves Slope 48. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Port and Waterway Facilities. Navi- Down? Proc. Allied Social Sciences Association, New Orleans, LA, gation Data Center. USACE, Washington, D.C., 2004. 2001. 49. American Trucking Associations. American Trucking Trends: 2005. 69. Czerniak, R., S. Gaiser, and D. Gerard. The Use of Intermodal American Trucking Associations, Arlington, VA, 2006. Performance Measures by State Departments of Transportation.

OCR for page 90
92 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington 85. Cambridge Systematics Inc. Ohio Freight Mobility, Access, and Safety D.C., 1994. Strategies. Project report prepared for Ohio Department of Trans- 70. Hinkelman, E.G. Dictionary of International Trade, 6th ed. Novato, portation, Columbus, OH, May 2006. CA, 2005. 86. I-95 Corridor Coalition. 71. American Association of Port Authorities. Accessed July 2008. Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1022&navItemNumber=901, 87. California Environmental Protection Agency. "Goods Movement Accessed Sep 19, 2008. in California." Jan 2005. 72. Maritime Administration. National Port Gateway and Freight Cor- Accessed Oct. 2009. ridor Strategy. Draft Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 88. American Trucking Associations. Freight Performance Measures Washington, D.C., July 2008. Analysis of 30 Freight Bottlenecks. American Trucking Associations, 73. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The US Waterway System Trans- Arlington, VA, March 2009. portation Facts. Navigation Data Center, USACE, Washington, D.C., 89. FHWA. Estimated Cost of Freight Involved in Highway Bottleneck. Dec. 2007. Final report. Office of Transportation Policy Studies. U.S. Depart- 74. Maritime Administration. Industry Survey Series: Mainstream Con- ment of Transportation. Washington, D.C., Nov. 2008. tainer Services. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, 90. Cambridge Systematics Inc. Statewide Rail Capacity and System D.C., 2003. Needs Study. Technical Memorandum prepared for Washington 75. Georgia Ports Authority. AnchorAge, Volume 47, No. 1, 2007. State Transportation Commission, Dec 2006. 76. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Employment Statistics Survey, 91. AASHTO. America's Freight Challenge. AASHTO, Washington, Detailed Data Files. Accessed Sep 2009. D.C., May 2007. 77. Inland Rivers Ports and Terminals Association. 92. Global Insight Inc. Houston Region Freight Transportation Profile. Accessed Sep 19, 2008. Technical Memorandum: Freight and Goods Movement. Prepared 78. American Waterway Operators. Factsheet www.americanwaterways. for Houston-Galveston Area Council. June 2009. com/industry_stats/facts_about_ind/factsabout.pdf Accessed Sep 19, 93. Martinez, R.E. NS and Public-Private Partnerships: The Heartland 2008. Corridor and The Crescent Corridor. October 2007. http://trans 79. ASCE. Report Card for America's Infrastructure. reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=36 Accessed Sep 19, 2008. Accessed August 2009. 80. Center for Ports and Waterways. A Modal Comparison of Domestic 94. I-95 Corridor Coalition. Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study. Sum- Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public. Texas Trans- mary Report. I-95 Corridor Coalition, April 2002. portation Institute, Houston, TX, 2007. 95. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tonnage for Selected U.S. Ports in 81. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterborne Commerce of the United 2008. USACE, Navigation Data Center. States, Part 3 Waterways Harbors Great Lakes. Navigation Data ndc/wcsc/portton08.htm Accessed March 2010. Center, USACE, Washington, D.C., 2006. 96. FHWA. Freight Facts and Figures. Office of Freight Management and 82. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Inland Marine Transportation Operations: U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. System Improvement Report. USACE, Washington, D.C., Sep. 2008. 83. Florida Department of Transportation. Florida's Strategic Inter- docs/08factsfigures/figure3_15.htm Accessed Nov. 2009. modal System. Accessed July 97. Port of New York/New Jersey. 2008. item.cfm?headLine_id=1223 Accessed Sep. 2009. 84. Utah Department of Transportation. System Planning and Pro- 98. The Hampton Roads Chassis Pool. gramming.,T:,53. 37/Default.aspx Accessed Sep. 2009. Accessed July 2008. 99. Port of Tacoma. Accessed Sep. 2009.