National Academies Press: OpenBook

Performance Measures for Freight Transportation (2011)

Chapter: Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives

« Previous: Appendix F - Environmental Freight Performance Measures: State of Practice
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Appendix G - Stakeholder Perspectives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 161

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.

139 a p p e n D i X g stakeholder Perspectives

140 Introduction Substantial effort was expended to determine stakeholder preference for freight performance measures, including sur- veys and interviews with public- and private-sector stake- holders. The responses are summarized below. Categorizing Stakeholder Preference One way to categorize stakeholders who could be served by a freight performance measurement system is to divide them between public and private sectors. The public sector is largely responsible for building highways, airports, ports, inland waterways, and many of the connections between them and for regulating many aspects of freight operations. The private sector provides railways, rolling stock, trucking companies, ships, barges, the air freight industry, and the goods that move across these networks, and it provides the substantial intellectual capital that manages the logistics net- works. The project approach, therefore, was to examine the perspectives of both the public and the private sector (see Table G.1). Private-Sector Perspectives The great diversity of private-sector stakeholders is evi- dent from earlier tables and descriptions of the substantial diversity that exists across the U.S. economy. Nearly every cat- egory of firm would have some interest in freight system per- formance. Those interests, however, would be quite diverse, even within similar categories of industries. A very localized small manufacturer’s interests will be different from those of a multinational manufacturer who relies upon tightly strung global supply chains. Likewise the real-time high-value- package focus of UPS is quite different from that of an upper Midwest grain shipper barging corn to New Orleans. Their scales of timeliness, cost, waste, and reliability are signifi- cantly different. NCHRP 8-70, Target-Setting Methods and Data Manage- ment to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies,1 notes that there are divergent ways in which a private-sector company might view freight move- ment performance. To some companies, freight movement is simply a cost center, and the corporate goal is to reduce cost of shipment to the lowest level, even if it sacrifices some qual- ity. To other companies, reliable delivery is a key corporate principle, and to these companies freight movement quality is a key corporate value. Other companies are not primarily transport oriented but try to make transport a profit center or value-added activity and source of revenue. Still others outsource all transport to focus instead on core manufacturing or production capabilities. Finally, some 2 manufacturing outputs, minimizing warehouse times, maximizing turnaround times, tracking inventory, and billing customers promptly. Only one part of the logistics chain is the actual shipment of goods along public highways, on private railways, on private air freight carriers, and through publicly owned but privately operated water port terminals. To private-sector logistics professionals, a set of comprehensive freight performance measures would extend not only across the entire network of transport facilities but also across the network of private-sector producers, shippers, carriers, warehouses, information systems, and customers with whom they interact. Table G.1. Public and private perspectives. Public-Sector Perspectives The research has identified stakeholder interests that are either explicit or implicit. The explicit interests are those expressed in the surveys and interviews. The implicit measures are those that have been captured through earlier statutes or government regulatory actions. It could be argued that the implied stakeholder interest may be stronger than the expressed interest because the implied interest has in the past led to concrete government action to measure, manage, and regulate some aspect of freight performance. Such examples would be in policy areas such as emissions affecting air quality, hazardous materials releases, truck crashes, truck size and weight, import and export records, railroad competitiveness, import security, or railroad– highway crossing safety. Each of these regulatory frameworks arose because of acute interest on behalf of some group of stakeholders, often the public at large. As noted, public-sector transportation stakeholders tend to express interest in performance Public Stakeholder Interests Private Stakeholder Interests System Condition Bridge, Pavement Conditions Railroad Network Condition Age of shipping fleet Adequacy of Airports Do system conditions increase operating costs? System Performance Highway speeds Highway Reliability Rail speed, reliability Rail access Port throughput Harbor, Channel Dimensions Reliability of deliveries Availability to needed modes Direct and indirect costs of congestion, reliability In te re st s in F re ig ht P er fo rm an ce Policy Implications Emissions Hazardous Material Releases Operator Safety Licensing, Taxation Concern of regulatory cost Concern of regulatory fairness Concern of regulatory predictability table G.1. public and private perspectives. companies view transport through labor agreement perspec- tives and outsource it to avoid expanding the purview of labor agreements. Therefore, even within a similar category of industry, the key metrics for freight transport could vary, depending on the corporate strategy and corporate structure. Further complicating the “private-sector” perspective on freight performance measures is that “freight movement” in a modern logistics system is part of a much larger web of logis- tics activities that extend beyond the highway, railway, port, or terminal. For a large company, freight movement is part of the larger logistics cycle that involves sophisticated systems for predicting inventory needs, timing manufacturing out- puts, minimizing warehouse times, maximizing turnaround times, tracking inventory, and billing customers promptly. Only one part of the logistics chain is the actual shipment of

141 goods along public highways, on private railways, on private air freight carriers, and through publicly owned but privately operated water port terminals. To private-sector logistics professionals, a set of comprehensive freight performance measures would extend not only across the entire network of transport facilities but also across the network of private- sector producers, shippers, carriers, warehouses, information systems, and customers with whom they interact. Public-Sector Perspectives The research has identified stakeholder interests that are either explicit or implicit. The explicit interests are those expressed in the surveys and interviews. The implicit mea- sures are those that have been captured through earlier statutes or government regulatory actions. It could be argued that the implied stakeholder interest may be stronger than the expressed interest because the implied interest has in the past led to concrete government action to measure, man- age, and regulate some aspect of freight performance. Such examples would be in policy areas such as emissions affecting air quality, hazardous materials releases, truck crashes, truck size and weight, import and export records, railroad competi- tiveness, import security, or railroad–highway crossing safety. Each of these regulatory frameworks arose because of acute interest on behalf of some group of stakeholders, often the public at large. As noted, public-sector transportation stakeholders tend to express interest in performance measures closely aligned with the government function for which they are responsible. Public-sector freight stakeholders tend to further differenti- ate their interest in the transportation system to those links and nodes that carry the most freight. Freight volumes are highly concentrated. As noted, the Interstate Highway System (IHS) is only 1 percent of all public road miles, but it car- ries 49 percent of truck vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The National Highway System (NHS) carries another 26 percent of truck VMT. Together these two networks carry 75 percent of all truck VMT, although they comprise only 4 percent of all public road miles. Likewise, the Class I railroads comprise only 1 percent of U.S. railroad companies, but they generate 93 percent of rail revenue. Similarly, the top 10 U.S. container ports handle more than 86 percent of all container volume. Although the nation lacks an explicit set of national freight performance indicators, it does contain an implicit set of indi- cators. These indicators, however, are not clearly articulated as performance information but tend to be obscured within the data captured by various state and federal agencies for their use within their own statutory purview. For instance, Congress and FHWA differentiate the data they gather on system con- dition and performance to allow analysis of the IHS and the NHS because of its disproportionate importance to national freight movement. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) produce voluminous data on the safety, performance, competitive- ness, and service levels of the Class I railroads. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has a lock and dam performance measurement system to track the volume and condition of inland waterways. The U.S. Department of Commerce moni- tors daily the imports and exports from ports. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) produces monthly data on truck crashes, truck company safety, and the adequacy of on-the-road vehicles. EPA is closely monitoring and regulating truck emissions. Crash data are gathered for all surface modes, with significant geographic and temporal specificity. To capture a broader range of stakeholder inter- ests, the research effort examined both the stated preference of private- and public-sector stakeholders and the implied preference that exists in federal regulatory systems. The effort to identify stated stakeholder preference for freight performance measurement relied primarily upon sur- veys and questionnaires. Surveys were deployed to: (1) all 50 state DOT planning departments and freight offices; (2) 4,000 private-sector members of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP); (3) 10 national trade associations; (4) three Class I railroads; (5) a representative sample of trucking firms; (6) four ports; and (7) five relevant federal agencies. The results of these surveys, questionnaires, and interviews are summarized below. State Perspectives Surveys were distributed to all 50 state DOTs. Targeted were officials within the state freight offices, of which approx- imately 22 exist. In state transportation agencies that do not have freight offices, the surveys were sent to the DOT’s plan- ning officials. The state DOTs generally expressed a keen desire for freight performance measures, with some strong exceptions. State officials overall expressed greatest interest in measures that captured information regarding the performance of local and regional freight networks, such as highway, railway, and port systems, with lesser interest expressed in aviation and inland waterway systems. This probably is attributable to their lack of responsibility for those systems and their lack of eligible funds to invest in them. The states generally indicated that they would use the per- formance measures as one input for a wide array of purposes, including project selection, funds allocation, legislative com- munication, system monitoring, and long-range planning. For the most part, the states indicated a higher interest in performance measures at the regional and local levels, and on

