Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 2


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 1
1 S U MMAR Y Performance Measures for Freight Transportation The objective of the research on which this report was based was to develop measures to gauge the performance of the U.S. freight transportation system. The measures as sought in the project statement are intended to support investment, operations, and policy decisions by a range of stakeholders, both public and private. The measures also are intended to reflect local, regional, national, and global perspectives. The project's areas of emphasis include effi- ciency, effectiveness, capacity, safety, security, infrastructure condition, congestion, energy, and the environment. The breadth and scope of the project's objective reflect the breadth and scope of the national freight system. The U.S. freight system serves the world's largest economy. The freight system spans the 24 million square miles of the North American continent while linking it to international markets. The freight system comprises not only 4 million miles of public roads, 140,000 miles of railways, 360 commercial airports, and a 12,000-mile marine transportation system. It also consists of trucking firms, railroad companies, and maritime and aviation companies and the public agencies that both serve and regulate them. Each of the nation's diverse 6.2 million employers relies on some aspect of the freight system, some for their entire livelihood. This research documents that the interests of stakeholders in freight performance measurement are as diverse as are the stakeholders themselves. The project's emphasis upon measuring efficiency, safety, security, infrastructure condi- tion, energy, and the environment reflects society's cross-cutting and countervailing con- cerns about freight. Producers and shippers are most concerned about travel times, travel reliability, and travel costs. Other sectors of society primarily are concerned about freight externalities. Externality concerns are evident in national programs to measure and con- trol freight emissions, hazardous material releases, and accidents involving trucks or trains. Another set of concerns addresses the control of certain types of freight shipments. Trade agreements regulate imports. Concerns over agricultural pests and food safety lead to control of agricultural imports. Illicit and unapproved drugs are controlled at the borders. Imports of firearms, explosives, and nuclear material are closely regulated. Society's concerns about the freight system span not only the system's efficiency at moving goods but also society's ability to reduce externalities and to regulate undesirable movements. To address the project's ambitious agenda, and recognizing the lack of resources to create a new national freight data reporting structure, the project recommends creation of a Freight System Report Card that relies upon existing sources. To reduce the cost of performance measurement, the project bases it primarily upon existing federal data and proposes to link the data through a Web-based application to more detailed explanatory reports. In this way, the proposed Freight System Report Card can be succinct but also detailed. The report card is proposed to be structured as a modified "Balanced Scorecard,"1 which reports freight performance measures in six categories. These categories allow for the full

OCR for page 1
2 complexities and difficult tradeoffs of freight performance to be evident. Those six areas are: freight demand, freight efficiency, freight system condition, freight environmental impacts, freight safety, and the adequacy of investment in the freight system. The format of the Freight System Report Card and the categories of measures within it are predicated upon several critical findings from this research. First, successful performance measurement systems tend to provide summary, "at a glance" compilations of performance, while also linking to detailed reports that allow users to "drill down" into performance.2,3,4 Second, successful performance measurement systems reflect a broad array of performance concerns, not just certain narrow areas. The Balanced Scorecard has become popular in per- formance measurement circles because it portrays broad, competing values so that the balanc- ing of competing interests is evident. Third, successful performance measurement systems require an architecture. That is, they need data protocols, common definitions, taxonomies, agreed reporting cycles, quality control/ quality improvement processes, and common consensus among users as to the accuracy and efficacy of the measurement system and the data it uses.5 Fourth, most performance measurement systems are evolutionary. Most developers of per- formance measurement systems "begin with what they have." The systems tend to mature and evolve over time, sometime over decades. Fifth, although a comprehensive freight performance measurement system does not exist, im- portant aspects of freight performance are available in federal data sources. These data sources are predominantly available regarding highway and waterway infrastructure condition, freight volumes, and freight externalities such as air emissions and crashes. Sixth, private-sector trade associations often produce robust freight performance metrics that can augment the public agency metrics. Seventh, there is no one agency or entity that has the mandate or resources to develop and sustain a comprehensive freight performance measurement system. Many individual agencies and private-sector trade organizations measure components of freight system performance, but no one agency cuts across the numerous silos to compile a comprehensive reporting sys- tem. Therefore, the recommended framework seeks to capture from existing federal and pri- vate sources the existing performance measurement information that does exist. An important caveat to the report card is that not all of its metrics qualify as performance measures. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines performance measure- ment as the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress towards pre- established goals. Performance measures may address the type or level of program activities conducted (pro- cess), the direct products and services delivered by a program (outputs), and/or the results of those prod- ucts and services (outcomes).6 [emphasis added] There are no programs or goals for important aspects of freight performance such as growth in freight volumes, changes in mode split, or travel time reliability. Several of the included metrics are necessary to track important trends, such as freight volume growth. Mixed within the report card are some true performance measures and some more general indicators of freight trends. Freight performance measurement is challenged by both an overwhelming abundance of data and by a lack of complete data for many important freight system performance functions. Sorting and selecting from the voluminous federal data sources is one daunting

OCR for page 1
3 challenge for freight performance measurement. Closing data gaps is another. Data about infrastructure condition are more available than are data for freight system performance. For instance, data for the condition of bridges and pavements have long been available. Data about highway truck travel speeds are just becoming widely available. Systematic data regarding multimodal freight performance are practically nonexistent. Although freight system performance data are incomplete, information regarding freight system externalities is available. It is possible to measure significant components of the freight system's contribution to crashes, air emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the data regarding externalities appear to be among the most comprehensive, well defined, and granular of the freight data. The presence of targets and performance-measurement architecture in federal safety and air quality programs partially explains the comprehensive ness of performance data for them. As a corollary, the lack of national freight system perfor- mance programs, performance goals, or targets partially explains the lack of freight system performance data. The various metrics within the Freight System Report Card were selected after a review of 360 potential freight performance measures. The voluminous set of potential measures was screened on the basis of surveys of public- and private-sector freight stakeholders, by the quality of data to support the measures, and by their relevance to the project objec- tives. In general, the public-sector stakeholders were interested in less frequently updated measures to assist with policy, planning, and investment decisions. Private-sector stake- holders were interested in more continuously available measures to make daily operational decisions. Public-sector stakeholders were interested in policy and infrastructure issues, whereas p rivate-sector stakeholders were more interested in cost, reliability, and travel time measures. Two-thirds of private-sector respondents indicated that they never sought government-provided freight performance measures. Several major impediments confront a national freight performance measurement sys- tem. First, no apparent agency or entity currently exists with the resources to independently develop, staff, and sustain a new, comprehensive freight performance measurement system that addresses all the issues raised in the NCFRP 03 problem statement. Second, the data needs are enormous to address all nine performance areas described in the research state- ment at the local, regional, national, and global levels for policy, investment, and operations. No national infrastructure exists to define, collect, scrub, and deploy such comprehensive data. Third, the lack of national goals or strategies obfuscates priorities for measurement. Fourth, there is less than complete consensus as to how measures should be used. Some favor their use for making policy and investment decisions, while others are concerned that standard national measures will obscure important local considerations and skew policy and investment decisions. To overcome these constraints, the research report recommends creation of a first- generation Freight System Report Card that relies primarily upon existing freight perfor- mance reports. The reliance upon existing reports partially overcomes the lack of an agency and budget to generate a new measurement process. It also reduces the time, cost, and complexity of implementing a reporting system. The existing reports that are selected for the report card generally already have a supporting architecture. These reports result from mature processes that include taxonomies, data protocols, quality assurance processes, and an ongoing support structure. The population of the report card would require additional effort because the data producers would need to contribute their data to the report card. However, the level of effort would be orders of magnitude less than that of creating new measures. Models of such cooperation exist already with the seven Class I railroads contrib- uting to common performance reports and the states in Australia and the nation of New

