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.
N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E F R E I G H T R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCFRP REPORT 34 Subscriber Categories Freight Transportation â¢ Operations and Traffic Management â¢ Terminals and Facilities Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers The Tioga Group, Inc. Philadelphia, PA CDM Smith Cambridge, MA Richard G. Little Pinehurst, NC TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE FREIGHT RESEARCH PROGRAM Americaâs freight transportation system makes critical contributions to the nationâs economy, security, and quality of life. The freight transportation system in the United States is a complex, decentralized, and dynamic network of private and public entities, involving all modes of transportationâtrucking, rail, waterways, air, and pipelines. In recent years, the demand for freight transportation service has been increasing fueled by growth in international trade; however, bottlenecks or congestion points in the system are exposing the inadequacies of current infrastructure and operations to meet the growing demand for freight. Strategic operational and investment decisions by governments at all levels will be necessary to maintain freight system performance, and will in turn require sound technical guidance based on research. The National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) is a cooperative research program sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology under Grant No. DTOS59- 06-G-00039 and administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The program was authorized in 2005 with the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). On September 6, 2006, a contract to begin work was executed between the Research and Innovative Technology Admin- istration, which is now the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, and The National Academies. The NCFRP will carry out applied research on problems facing the freight industry that are not being adequately addressed by existing research programs. Program guidance is provided by an Oversight Committee comprised of a representative cross section of freight stakeholders appointed by the National Research Council of The National Academies. The NCFRP Oversight Committee meets annually to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Research problem statements recommending research needs for consideration by the Oversight Committee are solicited annually, but may be submitted to TRB at any time. Each selected project is assigned to a panel, appointed by TRB, which provides technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. Heavy emphasis is placed on including members representing the intended users of the research products. The NCFRP will produce a series of research reports and other products such as guidebooks for practitioners. Primary emphasis will be placed on disseminating NCFRP results to the intended end-users of the research: freight shippers and carriers, service providers, suppliers, and public officials. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE FREIGHT RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCFRP REPORT 34 Project NCFRP-34 ISSN 1947-5659 ISBN 978-0-309-30848-9 Library of Congress Control Number 2015933565 Â© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, or PHMSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Freight Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Freight Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCFRP REPORT 34 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs William C. Rogers, Senior Program Officer Charlotte Thomas, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Hilary Freer, Senior Editor NCFRP PROJECT 34 PANEL Freight Research Projects Diane Jacobs, California DOT, Los Angeles, CA (Chair) Haitham Al-Deek, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL Arthur Goodwin, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Carson, CA Robert Harrison, The University of TexasâAustin, Austin, TX John Isbell, Starboard Alliance, LLC, Manzanita, OR Lloyd E. Thompson, Moffatt & Nichol, New York, NY Alan E. Ware, Georgia DOT, Atlanta, GA Danny Wu, PB World, Los Angeles, CA Randy Butler, FHWA Liaison Ken Adler, US Environmental Protection Agency Liaison
NCFRP Report 34: Evaluating Alternatives for Landside Transport of Ocean Containers provides a systematic method for evaluating alternatives to diesel trucks for ocean container transport to or from deep-water ocean ports and inland destinations within 100 miles. The report contains information on all known, active inland container transport proposals, based primarily on previous work in Southern California on zero-emissions container movement systems. The report also contains a set of proposed performance-based criteria reflecting the transportation, emissions, energy utilization, and congestion relief objectives and cost implications of alternative inland transport options. The criteria can be used to guide eval- uations of potential alternative container transport technology and