142 an annual or quarterly basis. Performance measures regard- ing the national freight network and daily freight system per- formance generally were not as highly ranked by the states. The exception was for travel-time data, which some indicated they would like on a daily basis. Because the states indicate they would use the performance measures for planning and project-selection purposes, the need for daily operational measures probably is less acute for them than it would be for logistics providers who are concerned about daily freight routing decisions. The states were asked to rate potential measures on a sim- ple scale of 0–3, with 3 indicating they would find a poten- tial measure to be “very” important to them. They also were asked to indicate any difference in preference if the measure was available at a local, regional, or national level. The highest overall scores were for measures addressing congestion and reliability at the local and regional level. Both were scored at a value of 2.5 or higher out of a possible highest score of three. As can be seen in Figure G.1, the lowest overall scores were for the cost of logistics (as a percentage of GDP), for train speeds nationally, and for environmental performance regarding the emissions, pollution, and energy impacts of freight. The measures for cost of logistics had an overall value of only 1.2 from the state respondents, while the environ- mental and energy measures scored 1.8. However, the states indicated a higher interest in the energy and environmental measures if they were available at the local level. The cost- of-logistics measure may also have been affected by its avail- ability only at a national level. The score for that measure was notable because that category was among the highest rated by the private-sector respondents. It should be noted that respondents were commenting upon their need for and use of specific freight performance measures. They were not asked to comment upon the importance of national freight data sets, from which they could pull local freight data. The difference in the importance of local versus national measures was clear-cut between the state respondents and the later private-sector respondents. The state respondents gave high ranking to all local or regional measures. The pri- vate sector ranked most measures highly as long as they were national. The private sector appeared to be influenced by its involvement with long international and inter continental supply chains. The state officials were influenced by their local and state responsibilities. One strong sentiment emerging from at least two states was opposition to any national set of performance measures. Some state respondents expressed strong concern that any set of measures might be used to inaccurately measure states and to make arbitrary national fund-allocation decisions. This concern has been strongest among some of the Great Plains states, whose respondents stated that their low populations and large distances create unique transportation conditions. When national statistics for congestion, crashes, and other traditional indicators of “need” are examined, the some states Figure G.1. States’ ranking of potential measures.

143 can appear to have little need and may therefore not receive adequate federal investment. Accordingly, they have strongly urged that any performance measures be state specific and developed by the states in a fashion that best meets their indi- vidual needs. AASHTO has incorporated these sentiments in its official positions regarding performance measures. AASHTO advocates that no national targets be set, instead allowing states to set targets that meet their needs. aashTo perspective on Measuring Freight performance AASHTO has spent considerable effort on examining its membership’s perspective and need for national perfor- mance measures. It also has developed a formal position on how the nation should develop national freight investments. Although the organization has not formally proposed a spe- cific set of freight performance measures, it has described to a much greater degree than many national organizations the type of freight performance measure that should be consid- ered and how such measures could be used. Freight-specific measures are only a small component of AASHTO’s recommendation on performance measures. However, the issues surrounding AASHTO’s recommenda- tion are representative of the overall concerns and priorities AASHTO has for national performance measurement, includ- ing freight performance measurement. AASHTO’s position, not only on which measures to identify but also on how those measures should be used, has been drafted to incorporate the concerns of states mentioned above. AASHTO and the states have focused their comments more on how measures will be used—or misused—than they have focused on the details of individual measures. AASHTO’s consensus position on performance measures is that national goals should be established in six areas: • Safety • Preservation • Congestion • System Operations • Freight • Environment Its position is that the next transportation authoriza- tion legislation should require AASHTO to work with other stakeholder groups such as the American Public Transit Asso- ciation, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and others to establish national goals for each of the six areas. AASHTO does not support federal rule making to adopt the goals, other than a conforming rule making to accommodate the changes in statute. AASHTO recommends that after national goals are estab- lished, each state would adopt its own performance mea- sures to account for how it is achieving the national goals. AASHTO recommends that each state, MPO, and transit agency adopt a planning and programming process to focus federal funding on meeting the federal goals for the system under that entity’s jurisdiction. In turn, each state would adopt performance targets for each of the six key national goals. It recommends commensurate changes to the feder- ally required planning factors to focus those planning factors on achievement of the national goals. AASHTO recommends that each state be asked to develop a process to track progress toward the goals. AASHTO would be required to recommend a process by which states self-define targets that would work in their unique context rather than have measures and tar- gets imposed through federal statute, federal regulation, or funding distribution. AASHTO also recommends a “carrot” rather than a “stick” approach to the performance measures. It recommends a Performance-Oriented Pilot Program for the states or MPO regions that meet the goals. They would be rewarded with regulatory relief, relaxed engineering require- ments, or federal 4(f) avoidance relief in exchange for having achieved the goals. AASHTO’s position has not progressed to the point where it has proposed formal national strategic goals or formal per- formance measures. It has, however, discussed and presented general concepts for the types of goals and performance mea- sures it believes should be included. The goals and nested per- formance measures it has discussed are: • Safety: Reduce the number of fatalities by 50 percent over 20 years. – Number of fatalities – Number of serious injuries – Accident rates • Preservation: Reduce the percentage of pavement in poor condition on the IHS and NHS by an agreed percentage in 10 years; reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges on the IHS and the NHS by an agreed percentage in 10 years; keep the transit fleet in a state of good repair by maintaining the average age of fleet at an agreed age and the rail fleet at an agreed age. – Pavement roughness – Bridge condition – Age of transit fleet • Congestion: Immediate goals would be established to move toward a consistent method for measuring and tracking congestion levels (total delay) for all urban areas above a certain population. Once those goals are in place, a Figure G.1. States’ ranking of potential measures.

144 national goal to reduce total delay by an agreed percentage over 10 years could be established. – Hours of delay – Travel times – Transit load factors • System Operation: An initial goal would be to establish a consistent approach to measuring incident clearance times on the IHS (and potentially other systems). Once consis- tent measurement is obtained, a national goal to reduce in- cident clearance time by an agreed amount within 10 years could be established. – Travel time index – Incident clearance times – Lane closures • Freight/Economic Development: The suggested goal would be to increase the average speed on the freight- significant Interstate and National Highway systems by an agreed amount. – Average IHS and NHS operating speed – Border crossing time – Bridge clearance for double-stacked containers – Container throughput at ports • Environment: Reduce the growth in greenhouse gas emis- sions (GHE) from transport by an agreed percentage by an agreed horizon year. – GHE – Agency use of recycled products – Agency use of energy – Carbon footprint AASHTO notes a number of challenges to the development of a national set of transportation performance measures. First, all parties must agree on the national goals. Second, decisions must be made as to whether to establish the same targets for all state and urban areas or to have varying targets. Third, AASHTO insists that states and regions must drive the target-setting process. Fourth, how the setting of goals and targets changes the federal versus state versus metropolitan area relationships must be determined. Currently, the federal transportation role is to monitor state processes in the use of federal funds. Moving to a performance-based system could involve federal transportation agencies monitoring how states choose projects or adopt operational strategies. The FHWA and FTA could be in a position of reviewing and approving state, MPO, and transit agency decisions much more closely if the federal role is to ensure that state and local agencies achieve predetermined federal target levels. The movement to a performance-based federal program holds potentially major implications for changes in the federal-state-local rela- tionships. Thus, AASHTO and its member states are proceed- ing cautiously in suggesting a set of performance metrics and a measurement system. Federal agency perspectives Interviews were conducted with five federal agencies to assess the agencies’ use and need for freight performance measures. The interviews sought to obtain perspectives on the agencies’ need for performance indicators beyond the indica- tors that they already compile to satisfy federal statutes. The five interviewees were either current or former employees of one of the following entities: • USDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • USDOT, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) • U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), International Trade Administration • EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) The interviews were not intended to be comprehensive assessments of the agencies’ performance measurement needs but rather to be indicative of the types of performance issues relevant to the agencies. The literature review included discussion of federal freight performance data because the data collected by the agencies reflects generally the agen- cies’ interest in freight performance. One agency representa- tive from the U.S. Army noted in a separate interview that it would require an exhaustive analysis to determine all of the logistical performance measures that are important only to the U.S. Army, not to mention the other diverse branches of the military. The Army representative noted that U.S. military logistics concerns within the continental United States are much different from the logistics needs of battlefield com- manders. He noted that any stated preference for military- related freight performance measures would be very general- ized. The same sentiments are likely to be true for the other agencies interviewed. data collection and analysis The interview participants were asked 18 questions related to freight performance measures. All indicated that their agencies had expressed a need for freight-related perfor- mance measures. Next, participants were asked to give the motivations for specific organizations to use freight perfor- mance measures and to highlight specific measures that were currently used. The following responses were given:

