National Academies Press: OpenBook

Performance Measures for Freight Transportation (2011)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Research Objective

« Previous: Summary
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Objective." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Objective." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Objective." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Objective." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Objective." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Objective." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14520.
×
Page 26

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.

19 c h a p t e r 1 Research objective Research Statement The objective of this project is to develop measures to gauge the performance of the freight transportation system, including its subsystems and components. The project’s areas of emphasis include efficiency, effectiveness, capacity, safety, security, infrastructure condition, congestion, energy, and the environment. The measures are to be comprehensive, objec- tive, and consistent and to reflect local, regional, national, and global perspectives. The measures are intended to support investment, operations, and policy decisions by a range of stakeholders, both public and private. The key stakeholders who may be interested in a freight performance measurement framework were to be identified and their interests described. The framework was to include specific examples of performance measures. Inherent within the project charge are several key implica- tions. First, the framework and performance measures need to allow for assessment of broad, national transportation systems, with the ability to “drill down” into subsystems and components. An example would be performance measures of the National Highway System (NHS) that could allow aggre- gation to a national level, with granularity at a regional level and down to a specific link or interchange. Otherwise, the subsystems and components could not be measured. Second, the framework needs to address all aspects cited in the project objectives and tasks ranging from freight system efficiency, to environmental externalities, to freight sys- tem costs. As a result, a variety of modes need to be considered and the issues surrounding each mode must be measured. Third, the framework needs to include leading indicators, as well as lagging ones. This emphasis upon leading indica- tors is not explicit in the project objective but implicit. If the framework and measures are to be relevant to stakeholders, they need predictive capability, particularly for consideration of investment and policy alternatives. If freight volumes were expected to decrease, the need for system investment would fall. If freight volumes are to rise, then additional investment in system capacity is required. Without insight into future trends, investment and policy decisions are significantly hampered. Fourth, the inclusion of operations measures infers the need for continuous travel-time performance information. Operations decisions in the private sector tend to be in real time or near real time in terms of selecting routes, choosing modes of transport, or selecting which warehouse, port, or depot to use. In the public sector, highway operations deci- sions also occur in near real time. Therefore, having opera- tions measures increases the frequency, granularity, and detail of performance information that would be required to satisfy the project’s objectives. Background on Research Need Two trends converged to create demand for freight sys- tem performance measures. First, freight’s importance has increasingly been recognized within local, state, and federal transportation programs. Secondly, the emphasis on mea- suring outcomes in transportation programs has grown. The convergence of these trends creates an interest in a set of measures that can provide insight into the functioning of the multifaceted freight transportation network. Freight shipments and the transportation network have a symbiotic relationship. Freight patterns are affected by the configuration, condition, and performance of the transpor- tation system, while the presence of freight affects both the condition and the performance of the transportation system itself. Efficient freight movement is an essential ingredient in a modern economy, yet, left unchecked, freight movement can create externalities that increase societal costs in terms of traffic crashes, emissions, growing energy consumption, and other impacts. Society in both explicit and implicit ways seeks to promote freight’s contributions while diminishing its impacts.

