National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Contents
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 20

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.

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

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

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

4Zealand contributing to an Austroads performance website and to emerging efforts by the state transportation agencies to jointly identify performance metrics. The framework seeks to simplify the enormous complexity of measuring the U.S. freight network by focusing primarily upon the disproportionate importance of key freight net- work components, such as the Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I rail- roads, and the top 20 U.S. ports. Finally, the framework is proposed to address a key requirement of performance report cards. They need to provide front-page “at a glance” summaries that provide busy executives with a succinct and instantaneous assessment of performance. However, the framework also needs to allow the user to drill into details to answer more nuanced questions, or to explore trends in further detail. The framework is heavily weighted toward inclusion of composite measures that provide both brevity and insight. The composite measures summarize trends but also can be disaggregated for drilling down into the factors that contribute to the per- formance. In addition, the report card is proposed to function in a three-tiered fashion intended to serve the various levels of detail required by users. A governor or legislator can be served with highly consolidated, trend line information. A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) board member, a department of transportation (DOT) senior executive, or an inquisitive reporter may seek more detailed information. A DOT staff person, an academic researcher, or a logistics provider requires even more detail. The framework is envisioned to address the increasingly detailed information needs of all three levels of users. It provides varying degrees of insight by having a highly summarized Freight Transportation Report Card, a summary report for each measure in the report card, and a link to a much more compre- hensive report that can explain the context of each measure. In this way, the report card is intended to be both succinct and insightful, as illustrated in Figure S.1. The key in Figure S.2 includes four different colors of indicators used in the report card. The need for multiple indicators is reflective of freight’s complexity. Some decreases are posi- tive, such as decreases in emissions. Some increases are negative, such as increases in crashes. Other changes could be considered either positive or negative depending upon the stake- holder’s viewpoint. Increases or decreases in freight volumes are shown in black, indicating their change could be viewed as either positive or negative depending upon the stakeholder’s perspective. Changes in red clearly are negative, such as increases in freight-related fatalities. The report card attempts to illustrate trends but also whether those trends are positive or 5 Performance Measure 10 Year Trend Analysis 20 Year Forecast Freight Demand Measures, All Modes Despite declines in the past 18 months, steady growth in freight volumes occurred over the past 10 years. Future long-term growth of 2-3 % annually for 20 years is likely as the economy improves. Truck Freight Volumes Truck freight grew at 2 to 3% annually in the past decade, except in the past 18 months. Future 2-3% growth is predicted when the economy improves to historic levels Rail Freight Volumes Rail freight volumes steadily grew in the 2000s until the recent recession. Long-term rail freight volumes are predicted to continue growing with an economic rebound. Inland Water Freight Volumes Inland water traffic growth is expected to remain at relatively low rates of 1% to 1.5% through 2035, the rate of growth for the past 10 years. Containerized Waterborne Freight Volumes Containerized freight volumes grew rapidly in the past decade until 2008 when they sharply. Long-term growth is likely to resume to previously robust levels with improvement in the global economy. Interstate Highway Speeds A near doubling of traffic volumes in the past 25 years has slowed peak hour speeds in most urban areas. Long-term traffic growth is likely to continue to outpace physical or operational improvements to the Interstate System. As a result, travel speeds are likely to continue declining. Travel speeds at top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks Rising traffic volumes combined with a low rate of investment is likely to result in slower travel speeds and increased delays at the nation’s top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks. Class I RR Operating Speed Operating speeds at Class I railroads have remained stable for the past decade. The RRs warn of long-term congestion and delay if