145 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration • Motivation: Uses freight performance measures to align/ allocate resources to areas of greatest need. – Key measurement category: highway measures ° Travel time ° Speed ° Congestion level ° Reliability U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration • Motivation: Uses freight performance measures to ensure compliance with federal mandates and to monitor the safety of FMCSA-regulated motor carriers/motor coaches. – Key measurement categories: safety and compliance ° Number of large-truck crashes ° Number of large-truck inspections – Specific databases produced/utilized ° Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) —Roadside inspection results — Motor carrier census — Crashes — Compliance review results — Enforcement ° Licensing and Insurance U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration • Motivation: Uses freight performance measures to monitor the competitiveness of the U.S. economy with other coun- tries, as well as to monitor various elements of the U.S./ international supply chain. – Key measurement categories: export/import volumes Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality • Motivation: Uses freight performance measures to provide insight on how fleet operational changes can reduce emis- sions and/or reduce fuel consumption rates. – Key measurement category: vehicles emissions ° GHE ° NOx ° Particulates – Key measurement category: energy consumption ° Efficiency/miles per gallon (mpg) ° SmartWay Transport program measures — Overall efficiency of fleets — Aerodynamics — Engine model year — Rolling resistance of tires — Use of idling control devices — Trailer size — Measures of program effectiveness ◊ Participants versus total registered trucks ◊ Participant VMT versus total truck VMT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Motivation: Facilitates compliance with Office of Manage- ment and Budget (OMB) requirements and aids in deter- mining that projects are included in funding requests (and prioritizes the funding of such projects). – Key measurement categories: coastal and inland waterway ° Lock usage ° Tonnage moved — By facility ° Vessel size ° Port access depth ° Cost of operations ° Docking time Of the five agencies represented in the interviews, three were aware of additional measures that would be produced internally in the future. FMCSA discussed several initiatives to improve or develop current or future performance measures. Improvement of data collection techniques was mentioned as a first activity, with an example being the future deployment of remote computers to vehicle inspectors so that data can be transmitted and assessed in real time. Other future freight performance measures, iden- tified within the scope of the CSA-2010 program, will help FMCSA prioritize compliance review resources by identifying company and driver behaviors that are deemed high risk. A second agency, EPA (specifically the SmartWay Trans- port program), is currently transitioning to a broader set of metrics to measure the operational efficiency of fleets and will focus on emission rates per ton-mile. Finally, the Department of Commerce is consulting with stakeholders to discuss the needs and benefits of freight per- formance measures. It will focus on the competitiveness of U.S. transportation and trade networks compared with those in other countries. The interviewees were next asked the following question: If a national set of freight performance measures were to be pro- duced, what measures should be included? Participants offered a variety of insightful responses.

146 A first opinion was that metrics should measure perfor- mance across each element of the entire supply chain and U.S. transportation network. The resulting outputs should be input into transportation infrastructure investment formulas. Another opinion was that a national system of measure- ment should focus on fleet efficiency and specifically take into account actual costs and benefits. A respondent named miles per gallon (mpg) as an example of a current measure that does not consider cost/benefit accurately and suggested that a better measure of fuel efficiency would be the amount of goods hauled per energy unit consumed. A third interviewee suggested that a more accurate and consistent truck VMT measurement was required nationally. A fourth opinion was that measurements should include the cost of moving freight within each mode. Finally, four specific measures, according to one respon- dent, should be included in a national freight performance measurement data set: • Travel time • Travel time reliability • Freight-related highway improvement expenditures • Intermodal connector assessments Participants were next asked how frequently freight performance measures should be reported; of those who answered, two said annually, one said quarterly, and one said monthly. Generally speaking, those interviewed thought that agen- cies would be willing to spend funds to produce freight per- formance measurements specifically useful to them. Next, a series of four-level Likert scale questions were asked. Participants ranked specific freight performance mea- surement categories with one of the following classifications: • Not at all valuable • Somewhat valuable • Moderately valuable • Very valuable The overall results of the Likert scale questions are shown in Figure G.2 as average scores, with 1 being the lowest score possible (this would occur if all participants state that a mea- sure is “not at all valuable”), and 4 being the highest possible score (this would occur if all participants state that a measure is “very valuable”). The first question related to the usefulness of an annual report that outlined the cost of logistics as a percentage of the GDP. Four of the respondents indicated that this would be “somewhat valuable”; FMCSA stated that this would be “not at all valuable.” The second question asked interviewees to rank the value of measurements of congestion on the nation’s major freight transportation facilities (i.e., highways, ports, rail, and water- ways). There were three indications that such measures would be “somewhat valuable.” EPA and FHWA, however, stated that such measures would be “very valuable.” A next question asked how valuable measures of truck travel time and operating speeds on major U.S. corridors would be. Three participants (FHWA, DOC, and EPA) stated that such measures would be “very valuable.” The fourth question asked: How valuable to you would be a national survey of the satisfaction of logistics users in the Figure G.2. Federal agencies’ performance measure preferences.

147 Figure G.2. Federal agencies’ performance measure preferences. nation’s freight system? The results leaned toward “moder- ately” to “very” valuable. The fifth question asked how valuable performance mea- sures that assessed the condition of the nation’s infrastruc- ture would be. Results were mixed, with three indications that such measures would be “very valuable” and two entities stat- ing that such measures would be “not at all valuable.” The next question asked participants to value measures of the environmental impact of freight systems. As indicated in Figure G.2, most participants felt that this type of measure was “moderately” to “very” valuable. Asked if a measure of future demand for freight shipments would be valuable, all participants stated that such a measure would be “very valuable.” Also, the interviewees were asked what modal and/or infrastructure measures were desired. Highway, Intermodal, and Intermodal Connector measures were selected by all par- ticipants. The remaining modes were selected by three out of five participants. Private-Sector Responses To capture private-sector stakeholder preference, the research team collaborated with CSCMP to conduct a Web- based survey of its membership. CSCMP has approximately 8,000 members, approximately 4,000 of whom were solic- ited for the survey via an e-mail request from CSCMP. It was explained to the membership that the survey results would influence the report’s final recommendations and that their opinions were solicited to gain insight into the private sec- tor’s perspective regarding potential freight performance measures. Two follow-up notices were sent to members who had not responded. The CSCMP membership represents a cross section of the private-sector logistics industry. Among its largest groups listed in approximate order by category are: 1,985 logistics and management planning firms; 1,938 manufacturers; 1,061 third-party logistics providers; 630 food and beverage pro- viders; 420 consulting firms; 411 transportation management firms; 400 educators; 398 warehouse operators; 307 pharma- ceutical and toiletry producers; 222 auto and transportation equipment producers; and 206 department store or general merchandise firms. These, of course, are only the largest cat- egories, while more than 2,324 members list themselves as “Other” firms. The remaining members listed themselves among nearly 40 smaller categories. For the survey, not all members were solicited. The intent was to get private-sector logistics practitioners’ opinions as to which performance measures would be of greatest import to them. Non-practitioners such as academics, other trade associations, and consultants were deleted from the survey list. The remaining 4,000 included groups such as retailers, manufacturers, third-party logistics firms, warehouse opera- tors, and other groups who are involved in day-to-day move- ment of freight. The response rate was not high. Out of 4,000 firms e-mailed, only 73 responses were received. Clearly, such a low rate does not provide a statistically valid number of responses, but it does provide a useful convenience sample. A reason for the low response rate was suggested by the comment from two- thirds of the respondents that they had never sought publicly provided measures. The responses, however, did provide consistency in several informative areas. Primarily, the results appeared to indicate that, although most respondents had never expressed a desire for government-produced freight performance measures, they had clear preferences regarding what they would want to measure: timeliness, reliability, and the costs of shipping freight. This apparent trend will be further explained. The following analysis and charts illustrate the survey respondents and their opinions. CSCMP members were allowed to note whether several measures would be valuable to them at national, regional, or local levels. They could note that a particular measure was important to them at one, two, or all three levels. This granularity was sought to produce insight into whether certain types of measures had more value to them based upon the measure’s geographic. As can be seen in Figure G.3, the large majority of respon- dents were engaged in providing logistics services, with the second largest category being retailers and the third largest, wholesalers/distributers. Few of the respondents were involved primarily with only state or local logistics (Figure G.4). The large majority were either involved in national or interna- tional supply chains. This population was desired as survey respondents because of the interest in measures that could be used at international, national, regional or local levels. Two-thirds of the respondents rated as “very” or “mod- erately” high their interest in the CSCMP’s measure of the cost of logistics as a percentage of gross domestic product, as seen in Figure G.5. This report tracks a variety of logis- tics cost indicators and compiles them into an annual report that uses GDP as a denominator. Twenty-seven percent rated it as “somewhat” useful, and only 5 percent said it was not useful at all. As was seen earlier, this interest in the cost of logistics was not shared by the state DOT respondents, who rated it among the least important measures. Another dif- ference noted was that the private-sector respondents’ role in national and international supply chains caused them to be more consistently interested in national and international measures, as opposed to local or regional ones. As seen in Figure G.6, a significant majority of respondents listed as “very” important potential measures of changes in logistics costs. The CSCMP survey breaks down logistics costs into labor, inventory, overhead, fuel, and other major catego-

148 14 Figure G.3. Role of respondents. Figure G.4. Geographic scope of respondents. Two-thirds of the respondents rated as "very" or "moderately" high their interest in the CSCMP’s measure of the cost of logistics as a percentage of gross domestic product, as seen in Figure G.5. This report tracks a variety of logistics cost indicators and compiles them into an annual report that uses GDP as a denominator. Twenty-seven percent rated it as "somewhat" useful and only 5 percent said it was not useful at all. As was seen earlier, this interest in the cost of logistics was not shared by the state DOT respondents, who rated it among the least important measures. Another difference noted was that the private-sector respondents’ role in national and international supply chains caused them to be more consistently interested in national and international measures, as opposed to local or regional ones. As seen in Figure G.6, a significant majority of respondents listed as “very” important potential measures of changes in logistics costs. The CSCMP survey breaks down logistics costs into labor, inventory, 14 Figure G.3. Role of respondents. Figure G.4. Geographic scope of respondents. Two-thirds of the respondents rated as "very" or "moderately" high their interest in the CSCMP’s measure of the cost of logistics as a percentage of gross domestic product, as seen in Figure G.5. This report tracks a variety of logistics cost indicators and compiles them into an annual report that uses GDP as a denominator. Twenty-seven percent rated it as "somewhat" useful and only 5 percent said it was not useful at all. As was seen earlier, this interest in the cost of logistics was not shared by the state DOT respondents, who rated it among the least important measures. Another difference noted was that the private-sector respondents’ role i national and inter ationa upply chains caused them to be more consistently interested in national and international measures, as oppo ed to local or regional ones. As seen in Figure G.6, a significant majority of respondents listed as “very” important potential measures of changes in logistics costs. The CSCMP survey breaks down logistics costs into labor, inventory, 15 overhead, fuel, and other major categories. When asked if such categories were important, the clear maj rity answered in the affirm ive. They als rated highly the usefulness of the cost-related performance measures t national, local, and regional levels. Figure G.5. Importance of cost of logistics as % of GDP. Figure G.6. Importance of changes in logistics costs. In regard to truck travel speeds on major corridors, Figure G.7, a plurality of respondents rated the potential of such a measure as “very” important to them and gave near equal weight to such measures at the local, regional, and national levels. Fewer than 14 percent indicated the measure would be of no value to them. Open-ended comments also revealed considerable interest in operating speed data to be available daily, as opposed to monthly or annually. Figure G.3. Role of r spondents. Figure G.4. Geographic scope of respondents. Figure G.5. Importance of cost of logistics as percentage of GDP.