20 Further complicating freight measurement is its inextri- cable linkage to every sector of the economy. Not only does a complex and diverse freight-movement industry (Table 1.1) have interests in freight system measurement, but all the cus- tomers of the freight industry also have their own mirror- image concerns. The private sector focuses heavily upon cost, speed, and reliability, but the value placed on all three varies dramatically by industry. An on-line retailer needs instanta- neous delivery, whereas the user of high-volume, low-unit- value bulk commodities may find shipment times of several weeks acceptable. Therefore the needs of the private sector are as diverse as are the 6 million individual U.S. employers. See Table 1.2. Freight’s importance to the economy has become increas- ingly recognized by transportation officials. For the past decade they have developed increasingly sophisticated approaches to understanding how the transportation system affects freight movement, and how freight movement affects transportation system performance. The movement of goods is an essential component of traditionally important sectors of the economy 2 Secondly, the emphasis on measuring outcomes in transportation programs has grown. The convergence of these trends creates an interest in a set of measures that can provide insight into the functioning of the multifaceted freight transportation network. Table 1.1. Selected statistics. Freight shipments and the transportation network have a symbiotic relationship. Freight patterns are affected by the configuration, condition, and performance of the transportation system, while the presence of freight affects both the condition and the performance of the transportation system itself. Efficient freight movement is an essential ingredient in a modern economy, yet, left unchecked, freight movement can create externalities that increase societal costs in terms of traffic crashes, emissions, growing energy consumption, and other impacts. Society in both explicit and implicit ways seeks to promote freight’s contributions while diminishing its impacts. Further complicating freight measurement is its inextricable linkage to every sector of the economy. Not only does a complex and diverse freight- movement industry (Table 1.1) have interests in freight system measurement, but all the customers of the freight industry also have their own mirror-image concerns. The private sector focuses heavily upon cost, speed, and reliability, but the value placed on all three varies dramatically by industry. An on-line retailer needs instantaneous delivery, whereas the user of high- volume, low-unit-value bulk commodities may find shipment times of several weeks acceptable. Therefore the needs of the private sector are as diverse as are the six million individual U.S. employers. See table 1.2. Freight’s importance to the economy has become increasingly recognized by transportation officials. For the past decade they have developed increasingly sophisticated approaches to understanding how the transportation system affects freight movement, and how freight movement affects transportation system performance. The movement of goods is an essential component of traditionally important sectors of the economy such as manufacturing, agriculture, retailing, mining, and construction. Growth in freight movement has for the past two decades increased at a faster rate than overall growth in the economy. This has occurred despite the growth in economic sectors that do not rely primarily on goods movement, such as finance, information technology, and entertainment. The Selected Transportation Statistics Transportation as percentage of GDP 10% Total transportation employment (millions) 13.1 For hire transport and warehousing employment (millions) 4.5 Transportation-related manufacturing employment (millions) 2.1 Million miles of highways in US 3.9 Miles of Interstate Highway 46,769 National Highway System miles 115,032 Public use airports 5,286 Miles of Class I railroads 98,944 Regional freight lines miles 15,648 Local freight line miles 26,347 Navigable waterway miles 26,000 Public ports 150 Oil pipelines in miles 64,336 Product lines in miles 75,565 Gas transmission lines 309,503 5 Table 1.2. Summary of employers illustrates the many types of private sector stakeholders, all of whom have differing interests in freight measurement. Although there are no similar forecasting processes for the marine system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reports that the average age of the channels, locks, and dams that comprise the Marine Transportation System is in excess of 50 years. No infrastructure condition assessment system exists for the national network of ports. However, the top 20 U.S. ports have experienced substantial increases in container volumes driven by the increasingly globalized economy over the past 20 years. Localized congestion, along with impacts such as emissions caused by idling ships, trucks, and trains, has created significant localized air quality concerns. In addition to measuring the performance and condition of the freight network, the externalities of freight system performance also have attracted significant societal attention. From the nation’s earliest days, it was regulating imports to collect tariffs, to discourage certain imports, and to protect the health and safety of the public. Throughout the nineteenth century the nation and its states promoted expansion of a freight network of canals, ports, railroads, highways, and navigable river channels. Soon after the expansion of each mode came various regulations to promote competition, protect public safety, or to control monopolistic practices. Today, regulation of freight externalities is common in terms of freight’s contributions to highway crashes, air emissions, and hazardous waste releases, and also in terms of control of contraband at borders, even to the control of invasive species released in ballast water of international merchant vessels. The freight network’s vast size, its enorm us c mplexity, its fixed facilities, and its mobile rolling stock are so integrated into society that impacts are felt in many areas of health, safety, and the environment. The measurement of freight performance, therefore, requires a comprehensive and multifaceted approach. Its measurement must include areas of travel speed and reliability, economic costs, environmental impacts, health and safety effects, and its influence upon security. Types of U.S. Firms All Industries 6,022,127 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 22,888 Mining 20,583 Utilities 6,554 Construction 791,558 Manufacturing 286,039 Wholesale Trade 334,594 Retail Trade 725,557 Transportation and Warehousing 171,947 Information 74,952 Finance and Insurance 263,028 Real Estat , Rental, and Leasing 305,981 P ofessional, Scientific, and Technical 772,025 Management Companies 26,760 Waste Management 323,282 Educational Services 73,793 Health Care and Social Assistance 605,845 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 115,049 Accommodation and Food Service 467,120 Other Services, Except Public Administration 672,056 Unclassified Source 27,027 table 1.1. Selected statistics. table 1.2. Summary of U.S. employers.