investment levels are not increased. Cost of Logistics as a Percent of GDP After decades of decline, logistics as a cost of GDP appears to be tracking upward. NHS Pavement Conditions Approximately 50 percent of the NHS pavement conditions are in ‘Good’ condition, representing improvement over the past decade. However, higher costs and uncertain funding levels create uncertainty whether those relatively low levels can be sustained. NHS Bridge Conditions Structural deficiencies on the NHS have declined by 40 percent in recent decades and were forecast to continue improving. However, dramatically higher material prices in the past two years and uncertain funding levels threaten the long-term improvement that had been expected. Freight-Produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) Freight-produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions are expected to rise commensurate with the increase in truck, rail, and water freight volumes. Current emission technology does not control vehicular GHE. Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions Truck-related GHE are predicted to rise steadily with a projected 30% increase in vehicle miles traveled by 2030. Rail Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rail GHE steadily increased from 1990 to 2005 but leveled off because of declining rail volumes and cleaner locomotives. Freight-Produced Ozone-Related Emissions Ozone precursors from trucks have declined dramatically in recent years and are predicted to continue to decline as cleaner vehicles replace current ones and as the benefits of cleaner fuels are realized. Truck-related VOCs These ozone-contributing emissions produced by trucks have fallen dramatically because of cleaner fuels, and vehicles. Truck-related Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions Truck-generated NOX emissions are forecast to fall 82 percent from 2002 levels by 2020 because of cleaner fuels and vehicles. Rail NOX Emissions The elimination of sulfur from fuel and introduction of cleaner locomotives are expected to reduce RR NOX emissions by 41% by 2020 and by 83% by 2040. Rail VOC Emissions The same fuel and locomotive changes are forecasted by USEPA to reduce per-gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040 Truck Particulate Emissions Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an 82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions. Ship produced NOX and PM Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for US-flagged merchant vessels. Both PM and NOX emissions are predicted to decline significantly through 2040 on a per-gallon basis. System Condition Measures Environmental Condition Measures Freight Demand Measures System Efficiency Measures Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular. The key in Figure S.2 includes four different colors of indicators used in the report card. The need for multiple indicators is reflective of freight’s complexity. Some decreases are positive, such as decreases in emissions. Some increases are negative, such as increases in crashes. Other changes could be considered either positive or negative depending upon the stakeholder’s viewpoint. Increases or decreases in freight volumes are shown in black, indicating their change could be viewed as either positive or negative depending upon the stakeholder’s perspective. Changes in red clearly are negative, such as increases in freight-related fatalities. The report card attempts to illustrate trends but also whether those trends are positive or negative. Admittedly, stakeholders with strong positions may disagree with the characterization. For instance, advocates for one mode may see increases in freight volumes for another mode as negative. The formatting is oriented to a centrist, public-sector viewpoint. Trend lines also are emphasized in the report card to provide additional context regarding how performance has changed over time, or how it is likely to unfold into the future. As noted in Figure S.1, accompanying the report card are summaries that elaborate on each performance metric. Following the report card, below, is a representative summary for the cost of logistics as a percentage of gross domestic product. That summary defines and further elaborates upon the measure. The summary also includes references to even more detailed information that may be of interest to a more Black arrows indicate trends which are not necessarily positive or negative, such as growth in freight volumes. Green arrows indicate trends which are benign. They can be either downward trends, such as a decrease in crashes or upward, such as increased levels of investment. Yellow arrows indicate performance which is not clearly positive and which may be indicative of future problems. Red arrows indicate negative trends, which can either be increasing, such as emissions, or decreasing, such as the adequacy of investment. Key Figure S.2 Report card key Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular.

