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.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M RepoRt S2-C15-RW-1 Integrating Freight Considerations into Collaborative Decision Making for Additions to Highway Capacity Cambridge SyStematiCS, inC.
Subject Areas Freight Transportation Highways Planning and Forecasting
SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-C15-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27396-1 Â© 2014 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 copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce 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, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in âwâ are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway 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 committee 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 committee 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 second Strategic Highway 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 Second Strategic Highway Research Program Americaâs highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technologyâsuch as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors scienceâoffer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus integrates multiple fields of research and technology and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, mod eled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.
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. On the authority of the charter granted to it by 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 achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) 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, on 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. (Dan) 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 Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, 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 Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by David J. Plazak, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability. The consulting team acknowledges the following individuals who participated in the case study outreach: Sean Ardussi, Senior Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council; Ron Borowski, Mobility Programs, Policy and Planning Division, and Dorinda Costa, Revenue Development, Policy and Planning Division, Seattle Depart- ment of Transportation; Katy Brooks, Community Planning and Outreach Manager, Port of Vancouver USA; Susie Lahsene, Manager, Transportation and Land Use Policy, Port of Portland; Ryan LeProwse, Casey Liles, and Kris Strickler, Assistant Project Manager, Columbia River Crossing Project; Tony Mazzella, Long-Range Planning, Kristen Simpson, Traffic Management Division, Policy and Planning Division, and Cristina VanValkenburgh, Manager, Mobility Programs, Policy and Planning Division, Seattle Department of Trans- portation; Tom Zelenka, Vice President, Environmental and Public Affairs, Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.; Ted Dahlburg, Manager of the Office of Freight and Aviation Planning, and Don Shanis, Deputy Executive Director, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Association; Ed King, Sunoco; Jim Runk, President and CEO, Pennsylvania Trucking Association; Adnan Alvarez, Lynda Bybee, Ernesto Chaves, Susan Gilmore, and Danielle Valentino, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Esmeralda Garcia, Senior Project Manager, MIG; Jerry Wood, Director of Transportation and Engineering, Gateway Cities Council of Governments; Dan Haake, Senior Planner, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission; Stacy Corona, Planner, and Eliza Arias, Principal Planner, San Diego Association of Governments; John Hoegemeier, BNSF Railway; Bill Figge, Director of Planning, and Pye Salazar, Project Manager, Caltrans District 11. The consulting team acknowledges the following individuals who vetted the draft guideâs implementation potential and provided excellent suggestions for revisions: Kevin Feldt and Rebekah Karasko, North Central Texas Council of Governments; Dan Kuhn and Walter Steinvorth, Utah Department of Transportation; Tom McQueen, Georgia Department of Transportation; and Vern Keesler, InterPlan. SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Reena Mathews, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator
Freight traffic has generally been growing at a rate faster than passenger traffic on the nationâs highway network. As a result, freight bottlenecks have begun to develop at various points throughout the network. These bottlenecks have historically been near ports and other intermodal facilities. However, future travel forecasts are beginning to show the effects of growing freight traffic on congestion on urban freeways, urban arterials, and some cross- country routes in rural areas. Being able to understand freight flows and forecast freight demand is taking on greater and greater importance. Efficient freight movement is directly tied to the economic well-being of states and localities. Most transportation agencies are increasingly focusing on being able to effectively engage and seek input from, and ultimately meet the needs of, private-sector freight stakeholders. The second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) initiated two projects designed to improve the nationâs ability to plan for increased freight-related traffic and to begin to address the growing issue of freight bottlenecks. One of these, Project C15, provides guidance to transportation agencies at the state, regional, metropolitan, and local levels on how best to collaborate with private-sector freight stakeholders in planning and developing future high- way capacity. As both the C15 project and the accompanying C20 project (improving freight demand models and data) indicate, transportation agencies and private-sector freight stake- holders begin with very different perspectives. On the one hand, transportation agencies are often trying to plan, design, develop, and construct public infrastructure projects that will take a decade or more to put in place and are then expected to meet aggregate freight flow needs for many more decades. On the other hand, many private-sector freight stakeholders begin with the perspective of optimizing particular supply chains. Their interest tends to have a more narrow focus and be short term in nature. Supply chains are optimized over days and weeks rather than decades, and they are re-optimized on a repeated basis. Yet, private-sector freight stakeholders are very important users of the infrastructure that public agencies are planning and developing. This great difference in perspectives and time horizons can make it difficult for public agen- cies to effectively collaborate with private-sector freight stakeholders. The separately published C15 freight guide provides examples of good practices in such collaborations. The guide also provides examples of the types of stakeholder involvement that work best with private-sector freight stakeholders. Perhaps most important, this practitionerâs guide provides a clear indi- cation of which portions of the capacity project planning and development process merit obtaining freight stakeholder input. This guidance should be useful to the many transporta- tion agencies that are now conducting freight plans or considering freight as part of corridor plans or project development efforts. The C15 research report shows the process by which the C15 guide was developed and includes additional information about how the case study information used to construct the guide was collected. The report is intended to serve as a basis for further research beyond the SHRP 2 program that might prove necessary to continue to improve stakeholder involvement and collaborative decision making in freight transportation planning, programming, and project development. F O R E W O R D David J. Plazak, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability
1 Executive Summary 1 Literature Review 2 National Stakeholder Interviews 2 Case Studies 2 Decision-Making Framework 2 SHRP 2 C15 Guide 3 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 3 Background 3 Research Purpose 3 Guide Development 4 Outreach Issues 4 Market-Based Freight Planning Considerations 5 Need for Improved Coordination 6 CHAPTER 2 Research Approach 6 General Approach 6 Identifying Best Practices and Existing Literature 7 Strengths and Weaknesses in the Available LiteratureâGeneral Findings 9 Industry Interviews 10 Case Study Development 11 SHRP 2 Planning Framework 11 Guide Development 13 PlanWorks Integration 14 CHAPTER 3 Findings and Applications 14 Outreach and the Freight Industry 14 Current Practices 15 Best Practices 17 Decision-Making Needs and Gaps 18 PlanWorks Freight Application 19 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Suggested Research 19 Guide Outcomes 19 Potential Research 20 Future Directions 20 Conclusion 21 Bibliography 23 Appendix A. Case Study Summaries C O N T E N T S