OCR for page 1
4 Zealand contributing to an Austroads performance website and to emerging efforts by the state transportation agencies to jointly identify performance metrics. The framework seeks to simplify the enormous complexity of measuring the U.S. freight network by focusing primarily upon the disproportionate importance of key freight net- work components, such as the Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I rail- roads, and the top 20 U.S. ports. Finally, the framework is proposed to address a key requirement of performance report cards. They need to provide front-page "at a glance" summaries that provide busy executives with a succinct and instantaneous assessment of performance. However, the framework also needs to allow the user to drill into details to answer more nuanced questions, or to explore trends in further detail. The framework is heavily weighted toward inclusion of composite measures that provide both brevity and insight. The composite measures summarize trends but also can be disaggregated for drilling down into the factors that contribute to the per- formance. In addition, the report card is proposed to function in a three-tiered fashion intended to serve the various levels of detail required by users. A governor or legislator can be served with highly consolidated, trend line information. A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) board member, a department of transportation (DOT) senior executive, or an inquisitive reporter may seek more detailed information. A DOT staff person, an academic researcher, or a logistics provider requires even more detail. The framework is envisioned to address the increasingly detailed information needs of all three levels of users. It provides varying degrees of insight by having a highly summarized Freight Transportation Report Card, a summary report for each measure in the report card, and a link to a much more compre- hensive report that can explain the context of each measure. In this way, the report card is intended to be both succinct and insightful, as illustrated in Figure S.1. The key in Figure S.2 includes four different colors of indicators used in the report card. The need for multiple indicators is reflective of freight's complexity. Some decreases are posi- tive, such as decreases in emissions. Some increases are negative, such as increases in crashes. Other changes could be considered either positive or negative depending upon the stake- holder's viewpoint. Increases or decreases in freight volumes are shown in black, indicating their change could be viewed as either positive or negative depending upon the stakeholder's perspective. Changes in red clearly are negative, such as increases in freight-related fatalities. The report card attempts to illustrate trends but also whether those trends are positive or 10 Year 20 Year Performance Measure Analysis Trend Forecast Freight Demand Measures Despite declines in the past 18 months, steady growth in freight volumes occurred Freight Demand Measures, All Modes over the past 10 years. Future long-term growth of 2-3 % annually for 20 years is likely as the economy improves. Truck freight grew at 2 to 3% annually in the past decade, except in the past 18 Truck Freight Volumes months. Future 2-3% growth is predicted when the economy improves to historic levels Rail freight volumes steadily grew in the 2000s until the recent recession. Long-term Rail Freight Volumes rail freight volumes are predicted to continue growing with an economic rebound. Inland water traffic growth is expected to remain at relatively low rates of 1% to 1.5% Inland Water Freight Volumes through 2035, the rate of growth for the past 10 years. Containerized freight volumes grew rapidly in the past decade until 2008 when they Containerized Waterborne Freight Volumes sharply. Long-term growth is likely to resume to previously robust levels with improvement in the global economy. System Efficiency Measures A near doubling of traffic volumes in the past 25 years has slowed peak hour speeds in most urban areas. Long-term traffic growth is likely to continue to outpace Interstate Highway Speeds physical or operational improvements to the Interstate System. As a result, travel speeds are likely to continue declining. Rising traffic volumes combined with a low rate of investment is likely to result in Travel speeds at top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks slower travel speeds and increased delays at the nation's top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks. Operating speeds at Class I railroads have remained stable for the past decade. Class I RR Operating Speed The RRs warn of long-term congestion and delay if investment levels are not increased. Cost of Logistics as a Percent of GDP After decades of decline, logistics as a cost of GDP appears to be tracking upward. System Condition Measures Approximately 50 percent of the NHS pavement conditions are in `Good' condition, representing improvement over the past decade. However, higher costs and NHS Pavement Conditions uncertain funding levels create uncertainty whether those relatively low levels can be sustained. Structural deficiencies on the NHS have declined by 40 percent in recent decades and were forecast to continue improving. However, dramatically higher material NHS Bridge Conditions prices in the past two years and uncertain funding levels threaten the long-term improvement that had been expected. Environmental Condition Measures Freight-produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions are expected to rise commensurate Freight-Produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) with the increase in truck, rail, and water freight volumes. Current emission technology does not control vehicular GHE. Truck-related GHE are predicted to rise steadily with a projected 30% increase in Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions vehicle miles traveled by 2030. Rail GHE steadily increased from 1990 to 2005 but leveled off because of declining Rail Greenhouse Gas Emissions rail volumes and cleaner locomotives. Ozone precursors from trucks have declined dramatically in recent years and are Freight-Produced Ozone-Related Emissions predicted to continue to decline as cleaner vehicles replace current ones and as the benefits of cleaner fuels are realized. These ozone-contributing emissions produced by trucks have fallen dramatically Truck-related VOCs because of cleaner fuels, and vehicles. Truck-generated NOX emissions are forecast to fall 82 percent from 2002 levels by Truck-related Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions 2020 because of cleaner fuels and vehicles. The elimination of sulfur from fuel and introduction of cleaner locomotives are Rail NOX Emissions expected to reduce RR NOX emissions by 41% by 2020 and by 83% by 2040. The same fuel and locomotive changes are forecasted by USEPA to reduce per- Rail VOC Emissions gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040 Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an Truck Particulate Emissions 82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions. Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for US-flagged merchant Ship produced NOX and PM vessels. Both PM and NOX emissions are predicted to decline significantly through 2040 on a per-gallon basis. Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular. Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular. Key The key in Figure S.2 includes four different Black arrows indicate trends which are not colors of indicators used in the report card. The necessarily positive or negative, such as growth need for multiple indicators is reflective of in freight volumes. freight's complexity. Some decreases are Green arrows indicate trends which are positive, such as decreases in emissions. Some