5 negative. Admittedly, stakeholders with strong positions may disagree with the characteriza- tion. For instance, advocates for one mode may see increases in freight volumes for another mode as negative. The formatting is oriented to a centrist, public-sector viewpoint. Trend lines also are emphasized in the report card to provide additional context regarding how performance has changed over time, or how it is likely to unfold into the future. As noted in Figure S.1, accompanying the report card are summaries that elaborate on each performance metric. Following the report card (see Figure S.3) is a representative sum- mary for the cost of logistics as a percentage of gross domestic product (see Figure S.4). That summary defines and further elaborates upon the measure. The summary also includes ref- erences to even more detailed information that may be of interest to a more demanding user. In this example, the link is to the full report by the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) that examines the inputs into the 2009 analysis of logistics costs as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product. The three-tiered structure addresses the project statement’s requirement that the framework appeal to decision makers and users at various levels. Freight Performance Indices and Measures The report card attempts to balance the tension between users desiring a wide array of measures and the potentially crippling cost and complexity of sustaining a massive measure- ment process. The score card relies on only six categories and 29 measures. However, most are composite measures that can be broken down into their component elements for greater understanding of performance. The data often can be broken down into categories, or into geographic regions and, in some cases, to corridors, links, and nodes. The composite nature is an attempt to provide both “at a glance” summation while also accommodating detailed deconstruction of underlying trends, factors, and performance. Links to Source Documents In the proposed Freight System Report Card, this summary would be linked to the source document, in this case the CSCMP 2010 State of Logistics Report. The links to source docu- ments provide the greater detail and context that some readers would desire. The complete set of explanatory summaries is included in Appendix F. 5 Performance Measure 10 Year Trend Analysis 20 Year Forecast Freight Demand Measures, All Modes Despite declines in the past 18 months, steady growth in freight volumes occurred over the past 10 years. Future long-term growth of 2-3 % annually for 20 years is likely as the economy improves. Truck Freight Volumes Truck freight grew at 2 to 3% annually in the past decade, except in the past 18 months. Future 2-3% growth is predicted when the economy improves to historic levels Rail Freight Volumes Rail freight volumes steadily grew in the 2000s until the recent recession. Long-term rail freight volumes are predicted to continue growing with an economic rebound. Inland Water Freight Volumes Inland water traffic growth is expected to remain at relatively low rates of 1% to 1.5% through 2035, the rate of growth for the past 10 years. Containerized Waterborne Freight Volumes Containerized freight volumes grew rapidly in the past decade until 2008 when they sharply. Long-term growth is likely to resume to previously robust levels with improvement in the global economy. Interstate Highway Speeds A near doubling of traffic volumes in the past 25 years has slowed peak hour speeds in most urban areas. Long-term traffic growth is likely to continue to outpace physical or operational improvements to the Interstate System. As a result, travel speeds are likely to continue declining. Travel speeds at top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks Rising traffic volumes combined with a low rate of investment is likely to result in slower travel speeds and increased delays at the nation’s top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks. Class I RR Operating Speed Operating speeds at Class I railroads have remained stable for the past decade. The RRs warn of long-term congestion and delay if investment levels are not increased. Cost of Logistics as a Percent of GDP After decades of decline, logistics as a cost of GDP appears to be tracking upward. NHS Pavement Conditions Approximately 50 percent of the NHS pavement conditions are in ‘Good’ condition, representing improvement over the past decade. However, higher costs and uncertain funding levels create uncertainty whether those relatively low levels can be sustained. NHS Bridge Conditions Structural deficiencies on the NHS have declined by 40 percent in recent decades and were forecast to continue improving. However, dramatically higher material prices in the past two years and uncertain funding levels threaten the long-term improvement that had been expected. Freight-Produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) Freight-produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions are expected to rise commensurate with the increase in truck, rail, and water freight volumes. Current emission technology does not control vehicular GHE. Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions Truck-related GHE are predicted to rise steadily with a projected 30% increase in vehicle miles traveled by 2030. Rail Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rail GHE steadily increased from 1990 to 2005 but leveled off because of declining rail volumes and cleaner locomotives. Freight-Produced Ozone-Related Emissions Ozone precursors from trucks have declined dramatically in recent years and are predicted to continue to decline as cleaner vehicles replace current ones and as the benefits of cleaner fuels are realized. Truck-related VOCs These ozone-contributing emissions produced by trucks have fallen dramatically because of cleaner fuels, and vehicles. Truck-related Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions Truck-generated NOX emissions are forecast to fall 82 percent from 2002 levels by 2020 because of cleaner fuels and vehicles. Rail NOX Emissions The elimination of sulfur from fuel and introduction of cleaner locomotives are expected to reduce RR NOX emissions by 41% by 2020 and by 83% by 2040. Rail VOC Emissions The same fuel and locomotive changes are forecasted by USEPA to reduce per-gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040 Truck Particulate Emissions Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an 82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions. Ship produced NOX and PM Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for US-flagged merchant vessels. Both PM and NOX emissions are predicted to decline significantly through 2040 on a per-gallon basis. System Condition Measures Environmental Condition Measures Freight Demand Measures System Efficiency Measures Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular. The key in Figure S.2 includes four different colors of indicators used in the report card. The need for multiple indicators is reflective of freight’s complexity. Some decreases are positive, such as decreases in emissions. Some increases are negative, such as increases in crashes. Other changes could be considered either positive or negative depending upon the stakeholder’s viewpoint. Increases or decreases in freight volumes are shown in black, indicating their change could be viewed as either positive or negative depending upon the stakeholder’s perspective. Changes in red clearly are negative, such as increases in freight-related fatalities. The report card attempts to illustrate trends but also whether those trends are positive or negative. Admittedly, stakeholders with strong positions may disagree with the characterization. For instance, advocates for one mode may see increases in freight volumes for another mode as negative. The formatting is oriented to a centrist, public-sector viewpoint. Trend lines also are emphasized in the report card to provide additional context regarding how performance has changed over time, or how it is likely to unfold into the future. As noted in Figure S.1, accompanying the report card are summaries that elaborate on each performance metric. Following the report card, below, is a representative summary for the cost of logistics as a percentage of gross domestic product. That summary defines and further elaborates upon the measure. The summary also includes references to even more detailed information that may be of interest to a more Black arrows indicate trends which are not necessarily positive or negative, such as growth in freight volumes. Green arrows indicate trends which are benign. They can be either downward trends, such as a decrease in crashes, or upward, such as increased levels of investment. Yellow arrows indicate performance which is not clearly positive and may be indicative of future problems. Red arrows indicate negative trends, that can either be increasing, such as emissions, or decreasing, such as the adequacy of investment. Key Figure S.2 Report card key Figure S.2. Report Card key.

