National Academies Press: OpenBook

Performance Measures for Freight Transportation (2011)

Chapter: Appendix C - State-Level Freight Performance Measures: State of Practice

« Previous: Appendix B - Statewide and Metropolitan Freight Performance Metrics Examples
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - State-Level Freight Performance Measures: State of Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - State-Level Freight Performance Measures: State of Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - State-Level Freight Performance Measures: State of Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - State-Level Freight Performance Measures: State of Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 116

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

113 a p p e n D i X c state-Level Freight Performance Measures: state of Practice

114 Freight-Specific Performance Measurement State departments of transportation’s (DOTs’) use of freight performance metrics generally has lagged significantly behind the use of metrics for other aspects of the transporta- tion system. State DOTs generally use measures that are easily obtained from existing data sources, such as travel time (in heavily traveled freight corridors), safety (including track- ing truck crashes), and pavement condition (in heavily trav- eled freight corridors). A common strategy for state DOTs that have used freight performance measures is to focus on a “vital few” tied to a broader planning and decision-making processes, or to use surrogates, such as travel time in freight corridors. The travel time measured is often for all vehicles, and not specifically trucks. Depending upon the definition used, it is debatable whether many of the freight metrics that state DOTs report actually are performance measures or are more generic indi- cators. The General Accountability Office (GAO) definition of performance measures considers them to be metrics relat- ing to a specific government program or target, as opposed to indicators of trends. Many of the metrics reported by the state DOTs related to freight include both measures related to specific programs or targets and others that are indicators of overall system trends, such as increases in freight volumes. Early in the past decade, the few state DOTs that attempted to measure freight performance relied on measures of trans- portation industry productivity that are not clearly linked to the performance of the highway system or on measures of highway system performance that are important to highway users in general but not specifically linked to freight.1 A report for the FHWA Office of Freight Operations and Management identified 13 potentially valuable indicators using the follow- ing evaluation criteria: • Descriptive value. Is the indicator clear and understand- able for a range of audiences? Does it communicate clearly, or does it require a detailed explanation in order to be understood? • Technical appropriateness. How useful is the indicator in describing the productivity of freight movement in the United States? Is it conceptually appropriate as a measure of productivity or a measure of FHWA’s contribution to productivity? • Data availability. Are data available in existing databases? If data are available, are they easy to collect, or are there difficulties in obtaining the data? Are there new ways to develop or collect the data? • Data cost. How expensive would it be to collect the appro- priate data? The results of this screening are shown in Table C.1. The screening and evaluation led to recommendation of the following seven indicators for further development by FHWA: 1. Cost of highway freight per ton-mile; 2. Cargo insurance rates; 3. Point-to-point travel times on selected freight-significant highways; 4. Hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles on selected freight- significant highways; 5. Crossing times at international borders; 6. Condition of connectors between the National Highway System (NHS) and intermodal terminals; and 7. Customer satisfaction. No rigid scoring methodology was used for the selection of recommended indicators. These measures were selected in an evaluation process that balanced the inherent value of an indicator as a measure of performance against the difficulty and cost of obtaining the necessary data. In general, the mea- sures that were recommended are those that ranked highest in terms of descriptive value and technical appropriateness. A literature review from this project identified more than 360 potential freight performance measures. The large major- ity of them were only suggested measures in research projects. A smaller number were measures in use by state DOTs, by a federal modal agency, or by a federal agency that regulates some aspect of freight externality, or they were measures reported by a freight trade association. Typical of measures suggested in the research literature were the 277 potential measures suggested in NCHRP Project 8-32(2), entitled Multi modal Transporta- tion: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process.2 They were grouped into categories such as accessibility, mobil- ity, travel time, safety, and economic development. Freight Performance Measures Guide Performance-based planning uses quantitative or quali- tative indicators that rely on data or information to explain the influence of freight on safety, the environment, and other transportation factors. The Freight Performance Measures Guide3 identifies Texas, Minnesota, and New Jersey as states that have made notable progress in using freight performance measures by developing detailed freight plans with goals and objectives that are evaluated on the basis of the information derived by freight performance measures. Oregon and Cali- fornia have included freight performance measures in their general transportation plans. Examples of measures that exist today include freight volumes measured by trucks per day or percentage of trucks in daily traffic counts. The Minnesota DOT uses freight performance measures to describe travel reliability, safety, and infrastructure performance. The mea- sures are used to support planning efforts.

115 2 • Descriptive value. Is the indicator clear and understandable for a range of audiences? Does it communicate clearly, or does it require a detailed explanation in order to be understood? • Technical appropriateness. How useful is the indicator in describing the productivity of freight movement in the United States? Is it conceptually appropriate as a measure of productivity or a measure of FHWA's contribution to productivity? • Data availability. Are data available in existing databases? If data are available, are they easy to collect, or are there difficulties in obtaining the data? Are there new ways to develop or collect the data? • Data cost. How expensive would it be to collect the appropriate data? The results of this screening are shown in Table C.1, below. Table C.1. Examined measures. Indicator Descriptive Value Technical Suitability Data Availability Data Cost Cost per Ton-Mile 3 3 Easy Low Fuel Consumption of Heavy Trucks per Ton-Mile 1 2 Easy Low Cargo Insurance Rates 2 2 Easy Low On-time Performance 3 1 Difficult High Point-to-Point Travel Times on Freight-Significant Highways 2 3 Not easy Medium to High 3 Hours of Delay on Freight- Significant Highways 2 3 Not easy Medium to High Incident Delay on Freight- Significant Highways 2 3 Not easy High Ratio: Peak Travel Time to Off-Peak Travel Time 1 2 Not easy High Ratio: Variance to Average for Peak Trip Times 1 2 Not easy High Annual Miles per Truck 2 1 Easy Low Border Crossing Times 3 2 Not easy Medium Conditions on Intermodal Connectors 2 2 Not easy High Customer Satisfaction 2 3 Difficult High Source: Hagler Bailly, Inc. The screening and evaluation led to recommendation of the following seven indicators for further development by FHWA: 1. Cost of highway freight per ton-mile; 2. Cargo insurance rates; 3. Point-to-point travel times on selected freight-significant highways; 4. Hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles on selected freight-significant highways; 5. Crossing times at international borders; table C.1. examined measures. Source: Hagler Bailly, Inc.