21 such as manufacturing, agriculture, retailing, mining, and construction. Growth in freight movement has for the past two decades increased at a faster rate than overall growth in the economy. This has occurred despite the growth in eco- nomic sectors that do not rely primarily on goods movement, such as finance, information technology, and entertainment. The growth in freight has occurred because transport has been a relatively inexpensive input to the production chain, causing producers to “consume more transport.” Supply chains have lengthened as producers sought inexpensive foreign sources of production. The high reliability of international and trans- continental shipments has reduced distance as an impedi- ment to production. Producers and consumers could for the past 20 years be physically separated by vast differences but be linked continuously by a reliable and relatively inexpensive multimodal logistics chain. The complexity of measuring freight performance reflects the vast dimensions and vast complexities of the North Amer- ican freight transportation network. The U.S. economy is the world’s largest, generating a gross domestic product (GDP) of $11.7 trillion in 2004.1 The U.S. economy is closely tied to the Canadian and Mexican economies, which represent, respectively, the second and third largest U.S. trading part- ners.2 In addition, the U.S. economy has increasingly relied on international trade. Trade has grown from 13 percent of the U.S. economy in 1990 to 26 percent in 2000.3 Trade with China grew from $85 billion in 1998 to $343 billion in 2006, representative of recent trade patterns.4 Therefore, the freight transport network in the United States has evolved to serve not only the immense amounts of domestic freight that move within the country but also an estimated 2 billion tons of freight that move into or out of the nation annually.5 The success of the national and international freight net- work led to a near doubling in freight volumes over the past two decades—and to commensurate degradation in freight system performance. The degradation has not been uniform. It has been displayed disproportionately as congestion on key links and nodes of the network of highways, railroads, ports, airports, and marine highways. Congestion and travel- time degradation on these individual networks is only par- tially understood. Even less understood by the public sector are impediments and delays caused by inefficient linkages between the modes. These inefficient handoffs between port and rail shipments, between trucks and trains at intermodal yards, or between ships and railroads at ports are not regu- lated, measured, or quantified by the public sector. As result, the magnitude of the inefficiencies at the linkages between modes is only partially and anecdotally understood. Even the actual volumes of freight on the network are understood incompletely. The Freight in America report noted that an estimated 53 million tons of goods valued at about $36 billion moved nearly 12 billion ton-miles on the nation’s transportation network every day in 2002.6 The figures underestimate the total amounts actually shipped because they do not capture the estimated 300,000 private trucking companies alone, not to mention the rail, water, pipeline, and intermodal transporters. The federal statistics cannot capture all movements, such as those conducted by in-house fleets, such as those that serve Wal-Mart and other companies. Also, many commodities such as timber, farm products, or fisheries products cannot be completely calcu- lated. Construction, solid waste, and crude petroleum are among several categories that are of economic importance but cannot be adequately estimated. Therefore, these and other estimates used nationally represent the best available but are acknowledged to be incomplete.7 Freight system impacts are experienced not only as con- gestion but also as degradation in the physical infrastructure of highways, railroads, ports, airports, locks, and dams. The lack of adequacy in infrastructure investment has been docu- mented in most modes. The doubling of freight volumes, as shown for trucks in Figure 1.1, and the aging of the infra- structure have led to concerns over the future condition of the national freight network. The 2007 National Rail Freight Infrastructure and Capacity Study forecasts that if the 2035 rail freight volumes were to occur on today’s rail network, 30 percent of the major rail net- work would be operating above capacity and creating severe congestion. Because of the interrelated nature of the nation’s rail network, this congestion would affect every region of the country. Frustrated shippers would potentially shift freight to already congested highways, the study suggests. 