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

7 emphasized to respond to the project objective of having measures that allow for analysis at national, state, and regional levels. Generally, measures based upon inventories allow for granular analysis, whereas those based on estimates do not. The report card also is proposed to include trend lines of future performance, or leading indicators, in addition to retrospective measures. Most performance measurement systems begin with lagging indicators, but users have consistently grown dissatisfied with backward- looking trends alone. Leading indicators are important for policy and investment decisions. For instance, the indicators within the Report Card forecast that national emission targets for ozone-causing nitrogen oxide (NO x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are on track to be met. However, greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are forecast to increase sig- nificantly if current trends continue. Such information could well indicate that traditional emission strategies to control harmful ozone precursors are working, while society has yet to develop an effective GHG strategy for freight. Likewise, the leading indicators that forecast that overall freight volumes are to increase for highways, railways, ports, and intermodal 8 Performance Measure 10 Year Trend Analysis 20 Year Forecast Freight-Produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) Freight-produced greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise commensurate with the increase in truck, rail, and water freight volumes. Current emission technology does not control vehicular GHE. Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions Truck-related GHG are predicted to rise steadily with a projected 30% increase in vehicle miles traveled by 2030. Rail Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rail GHG steadily increased from 1990 to 2005 but leveled off because of declining rail volumes and cleaner locomotives. Freight-Produced Ozone-Related Emissions Ozone precursors from trucks have declined dramatically in recent years and are predicted to continue to decline as cleaner vehicles replace current ones and as the benefits of cleaner fuel are realized. Truck-related VOCs These ozone-contributing emissions produced by trucks have fallen dramatically because of cleaner fuels, and vehicles. Truck-related Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions Truck-generated NOx emissions are forecasted to fall 82% from 2002 levels by 2020 because of cleaner fuels and vehicles. Rail NOX Emissions The elimination of sulfur from fuel and introduction of cleaner locomotives are expected to reduce RR NOx emissions by 41% by 2020 and by 83% by 2040. Rail VOC Emissions The same fuel and locomotive changes are forecasted by USEPA to reduce per-gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040. Truck Particulate Emissions Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an 82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions. Ship produced NOX and PM Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for U.S.-flagged merchant vessels. Both PM and NOx emissions are predicted to decline significantly through 2040 on a per-gallon basis. Truck Injury and Fatal Crashes Between 1988 and 2007, the large truck injury crash rate decreased from 67.9 to 31.8 per million miles traveled. The 2007 rate is the lowest on record. The large truck fatal crash rate has also declined. In 2007, this rate was 1.85, down from a peak of 5.21 in 1979. The 2007 rate is the lowest rate on record. Highway/Rail At-Grade Crashes Between 1998 and 2008 the number of incidents at RR crossings involving both vehicles and pedestrians declined 32%. Nearly 2,400 annual incidents still occur, with 289 deaths in 2008. Estimated Investment in NHS to Sustain Conditions The 2004 FHWA Condition and Performance Report indicated that then-current investment levels were adequate to sustain most NHS conditions. However, since then construction costs increased significantly and funding for the federal highway program remains undecided. Rail Freight Industry Earning Cost of Capital The Cost of Capital for the Class I railroads has steadily declined, which is a positive economic trend for them. Lower Cost of Capital reflects lower costs to acquire capital to improve the rail network. Estimated Rail Capital Investment to Sustain Market Share A rail industry analysis concluded that the Class I RRs need to increase capital investment in expansion to sustain market share. Their ability to raise sufficient investment capital is not definite and may not be sufficient to sustain market share. Inland Waterway Investment to Sustain Lock and Dam Average Age at Less than 50 Years The average age of locks on the inland waterways system is estimated to be in excess of 51 years. Current expenditure levels do not appear to be sufficient to improve that average age. Environmental Condition Measures Freight Safety Measures System Investment Measures Figure S.3. Continued.