149 ries. When asked if such categories were important, the clear majority answered in the affirmative. They also rated highly the usefulness of the cost-related performance measures at national, local, and regional levels. In regard to truck travel speeds on major corridors, Fig- ure G.7, a plurality of respondents rated the potential of such a measure as “very” important to them and gave near equal weight to such measures at the local, regional, and national levels. Fewer than 14 percent indicated the measure would be of no value to them. Open-ended comments also revealed considerable interest in operating speed data to be available daily, as opposed to monthly or annually. Travel-time reliability, Figure G.8, was another highly rated measure. In responses to questions about performance measures regarding congestion, slightly higher preference was shown for state and local measures. Local granularity was desired. One trade association reported that 20 per- cent of its members reported that they lost or risked losing a customer during the past five years because of a freight bottleneck. Slightly less interest was stated for measures that reported on environmental issues, such as air pollution, energy use, or GHE related to freight, Figure G.9. There was a slightly smaller majority who rated such measures “very” or “moder- ately” important to them. As was seen earlier, these measures appeared to be of more interest to the public-sector respon- dents than to those from the private sector. The public-sector respondents face many environmental compliance require- ments that create a strong interest in such data. The respondents also gave high scores to potential mea- sures regarding the satisfaction of the logistics users with the national freight system. Slight preference was given for that potential measure at the national, rather than local, level (Fig- ure G.10). Figure G.3. Role of respondents. Figure G.4. Geographic scope of respondents. Figure G.5. Importance of cost of logistics as percentage of GDP. 15 overhead, fuel, and other major categories. When asked if such categories were important, the clear majority answered in the affirmative. They also rated highly the usefulness of the cost-related performance measures at national, local, and regional levels. Figure G.5. Importance of cost of logistics as % of GDP. Figure G.6. Importance of changes in logistics costs. In regard to truck travel speeds on major corridors, Figure G.7, a plurality of respondents rated the potential of such a measure as “very” important to them and gave near equal weight to such measures at the local, regional, and national levels. Fewer than 14 percent indicated the measure would be of no value to them. Open-ended comments also revealed considerable interest in operating speed data to be available daily, as opposed to monthly or annually. 16 Travel-time reliability, Figure G.8, was another highly rated measure. In responses to questions about performance measures regarding congestion, slightly higher preference was shown for state and local measures. Local granularity was desired. One trade association reported that 20 percent of its members reported that they lost or risked losing a customer during the past five years because of a freight bottleneck. Figure G.7. Rating of measures of travel time. Slightly less interest was stated for measures that reported on environmental issues, such as air pollution, energy use, or GHE related to freight, Figure G.9. There was a slightly smaller majority who rated such measures “very” or “moderately” important to them. As was seen earlier, these measures appeared to be of more interest to the public-sector respondents than to those from the private sector. The public-sector respondents face many environmental compliance requirements that create a strong interest in such data. Figure G.7. Rating of measures of travel time. Figure G.6. Importance of changes in logistics costs.

150 17 Figure G.8. Rating of reliability measures. Figure G.9. Rating of environmental measures. The respondents also gave high scores to potential measures regarding the satisfaction of the logistics users with the national freight system. Slight preference was given for that potential measure at the national, rather than local, level (Figure G.10). 17 Figure G.8. Rating of reliability measures. Figure G.9. Rating of environmental measures. The respondents also gave high scores to potential measures regarding the satisfaction of the logistics users with the national freight system. Slight preference was given for that potential measure at the national, rather than local, level (Figure G.10). Figure G.8. Rating of reliability measures. Figure G.9. Rating of environmental measures. Figure G.10. Preference for user satisfaction measure. 18 Figure G.10. Preference for user satisfaction measure. The condition of infrastructure, Figure G.11, was a highly scored measure by the private sector respondents. Nearly 82 percent of respondents said measures of national infrastructure condition were very or moderately important. By a fairly wide margin, the respondents reported that they had never desired freight performance measures that would be produced by the public sector (Figure G.12). Sixty-three percent of respondents said they had never desired such measures, while approximately 36 percent indicated that they had. Also, the respondents reported little certainty as to how they would use such measures if provided. As can be seen in Figure G.13, the majority of respondents did not report a specific use for such measures, beyond approximately 30 respondents who said they would use such data for budgeting and planning purposes. Figure G.11. Preference for infrastructure condition measure.

151 The condition of infrastructure, Figure G.11, was a highly scored measure by the private-sector respon- dents. Nearly 82 percent of respondents said measures of national infrastructure condition were very or moderately important. By a fairly wide margin, the respondents reported that they had never desired freight performance measures that would be produced by the public sector (Figure G.12). Sixty-three percent of respondents said they had never desired such mea- sures, while approximately 36 percent indicated that they had. Also, the respondents reported little certainty as to how they would use such measures if provided. As can be seen in Figure G.13, the majority of respondents did not report a specific use for such measures, beyond approximately 30 respondents who said they would use such data for budgeting and planning purposes. Open-Ended Comments In an open-ended comment section related to the uses of freight performance measures, no dominant consensus of opinion was evident, either. No two comments were the same, although it was clear that issues of on-time delivery and transport costs were of overall importance, as would be pre- dictable in the highly competitive logistics industry. “We pass many of these requirements off to our freight carriers but it’s very important for us to be knowledgeable about these issues when we’re negotiating our annual contracts and fees. These issues are critical for us to be able to leverage our shipments,” said one respondent. “It would be great to have accurate freight volumes by major corridor as well as impact factors (congestion, emis- sions, safety, etc.),” said another. Figure G.8. Rating of reliability measures. Figure G.9. Rating of environmental measures. Figure G.10. Preference for user satisfaction measure. 18 Figure G.10. Preferenc for user satisfaction measure. The condition of infrastructure, Figure G.11, was a highly scored measure by the private sector respondents. Nearly 82 percent of respondents said measures of national infrastructure condition were very or moderately important. By a fairly wide margin, the respondents reported that they had never desired freight performance measures that would be produced by the public sector (Figure G.12). Sixty-three percent of respondents said they had never desired such measures, while approximately 36 percent indicated that they had. Also, the respondents reported little certainty as to how they would use such measures if provided. As can be seen in Figure G.13, the majority of respondents did not report a specific use for such measures, beyond approximately 30 respondents who said they would use such data for budgeting and planning purposes. Figure G.11. Preference for infrastructure condition measure. 19 Figure G.12. Those who sought measures. Figure G.13. Uses of measures. Open-ended Comments In an open-ended comment section related to the uses of freight performance measures, no dominant consensus of opinion was evident, either. No two comments were the same, although it was clear that issues of on-time delivery and transport costs were of overall importance, as would be predictable in the Figure G.12. Those who sought measures. Figure G.11. Preference for infrastructure condition measure.