OCR for page 1
Rail VOC Emissions gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040 Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an Truck Particulate Emissions 82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions. Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for US-flagged merchant Ship produced NOX and PM vessels. Both PM and NOX emissions are predicted to decline significantly through 2040 on a per-gallon basis. 5 Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular. Key The key in Figure S.2 includes four different Black arrows indicate trends which are not colors of indicators used in the report card. The necessarily positive or negative, such as growth need for multiple indicators is reflective of in freight volumes. freight's complexity. Some decreases are Green arrows indicate trends which are positive, such as decreases in emissions. Some benign. They can be either downward trends, increases are negative, such as increases in such as a decrease in crashes, or upward, such as increased levels of investment. crashes. Other changes could be considered either positive or negative depending upon the Yellow arrows indicate performance which is not clearly positive and may be indicative stakeholder's viewpoint. Increases or decreases of future problems. in freight volumes are shown in black, Red arrows indicate negative trends, that can indicating their change could be viewed as either be increasing, such as emissions, or either positive or negative depending upon the decreasing, such as the adequacy of investment. stakeholder's perspective. Changes in red Figure S.2 Report card key clearly are negative, such as increases in Figure S.2. Report Card key. freight-related fatalities. The report card attempts to illustrate trends but also whether those trends are positive or negative. Admittedly, stakeholders with strong positions may disagree with the characterization. For instance, advocates for one mode may see increases in freight volumes for another mode as negative. The formatting is oriented to a negative. Admittedly, centrist, stakeholders with strong public-sector positions may disagree with the characteriza- viewpoint. tion. For instance, advocates for one mode may see increases in freight volumes for another mode as negative. The Trend lines also formatting isare emphasized oriented to a in the report centrist, card to provide public-sector additional context regarding how viewpoint. Trend lines also areperformance emphasized hasinchanged overcard the report time,to or provide how it is likely to unfold additional into the context future. regarding how performance has changed over time, or how it is likely to unfold into the future. As noted in Figure S.1, accompanying the report card are summaries that elaborate on each performance As noted in Figuremetric. S.1, accompanying the card, Following the report report card below, isare summaries a representative that elaborate summary onof logistics as a for the cost each performance metric. Following the report card (see Figure S.3) is a representative sum- percentage of gross domestic product. That summary defines and further elaborates upon the measure. mary for the cost of logistics as a percentage The summary also includesof gross domestic references product to even more (see detailed Figure S.4). information thatThat may be of interest to a more summary defines and further elaborates upon the measure. The summary also includes ref- 5 erences to even more detailed information that may be of interest to a more demanding user. In this example, the link is to the full report by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) that examines the inputs into the 2009 analysis of logistics costs as a percentage of the nation's gross domestic product. The three-tiered structure addresses the project statement's requirement that the framework appeal to decision makers and users at various levels. Freight Performance Indices and Measures The report card attempts to balance the tension between users desiring a wide array of measures and the potentially crippling cost and complexity of sustaining a massive measure- ment process. The score card relies on only six categories and 29 measures. However, most are composite measures that can be broken down into their component elements for greater understanding of performance. The data often can be broken down into categories, or into geographic regions and, in some cases, to corridors, links, and nodes. The composite nature is an attempt to provide both "at a glance" summation while also accommodating detailed deconstruction of underlying trends, factors, and performance. Links to Source Documents In the proposed Freight System Report Card, this summary would be linked to the source document, in this case the CSCMP 2010 State of Logistics Report. The links to source docu- ments provide the greater detail and context that some readers would desire. The complete set of explanatory summaries is included in Appendix F.

OCR for page 1
6 10-Year 20-Year Performance Measure Analysis Trend Forecast Freight Demand Measures Despite declines in the past 18 months, steady growth in freight volumes occurred Freight Demand Measures, All Modes over the past 10 years. Future long-term growth of 2-3 % annually for 20 years is likely as the economy improves. Truck freight grew at 2 to 3% annually in the past decade, except in the past 18 Truck Freight Volumes months. Future 2-3% growth is predicted when the economy improves to historic levels Rail freight volumes steadily grew in the 2000s until the recent recession. Long-term Rail Freight Volumes rail freight volumes are predicted to continue growing with an economic rebound. Inland water traffic growth is expected to remain at relatively low rates of 1% to 1.5% Inland Water Freight Volumes through 2035, the rate of growth for the past 10 years. Containerized freight volumes grew rapidly in the past decade until 2008, when they Containerized Waterborne Freight Volumes sharply declined. Long-term growth is likely to resume to previously robust levels with improvement in the global economy. System Efficiency Measures A near doubling of traffic volumes in the past 25 years has slowed peak-hour speeds in most urban areas. Long-term traffic growth is likely to continue to outpace Interstate Highway Speeds physical or operational improvements to the Interstate System. As a result, travel speeds are likely to continue declining. Rising traffic volumes combined with a low rate of investment are likely to result in Travel speeds at top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks slower travel speeds and increased delays at the nation's top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks. Definitive Interstate Highway System reliability data do not exist for the past decade. However, increases in traffic volumes and freight volumes are well documented and extensive localized data indicate that travel on urban Interstate Interstate Highway Reliability highways has become less reliabile. ATRI reliability measurement on 25 Interstate corridors indicates variability in reliability on congested urban segments, with future traffic volumes expected to increase. It is reasonable to assume that reliability will worsen if current trends continue. Operating speeds at Class I railroads have remained stable for the past decade. Class I RR Operating Speed The RRs warn of long-term congestion and delay if investment levels are not increased. After decades of decline, logistics as a cost of GDP has become more uncertain. It Cost of Logistics as a Percent of GDP rose in the mid-2000s but fell signficantly with the recession of 2008. The decline was due to unsustainable conditions such as freight prices falling below costs. System Condition Measures Approximately 50% of the NHS pavement conditions are `Good', representing improvement over the past decade. However, higher costs and NHS Pavement Conditions uncertain funding levels create uncertainty whether those relatively low levels can be sustained. Structural deficiencies on the NHS have declined by 40% in recent decades and were forecast to continue improving. However, dramatically higher material NHS Bridge Conditions prices in the past two years and uncertain funding levels threaten the long-term improvements that had been achieved. Figure S.3. Figure S.3.The Freight The System Freight Report Card. System Report Card. Balancing Competing Objectives Reflecting the diverse and often competing interests in freight measurement, the report card is set up similar to a Balanced Scorecard. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance measurement system that includes measures that reflect the tensions that exist for decision making. Instead of focusing on a few narrow measures, the scorecard juxtaposes measures of competing values, such as freight efficiency and freight externalities. Normally, Balanced Scorecards have four components that balance metrics for finances, internal processes, cus- tomer satisfaction, and the institution's ability to learn and innovate. Reflecting the complex nature of the U.S. freight system, the proposed report card has six categories. They are freight demand, freight efficiency, freight system condition, freight environmental impacts, freight safety, and the adequacy of investment in the freight system, as seen in Figure S.5. These cat- egories respond to the original research statement and reflect commonly expressed interests of stakeholders. A similar logic led to a preference given to composite measures. Composite measures consist of an aggregation of data, such as combined speed on the Interstate Highway System. The overview, composite measure can be disaggregated, or "drilled into," in order to exam- ine the performance of the constituent highway links. The use of composite measures was