8Figure S.4. Representative summary. 9 Logistics As A Percentage of GDP Performance Indicator – Paradoxical The cost of logistics as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product fell to the lowest level ever recorded in 2009. 1 This precipitous decline generally represents negative trends such as the rapid decline in manufacturing output, the unemployment of thousands of truck drivers and a significant downturn in truck, rail, air and water freight movement. As can be seen in the table and chart, logistics costs as a percent of GDP had been generally declining since 1985. The gradual, long-term decline was generally viewed as a positive factor. It represented increased innovation and efficiencies in the logistics industry. Logistics costs were not rising as fast as GDP which signaled increased productivity and lower relative costs for moving goods. However, the severe recession of 2008 and 2009 caused logistics volume to fall significantly. The logistics costs decline was viewed as creating unsustainably low prices for goods movements which were often below the costs of logistics firms. Layoffs, bankruptcies and operating losses were prevalent in the logistics industry as a result. 1 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. Year Transport Inventory Total 1986 6.3 4.9 11.6 1988 6.1 4.9 11.5 1990 6.1 4.9 11.4 1992 5.9 3.7 10 1994 5.9 3.7 10.1 1996 6.0 3.9 10.2 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3 2002 5.6 2.9 8.8 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7 10 Forecasted Trend Line - Uncertain The decline in oil prices and extraordinary softness in the economy caused the cost of logistics in relation to GDP to decline in 2008 and 2009 but long-term trends could send the costs upward. After rising 50 percent in the previous five years total logistics costs fell in 2008 and fell further in 2009. Inventory carrying costs plunged primarily in 2008 because interest rates were over 50 percent lower than 2007. In 2009, transportation costs fell significantly to push logistics as a percent of GDP to 7.7 percent. In the years leading up to the recession of 2001, logistics costs as a percentage of GDP had been rising until they surpassed the 10 percent mark. Greater efficiencies and innovations caused the rate to fall in the mid 2000s. The recession of 2008 caused overall freight movement to plummet which drove overall logistics costs further downward. When the economy rebounds, there will be fewer trucks in service as the trucking industry has shed excess drivers and vehicles. Also, the recession softened demand for fuel. As the economy rebounds these factors plus inventory costs could put upward pressure on logistics costs. Links to Source Documents In the proposed Freight System Report Card, this summary would be linked to the source document, in this case the CSCMP 2010 State of Logistics Report. The links to source documents provide the greater detail and context that some readers would desire. The complete set of explanatory summaries is included in Appendix F. Balancing Competing Objectives Reflecting the diverse and often competing interests in freight measurement, the report card is set up similar to a Balanced Scorecard. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance measurement system that includes measures that reflect the tensions that exist for decision making. Instead of focusing on a few narrow measures, the scorecard juxtaposes measures of competing values, such as freight efficiency and freight externalities. Normally, Balanced Scorecards have four components that balance metrics for finances, internal processes, customer satisfaction, and the institution’s ability to learn and innovate. Figure S.4. The Balanced Scorecard approach. 9 Logistics As A Percentage of GDP Performance Indicator – Paradoxical The cost of logistics as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product fell to the lowest level ever recorded in 2009. 