systems, both in the abstract and in specific port and terminal applications. An efficient and robust freight transportation system is essential to the continued eco- nomic well-being of the United States. One vital segment of the system is the deep-water ocean ports, which handled more than 30 million loaded import and export containers in 2013. Both the highway and rail systems at deep-water ocean ports can become congested at peak periods, because few were designed to handle current container volumes, much less future growth. Indeed, various projections show a doubling of containers by 2035, and this has led to a call for more freight infrastructure capacity. However, port expansion and cargo growth depends, to a large degree, on community acceptance, which in turn depends on reducing current adverse impacts from container transportation and mitigating future adverse impacts. As a result, communities around ports have called for alternative ways to move con- tainers, especially ways that are perceived to be more environmentally friendly than diesel trucks, or approaches that lessen highway congestion by separating freight transport from passenger transport. However, many have questioned whether some of the proposed alter- natives are technically feasible, and if so, whether they can serve multi-site networks and mesh with the legacy port, highway, and rail operations. Under NCFRP Project 34, The Tioga Group was asked to (1) review current and proposed landside alternatives (e.g., maglev, linear induction, linear synchronous motors, and hybrid diesel electric trucks) for transporting ocean containers to and from deep-water ocean ports and destinations (e.g., distribution centers, trans-load facilities, inland ports, and inter- modal terminals) within 100 miles; (2) develop the criteria for a method to evaluate alter- native container movement technologies that includes, but is not limited to, such factors as capital and operating costs, transit times, technical feasibility, right-of-way issues, emis- sions reduction, operational attributes, vehicle headways, throughput, connectivity, noise, congestion reduction, community acceptance, commercial acceptance, safety, security, and F O R E W O R D By William C. Rogers Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
compatibility with existing infrastructure; (3) using 2007 diesel tractor operational charac- teristics as a baseline for costs and emissions, develop a method that considers all relevant internal and external landside costs and emissions reductions associated with the use of alternative methods to transport ocean containers within 100 miles to or from deep-water ocean ports; (4) develop a procedure to evaluate the method with appropriate stakeholders at two deep-water ocean ports; (5) calibrate the proposed method for at least two proposed alternatives at each of two case study ports, and validate the method using both experimen- tal and operational data; and (6) for the alternatives, develop the operational requirements and demonstrate that they are compatible with existing modal operations.
1 Summary 14 Chapter 1 Introduction 15 Project Purpose and Scope 15 Overall Project Approach 17 Chapter 2 Landside Container Transport Alternatives 17 Approach 18 Container Transport Technologies 18 Conventional Truck Drayage 20 Advanced Truck Drayage 22 Conventional Railway Technology 22 Advanced Fixed-Guideway Technologies 26 Technology Matrix 27 Chapter 3 System Goals and Evaluation Criteria 27 Approach 27 Container Transport System Goals 28 Transportation Criteria 31 Political and Social Acceptance Criteria 34 Summary Criteria 34 Technical Feasibility 37 Transportation Economics 39 Transportation Performance 45 Environmental Performance 47 Community Impacts 49 Chapter 4 Proposed Evaluation Method 49 Overview 52 Defining Goals 54 Selecting and Weighting Criteria 55 Defining the Baseline 58 Locating Potential Candidates 58 Screening Candidates 59 Analyzing Candidates 63 Evaluating Candidates 67 Choosing Candidates 68 Chapter 5 Case Studies 68 Approach 68 Technology Candidates C O N T E N T S
74 Chapter 6 Los Angeles/Long Beach Case Study 74 Background 75 Context 80 Project History 81 Decisionmakers 82 Evaluation Objective 83 Defining Goals 86 Technical Challenges 87 Evaluation Criteria 91 Defining the Baseline 93 Candidate Technologies 97 Screening Candidates 99 Analyzing Candidates 109 Evaluating Candidates 111 Findings 111 Conclusions 112 Chapter 7 Baltimore Case Study 112 Background 112 Context 116 Project History 120 Evaluation Objective 120 Defining Goals 122 Decisionmakers 123 Evaluation Criteria 125 Defining the Baseline 126 Candidate Technologies 127 Screening Candidates 127 Analyzing Candidates 131 Evaluating Candidates 132 Findings 132 Conclusions 133 Chapter 8 Findings and Conclusions 133 Overview 133 Proposed Evaluation Method 134 Case Study Implications 137 Implications for Advanced Fixed-Guideway Technologies 148 Favorable Conditions for Advanced Fixed-Guideway Technologies 158 Implications for Truck Drayage Systems 159 Policy Questions Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.