OCR for page 1
7 10 Year 20 Year Performance Measure Analysis Trend Forecast Environmental Condition Measures Freight-produced greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise commensurate Freight-Produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) with the increase in truck, rail, and water freight volumes. Current emission technology does not control vehicular GHE. Truck-related GHG are predicted to rise steadily with a projected 30% increase in Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions vehicle miles traveled by 2030. Rail GHG steadily increased from 1990 to 2005 but leveled off because of declining Rail Greenhouse Gas Emissions rail volumes and cleaner locomotives. Ozone precursors from trucks have declined dramatically in recent years and are Freight-Produced Ozone-Related Emissions predicted to continue to decline as cleaner vehicles replace current ones and as the benefits of cleaner fuel are realized. These ozone-contributing emissions produced by trucks have fallen dramatically Truck-related VOCs because of cleaner fuels, and vehicles. Truck-generated NOx emissions are forecasted to fall 82% from 2002 levels Truck-related Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions by 2020 because of cleaner fuels and vehicles. The elimination of sulfur from fuel and introduction of cleaner locomotives are Rail NOX Emissions expected to reduce RR NOx emissions by 41% by 2020 and by 83% by 2040. The same fuel and locomotive changes are forecasted by USEPA to reduce per- Rail VOC Emissions gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040. Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an Truck Particulate Emissions 82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions. Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for U.S.-flagged merchant Ship produced NOX and PM vessels. Both PM and NOx emissions are predicted to decline significantly through 2040 on a per-gallon basis. Freight Safety Measures Between 1988 and 2007, the large truck injury crash rate decreased from 67.9 to Truck Injury and Fatal Crashes 31.8 per million miles traveled. The 2007 rate is the lowest on record. The large truck fatal crash rate has also declined. In 2007, this rate was 1.85, down from a peak of 5.21 in 1979. The 2007 rate is the lowest rate on record. Between 1998 and 2008 the number of incidents at RR crossings involving both Highway/Rail At-Grade Crashes vehicles and pedestrians declined 32%. Nearly 2,400 annual incidents still occur, with 289 deaths in 2008. System Investment Measures The 2004 FHWA Condition and Performance Report indicated that then-current Estimated Investment in NHS to Sustain Conditions investment levels were adequate to sustain most NHS conditions. However, since then construction costs increased significantly and funding for the federal highway program remains undecided. The Cost of Capital for the Class I railroads has steadily declined, which is a positive Rail Freight Industry Earning Cost of Capital economic trend for them. Lower Cost of Capital reflects lower costs to acquire capital to improve the rail network. A rail industry analysis concluded that the Class I RRs need to increase capital Estimated Rail Capital Investment to Sustain Market investment in expansion to sustain market share. Their ability to raise sufficient Share investment capital is not definite and may not be sufficient to sustain market share. Inland Waterway Investment to Sustain Lock and The average age of locks on the inland waterways system is estimated to be in Dam Average Age at Less than 50 Years excess of 51 years. Current expenditure levels do not appear to be sufficient to improve that average age. Figure S.3. Continued. emphasized to respond to the project objective of having measures that allow for analysis at national, state, and regional levels. Generally, measures based upon inventories allow for granular analysis, whereas those based on estimates do not. The report card also is proposed to include trend lines of future performance, or leading indicators, in addition to retrospective measures. Most performance measurement systems 8 begin with lagging indicators, but users have consistently grown dissatisfied with backward- looking trends alone. Leading indicators are important for policy and investment decisions. For instance, the indicators within the Report Card forecast that national emission targets for ozone-causing nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are on track to be met. However, greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are forecast to increase sig- nificantly if current trends continue. Such information could well indicate that traditional emission strategies to control harmful ozone precursors are working, while society has yet to develop an effective GHG strategy for freight. Likewise, the leading indicators that forecast that overall freight volumes are to increase for highways, railways, ports, and intermodal