1 This precipitous decline generally represents negative trends such as the rapid decline in manufacturing output, the unemployment of thousands of truck drivers and a significant downturn in truck, rail, air and water freight movement. As can be seen in the table and chart, logistics costs as a percent of GDP had been generally declining since 1985. The gradual, long-term decline was generally viewed as a positive factor. It represented incr ased inn vation and efficiencies in the logi tics industry. Logistics costs were not rising as fast as GDP which signaled creased productivity and lower relative costs for moving goods. However, the severe recession of 2008 and 2009 caused logistics volume to fall significantly. The logistics costs decline was viewed as creating unsustainably low prices for goods movements which were often below the costs of logistics firms. Layoffs, bankruptcies and operating losses were prevalent in the logistics industry as a result. 1 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. Year Transport Inventory Total 1986 6.3 4.9 11.6 1988 6.1 4.9 11.5 1990 6.1 4.9 11.4 1992 5.9 3.7 10 1994 5.9 3.7 10.1 1996 6.0 3.9 10.2 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3 2002 5.6 2.9 8.8 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7 r t r i - rt i li i il ri s tr r i r s ft ss i t s t st f l isti s i r l ti t t li i , but long-ter trends could send the costs up ard. fter risi r t i t r i s fi rs t t l l isti s sts f ll i f ll f rt r i . I t r rr i t l ri ril i i t r t r t r r r t l r t . I , tr rt ti t f ll i ifi tl t l i ti r t f t . r t. I t r l i t t r i f , l i ti t r t f ri i til t r t r t r . r t r ffi i i i ti t r t t f ll i t i . r i f r ll fr i t t t l t, hich r r ll l i ti t f rt r r . t r , t r ill f r tr i r i t tr i i tr ri r i l . l , t r i ft f r f l. t r t f t r l i t r t l t r r r l i ti t . i t i t t t , t i l li t t t, i t i t t t f i ti t. li t t i t t t il t t t t l i . l t t l t i i i l i i . , . 9 i ti a a t f P f r ance Indicator – Paradoxical st of logistics as a percentage of Gross Domestic r ct fell to the lowest level ever recorded in 2 09. 1 is recipitous decline generally represents negative trends such as the rapid decline in manufacturing output, the une ployment of thousands of truck drivers and a significant downturn in truck, rail, air and water freight movement. As can be seen in the table and chart, logistics costs as a percent of GDP had been generally declining since 1985. The gradual, long-term decline was generally viewed as a positive factor. It represented increased innovation and efficiencies in the logistics industry. Logistics costs were not rising as fast as GDP, which signaled increased productivity and lower relative costs for moving goods. However, the severe recession of 2008 and 2009 caused logistics volume to fall significantly. The logistics costs decline was viewed as creating unsustainably low prices for goods movements, which were often below the costs of logistics firms. Layoffs, bankruptcies, and operating losses were prevalent in the logistics industry as a result. 1 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. Year Transport Inventory Total 1986 6.3 4.9 11.6 1988 6.1 4.9 11.5 1990 6.1 4.9 11.4 1992 5.9 3.7 10 1994 5.9 3.7 10.1 1996 6.0 3.9 10.2 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3 2002 5.6 2.9 8.8 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7 9 Logistics as a Percentage of GDP I i i l t l i ti t f r ss o estic t ll t t l t l l r r r e i 2009. 1 i i it li r ll r r s ts egative t t i li i f ct ri g , t t s f tr c drivers t i tr , r il, ir a ater . i t ta le and chart, t e e erally . l, l -ter ecline iti f t r. It re resented i i i s i t e l istics t t risi s fast as P, ti it l er . i f 9 caused i i i tl . l istics costs ti st i l l prices , i r ft l , r t i s, t l i ti s i str as a 1 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. Year Transport Inve tory Total 1986 6.3 4.9 11.6 1988 6.1 4.9 11.5 1990 6.1 4.9 11.4 1992 5.9 3.7 10 1994 5.9 3.7 10.1 1996 6.0 3.9 10.2 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3 2002 5.6 2.9 8.8 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7