4 Freight system impacts are experienced not only as congestion but also as degradation in the physical infrastructure of highways, railroads, ports, airports, locks, and dams. The lack of adequacy in infrastructure inv stment has been documented in most modes. The doubling of fre ght volumes, as shown for trucks in Figure 1.1, and the aging of the infrastructure have led to concerns over the future condition of the national freight network. The 2007 National Rail Freight Inf astructure and Capacity Study forecasts that if the 2035 rail freight volumes were to occur on today’s rail network, 30 percent of the major rail network would be operating above capacity and creating severe congestion. Because of the interrelated nature of the nation’s rail network, this congestion would affect every region of the country. Frustrated shippers would potentially shift freight to already congested highways, the study suggests. For highways, the most conservative forecast of the National Surface Transportation Revenue and Policy Study Commission (the National Commission) indicates that the nation needs to be investing at least $199 billion annually in transportation through 2020. Today, the nation is spending from all sources $86 billion. The National Commission report’s forecasts that at current levels of investment, delay per traveler on urban principal arterials would increase by 20 percent by 2020, by 50 percent in 2035, and double by 2055. Since more people will be traveling in a growing population, total hours of delay on principal arterials would double by 2035 and quadruple by 2055, the commission forecasts.8 The National Commission reported that the current 18.3 cents-per-gallon federal motor fuels tax would need to increase by an additional 40 cents to meet highway investment needs. It estimated that the nation is spending only 40 percent of what is needed to sustain and improve the highway network. FHWA’s 2006 Condition and Performance Report notes than an increase in capital outlay of 87.4 percent above current levels would be required to reach the projected $131.7 billion level which provides the optimum highway investment level, according to its complex modeling.9 For transit, the 2006 Condition and Performance Report says the average annual cost to improve both the physical condition of transit assets and transit operational performance to targeted levels by 2024 is estimated to be $21.8 billion in constant 2004 dollars, 73.0 percent higher than transit capital spending of $12.6 billion in 2004.10 P ercen tag e T ru ck an d T ra ffic G ro w th 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 Highway Truck Combination Truc ks Figure 1.1. Freight volume growth. Figure 1.1. Freight volume growth.

22 For highways, the most conservative forecast of the National Surface Transportation Revenue and Policy Study Commission (the National Commission) indicates that the nation needs to be investing at least $199 billion annually in transportation through 2020. Today, the nation is spend- ing from all sources $86 billion. The National Commission report’s forecasts that at current levels of investment, delay per traveler on urban principal arterials would increase by 20 percent by 2020, by 50 percent in 2035, and double by 2055. Since more people will be traveling in a growing popu- lation, total hours of delay on principal arterials would double by 2035 and quadruple by 2055, the commission forecasts.8 The National Commission reported that the current 18.3 cents-per-gallon federal motor fuels tax would need to increase by an additional 40 cents to meet highway invest- ment needs. It estimated that the nation is spending only 40 percent of what is needed to sustain and improve the highway network. FHWA’s 2006 Condition and Performance Report notes than an increase in capital outlay of 87.4 percent above current levels would be required to reach the projected $131.7 billion level, which provides the optimum highway investment level, according to its complex modeling.9 For transit, the 2006 Condition and Performance Report says the average annual cost to improve both the physical condition of transit assets and transit operational performance to targeted levels by 2024 is estimated to be $21.8 billion in constant 2004 dollars, 73.0 percent higher than transit capital spending of $12.6 bil- lion in 2004.10 Although there are no similar forecasting processes for the marine system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reports that the average age of the channels, locks, and dams that comprise the Marine Transportation System is in excess of 50 years. No infrastructure condition assessment system exists for the national network of ports. However, the top 20 U.S. ports have experienced substantial increases in container volumes driven by the increasingly globalized economy over the past 20 years. Localized congestion, along with impacts such as emissions caused by idling ships, trucks, and trains, has created significant localized air quality concerns. In addition to measuring the performance and condi- tion of the freight network, the externalities of freight sys- tem performance also have attracted significant societal attention. From the nation’s earliest days, it was regulating imports to collect tariffs, to discourage certain imports, and to protect the health and safety of the public. Through- out the nineteenth century the nation and its states pro- moted expansion of a freight network of canals, ports, rail- roads, highways, and navigable river channels. Soon after the expansion of each mode came various regulations to promote competition, protect public safety, or to control monopolistic practices. Today, regulation of freight externalities is common in