OCR for page 1
8 Logistics a Logistics Logistics a Assa s aPercentage A Percentageof Percentage of of GDP GDP GDP Logistics As A Percentage of GDP Year Year Transport Transport Inventory Total Total Performance PerformanceIndicator Indicator Indicator Paradoxical Paradoxical Paradoxical Year Transport Inventory Inventory Total The The cost costofoflogistics logisticsas asaa percentage percentage percentage of ofofGross Gross Gross Domestic Domestic Domestic 1986 1986 6.3 4.9 11.6 1 1986 6.3 6.3 4.9 4.9 11.611.6 Product Productfellfelltotothe thelowest lowest level level level ever ever ever recorded recorded recorded in inin2009. 2009. 1 2009. 1 This 1988 6.1 4.9 11.5 This precipitous precipitousdecline decline generally generally generally represents represents represents negative negative negative 1988 1988 6.1 6.1 4.9 4.9 11.511.5 trends such as the rapid trends such as the rapiddecline decline declinein ininmanufacturing manufacturing manufacturing 1990 1990 6.1 4.9 11.4 output, output, the theunemployment unemployment unemployment of ofofthousands thousands thousands of of oftruck truck truck drivers drivers drivers 1990 6.1 6.1 4.9 4.9 11.411.4 and and aa significant significantdownturn downturn downturn in inintruck, truck, truck, rail, rail, rail, air airairand andand water water water 1992 5.9 3.7 10 1992 1992 5.9 5.9 3.7 3.7 10 10 freight movement. freight movement. Ascan As can canbebe seen beseen seen in ininthe the the table table table and andandchart, chart, chart, logistics costs as a percent of GDP had been generally 1994 5.9 3.7 10.1 logistics costs as apercentpercentof ofGDPGDP had had been been generally generally 1994 1994 5.9 5.9 3.7 3.7 10.110.1 declining decliningsince since1985. 1985.The The The gradual, gradual, gradual, long-term long-term long-term decline decline decline 1996 1996 6.0 3.9 10.2 was was generally generallyviewed viewedas asaaapositive positive positive factor. factor. factor. It represented ItItrepresented represented 1996 6.0 6.0 3.9 3.9 10.210.2 increased innovation and efficiencies in the logistics increased innovation andefficiencies efficiencies inin thethe logistics logistics 1998 1998 6.0 6.0 3.7 3.7 10.1 10.1 industry. Logistics costs were were not not rising rising as as fast fast as as GDP GDP , 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1 industry. Logistics costs were not rising as fast as GDP, which signaled increased Performance Indicator productivity productivity Paradoxical and and lowerlower Year 2000 Transport 6.0 Inventory 3.8 Total 10.3 which signaled increased productivity and lower 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3 relative costs for moving goods. goods. 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3 relative The cost costs for moving of logistics as a goods. percentage of Gross Domestic 1986 2002 6.3 5.6 4.9 2.9 11.6 8.8 However, the severe recession of 2008 and and 2009 2002 5.6 2.9 8.8 Product fell However, theto recession the lowest severe recessionlevel ofever 2008 of 2008 recorded 2009 and 2009 incaused caused 2009. caused 1 2002 5.6 2.9 8.8 logistics This volume precipitous to fall decline significantly. significantly. generally The The representslogistics logistics costs costs negative 1988 2004 6.1 5.6 4.9 2.9 11.5 8.8 logistics volume to fall significantly. The logistics costs 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8 decline trendswas such viewed as the as creating rapidcreating decline unsustainably unsustainably in manufacturing low low prices prices 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8 decline was viewed as creating unsustainably low prices 1990 2006 6.1 6.1 4.9 3.4 11.4 9.9 for goods movements , which which were were often often below below the costs for goods movements, which were often below the costs 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9 output, the unemployment of thousands of truck drivers ofand logistics firms. Layoffs, a significant Layoffs, downturn bankruptcies bankruptcies in truck, rail, , and and operating airoperating and water 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9 of logistics firms. Layoffs, bankruptcies , and operating 1992 2008 5.9 6.1 3.7 2.9 10 9.4 losses were prevalent in the the logistics logistics industry industry freight movement. As can be seen in the table and chart, as as aa 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4 losses were prevalent in the logistics industry as a 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4 result. logistics costs as a percent of GDP had been generally 1994 2009 5.9 4.9 3.7 2.5 10.1 7.7 result. 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7 declining since 1985. The gradual, long-term decline 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7 Forecasted Trend Line - Uncertain 1996 6.0 3.9 10.2 1 was generally viewed as a positive factor. It represented Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. The declineinnovation increased in oil prices andand extraordinary efficiencies in the softness logistics in the economy caused the cost of logistics in 1 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1 Council relation of toSupply GDP Chain to Management decline in 2008 industry. Logistics costs were not rising as fast Professionals and 2009 , but 2010 Annual trends long-term as GDP but long-term State trendsof the Logistics could could send the send Report the costs costs . upward. upward. After After 1 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. 9 rising which 50signaled percent increased in the previous five years productivity and total lower logistics costs fell 2000in 2008 and6.0fell further in3.8 2009. 10.3 9 Inventory carrying relative costs costs plunged for moving goods.primarily in 2008 because interest rates were over 50 percent lower 9 than 2007. In 2009, transportation costs fell significantly to push 2002 logistics as a 5.6 percent of GDP 2.9to 7.7 8.8 However, the severe recession of 2008 and 2009 caused percent. In the years leading up to the recession of 2001, logistics costs as a percentage of GDP had logistics volume to fall significantly. The logistics costs 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8 been rising until they surpassed the 10 percent mark. Greater efficiencies and innovations caused the decline was viewed as creating unsustainably low prices rate to fall in the mid 2000s. The recession of 2008 caused overall freight movement 2006 6.1 to plummet 3.4 , which which 9.9 for goods movements which were often below the costs drove overall logistics costs further downward. When the economy rebounds, there will be fewer trucks of logistics firms. Layoffs, bankruptcies and operating in service as the trucking industry has shed excess drivers and vehicles. 2008 Also, the 6.1 recession softened 2.9 9.4 losses were prevalent in the logistics industry as a demand for fuel. As the economy rebounds these factors plus inventory costs could put upward pressure result. 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7 on logistics costs. 1 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. Links S.4. Figure to Source Documents Representative summary. 9 In the proposed Freight System Report Card, this summary would be linked to the source document, in this case the CSCMP 2010 State of Logistics Report. The links to source documents provide the greater detail and context that some readers would desire. The complete set of explanatory summaries is included in Appendix F.

OCR for page 1
9 Figure S.5. The Balanced Scorecard approach. shipments indicate that current levels of congestion are likely to become more severe. Also, the forecasts showing that current levels of investment are unlikely to sustain highway and rail performance lend insight into the magnitude and adequacy of system investment needs. Evolutionary Approach The report card is proposed to be evolutionary. Much of the performance measurement literature and the experience of the practitioners who were interviewed indicated that per- formance measurement systems tend to mature and improve over time. Few of the agen- cies that today have comprehensive measurement systems began with those systems intact from the beginning. "Begin with what you have" is a near-universal recommendation from the performance management practitioners interviewed. Also, it is acknowledged that no proposed measurement system will meet the needs of all stakeholders. As a result, it is likely that stakeholders will advocate for additional measures, which can be added over time. Also, flaws in the current data will be found as the report card is published and examined. As a result, continuous efforts to improve the data that feed the report card should be anticipated. The report card also attempts to select metrics that have companion interpretative reports. This is because it is unlikely than numeric values alone can provide insight for sophisticated investment and policy decisions. Factors that influence a rate of change for a measure are essential for understanding the measure, such as those factors enumerated in the CSCMP cost-of-logistics measure. Similarly, each metropolitan area's air-quality "conformity" anal- ysis provides the context for its emission results. Unfortunately, not every metric has an explanatory report to provide context and analysis, but those that do were given higher consideration for inclusion as a metric. They provide context and interpretation for the changes in the metrics. Initial Focus on Key Freight Network Components The framework seeks to simplify the enormous complexity of measuring the U.S. freight network by focusing primarily on the disproportionate importance of key freight network components, such as the Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I railroads,

OCR for page 1
focusing primarily on the disproportionate importance of key freight network components, such as the Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I railroads, and the top 20 US ports. The powerful 10 market forces that lead logistics professionals to seek the lowest-cost, most direct routes from freight origins to destinations have led to considerable consolidation of volumes on the network, as shown in Table S.1. This significant consolidation simplifies measurement considerably. Out of 4 million miles of Comm define o Table Table S.1. Freight S.1. Freight volumes consolidated volumes consolidated oncomponents. on the key network the key network components. Facility Size Percent of Freight Interstate Highway System 1% of highway system 49% of Truck VMT National Highway System 4% of highway system 75% of Truck VMT* Class I RRs 7 out of 563 carriers 93% of Rail Revenue Top 20 container ports Out of 124 nationally 96% of Container Traffic public roads, 4 percent, the National Highway System, carries more than 70 percent of the truck freight. Container port traffic is highly concentrated, as are freight volumes on U.S. railroads. Monitoring of performance of the national system is greatly simplified by focusing upon these key networks. The and the top 20 U.S. ports. The powerful market forces that lead logistics professionals to framework is established, however, to allow all regions to measure their own freight network seek the lowest-cost, performance. The ability most direct routes to disaggregate from the data freight would alloworigins to destinations a less populated region tohave breakled out to thecon- siderable consolidation of volumes on the network, as shown in Table S.1. This significant performance data down to its region and, in several cases, down to individual links, or bridges. In this consolidation way, the nationalsimplifies report cardmeasurement considerably. could be mirrored at the state or Out of 4 million metropolitan level. miles of public roads, 4 percent, the National Highway System, carries more than 70 percent of the truck freight. Container port traffic is highly concentrated, as are freight volumes on U.S. railroads. Moni- Deployment and Maintenance of Report Card toring of performance of the national system is greatly simplified by focusing upon these key networks. Despite The the efforts framework to reduce the costisand established, however, other barriers to of to creation allow all regions the Freight System to measure Report their Card, the own freight undertaking network would performance. still require The a substantial ability effort to disaggregate by a yet-unidentified the data coalition would allow a less of collaborators. populated region However, such to break coalitions out exist. As the performance mentioned, Austroadsdata hasdown to its region been producing and, in several a transportation agencycases, performance down reporting links, to individual systemorfor more than bridges. Inathis decade bythe way, relying on contributions national report card of data from could bethe mirrored Australian at the statestate transportation agencies or metropolitan level. and by the central transportation agency in New Zealand. An association of Nordic States shares performance information, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Performance Management has Deployment and taken several preliminary stepsMaintenance of to populate a Web-based Report compilation Card of state performance metrics. Despite the efforts to reduce the cost and other barriers to creation of the Freight System Report Card, the undertaking would still require a substantial effort by a yet-unidentified coalition of collaborators. However, such coalitions exist. As mentioned, Austroads has been producing a transportation agency performance reporting system for more than a decade 12 by relying on contributions of data from the Australian state transportation agencies and by the central transportation agency in New Zealand. An association of Nordic States shares per- formance information, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Performance Management has taken several preliminary steps to populate a Web-based compilation of state performance metrics. The coalition for the Freight System Report Card would need to extend to various federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) with the Freight Anal- ysis Framework (FAF) and its modal agencies, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as illustrated in Figure S. 6. However, these agencies' contribution would be to provide the Web-based report card reports that they already produce. One complexity would be the contractual arrangements and cost for the private-sector- produced measures and related reports, such as the CSCMP report, and the data produced by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). States and metropolitan regions' participation would be voluntary. There- fore the degree of coverage across states and metropolitan regions would depend upon the degree to which state and local participation is engendered.