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

10 and the top 20 U.S. ports. The powerful market forces that lead logistics professionals to seek the lowest-cost, most direct routes from freight origins to destinations have led to con- siderable consolidation of volumes on the network, as shown in Table S.1. This significant consolidation simplifies measurement considerably. Out of 4 million miles of public roads, 4 percent, the National Highway System, carries more than 70 percent of the truck freight. Container port traffic is highly concentrated, as are freight volumes on U.S. railroads. Moni- toring of performance of the national system is greatly simplified by focusing upon these key networks. The framework is established, however, to allow all regions to measure their own freight network performance. The ability to disaggregate the data would allow a less populated region to break out the performance data down to its region and, in several cases, down to individual links, or bridges. In this way, the national report card could be mirrored at the state or metropolitan level. Deployment and Maintenance of Report Card Despite the efforts to reduce the cost and other barriers to creation of the Freight System Report Card, the undertaking would still require a substantial effort by a yet-unidentified coalition of collaborators. However, such coalitions exist. As mentioned, Austroads has been producing a transportation agency performance reporting system for more than a decade by relying on contributions of data from the Australian state transportation agencies and by the central transportation agency in New Zealand. An association of Nordic States shares per- formance information, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Performance Management has taken several preliminary steps to populate a Web-based compilation of state performance metrics. The coalition for the Freight System Report Card would need to extend to various federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) with the Freight Anal- ysis Framework (FAF) and its modal agencies, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as illustrated in Figure S. 6. However, these agencies’ contribution would be to provide the Web-based report card reports that they already produce. One complexity would be the contractual arrangements and cost for the private-sector- produced measures and related reports, such as the CSCMP report, and the data produced by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). States and metropolitan regions’ participation would be voluntary. There- fore the degree of coverage across states and metropolitan regions would depend upon the degree to which state and local participation is engendered. 12 do were given higher consideration for inclusion as a metric. They provide context and interpretation for the changes in the metrics. Initial Focus on Key Freight Network Components The framework seeks to simplify the enormous complexity of measuring the U.S. freight network by focusing primarily on the disproportionate importance of key freight network components, such as the Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I railroads, and the top 20 US ports. The powerful market forces that lead logistics professionals to seek the lowest-cost, most direct routes from freight origins to destinations have led to considerable consolidation of volumes on the network, as shown in Table S.1. This significant consolidation simplifies measurement considerably. Out of 4 million miles of Table S.1. Freight volumes consolidated on the key network components. Facility Size Percent of Freight Interstate Highway System 1% of highway system 49% of Truck VMT National Highway System 4% of highway system 75% of Truck VMT* Class I RRs 7 out of 563 carriers 93% of Rail Revenue Top 20 container ports Out of 124 nationally 96% of Container Traffic public roads, 4 percent, the National Highway System, carries more than 70 percent of the truck freight. Container port traffic is highly concentrated, as are freight volumes on U.S. railroads. Monitoring of performance of the national system is greatly simplified by focusing upon these key networks. The framework is established, however, to allow all regions to measure their own freight network performance. The ability to disaggregate the data would allow a less populated region to break out the performance data down to its region and, in several cases, down to individual links, or bridges. In this way, the national report card could be mirrored at the state or metropolitan level. Deployment and Maintenance of Report Card Despite the efforts to reduce the cost and other barriers to creation of the Freight System Report Card, the undertaking would still require a substantial effort by a yet-unidentified coalition of collaborators. However, such c ali ions xist. As mentioned, Austroa s h s been pr ducing a transportation agency performance reporting system for more than a decade by relying on contributions of data from the Australian state transportation ag ncies and by the central transportation agency in New Zealand. An association of Nordic States shares performance information, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Performance Management has taken several preliminary steps to populate a Web-based compilation of state performance metrics. Comment [ls1]: Author: Please either define or delete asterisk in table. table S.1. Freight volumes c nsolidat d on the k y network components.

11 A summary of the six categories of measures includes: Freight Demand Measures: These measures provide insight into the past and future per- formance of the freight system and shed light on every other measurement category. They are particularly important for planning, investment, and policy decisions at all levels of government. In the case of freight performance measures, the measures of System Efficiency and System Conditions document increased congestion and declining key system condi- tions in recent years. In the System Investment Measures, it is documented that recent levels of investment are inadequate to sustain current conditions. Therefore, when the measures documenting inadequate system performance today are viewed in light of forecast future freight demands and continued underinvestment, an overall picture of further degradation in the condition and performance of the national freight network emerges. Although general in nature, the rate of growth in freight demand provides insight into the future trends of several other measures, such as levels of congestion. However, not all conditions are linearly linked to volume. For instance, some emissions are declining, even though freight volumes are expected to increase. As seen in the report card, the rates of growth are shown for truck, rail, and water volumes. These metrics are included pending more sophisticated forecasts being available in all measurement categories. The Estimated Rate of Growth in Containerized Imports/Exports was chosen as an addi- tional measure because of the disproportionate impact containerized goods play in the global economy. Additionally, growth in the movement of containerized goods will impact all three major freight transportation modes. Other waterborne freight is important, but inland domestic bulk shipping volumes have been relatively stable over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, containerized shipments have grown substantially. The relative per-ton value of containerized shipments is substantially above comparable values for bulk commodities. The containerized shipments represent the high-value, high-growth imports and exports critical in the modern global economy. 13 The coalition for the Freight System Report Card would need to extend to various federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and its modal agencies, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as illustrated in Figure S.5. However, these agencies’ contribution would be to provide the Web-based report card reports that they already produce. One complexity would be the contractual arrangements and cost for the private-sector-produced measures and related reports, such as the CSCMP report, and the data produced by ATRI and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). States and metropolitan regions’ participation would be voluntary. Therefore the degree of coverage across states and metropolitan regions would depend upon the degree to which state and local participation is engendered. A summary of the six categories of measures includes: Freight Demand Measures: These measures provide insight into the past and future performance of the freight system and shed light on every other measurement category. They are particularly important for planning, investment, and policy decisions at all levels of government. In the case of freight performance measures, the measures of System Efficiency and System Conditions document increased congestion and declining key system conditions in recent years. In the System Investment Measures, it is documented that recent levels of investment are inadequate to sustain current conditions. Therefore, when the measures documenting inadequate system performance today are viewed in light of forecast future freight Proposed Performance Measure Framework Data Sources National Bridge Data National Crash Data National Air Quality Inventories FAF National Highway Condition Data FHWA Condition and Performance ATRI/FHWA Speed Data CSCMP Cost Study Figure S.5. The Report Card would rely upon many data sources, as shown. Comment [ls2]: Author: Please define FAF so we can include the definition in the figure. Figure S.6. Report card data sources.