152 Figure G.13. Uses of measures. Several of the comments indicated that the most impor- tant measures involve company-specific and trip-specific measures that are relevant to individual supply chains. As one succinctly said, they wanted: “On time pick up—Monthly with over year comparison; On time delivery—Monthly with over year comparison; Average Highway Delays—Monthly with year over year comparison; Congestion Index—Monthly with year over year comparison.” Several other responses focused upon the companies’ intense need for the highly specific information on which their competitive position depends. “Perfect order: on time, complete, damage free, billed accurately,” wrote one respon- dent. Another asked for measures regarding, “on-time performance—delivery windows adherence in relationship to cost.” Another wanted access to the number of drivers with commercial driver’s licenses in their area. Another wanted fuel cost surcharge data weekly. Another wanted to know what future freight volume will be. The focus on cost, timeliness, and reliability also was clearly evident from responses to questions regarding the inter- nal measures that respondents use in their operations. One hundred open-ended comments were received. Thirty said some measure of timeliness or reliability was used as their most important measures, while 28 indicated some measure of shipping cost. In other words, 58 percent of the internal measures cited related to either timeliness or cost as the most important performance measure used in the internal com- pany operations. Other measures cited include customer sat- isfaction, or variations on costs, such as return on investment. Respondents were asked what the most important mea- sures would be for informing public decision makers about the condition and performance of the nation’s freight system. Of 101 responses, 22 were related to factors about the cost of freight movement, while 21 were related to factors of ship- ping speed or reliability. Again, those two issues were viewed by the limited number of private-sector respondents as being most important for policy makers to understand. From a regulatory standpoint, the most important issue that respondents cited as being important was the Hours of Service regulations. Out of 46 responses as to what is the sin- gle most important regulatory issue facing their operations, Hours of Service was rated first 22 times. Other issues some- times cited were Customs requirements, size and weight, or environmental regulation. contrast with public-sector interests Some clear contrasts in the interests of private-sector respondents compared with the state agency respondents were apparent (see Figure G.14 for private-sector ranking of measures). The private-sector respondents placed logis- tics cost performance measures as their highest priority, whereas they were the lowest priority for the public-sector agency respondents. Also, the public-sector respondents con- sistently rated as highest local and regional measures, while the private sector tended to rate national measures of more importance. Both groups rated infrastructure condition and travel information as important, although, again, the public- sector respondents were more interested in local measures, while the private-sector respondents gave more weight to regional measures in those categories. Local congestion was the highest-ranked measure for the state respondents; that measure was 13th for the private-sector respondents. The responses indicate that for a performance measure- ment system to be of interest to both public and private sec-

153 tor users it will need to include performance information at national, regional, and local levels. Additional Practitioners In an effort to solicit additional responses from the pri- vate sector and from researchers who have worked with the private sector, nine additional practitioners who have been active in NCFRP programs were contacted. Seven of them responded to the survey and provided additional insight into the freight-performance measure issue. They were a mix of private-sector logistics professionals, researchers, and gov- ernment officials. As can be seen in Figure G.15, this group gave consistently higher scores to all of the proposed performance measures than did the state officials. This may reflect a self-selection influence, in that these individuals were specifically selected because of their interest in freight research. This group ranked all measures with an average score of 3.05, whereas the state officials’ average score was 2.14 for the value of all the measures, on a scale of 0–4. Also perhaps reflecting the national perspective of this group, the national measures were consistently ranked higher than they were by the state officials. In fact, the ranking of national versus local measures was the inverse between the two populations. For this group, national measures were ranked highest in six of the top eight highest-ranked mea- sures. For the state officials, national measures did not appear even in the top 10. All the top measures ranked for state offi- cials consisted of local or regional measures. As can be seen, the top performance measures for this group were related to congestion, infrastructure condition, and environmental externalities of freight. However, it should be noted that eight categories were listed, and three choices— national, regional, or local—were available for each category for that measure. In nearly all cases, this group rated the national measure as more valuable than the same measure provided at the regional or local level. Again, this emphasizes this population’s national perspective. When asked the open-ended question of what regulatory issues were most important, no two respondents identified the same issue. The issues cited were: funding for the high- way trust fund; open access to rail lines; supply chain secu- rity; greenhouse gas emissions; California Air Board legis- lation; truck size and weight; hours of service; and wetland regulations. Likewise, when asked what additional measures they would like to have, there were no two similar needs noted except for two who cited vehicle miles traveled by major corridor. Other performance measures cited as being needed include cost of Figure G.13. Uses of measures. Figure G.14. Selected private-sector ranking of measures, excluding open-ended comments.

154 Figure G.15. Practitioners’ preferences. highway expansion, highway speeds, highway reliability, con- tainer lift volumes and port tonnage reports, highway conges- tion, and rail line velocity. In addition, one cited the need for national data to help a trade association advocate for freight projects of national significance. The respondents did report generally similar measures that were most important to their internal operations. Most of the cited measures were generally related to speed or reliability. In addition, safety was also mentioned as a highly ranked inter- nal measure. When asked what measures policy makers need in order to understand the freight system, out of the top measures cited, two respondents cited measures related to rail speed, one to port throughput, three to congestion, and one to the length of time it takes to deliver public projects. Again, although this was a small population, the responses are consistent with what has been discerned from other stake- holder groups. These findings are that: • Practitioners prefer measures that are scaled to their opera- tions, be their operations national, regional, or local; • Great diversity in interest exists; • Measures of speed and reliability consistently rate highest; and • Interest in several modes is apparent. Trade association perspectives To further understand the needs of the private sector for freight performance measures, efforts were made to interview

155 or survey major trade associations. Responses were mixed. Out of 10 trade associations that were contacted, five eventu- ally responded after repeated requests. Responses from the trade associations were limited but consistent. The associa- tions generally reported that members were concerned with transportation costs and reliability. “We’ve never expressed a need for freight-related performance measures, but an understanding of system-wide performance is important to our membership,” said the representative of one national association. “Delay and congestion along the most heavily traveled interstate corridors would be a useful performance measurement,” said the representative whose membership relies primarily on trucking. One association that is highly focused upon international supply chains reported that its members rely on all modes and therefore would be interested in all aspects of interna- tional freight performance. That industry trade group rated as “most important” forward-looking measures that would help predict future demand for freight. All other potential measures were rated as only “somewhat” or “moderately” important. One retail-focused association rated as “most important” measures related to infrastructure condition and future freight demand. The representative wrote on the questionnaire, Developing a set of national freight performance measures is critical as we continue to ask the federal government to develop a National Freight Policy that will help to identify the future needs of the goods movement system within the United States. The current infrastructure will not be able to meet the future demands of the system. It is important that we have as much information as possible to develop a system that will be able to handle the future needs of the system. Another major national trade association representative said that national freight performance measures would be important, . . . to help make the case for direct public sector investment, tax incentives for private investment, and removal of barriers to pri- vate investment in freight-related infrastructure. I expect we will need updated information on system performance and return on investment to advocate for Federal policies that target invest- ments (rather than “spread the peanut butter” formulas). . . . A single, authoritative source of information that allows for annual comparisons—even if it in part consolidates the work already being done by associations—would be very useful. Trucking Industry Perspectives Eight interviews with trucking company managers and executives were conducted to ascertain that industry’s per- spective on measures. Insights were sought on both the mea- sures they use and their interest in potential publicly provided measures. Such a small sample size was not intended to be rep- resentative of the entire industry but rather to be illustrative of how a small cross section of the industry used performance measures (see Figure G.15). Company representatives noted that they rely heavily on performance measures but on ones that provide specific and highly granular insight into the operations of their company, their suppliers, their fleets, and their employees. All eight indicated that their company relies on perfor- mance measures, with the primary use of them being in this order of frequency: • Efficiency, profitability, and cost savings (13) • Customer service (5) • Competitiveness (3) • Compliance (1) • Pricing (1) • Routing (1) The use of performance measures to make business practices more “efficient” was by far the strongest motiva- tor. Thirteen of the top motivators fell into the “Efficiency, Profitability and Cost Savings” category and included ratio- nales such as: 1. To improve efficiency and bottom-line return on resources; 2. To increase operational efficiency; 3. To increase productivity; 4. To control costs; 5. To increase and measure profitability; and 6. To measure employee performance. The most important measures used by the companies were: • Labor productivity; • On-time pickup and delivery; • Revenue yield by shipment or by mile; • Shipments per truck/ truck productivity; • Fuel economy; • Profit or loss per truck; • Equipment utilization; • Maintenance costs; • Out-of-route and loaded miles; • Loading and unloading times; and • Border crossing time/delays. current Measures Respondents were asked: Are there currently measures that your organization intends to produce but has not yet developed? Figure G.15. Practitioners’ preferences.

156 Five of the eight companies indicated that new performance measures were or would be under development, including: 1. Out-of-route miles; 2. Maintenance cost per mile; 3. Driver- and vehicle-based operations via engine control module (ECM) data; 4. Revenue generated per square foot within facilities (this measure is specific to freight warehousing); 5. Cost of regulatory compliance, with a focus on hazardous materials; 6. Cost of operating in Canada; and 7. Cost of transportation worker identification credential (TWIC) deployment. Interview participants were asked about utilization of trucking performance measures developed by other com- panies or organizations. Although all respondents indicated that performance measures from other individual trucking companies were not used, aggregated data were accessed and used for benchmarking purposes. The sources of such data were indicated to be the following: • Industry association publications and statistics; • U.S. Department of Transportation publications and statistics; • Trade magazines; • Productivity/ modeling software; and • Consultants and universities. needed Measures In the final open-ended question, interviewees were asked what performance measures were needed in the future. Respondents indicated that the following would be beneficial: • Performance measures based on ECM data; • Delay at fueling locations; • Delay at weigh stations; • Delay at roadside inspections; • Accounts receivable collection times; • Infrastructure performance measures (to support national freight mobility); • Urban congestion measures (to support freight mobility); and • Accident/congestion ratios. The final seven questions were quantitative in nature, and respondents were asked to select from the following four value rankings (see Figure G.16 for trucking industry responses to these seven questions): • No, Not Valuable; • Somewhat Valuable; • Moderately Valuable; or • Yes, Very Valuable. Interviewees were first asked the following quantitative question: Would measures of congestion on major U.S. highways be valuable to your company? The majority (50 percent) indi- cated that such measures would be “Somewhat Valuable.” No interviewees indicated that this information was not valuable. To the question: Would measures of highway travel time or operating speed on major national corridors be valuable to your company? three respondents indicated “Very Valuable,” while another three indicated “Somewhat Valuable.” Figure G.16. Trucking industry responses.