116 Minnesota has incorporated freight performance measures into its statewide transportation plan and statewide freight plan.4 It includes freight performance measures for trucking, rail, waterways, air cargo, and intermodal facilities. The plan summarizes both existing performance measures identified in the statewide transportation plan and new measures identi- fied for the freight plan. Rail performance measures identified include percentage of major generators with appropriate rail access, total crashes at at-grade rail crossings (three-year aver- age), number of truck-related fatalities at at-grade rail cross- ings (three-year average), percentage of rail track-miles with track speeds greater than 25 mph, and percentage of rail track- miles with 286,000-pound railcar capacity rating. Measures for air cargo, waterways, and intermodal facilities are also identified. Performance measures related to trucking include: • Percentage of miles of highway that meet “good” and “poor” ride quality targets; • Percentage of townships, counties, and municipalities along interregional connectors whose adopted local plans and ordinances support interregional corridor (IRC) Management Plans and Partnership studies; • Percentage of interregional connectors and bottleneck re- moval projects identified in the 10-Year Program for which right-of-way needs have been protected; • Clearance time for incidents, crashes, or hazardous mate- rial incidents; • Snow and ice removal clearance time; • Percentage of major generators with appropriate roadway access to IRCs and major highways; • Peak-period travel time reliability on IRCs and other high- use truck roadways; • Ratio of peak to off-peak travel time; • Miles of peak-period congestion per day; • Heavy-truck crash rate; • Number of heavy-truck-related fatalities (three-year aver- age); and • Benefit of truck weight enforcement on pavement service life. The Iowa DOT freight-related performance measures include highway crash rate per million vehicle miles for large trucks, total crashes at rail–highway crossings, and railroad derailments per million ton-miles.5 Freight efficiency mea- sures include the percentage of Iowa rail carriers earning a reasonable return on investment and average rail revenue per ton-mile. The quality-of-life performance measures identify approximate travel times to major external markets in the Mid- west Region, percentage of railroad track-miles able to handle 286,000-pound cars, percentage of railroad track-miles able to operate at 30 mph or more, and rail fuel use per ton-mile. Washington State DOT’s Grey Book includes a handful of freight performance measures. It reports on truck volumes on state highways, number of truck border crossings, rail freight tonnage, and container shipments through state ports. The Missouri DOT Tracker includes 111 measures, of which five relate to freight: freight tonnage by mode; per- centage of trucks using advanced technology at weigh sta- tions; interstate motor carrier mileage; percentage of satisfied motor carriers; and customer satisfaction with timeliness of Motor Carrier Services response. The customer satisfaction ratings focus upon users’ satisfaction with service received from the Motor Carrier Services office. Summary of State Measures Although the research literature identified hundreds of potential freight performance measures, in practice the minority of states that have freight performance measures use only a handful. Mature performance measurement states such as Washington, Missouri, and Minnesota use between 5 and 10 measures. It was noticeable that no two states had the same measures, and in most cases there were wide differ- ences in the metrics. Although states reported freight perfor- mance metrics, most of the metrics were not used to calibrate performance of specific state programs. Exceptions were customer satisfaction with Missouri’s motor carrier office. Generic measures such as travel time in freight-significant corridors were likely a contributing factor to state efforts to improve overall travel times. However, it appeared to be rare that any state DOT freight performance measure was used to make frequent decisions. Most of the measures appear to be indicators of broad trends of overall transportation system performance. Endnotes 1 FHWA, Office of Freight Management and Operations. Measuring Im- provements in the Movement of Highway and Intermodal Freight, prepared by Hagler-Bailly, 2000. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/ measure_rpt.htm (accessed May 20, 2010). 2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Web Document 26: Multimodal Trans- portation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process, Transpor- tation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999. 3 R. Harrison, M Schofield, L. Loftus-Otway, D. Middleton, J. Harrison, 2006, TxDOT Project 0-5410: Developing Freight Highway Corridor Performance Measure Strategies in Texas, pp. 19–25. 4 Minnesota DOT, Office of Freight and Commercial Vehicle Operations. Minnesota Statewide Freight Plan, prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and SRF Consulting Group, Inc., 2005. 5 Iowa DOT. Performance Measures for Iowa Transportation Systems, prepared by Iowa State University, Center for Transportation Research and Education, 2006.

Next: Appendix D - National-Level Performance Measures: State of Practice »
Performance Measures for Freight Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) Report 10: Performance Measures for Freight Transportation explores a set of measures to gauge the performance of the freight transportation system.

The measures are presented in the form of a freight system report card, which reports information in three formats, each increasingly detailed, to serve the needs of a wide variety of users from decision makers at all levels to anyone interested in assessing the performance of the nation’s freight transportation system.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!