12 System Efficiency Measures: These measures are selected for insight into the overridingly critical Interstate Highway System (IHS) and Class I railroad network. Each network is dis- proportionately important to the overall freight system: • The IHS comprises only 1 percent of public highway miles but accounts for 49 percent of all truck vehicle miles of travel. • The seven Class I railroads generate 93 percent of all rail freight revenue of the more than 500 railroad companies. Focusing upon these two systems greatly simplifies data collection and maximizes the return on investment in terms of system performance measurement. The IHS is proposed to be measured in terms of various average link speeds, as well as in terms of its most critical bottlenecks and its reliability. Performance measurement should eventually be expanded to the larger National Highway System (NHS). The NHS, including the IHS, is only 4 percent of the public highway network but carries 75 percent of all truck vehicle miles of travel. The Class I railroad network is proposed to be measured in terms of the composite oper- ating speeds of trains reported by the Class I railroads. Another critical railroad measure is rail’s relative market share of overall freight ton-miles. This measure was selected as a barometer of change over time in the mode split of surface transportation. The final measure in the efficiency category is the Cost of Logistics as a Percentage of the GDP. This measure is produced with statistical rigor by CSCMP and serves as an insightful barometer as to the relative cost of freight movement. Because it is a composite measure of all modes, and because it is produced as a percentage sensitive to overall economic growth, the project team believes it provides valuable trend line insight into the efficiency of the national freight network. System Condition Measures: Obviously, the condition of the system is a critically important factor in the future performance of the freight system. The conditions of the NHS bridge and pavement inventories are proposed measures. In addition, the critical “last mile” of the NHS intermodal connectors is proposed for reporting, but only at the local level at this time. These two components—the NHS and its last-mile connectors—serve to reflect the condition of the national network and its performance in terms of its last linkage to key freight generators. At present, because the NHS intermodal connectors are not subject to any standardized reporting, they are not included in the national report card. They are recom- mended, however, in the local report card. Environmental Condition Measures: Although other measures such as hazardous chemi- cal spills or non–point source pollution caused by highway runoff could be considered, it is the air emissions that have been most extensively regulated. Therefore they are included in the freight performance measurement system. Various GHG emissions are combined into one measure each for the trucking, rail, and water modes. Ground-level ozone is regulated by addressing its primary precursors, which are VOCs and NO x . Although GHG emissions are the focus of significant public discussion currently, VOCs and NO x have been the sub- ject of more than 30 years of regulatory effort at the national, state, and local levels and are therefore included. Diesel engines historically produced a disproportionate amount of particulate emissions, which have become an increasingly regulated emission category. The ability of microscopic particles to travel deep into the lungs has become recognized as a serious air quality and public health concern. The regulation of particulates affects trucking, rail, and water transport because of those modes’ reliance upon diesel engines and their historical rates of particulate emissions.

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

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

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

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

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

18 As noted later in the research, freight data exist for many externalities such as freight- related crashes or emissions because national goals, national legislation, and national data systems exist for those externalities. The emerging interest in federal freight legislation even- tually could result in greater focus upon measuring multimodal freight efficiency. Con- current research into how to measure freight system reliability would complement those national policy efforts. Endnotes 1 “Balanced Scorecard” refers to the system originated by Robert Kaplan and David Norton. See http://www. balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx. 2 Drucker, Peter. The Information Executives Truly Need (Harvard Business Review, Jan./Feb. 1995). In Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998, pp. 1–24. 3 Frigo, M. L. Strategy-Focused Performance Measures, Strategic Finance, Sept. 2002. 4 Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard—Measures That Drive Performance (Harvard Business Review, Feb. 1992). In Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998. 5 Eccles, Robert G., The Performance Measurement Manifesto (Harvard Business Review, 1991). In Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998, pp. 25–45. 6 Government Accountability Office, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, Definitions and Relationships, 2005, p. 1.

Next: Chapter 1 - Research Objective »
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!