157 To the question: Would measures of the reliability of travel on major national corridors be valuable to your company? nearly all participants indicated a “middle-ground” answer, with four stating “Somewhat Valuable” and three stating “Moderately Valuable.” To the question: Would a national assessment of the condi- tion of the nation’s public infrastructure, including highways, bridges, ports and airports, be valuable to your company? Fifty percent of interviewees stated that such measures/assessments would be “Very Valuable,” and none indicated “not at all.” To the question: Would a national survey of users’ satisfac- tion with the performance of the nation’s freight system includ- ing highways, railroads, ports, and the intermodal connections be valuable to your company? answers fell in all four catego- ries, with the most answers given to “Somewhat Valuable.” To the question: Would performance measures on the amount of air pollution, fossil fuel use and other environmental impacts produced by the freight system be valuable to your com- pany? answers also fell into all four categories, with the most answers given to the “Somewhat Valuable” category. Finally, to the question: Would a measure of the level of future demand for freight shipments be valuable to your com- pany? all respondents saw value in this measure, with an overwhelming 75 percent indicating that such a measure was “Very Valuable.” In summary, the trucking industry respondents—although representing a very small sample population—indicated a greatest perceived utility for measures that relate to future freight demand, condition of public infrastructure, and the travel speeds on major national corridors. Railroad Industry Perspectives Railroad stakeholders, their goals and objectives, and their subsequent interest in railroad freight performance measures have evolved over the more than 150 years that railroads developed, were regulated, and then were largely deregulated. As a result, a rich array of railroad freight performance data is available, particularly at the national or corporate level. The basic data available that already are used for performance or statistical measurement include: • Data on overall rail volumes, both for passenger and freight, by railroad and by type of commodity on a weekly, monthly, and annual basis; • Extensive information on rail safety, including not only highway–rail crashes but also injuries and fatalities to trespassers, railroad employees, and others on railroad property; • Information on hazardous material cargos, in terms of vol- umes and releases—including various categories of releases caused by accidental spills or crash-caused releases; • Environmental and energy data, including the volume of fuel used, that can then be extrapolated into GHE and other air pollutants; and • Extensive financial data including not only total revenues, profits, return on income, and return on equity but also whether railroads have earned their Cost of Capital. The Cost of Capital analysis is a formal measure conducted by the STB and is used for consideration in decisions regard- ing rate disputes. In addition to the regulatory financial data provided to the government, the seven large Class I railroads are publicly traded companies that produce extensive filings required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. With respect to safety, the railroads in many states are still partially governed by forms of public utilities commis- sions that house vast data regarding local safety and crossing issues. Additionally, because state DOTs, state public utilities commissions, FHWA, and FRA are all active in highway–rail crossing safety issues, extensive information is available to state agencies about to the location, configuration, safety record, and safety-countermeasure deployment at virtually every railroad crossing of a public road. In addition to the large volume of railroad performance data that is produced through governmental processes, each of the major railroads provides extensive websites that regu- larly report on issues such as their on-time delivery, their rate structures, and their shipment policies (Table G.2). AAR also produces a significant volume of performance data including: • Operating speeds by railroad and by class of cargo train; • Dwell times for trains at major terminals; • Statistical information on the volume of rail cars, locomo- tives, and other rolling stock in operation; • The miles of track in service; • Total wages paid; • Number of employees; • Revenue and financial performance; and • Revenue per ton-mile of freight. Table G.2 illustrates only a portion of the overall financial and operating data produced by the AAR. Taken over time, such reporting data can produce insightful trend lines of performance or performance measures for a variety of issues regarding the financial viability of the railroads and their role in the national freight network. In addition, AAR and the individual railroads are increas- ingly involved in the public debate about transportation and regularly produce statistics and analyses regarding individual policy issues. One recent analysis addressed the optimized amount of capital investment necessary for railroads to max- imize the movement of freight; a second analysis addressed Figure G.16. Trucking industry responses.

158 29 Traffic 2006 2007 2008 Carloads Originated (millions) 32.11 31.46 n.a. Intermodal units Containers 9.40 9.43 9.03 Trailers 2.88 2.60 2.48 Total 12.28 12.03 11.52 Tons Originated (billion) 1.957 1.940 n.a. Ton-miles (trillion) 1.772 1.771 n.a. Operating Statistics Average Revenue per Ton Mile 2.840¢ 2.990¢ n.a. Average tons per carload 60.9 61.7 n.a. Average tons per Train 3,163 3,274 n.a. Average Length of Haul (miles) 905.6 912.8 n.a. Financial Freight revenue (billion) $50.3 $52.9 n.a. Operating revenue (billion) $52.2 $54.0 n.a. Operating Expenses (billion) $41.0 $42.7 n.a. Net income (billion) $6.5 $6.8 n.a. Operating ratio 78.6% 78.3% n.a. Return on Average Equity 11.3% 11.49% n.a. Number of employees 167,581 167,216 n.a. Average wages $68,141 $69,367 n.a. Average total compensation plus benefits $94,607 $97,401 table G.2. AAR-produced statistics. rail safety after a commuter train crash; and a third addressed rail’s contribution to GHE reductions. As a result of all this data and statistical information, it would be possible—and often done—to produce a wide array of rail freight performance measures that assess issues relat- ing to policy, investment, safety, environmental, and other key issues at a national, regional, or railroad level. As shown in Figure G.17, train accidents by type are tracked, as are rail volumes and revenue by commodity type in Figure G.18, and deaths by type of train accident in Figure G.19. What is not as readily available is information at a local level or at an individual producer level. For instance, Class I

159 Figure G.19. Railroad deaths. table G.2. AAR-produced statistics. 30 Table G.2 illustrates only a portion of the overall financial and operating data produced by the AAR. Taken over time, such reporting data can produce insightful trend lines of performance, or performance measures for a variety of issues regarding the financial viability of the railroads and their role in the national freight network. In addition, AAR and the individual railroads are increasingly involved in the public debate about transportation and regularly produce statistics and analyses regarding individual policy issues. One recent analysis addressed the optimized amount of capital investment necessary for railroads to maximize the movement of freight; a second analysis addressed rail safety after a commuter train crash; and a third addressed rail’s contribution to GHE reductions. As a result of all this data and statistical information, it would be possible—and often done—to produce a wide array of rail freight performance measures that assess issues relating to policy, investment, safety, environmental, and other key issues at a national, regional, or railroad level. As shown in Figure G.17, train accidents by type are tracked, as are rail volumes and revenue by commodity type in Figure G.18, and deaths by type of train accident in Figure G.19. Figure G.17. Rail accident statistics. What is not as readily available is information at a local level or at an individual producer level. For instance, Class I railroads have significantly increased their revenue and profitability by hauling larger volumes over longer distances to improve their efficiencies and economies of scale. Just between 2006 and 2007, average length of haul rose from 905.6 miles per train to 912.8 miles,2 a trend that has been evident for several decades. This reflects their increased hauling of massive volumes of coal from Wyoming and their increased movement of high-valued intermodal containers containing Asian imports. These relatively long-haul movements may have reduced the volume of long-haul truck moves on 31 highways, with commensurate savings in fuel, emissions, infrastructure deterioration, and crashes. However, the increased model of “hook and haul” of large-unit trains has resulted in some loss of service to local shippers. This has become a significant issue in some markets, such as among grain producers in isolated eastern Washington State. Local producers of commodities such as grain, timber, ethanol, chemicals, and minerals often desire rail service as an alternative to truck or to water. Although extensive data exist regarding what railroads haul, less information is available about what service they have discontinued, particularly at the local, regional, or individual producer level. This type of local service information is of acute interest to many public officials, as well as to the private producers who desire rail service. Likewise, local transportation planners have complained about a lack of information regarding very localized rail operations that may affect passenger rail service, commuter rail service, highway–railroad crossings, and other local transportation planning issues. Highway designers have voiced repeatedly the need for information regarding the railroad’s long-term track-expansion plans and how those plans may affect the repair or construction of highway–railroad overpasses.3 Thus, although extensive performance and statistical data exist regarding national and regional railroad performance, the information needs of individual shippers and local stakeholders are less well met. It should be noted, however, that the same is true regarding the other modes. The service patterns, prices, and frequencies of inland barge companies, air freight carriers, and truckers likewise is proprietary information and is seldom shared with the public and local policy makers. Figure G.18. Rail volume by shipment categories. 32 Figure G.19. Railroad deaths. Highway-related train deaths are approximately one third of all train deaths. Most fatalities are trespassers, and the remainder are employees of either the railroad or of companies working on the tracks. Figure G.17. Rail accident statistics. Figure G.18. Rail volume by shipment categories.

