Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 46

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 45
45 data, which some indicated they would like on a daily basis. Great Plains states can appear to have little need and may Because the states indicated they would use the performance therefore not receive adequate federal investment. These measures for planning and project-selection purposes, the states have strongly urged that any performance measures be need for daily operational measures probably is less acute state specific and developed by the states in a fashion that for them than it would be for logistics providers, who are best meets their individual needs. Their concerns have been concerned about daily freight routing decisions. incorporated by AASHTO in its official positions regarding The states were asked to rate potential measures on a sim- performance measures. AASHTO advocates that no national ple scale of 03, with 3 indicating they would find a poten- targets be set, instead allowing states to set targets that meet tial measure to be "very" important to them. They also were their needs. asked to indicate any difference in preference if the measure were available at a local, regional, or national level. The Federal Agency Perspectives highest overall scores were for measures addressing conges- tion and reliability at the local and regional level. Both were Interviews were conducted with six federal agencies to scored at a value of 2.5 or higher out of a possible highest assess the agencies' use and need for freight performance score of three. As can be seen in the chart, the lowest overall measures. The interviews sought to obtain perspectives upon scores were for the Costs of Logistics as a Percent of Gross the agencies' need for performance indicators beyond the Domestic Product, train speeds nationally, and performance indicators that the agencies already compile to satisfy federal regarding the emissions, pollution, and energy impacts of statutes. The five interviewees were either current or former freight. The Costs of Logistics as a Percent of Gross Domestic employees of one of the following entities: Product had an overall value of only 1.2 from the state respondents, while the environmental and energy measures U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway scored 1.8. However, the states indicated a higher interest in Administration (FHWA) the energy and environmental measures if they were avail- U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier able at the local level. The Costs of Logistics Measure may Safety Administration (FMCSA) also have been affected by its availability only at a national U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), International level. The score for that measure was notable because that Trade Administration category was among the highest rated by the private-sector U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) respondents. It should be noted that respondents were com- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of menting upon their need for and use of specific freight per- Transportation and Air Quality formance measures. They were not asked to comment upon The U.S. Army the importance of national freight data sets, from which they could pull local freight data. All the officials interviewed indicated that their federal The difference in the importance of local versus national agencies had sought freight performance measures. However, measures was clear-cut between the state respondents and each agency sought different measures, and ones unique to its the later private-sector respondents. The state respondents responsibilities. The FHWA sought highway travel time and highly ranked all measures if the measures were local or reliability data while the FMCSA sought measures related to regional. The private sector highly ranked most measures as the number and efficacy of truck safety inspection programs. long as they were national. The private sector appeared to The EPA was predictably interested in emissions from freight be influenced by its involvement with long international and operations, whereas the USACE was interested in the condi- intercontinental supply chains. The state officials were influ- tion and performance of the maritime system. The U.S. Army enced by their local and state responsibilities. reported that its interests could not be summarized because One strong sentiment expressed by at least two states was they vary considerably. The respondent noted that the freight opposition to any national set of performance measures. needs in a battlefield environment would be much different Some state respondents expressed strong concern lest any than those for a stateside, noncombat administrative func- set of measures be used to inaccurately measure states and tion. He reported that beyond very generalized categories, to make arbitrary national fund allocation decisions. This it would not be realistic to select only a handful of perfor- concern has been strongest among officials of some of the mance measures that would provide insight for all military Great Plains states, who stated that their low populations situations. and large distances create unique transportation conditions. The federal agencies were asked to rate various categories When national statistics for congestion, crashes, and other of measures. They clearly rated highly those measures that traditional indicators of "need" are examined, they said, the predicted future freight volumes, as seen in Figure 5.8.