OCR for page 1
One complexity would be the contractual arrangements and cost for the private-sector-produced measures and related reports, such as the CSCMP report, and the data produced by ATRI and the Association of 11 American Railroads (AAR). States and metropolitan regions' participation would be voluntary. Therefore the degree of coverage across states and metropolitan regions would depend upon the degree to which state and local participation is engendered. National Crash Data National Bridge Data National Highway Condition Data Proposed Performance Measure Framework Data Sources CSCMP Cost Study FAF National Air Quality Inventories ATRI/FHWA Speed Data FHWA Condition and Performance Figure S.5. The Report Card would rely upon many data sources, Figure as shown.S.6. Report card data sources. A summary of the six categories of measures includes: A summary of the six categories of measures includes: Freight Demand Measures: These measures provide insight into the past and future performance of the freight system and Freight Demand Measures: shed light These on every measures other measurement provide insight into category. the pastThey andare particularly future per- important for planning, investment, and policy decisions at all levels of government. formance of the freight system and shed light on every other measurement category. They In the case of freight performance measures, the measures of System Efficiency and System Conditions document increased congestion and are particularly important for planning, investment, and policy decisions at all levels of declining key system conditions in recent years. In the System Investment Measures, it is documented government. In the case of freight performance measures, the measures of System Efficiency that recent levels of investment are inadequate to sustain current conditions. Therefore, when the and System Conditions document increased congestion and declining key system condi- measures documenting inadequate system performance today are viewed in light of forecast future freight tions in recent years. In the System Investment Measures, it is documented that recent levels of investment are inadequate to sustain current conditions. Therefore, when the measures 13 documenting inadequate system performance today are viewed in light of forecast future freight demands and continued underinvestment, an overall picture of further degradation in the condition and performance of the national freight network emerges. Although general in nature, the rate of growth in freight demand provides insight into the future trends of several other measures, such as levels of congestion. However, not all conditions are linearly linked to volume. For instance, some emissions are declining, even though freight volumes are expected to increase. As seen in the report card, the rates of growth are shown for truck, rail, and water volumes. These metrics are included pending more sophisticated forecasts being available in all measurement categories. The Estimated Rate of Growth in Containerized Imports/Exports was chosen as an addi- tional measure because of the disproportionate impact containerized goods play in the global economy. Additionally, growth in the movement of containerized goods will impact all three major freight transportation modes. Other waterborne freight is important, but inland domestic bulk shipping volumes have been relatively stable over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, containerized shipments have grown substantially. The relative per-ton value of containerized shipments is substantially above comparable values for bulk commodities. The containerized shipments represent the high-value, high-growth imports and exports critical in the modern global economy.

OCR for page 1
12 System Efficiency Measures: These measures are selected for insight into the overridingly critical Interstate Highway System (IHS) and Class I railroad network. Each network is dis- proportionately important to the overall freight system: The IHS comprises only 1 percent of public highway miles but accounts for 49 percent of all truck vehicle miles of travel. The seven Class I railroads generate 93 percent of all rail freight revenue of the more than 500 railroad companies. Focusing upon these two systems greatly simplifies data collection and maximizes the return on investment in terms of system performance measurement. The IHS is proposed to be measured in terms of various average link speeds, as well as in terms of its most critical bottlenecks and its reliability. Performance measurement should eventually be expanded to the larger National Highway System (NHS). The NHS, including the IHS, is only 4 percent of the public highway network but carries 75 percent of all truck vehicle miles of travel. The Class I railroad network is proposed to be measured in terms of the composite oper- ating speeds of trains reported by the Class I railroads. Another critical railroad measure is rail's relative market share of overall freight ton-miles. This measure was selected as a barometer of change over time in the mode split of surface transportation. The final measure in the efficiency category is the Cost of Logistics as a Percentage of the GDP. This measure is produced with statistical rigor by CSCMP and serves as an insightful barometer as to the relative cost of freight movement. Because it is a composite measure of all modes, and because it is produced as a percentage sensitive to overall economic growth, the project team believes it provides valuable trend line insight into the efficiency of the national freight network. System Condition Measures: Obviously, the condition of the system is a critically important factor in the future performance of the freight system. The conditions of the NHS bridge and pavement inventories are proposed measures. In addition, the critical "last mile" of the NHS intermodal connectors is proposed for reporting, but only at the local level at this time. These two components--the NHS and its last-mile connectors--serve to reflect the condition of the national network and its performance in terms of its last linkage to key freight generators. At present, because the NHS intermodal connectors are not subject to any standardized reporting, they are not included in the national report card. They are recom- mended, however, in the local report card. Environmental Condition Measures: Although other measures such as hazardous chemi- cal spills or nonpoint source pollution caused by highway runoff could be considered, it is the air emissions that have been most extensively regulated. Therefore they are included in the freight performance measurement system. Various GHG emissions are combined into one measure each for the trucking, rail, and water modes. Ground-level ozone is regulated by addressing its primary precursors, which are VOCs and NOx. Although GHG emissions are the focus of significant public discussion currently, VOCs and NOx have been the sub- ject of more than 30 years of regulatory effort at the national, state, and local levels and are therefore included. Diesel engines historically produced a disproportionate amount of particulate emissions, which have become an increasingly regulated emission category. The ability of microscopic particles to travel deep into the lungs has become recognized as a serious air quality and public health concern. The regulation of particulates affects trucking, rail, and water transport because of those modes' reliance upon diesel engines and their historical rates of particulate emissions.