160 railroads have significantly increased their revenue and prof- itability by hauling larger volumes over longer distances to improve their efficiencies and economies of scale. Just between 2006 and 2007, average length of haul rose from 905.6 miles per train to 912.8 miles,2 a trend that has been evident for several decades. This reflects their increased hauling of massive volumes of coal from Wyoming and their increased movement of high-valued intermodal containers containing Asian imports. These relatively long-haul movements may have reduced the volume of long-haul truck moves on high- ways, with commensurate savings in fuel, emissions, infra- structure deterioration, and crashes. However, the increased model of “hook and haul” of large-unit trains has resulted in some loss of service to local shippers. This has become a significant issue in some markets, such as among grain pro- ducers in isolated eastern Washington State. Local producers of commodities such as grain, timber, ethanol, chemicals, and minerals often desire rail service as an alternative to truck or to water. Although extensive data exist regarding what rail- roads haul, less information is available about what service they have discontinued, particularly at the local, regional, or individual producer level. This type of local service informa- tion is of acute interest to many public officials, as well as to the private producers who desire rail service. Likewise, local transportation planners have complained about a lack of information regarding very localized rail oper- ations that may affect passenger rail service, commuter rail service, highway–railroad crossings, and other local transpor- tation planning issues. Highway designers have voiced repeat- edly the need for information regarding the railroad’s long- term track-expansion plans and how those plans may affect the repair or construction of highway–railroad overpasses.3 Thus, although extensive performance and statistical data exist regarding national and regional railroad performance, the information needs of individual shippers and local stake- holders are less well met. It should be noted, however, that the same is true regarding the other modes. The service patterns, prices, and frequencies of inland barge companies, air freight carriers, and truckers likewise is proprietary information and is seldom shared with the public and local policy makers. Highway-related train deaths are approximately one-third of all train deaths. Most fatalities are trespassers, and the remainder are employees of either the railroad or of compa- nies working on the tracks. table G.3. Marine transportation System dimensions. 33 Port I dustry Perspectives The U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) is a vast, diverse system of waterways and ports that stretch along all U.S. coasts, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and deep into the continental interior along the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio river systems (Table G.3). The physical network consists of more than 1,000 harbor channels; 25,000 miles of inland, intercoastal, and coastal waterways; 300 ports; and 3,700 terminals.4 This system is responsible for approximately $673 billion worth of goods movement or 5.2 percent of the nation’s total value of freight and 8.6 percent of all tons shipped.5 Ta le G.3. Marine Transportation System dimensions. Waterway Type Description Key Metrics Great Lakes Includes lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario, their connecting waterways, and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Great Lakes waterways are mostly deep draft. 9,292 total system miles 97 million tons domestic traffic 63 million tons international traffic Key commodities: ores and other crude materials, coal Shallow Draft Inland and Intracoastal Waterways Includes shallow-draft (12 feet or less) segments of rivers, inland waterways, and intracoastal waterways. Ports on these waterways accommodate barges and other limited-draft vessels. Leading subsystems include the Mississippi River and its tributaries; the Gulf of Mexico (including the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Black Warrior, and Tombigbee rivers, Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway, et al.); the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; and the Columbia River system. 29.382 total system miles 628 million tons domestic traffic Key commodities: coal, petroleum products, aggregates, food and farm products Deep Draft Coastal and Rivers Includes deep-draft (more than 12 feet) international trade lanes to and from ports on the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts; also includes coastwise trade lanes outside of the intracoastal waterways; also includes deep-draft segments of rivers and inland waterways. 23,670 total system miles 202 million tons domestic traffic 1,502 million tons international traffic Key commodities: crude petroleum, petroleum products, food and farm products, manufactured goods, chemicals (international); petroleum products, crude petroleum (domestic) In addition to its physical diversity, the MTS involves multiple stakeholders—private ship owners, public and private terminal operators, labor unions, the owners of modal connections into port facilities, and local, state, and federal government agencies that regulate and promote waterborne traffic. In recent years, the government network has been substantially augmented by security forces concerned about drugs, terrorism, and immigration. These governmental functions are in addition to the historic national regulatory function of capturing import duties and tariffs.

161 Port Industry Perspectives The U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) is a vast, diverse system of waterways and ports that stretch along all U.S. coasts, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and deep into the conti- nental interior along the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio river systems (Table G.3). The physical network consists of more than 1,000 harbor channels; 25,000 miles of inland, inter- coastal, and coastal waterways; 300 ports; and 3,700 termi- nals.4 This system is responsible for approximately $673 bil- lion worth of goods movement or 5.2 percent of the nation’s total value of freight and 8.6 percent of all tons shipped.5 In addition to its physical diversity, the MTS involves multiple stakeholders—private ship owners, public and pri- vate terminal operators, labor unions, the owners of modal connections into port facilities, and local, state, and federal government agencies that regulate and promote waterborne traffic. In recent years, the government network has been substantially augmented by security forces concerned about drugs, terrorism, and immigration. These governmental functions are in addition to the historic national regulatory function of capturing import duties and tariffs. Several major constituencies and policy issues surround the Maritime System in addition to the traditional economic issues. • Economically the marine system is critically important, because deep-water seaports comprise 11 of the nation’s top 25 foreign trade gateways. Foreign trade has more than doubled as a percentage of the overall GDP in recent decades; – Out of 300 total ports, the top 10 handle 86 percent of the high-value container goods that have grown dispro- portionately important in the global economy; and – The inland waterway system carries disproportionate amounts of the nation’s heavy commodities such as chemicals, aggregates, and agricultural products. It is an aging system, with more than 45 percent of inland locks and dams more than 50 years old. • From a national security standpoint, the water ports are invaluable for large-scale military deployments; • The security of imports has become an increasing concern in an era focused upon chemical and nuclear terrorism threats; • In recent years, the environmental effects of the marine trade have become a source of increasing focus. – The air-quality impacts of idling ships, trains, and trucks have created air-quality concerns surrounding ports; – The inadvertent transfer of invasive species from ships’ ballast water into inland lakes and waterways has been a concern; and – The disposal of dredging materials created from deep- ening harbors and channels likewise is an ongoing issue. • Until the recession of 2008, growing freight volumes at major seaports created growing landside congestion con- cerns on local streets, interchanges, railroads, and the crossings between them; – The trend of steadily increasing ship size allows for greater economies of scale at sea but creates additional throughput and surge issues at terminals and local streets, railroads, and pipelines; and – Expansion of the Panama Canal will mean an increase in large ships on the East Coast and possible diversion of West Coast container traffic to East Coast ports. • Improving technology at the ports to improve cargo handling, tracking, billing, taxation, and monitoring for security has received continuous attention by private- and public-sector members; and • Land use concerns in areas adjacent to ports can be a sig- nificant local issue. Coasts, harbors, channels, rivers, and intercoastal waterways are finite environmental resources that spur interest in both preservation and residential/ commercial development. These efforts to preserve water resources or to develop them for other residential and com- mercial uses can conflict with marine freight operations. It is also important to recognize that the many different types of ports further complicate measurement and com- parison efforts. Ports that primarily handle containers have different equipment, operations, and facilities than do ports or terminals that handle bulk commodities such as petro- leum, chemicals, grain, aggregates, minerals, or coal. Inland waterway ports tend to be commodity specific to serve local industries such as steel production, mining, grain produc- tion, or mineral extraction. The size and scale of ports differ considerably, as do the ports’ connections to local highways, railroads, and pipelines. The geographic locations of ports vary considerably, with some of them on the coasts and others miles inland on river channels. These variations com- pound the differences in issues such as port throughput, port connectivity, port efficiency, and port costs per unit shipped. port and Waterway performance Measurement While many individual stakeholders regularly apply per- formance metrics to their particular function within the MTS, to date there has been no successful effort to charac- terize or measure the performance of the system as a whole. For example, a report by MARAD concluded that the federal agency could not apprise Congress of the nation’s ports’ abil- table G.3. Marine transportation System dimensions.