terms of freight’s contributions to highway crashes, air emis- sions, and hazardous waste releases, and also in terms of con- trol of contraband at borders, even to the control of invasive species released in ballast water of international merchant vessels. The freight network’s vast size, its enormous com- plexity, its fixed facilities, and its mobile rolling stock are so integrated into society that impacts are felt in many areas of health, safety, and the environment. The measurement of freight performance, therefore, requires a comprehensive and multifaceted approach. Its measurement must include areas of travel speed and reliabil- ity, economic costs, environmental impacts, health and safety effects, and its influence upon security. Movement Toward Measurement Despite the daunting complexities of freight system per- formance measurement, it appears likely that efforts to mea- sure and manage the freight system will be attempted. The National Commission11 strongly endorsed a performance- based federal transportation program. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)12 did as well. Various Congres- sional proposals related to reauthorization of federal trans- portation programs include new provisions requiring the set- ting of targets and measurement of progress. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has formed a series of committees and task forces to recommend a set of national transportation performance metrics.13 Several states, including Washington, Iowa, and Minnesota, have added a handful of freight-related perfor- mance measures to their suite of performance metrics. In addition to increased efforts to measure the freight sys- tem, it appears likely there will be increased federal efforts to improve the freight system. AASHTO proposes a seven-point freight position for the upcoming transportation program reauthorization. The position includes defining a national freight system, investing more heavily in it, and improving planning for it.14 The GAO called for a clear definition of the federal interest in the freight system. That definition should then be used, the GAO concluded, to improve federal invest- ment, policy, and planning efforts for the freight network.15 Research Approach The research approach sought to identify the major per- formance measurement interests of freight system stakehold- ers and to suggest a measurement framework that satisfied their diverse needs. At the same time, the research approach sought to balance a desire for measures against the reality that performance measurement can be expensive, intrusive, and complex to sustain.

23 The research began with a review of the history of the development of performance measures in the public and private sectors, particularly examining the lessons learned that could assist the development of a freight performance measurement system. The review included a summary of the freight performance measures that have been deployed, or at least proposed for public-sector agencies. This review included a detailed examination of the existing public-sector freight data and federal reports that could be used to populate a national freight performance measurement system. Lessons from the private-sector literature on performance measurement were emphasized in the research effort for two reasons. First, the private sector has a much longer history of performance measurement than does the public sector, and the evolution of private-sector measures holds lessons for the development of a national freight measurement system. Second, the research statement specifically sought perfor- mance measures that would be of interest to the private sec- tor. Understanding how the private sector used performance measures was deemed to be enlightening. Considerable effort was expended to determine stake- holder interests. A survey of 4,000 members of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) was dis- tributed. It sought their opinions regarding which measures would be of greatest value to the private-sector logistics pro- fessional. Similarly, questionnaires were distributed to major trade groups with an interest in freight performance. Inter- views with eight trucking firms were conducted to gather greater insight into their use of and interest in performance measures. To determine public-sector interest in freight performance, a survey of all 50 state departments of transportation was conducted. Also, representatives of major public-sector agen- cies such as AASHTO, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were interviewed. The current freight performance measures in use at state DOTs also were examined. A compilation was assembled of 360 potential freight per- formance measures that had been identified in the literature or through stakeholder interviews. A screening process was developed that prioritized and sorted the potential mea- sures by how closely they met stated stakeholder preference; whether they were available from existing data; and how closely they met the project objectives. From the screening and other steps, 29 potential measures were identified that were most promising in terms of meet- ing stakeholder preference, of having available data, and of meeting the project objective. The