OCR for page 1
13 Freight Safety Measures: Highway fatalities involving trucks tend to be a disproportion- ately low percentage of all highway crashes, considering the amount of miles traveled by these vehicles each year. Despite their relatively good safety record, concern over truck safety remains significant because of the size, weight, and reduced handling characteristics of trucks as compared to automobiles. To provide a more stable measure over time of the trucking industry's safety performance, the primary measure included in the framework is the number of injury and fatal crashes involving trucks per 100 million miles of travel. For railroads, only about one-third of fatalities involve highwayrail crashes. The majority of fatalities are to trespassing pedestrians on railroad rights-of-way, or to railway workers. Nonetheless, public efforts to reduce highwayrail at-grade crashes have been extensive, and a measure to address them is included in the proposed framework. System Investment Measures: The final set of measures relates to the level of investment necessary to sustain the freight system, both in terms of its condition and its performance. Regarding the highway mode, the level of investment sufficient to sustain conditions on the NHS is the proposed measure. Tracking of this measure provides insight into whether the NHS is likely to improve, sustain, or degrade in performance. For railroads, there are two measures. First is the measure of whether the railroads' earnings exceed the cost of capi- tal, which is calculated by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). It is an indicator of the railroads' financial health and of their ability to generate earnings and attract investment sufficient for their long-term viability. The second rail measure is the level of investment in rail system improvement to allow railroads to sustain existing market share. The level of investment necessary to sustain market share was determined by a definitive study performed by AAR. Their level of invest- ment is reported in filings to the STB. Although there are no national goals for mode split or modal market share, there does appear to be significant public consensus to capitalize upon rail's greater energy efficiency and lower emissions on a per-ton basis compared to air or trucking modes. If the railroads are not able to invest sufficiently to sustain or grow market share, that fact could influence other goals, such as improving air quality, reducing GHG emissions, or improving energy efficiency. For the inland waterway system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports the average age of the lock system at just over 50 years. The level of investment necessary to sustain this average age is proposed as a measure of the relative adequacy of investment into the complex and diverse inland waterway system. To the extent possible, measures were selected because they offer discrete levels of granu- larity and meet the project objective of being comparable across geographic levels. For the most part, the performance measures based upon inventories--such as the National Bridge Inventory--or captured through national reporting processes, such as crash reports, allow granularity or comparability across geographic levels. Also, the uniformly collected ATRI truck-speed data allow for granularity. As illustrated in Figure S.7, the truck speeds can be generated for an entire interstate, for the interstate within one state, within a region, or down to an individual link. In this way, the congested links that degrade travel times can be identi- fied and prioritized. Survey-based data such as the Freight Analysis Framework or rail oper- ating speed do not provide local or temporal granularity. They are based upon private-sector reporting, which is intentionally consolidated to protect the privacy of the data providers. The framework is intended to be included with the periodic interpretation of results, such as an annual freight system performance report. Isolated metrics by themselves provide a degree of insight. However, most require considerable interpretation. "Dashboards" and reports at most departments of transportation (DOTs) are accompanied by analytic reports, which provide context and interpretation. Such would be expected with a national freight

OCR for page 1
sustain or grow market share, that fact could influence other goals, such as improving air quality, reducing GHG emissions, or improving energy efficiency. 14 For the inland waterway system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports the average age of the lock system at just over 50 years. The level of investment necessary to sustain this average age is proposed as a measure of the relative adequacy of investment into the complex and diverse inland waterway system. National Speeds State Speeds Local Speeds Figure S.6. Figure S.7. Granularity is possible in most Possible granularity measures, such of Interstate as Interstate Highway Highway speeds. truck-speed data. To the extent possible, measures were selected because they offer discrete levels of granularity and meet the project objective of being comparable across geographic levels. For the most part, the performance measures based upon inventories--such as the National Bridge Inventory--or captured through national reporting processes, performance measurementsuch assystem. crash reports, Mostallow of thegranularity measures or selected comparability haveacross geographic at least levels. one founda- Also, tional the uniformly report that cancollected ATRI truck-speed be referenced to give the data allowgreater reader for granularity. insight As illustrated into in Figure S.6, the performance the aspect of that truck speeds can of the be generated freight system.for an entire interstate, for the interstate within one state, within a region, or down to an individual All the measures chosen were selectedlink. In this way, the at least congested in part links because that had they degrade travel times meth- documented can be identified and prioritized. Survey-based data such as the Freight Analysis Framework or rail operating odology for how their data were collected, normalized, and presented by a credible organi- speed do not provide local or temporal granularity. They are based upon private-sector reporting, which is zation. Again, because there is no current budget or organization devoted to supporting a intentionally consolidated to protect the privacy of the data providers. set of multimodal, comprehensive freight performance metrics, the framework relies upon The framework existing is intended data sources to be on produced included with the periodic an ongoing basis byinterpretation of results, such some long-standing as an annual organization. freight system performance report. Isolated metrics by themselves provide a degree Inherent in the assumption of the framework is that reliance on existing sources would of insight. However, most require considerable interpretation. lower the cost to sustain the framework. "Dashboards" and reports at most departments of transportation (DOTs) are accompanied by analytic reports, which provide context and interpretation. Such would be Asexpected with a national freight performance measurement system. Most of the measures selected have at illustrated conceptually in Figure S.8, the framework is proposed with the potential least one foundational report that can be referenced to give the reader greater insight into the performance for it to be populated at the national level, the state level, and then down to the MPO level. of that aspect of the freight system. If populated in such a fashion, it would provide cascading levels of insight into the perfor- mance Allof the measures the system. chosen were In such a selected fashionat itleast in partsatisfies partially because they had documented the project problem methodology statementfor forhow their data were collected, normalized and presented by a credible organization. Again, the framework to provide insight into global, national, regional, and local considerations. because there is no current budget or organization devoted to supporting a set of multi-modal, comprehensive If a state or MPO chose to fully populate the framework with its comparable data, it would freight performance metrics, the framework relies upon existing data sources produced on an ongoing basis by provide the state or MPO region with the ability to compare its freight network performance some long-standing organization. Inherent in the assumption of the framework is that reliance on existing against other comparable regions or states. With such comparability, various analyses can sources would lower the cost to sustain the framework. be conducted to determine how performance changes over time by state, or by region. By putting all states and regions upon a comparable and consistent framework, greater insight 16 could be gained over time into not only how the overall freight network is changing but also where best practices have been successful at improving conditions over time. For instance, in terms of NHS operating speed or the top 10 freight bottlenecks on the IHS, those can be measured and their performance tracked over time to see the aggregate national performance of travel speeds on the IHS or the rate of change of performance for a selected cohort of representative bottlenecks. The data can be further separated at a state level. The state-level analysis can be used by federal decision makers to focus efforts or resources upon the states with the greatest degree of congestion or delay. Or each state can replicate the analysis for evaluation of its top bottlenecks and congested links. In addition, within a state, the individual links and bottlenecks can be evaluated and ranked for priority within each MPO's area. In other words, the framework is designed to allow comparable analysis at all levels across the country--by aggregate national performance, by state performance, by multistate regions, or down to the MPO level.