162 ity to handle a large military deployment because of a lack of common measures.6 It noted that the significant diversity in ports, the types of cargo they handle, their inland connec- tions, and the geographic configuration of their harbors and channels all created great diversity. The ports as an industry have a few common denominators but none that are uni- formly monitored or reported, MARAD observed: In preparing this report, MARAD reviewed articles and studies from the academic and scientific communities that set forth methodologies for measuring port efficiency. The liter- ature reviewed supported MARAD’s finding that there is no widespread agreement on an approach to measuring the effi- ciency of a port as a link in the logistics chain. A 2004 article in Maritime Policy & Management states: “Measures of port effi ciency or performance indicators use a diverse range of techniques for assessment and analysis, but although many analytical tools and instruments exist, a problem arises when one tries to apply them to a range of ports and terminals. Ports are very dissimilar and even within a single port the current or potential activities can be broad in scope and nature, so that the choice of an appropriate tool of analysis is difficult. Organiza- tional dissimilarity constitutes a serious limitation to enquiry, not only concerning what to measure but also how to measure. Furthermore, the concept of efficiency is vague and proves dif- ficult to apply in a typical port organization extending across production, trading and service industries. MARAD concluded in its Congressional report: MARAD was unable to provide the requested comparison (to Congress) of the most congested ports in terms of operational efficiency due to a lack of consistent national port efficiency data. Given the diverse characteristics of U.S. ports, comparing port efficiency would require the creation of new methodologies and the collection of data that were not available for this report. Internally, port operations have generated some standards measures, but these are mainly of interest to the internal, busi- ness operations of the port. They tend to regard how efficient port crews operate, whether labor rules restrict efficiency in loading and unloading, and whether internal configuration of ports, parking lots, cranes, and storage areas are efficient.7 These measures are unlikely to be appropriate for a national set of performance measures because they tend to be pro- prietary, would be difficult to collect, and may not influence public policy but rather internal port and terminal opera- tions. Each port is a unique business, operating over unique infrastructure, and a measure appropriate for one may not be relevant to another. Ultimately, ports are providers of trans- portation services, and the fundamental common metric is “customer satisfaction.” The American Association of Port Authorities addresses this issue on its website. AAPA continuously receives requests on how ports rank nationally and internationally. The question is ambiguous, how- ever, since ports can be compared in many different ways—by volume or value of trade, number of cruise passengers, revenues, and storage capacity, as examples. Moreover, sheer size of a port, in terms of traffic flow, says nothing about productivity, efficiency, or responsiveness to customers. These are just some of the criteria that a shipper might consider in evaluating port performance. As mentioned, periodic studies and reports have attempted to identify potential port and marine measures. NCHRP Web Document 26 (Project B8-32(2)A): Multi- modal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process (by Cambridge Systematics, December 1999), recommended the following as potential marine per- formance measures: • Number of ports with railroad connections • Lift capacity of ports, in annual volume • Number of dockage days per ship • Accidents or injuries caused by waterborne transportation • Shipping accidents occurring on waterways • Transfer time between modes • Number of users of intermodal facilities Measures of overall volume through ports are captured or estimated from several sources such as the U.S. Department of Commerce, the USACE, and USDOT’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). Potential measures from FAF or USACE volume data could include: • Water ton-miles shipped annually • Value of water freight shipped annually • Value of waterborne exports, imports • Forecast demand for waterborne freight, both inland and maritime Throughout the United States, but particularly in southern California, environmental concerns about ports have become significant. There are concerns that local populations are exposed to significant air pollution from idling ships, trucks, and trains congregating at ports. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have adopted air-quality goals that are some- what like performance measures. Using cleaner fuels, less idling, and cleaner vehicles, they proposed to reduce, by 2010, particulates by 47 percent; NO x by 45 percent; and sulphur oxides by 52 percent. Other environmental measures could address issues such as release of contaminated ballast water (this has led to zebra mussels and other invasive species in the Great Lakes) and localized water-quality concerns due to petroleum and chemical releases near ports. No doubt, such environmental measures would be difficult to measure and would require significant localized testing.

163 port responses The Multimodal Transportation project distributed 19 ques- tionnaires to port authorities and state DOT water officials. Only four responses were received despite repeated follow-up efforts. The limited number of responses appears to be indica- tive of significant differences in interest regarding port-related performance measures. The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) reported that it had never expressed a need for freight-related performance measures, nor does it produce any. AAPA reported that it believed the development of per- formance measures related to ports would be very difficult because of the significant diversity among U.S. ports. It listed as the most important measures for policy makers to understand to appreciate port performance would be: • Container lifts per hour; • Container dwell time; • Highway–rail congestion outside of gates; and • Available land for expansion. It expressed concern, however, that if such measures were produced nationally they could be misused as a competi- tive marketing tool. AAPA officials indicated that the lack of response from ports regarding the survey could be indicative of port officials’ skepticism that measures would be mean- ingful. Some port officials also have concerns that measures would be used and misused as marketing tools to portray competitor ports as being costly or inefficient. Two ports did respond to the survey, as did one state DOT water department planner and the AAPA. One major East Coast port authority reported that it tracks 22 performance measures and would be very interested in additional measures to help assess local, regional, national, and international freight performance. Among the measures it produces for its own use are: • The number of crashes on marine terminal highways; • Injuries; • Reduction in crime; • Facilities maintained as structurally sound; • Number of containers handled; • Cost savings of vessels using deepened channel; • Air emissions per ton of cargo; and • Customer satisfaction. It reports it uses such measures to measure its corporate goals, to advance safety and security, to improve economic opportunity, and to improve customer service and the environment. The port also indicated that developing a comparable set of national port performance measures would be very diffi- cult, rated as an 8 out of a complexity scale of 10. It reported that some aspects of port performance are relatively straight- forward, such as trade statistics and port throughput. Difficul- ties arise on the land side in terms of measuring the effects of the port on congestion compared with general congestion on the urban road networks. Measurement becomes even more complex when attempts are made to isolate and measure national and international aspects. The respondent stated, “If we don’t understand the value and net impacts of the system we hope to measure, we won’t be able to measure it very well. In sum, there are complexities in port-related supply chains that make measuring, managing and supporting its disparate elements for the achievement of national goals difficult.” The port officials indicated that their concerns that could arise from the development of port-related measures would be: • Are the supporting data robust? • Do they fairly allow port-to-port comparisons? • Will they support an equitable distribution of federal aid? • Will there be conflicts between national goals and local or regional impacts? • Will they be used for political ends that don’t ensure the safety, capacity, and environmental and economic devel- opment needs of the ports? The port officials indicated that if national policy makers are to understand the major issues facing the nation’s ports, the top measures that should be compiled would be: • Measurement of individual and collective port terminal capacity; • Volume-to-capacity ratios of major highways and rail- roads serving marine terminals; • The number of truck turns per day on trips between ports and the first point of rest for imports and the last point of embarkation for exports; • Metrics for pollutants produced per container; and • The economic impact of port-related activities on the national, regional, and local economies. One of the West Coast ports also supported the devel- opment of port performance measures. Several of its cited reasons corresponded with those of its East Coast counter- part but with some significant differences. The West Coast port recommended that, if national policy makers were to develop a few key, insightful measures, the most important should be to understand the difference between actual versus shortest-distance routes from domestic origins and destina- tions to points of export or import. In other words, if the available capacity of ports were better understood, incen- tives could be provided to export or import from the closest

164 geographic port—the logic being that the more direct routes could reduce miles traveled by truck and rail, reduce energy use, reduce emissions, and lessen surface congestion. Related to that measure, the port official recommended measures to evaluate volume-to-capacity ratios for marine terminals and airports and to provide: • The percentage of local versus discretionary cargo, to high- light how ports in gateway cities play a national role and provide national benefits; • The ratio of maintenance budgets to actual maintenance needs, or other forms of deferred investment measure- ment; and • Local system reliability and delay data, to highlight perfor- mance of the off-port service system as a first or last link in the international supply chain. This port official was slightly more optimistic about the complexity of developing a set of port performance measures nationally and rated the complexity as a 5 out of a scale of 10. The official suggested that such measures could be simplified if they were stratified by the size and functions of ports. One state port authority official rated the complexity of a national set of port performance measures as being 7 out of 10. He also noted the dissimilarities between ports and termi- nals that are designed to handle different types of freight and commodities. If national policy makers are to understand key issues related to the health of the nation’s ports, he recom- mended measures that capture: • The volume of cargo moving through terminals currently; • How much excess terminal capacity remains; and • What terminals handle commodities that are nationally critical and in what condition are those terminals. He said that his concern over misuse of such measures would be in inaccurate interpretation of the data that could adversely affect allocation of federal funds for needs such as port dredging. private port performance data IHS Global Insight produced the Port Tracker, which used short-term econometric forecasting to predict volume through the major U.S. ports. Its reports provided shippers insight into possible congestion or delay at ports not only caused by freight volumes but also due to localized issues such as trade disputes. It reported freight trends through ports on a monthly basis for the preceding four years compared to pre- dicted current volumes. The Port Tracker incorporated data from both public and private sources. It provides forecast trade data by 77 commodity groups, value and volume and mode of transport for 54 countries and 16 global regions. A similar service is Lloyds Register–Fairplay. It produces and sells a variety of ship travel data, including real-time ship location and travel information. These data come from inter- nationally required on-board GIS transmitters. The data are similar to the ATRI travel-time data derived from GIS trans- missions from trucks. The difference is that the Lloyds data track individual ships, both at sea and at port. With such data the location of a ship and the cumulative on-time perfor- mance over time can be assessed. The company reports that its users include port authorities, ship agents, brokers, char- ters, port service suppliers, ship owners, and civil authorities. Its promotional information indicates that it provides real- time information in more than 100 countries and 2,000 ports and terminals internationally. It reports that it tracks and dis- plays the live position of 27,000 vessels a day and is updated every three minutes. Individual vessels can be tracked as to their location, course, speed, and next port. Another private source of voluminous shipping data is the Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), which is owned by the Journal of Commerce. It captures import/export data required to be reported by ships traveling to and from the United States. It synthesizes the data into reports that are purchased by more than 6,000 public- and private-sector data users. It reports that its data not only can measure ship- ping volumes by commodity type but also can be used for a variety of analytical and modeling purposes. Endnotes 1 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Web-Only Document 154: Target- Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies Volume III: Case Studies. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2010, pp. 1–4, 5–9, 35–42 (accessed Feb. 18, 2011). 2 AAR Statistics, http://www.aar.org/~/media/AAR/Industry%20Info/ Statistics.ashx (accessed Feb. 27, 2009). 3 Strategic Highway Research Program 2, Project R16, “Railroad-DOT Insti- tutional Mitigation Strategies,” unpublished study. 4 MARAD. An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System, 1999. 5 RITA/BTS. Freight in America, 2006, p. 7. 6 MARAD Report to Congress on the Performance of Ports and the Intermodal System, 2005. 7 Chung, Kek Choo. Port Performance Indicators, in Infrastructure Notes, for the Transportation, Water and Urban Development Department of the World Bank, December 1993, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTTRANSPORT/Resources/336291-1119275973157/td-ps6.pdf (accessed May 24, 2010).

Next: Abbreviations and acronyms »
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!