measures were included in a proposed Freight System Report Card that could be popu- lated with measures at the national, state, and local level to allow uniform reporting, monitoring, and comparison of freight system performance at different functional and geo- graphic levels. The steps necessary to deploy the Freight System Report Card were described. Particular emphasis was placed upon reviewing issues surrounding data collection for performance measurement. The research quickly identified the primary challenges to a freight performance measurement system to be related to data and information. These challenges included developing common definitions for measures, capturing data in a timely manner, integrating disparate data from various data sources, and providing the institutional support to sus- tain a reporting system. Because freight performance and freight data cut across traditional agency silos, the challenge of capturing data and sustaining a reporting system were identified as particular challenges. To further examine the complexity of measuring freight performance, case studies of the Freight Analysis Framework and the Transportation Services Index were conducted. The level of effort necessary for those two components of national freight measurement is predictive of the complexity of devel- oping a much broader performance reporting system. The research not only presents a Freight System Report Card but also suggests a three-tiered approach to perfor- mance reporting. The first tier is the highly summarized and condensed report card itself. The second tier consists of brief one- to two-page summaries that elaborate upon the performance of each measure. Finally, the reporting frame- work provides links from each measure to more voluminous standing reports. The three-tiered approach is suggested to provide brevity as well as detail, depending upon the level of information desired by the user. Anticipated Use of Research Findings The research findings provide a road map for develop- ing a national freight performance reporting process. As discussed in the “Background on Research Need” section, numerous public and private stakeholders seek to better understand the freight system to improve decision making regarding policy, investment, and operations decisions. The value of this research is to describe how a freight system reporting process could be started with existing data sources and to explore how it could evolve with increasing sophis- tication over time.

24 7 Freight in America, 1. 8 The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commis- sion, vol. 2, chapter 4. 9 FHWA, Chapter 8: Executive Summary, Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2006 Conditions and Performance, available at http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/es08h.htm (accessed Feb. 11, 2008). 10 FHWA, Condition and Performance Highlights, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policy/2006cpr/hilights.htm (accessed Feb. 11, 2008). 11 The National Commission Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study, 37. 12 GAO, Restructured Federal Approach Needed for More Focused, Performance- Based, and Sustainable Programs, Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO- 08-400, March 2008, 49. 13 AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance Management, Proposed Policy Resolution PPR-10AM-02 Title: Adoption of Candidate State Perfor- mance Measures, http://www. transportation.org/?siteid=97&pageid=2956 (accessed May 12, 2010). 14 AASHTO, Freight Authorization Policy, http://www.transportation.org/sites/ policy_docs/docs/vi.pdf (accessed May 13, 2010). 15 GAO, National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve Freight Mobility, Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, GAO-08-287, January, 2008. Endnotes 1 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005–2014—CBO’s Economic Projections for 2004 through 2015, http:// www.cbo.gov (accessed June 6, 2007). 2 FHWA Freight Analysis Framework Table 2-7. Top 25 Trading Partners of the United States in Merchandise: 1998–2006 (Current $ Billions), http:// www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Table+2-7.++Top+25+Trading+Partne rs+of+the+United+States+in+Merchandise%3A+1998-2006+%28Curren t+%24+Billions%29&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= (accessed Aug. 1, 2008). 3 Cambridge Systematics, Draft Freight Transportation Bottom Line Report, Freight Demand and Logistics, AASHTO February 2007, pps. 2–4. 4 U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, TradeStats Express, available at http://www.ita.doc.gov/ (accessed June 12, 2007). 5 FHWA, “Freight Facts and Figures 2007” Table 2-1. Weight of Shipments by Mode: 2002, 2006, 2035 (Millions of Tons), http://www.google.com/ search?hl=en&q=Table+2-1.++Weight+of+Shipments+by+Mode%3A +2002%2C+2006%2C+2035+%28Millions+of+Tons%29&aq=f&oq= ( accessed Aug. 1, 2008). 6 Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transpor- tation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. Freight in America: A New National Picture, Jan. 2006, 1.

Next: Chapter 2 - Performance Measurement Lessons from the Private Sector »
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!