OCR for page 1
15 Figure S.8. Framework from national to local measurement. In summary, the proposed measures are intended to provide a synopsis of the complex national freight network. They are designed to serve as a dashboard or report card summa- rizing at a very high level the major areas of freight system performance and condition. At the same time, the framework is brief, to minimize the crippling cost and complexity that a national freight performance measurement system could entail. The framework balances the cost and availability of data with the need to provide insight at the global, national, regional, and local levels in the areas of investment, policy, and operations. Table S.2 shows how the broad national goals connect to each individual measure as it supports decision making in operations, investment, and policy. It also illustrates in the far right column the scope of granularity of the measure and whether it can provide insight into the national, state, or local level, or at all three levels. Recommendations and Further Research NCFRP 03 had a broad scope, which was to identify freight performance measures per- tinent to the public and private sectors, relevant to investment, policy, and operations deci- sions, made by a range of stakeholders at the national, regional, and local level and address- ing the areas of efficiency, effectiveness, capacity, safety, security, infrastructure condition, congestion, energy, and environment. Important tasks in the research included identifying stakeholder interests in those broad subject areas. The surveys and interviews conducted for this project revealed that stakeholder interests in freight performance are broad and diverse, covering almost every aspect of freight sys- tem performance. A review of national programs also revealed a host of what this report calls "inferred" stakeholder interests in the areas of environmental impacts, security, and trade. These inferred stakeholder interests are manifest in the numerous laws that affect freight performance, such as truck size and weight limits, emission standards for freight vehicles, and import-export controls that control many goods. Joining this existing list of

OCR for page 1
16 Table S.2. A crosswalk of each measure to the elements it addresses. Framework for National Freight Performance Measures National Goals Proposed Decision Areas Supported Measures within Measurement Categories Operations Investment Policy Scope Categories Forecasted rate of growth for National all modes of freight Truck freight forecast All Rail freight forecasts National Freight Demand Water freight forecasts National Rate of growth in National containerized imports/exports Transportation Services System National Index Performance NHS travel speed urban National NHS travel speed rural Variable Trend line of top 10 highway All freight bottlenecks Freight Efficiency Composite Class I RR All speeds Rail freight market share All Cost of logistic as percent All GDP Pavement All NHS pavement conditions Measures All System Bridge All NHS bridge conditions Condition Measures All Intermodal Condition of NHS intermodal All Connectors connectors Safety Truck injury and fatal crashes All System Safety Highway/rail at-grade All crashes Air Quality Freight-related greenhouse Nat. System emissions Reg. Environmental Impacts Other emissions: VOC, Nat. NOX,CO, SOX, PM Reg. Estimated investment in NHS Highway versus amount necessary to All sustain conditions Rail freight industry earning Rail All System cost of capital Investment Estimated rail capital investment to sustain market All Water share Inland water investment to sustain age of system All 2

OCR for page 1
17 stakeholder interests in freight are emerging issues such as the efficiency of freight move- ments. R esearchers are exploring how efficiently freight moves between modes, and they are examining how best to improve freight efficiency. The research also has documented the daunting obstacles to creating a national freight performance measurement system. For performance measurement systems to be credible, they have to compile metrics consistently over time, across the entire population being measured. AASHTO has sponsored research in recent years that addressed significant differences in how states measure basic performance, such as pavement smoothness and traffic crashes. That research addressed very basic highway-measurement processes and how those processes need substantial normalization in measurement for cross-state mea- surement to be accurate. Expanding performance measurement to the nine broad subject areas of this research is necessary but creates data-normalization challenges that are signifi- cantly more complex than measuring pavement or bridge conditions. The resulting conclu- sion of this project is that research into improved means of measuring freight performance must continue. The research report notes, and the report card illustrates, that performance measures can be developed for many aspects of freight system performance, such as emissions, crashes, infrastructure condition, and basic measures of truck and train speed. Missing are measures of freight reliability. Research by ATRI and the FHWA have compiled reliability or "buffer indices" for 25 Interstate Highway corridors. Such measures are still in the research stage, but they demonstrate that reliability measures within a single mode are possible, particularly when captured with technological means. The ATRI reliability data rely on capturing hundreds of thousands of anonymous truck move- ments by capturing distinct GPS signatures as trucks move across the highway network. By measuring the movement of hundreds of thousands of individual trucks across the highway network, both travel speeds and the variability in those speeds can be measured. From the variability, reliability can be estimated. AAR publishes some similar train-speed data based upon self-reported results from the seven Class I railroads. Again, however, those data are mode specific. Freight movement is often multimodal. The research illustrated that no existing source of cross-modal or multimodal freight reliability data resides in the public domain. Such data would be valuable for public decision makers who are interested in optimizing performance of freight efficiency across all modes. The private-sector logistics industry has voluminous data regarding the efficiency of its shipments across multiple modes. Consumers who use FedEx or UPS can glimpse such data when they track their packages on line. Third Party Logistics (3PL) firms, Class I railroads, and many trucking firms provide similar tracking services to freight consumers. However, this type of multimodal freight efficiency perfor- mance is not compiled and made available for public-sector research or decision making. Future research into how to capture multimodal freight efficiency is recommended. The use of technology to track thousands of shipments from point of import to final destination--or from point of manufacture and ultimately to the consumer--could pro- vide important insight into where freight bottlenecks exist. Mode-specific bottlenecks such as highway interchanges or long mountain highway grades can be identified today. Far less clear is whether other chokepoints exist, such as at multimodal transfer points. Some bottlenecks such as Chicago's rail-transfer inefficiencies are well known. Unclear is whether such modal conflicts exist to a lesser scale across the freight network and, col- lectively, whether they create substantial inefficiencies that raise the cost and lessen the reliability of freight transport.

OCR for page 1
18 As noted later in the research, freight data exist for many externalities such as freight- related crashes or emissions because national goals, national legislation, and national data systems exist for those externalities. The emerging interest in federal freight legislation even- tually could result in greater focus upon measuring multimodal freight efficiency. Con- current research into how to measure freight system reliability would complement those national policy efforts. Endnotes 1 "Balanced Scorecard" refers to the system originated by Robert Kaplan and David Norton. See http://www. balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx. 2 Drucker, Peter. The Information Executives Truly Need (Harvard Business Review, Jan./Feb. 1995). In Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998, pp. 124. 3 Frigo, M. L. Strategy-Focused Performance Measures, Strategic Finance, Sept. 2002. 4 Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard--Measures That Drive Performance (Harvard Business Review, Feb. 1992). In Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998. 5 Eccles, Robert G., The Performance Measurement Manifesto (Harvard Business Review, 1991). In Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998, pp. 2545. 6 Government Accountability Office, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, Definitions and Relationships, 2005, p. 1.