National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R7
Page viii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R8
Page ix
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R9
Page x
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R10
Page xi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22459.
×
Page R11

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.

S2-C15-RW-2 Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process Practitioner’s Guide

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing Vice Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia (Past Chair, 2013) James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor and Director, Centre for Geoinformatics, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, Fife, United Kingdom John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California Chris T. Hendrickson, Duquesne Light Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville, Utah Gary P. LaGrange, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans, Louisiana Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Providence Joan McDonald, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany Abbas Mohaddes, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, California Donald A. Osterberg, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, Wisconsin Steven W. Palmer, Vice President of Transportation, Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Mooresville, North Carolina Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor, University of Texas, Austin (Past Chair, 2012) Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, Texas Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames Phillip A. Washington, General Manager, Regional Transportation District, Denver, Colorado EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thomas P. Bostick, (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Alison J. Conway, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, New York, and Chair, TRB Young Members Council Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Therese W. McMillan, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration Michael P. Melaniphy, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, and Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Peter M. Rogoff, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, California Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Paul F. Zukunft, (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security * Membership as of August 2014.

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Cambridge Systematics, Inc. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Washington, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide SHRP 2 Report S2-C15-RW-2

SUBJECT AREAS Freight Transportation Highways Planning and Forecasting

THE SECOND STRATEGIC HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer 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 mul- tiple 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 high- way 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, pub- lished in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic High- way Research Program, is a focused, time-constrained, management-driven program designed to complement 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; Reli- ability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and commu- nity needs in the planning and designing of new transporta- tion 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 pro- gram is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understand- ing among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sci- ences, 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. SHRP 2 Report S2-C15-RW-2 ISBN: 978-0-309-27374-9 © 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 pub- lishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program 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, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educa- tional and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate ac- knowledgment 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 num- bers ending in “w” 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 moni- tor 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 commit- tee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the Na- tional Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the re- search and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the pro- gram sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not en- dorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered es- sential to the object of the report. 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

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars 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 the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal 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 advis- ing 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. 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 ser- vices 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 Academy’s 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 Sci- ences 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 Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdis- ciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s 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 transpor- tation departments, federal agencies, including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

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 Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety 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

This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association 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, Seattle Department of Transportation; Katy Brooks, Community Planning and Outreach Manager, Port of Vancouver USA; Dorinda Costa, Revenue Development, Policy and Planning Divi- sion, Seattle Department of Transportation; Susie Lahsene, Manager, Transportation and Land Use Policy, Port of Portland; Ryan LeProwse, Columbia River Crossing Project; Casey Liles, Columbia River Crossing Project; Tony Mazzella, Long-Range Planning, Policy and Planning Division, Seattle Department of Transportation; Kristen Simpson, Traffic Management Division, Seattle Department of Transporta- tion; Kris Strickler, Assistant Project Manager, Columbia River Crossing Project; Cristina VanValkenburgh, Manager, Mobility Programs, Policy and Planning Division, Seattle Department of Transportation; Tom Zelenka, Vice President, Environmental and Public Affairs, Schnitzer Steel Industries Inc.; Ted Dahlburg, Manager, Office of Freight and Aviation Planning, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; Don Shanis, Deputy Executive Director, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; Ed King, Sunoco; Jim Runk, President and CEO, Pennsylvania Trucking Association; Adnan Alvarez, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Ernesto Chaves, Los Angeles Metro politan Transportation Authority; Danielle Valentino, Los Angeles Metro politan Transportation Authority; Esmeralda Garcia, Senior Project Manager, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

MIG; Lynda Bybee, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Susan Gilmore, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority; Jerry Wood, Director of Transportation and Engineering, Gateway Cities Council of Governments; Dan Haake, Senior Planner, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission; Stacy Corona, Plan- ner, San Diego Association of Governments; John Hoegemeier, BNSF Railway; Eliza Arias, Principal Planner, San Diego Association of Governments; Bill Figge, Director of Planning, Caltrans District 11; and Pye Salazar, Project Manager, Caltrans District 11. The consulting team also acknowledges the following individuals who vetted the draft guide’s implementation potential and provided excellent suggestions for revi- sions: Kevin Feldt, North Central Texas Council of Governments; Rebekah Karasko, North Central Texas Council of Governments; Dan Kuhn, Utah Department of Trans- portation; Tom McQueen, Georgia Department of Transportation; Walter Steinvorth, Utah Department of Transportation; and Vern Keesler, Interplan, Midvale, Utah.

FOREWORD Freight traffic has generally been growing at a rate faster than passenger traffic on the nation’s highway network. As a result, freight bottlenecks have begun to develop at var- ious points throughout the network. These have historically been near ports and other intermodal facilities. However, future travel forecasts are beginning to show the effects on congestion of growing freight traffic on urban freeways, urban arterials, and some cross-country routes in rural areas. The ability to understand freight flows and forecast freight demand is taking on greater and greater importance. Efficient freight move- ment is directly tied to the economic well-being of states and localities. Most transpor- tation agencies are increasingly focusing on effectively engaging and seeking the input (and ultimately meeting the needs) of private freight stakeholders. The second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) initiated two projects designed to improve the nation’s ability to plan for increased freight-related traffic and to begin to address the growing issue of freight bottlenecks. Project C15 provides guidance to transportation agencies at the state, regional, metro politan, and local levels on how best to collaborate with private-sector freight stakeholders in planning and developing future highway capacity. As both Project C15 and the accompanying Project C20 (freight demand modeling and data improvement) indicate, transporta- tion agencies and private-sector freight stakeholders begin with different perspectives. 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. In contrast, many private-sector freight stakeholders begin with the perspective of optimizing particular supply chains. Their interest tends to have a narrow, short-term focus. Supply chains are optimized over days and weeks rather than decades, and they are reoptimized on a repeated basis. Yet private-sector freight stakeholders are important users of the infrastructure that public agencies are planning and developing. David J. Plazak SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability

This great difference in perspectives and time horizons can make it difficult for public agencies to effectively collaborate with private-sector freight stakeholders. The C15 freight practitioner’s guide provides examples of good practices for such col- laboration. It provides examples of the types of stakeholder involvement that work best with private-sector freight stakeholders. Perhaps most important, the C15 freight practitioner’s guide provides a clear indication of which parts of the capacity project planning and development process are most important for obtaining freight stake- holder input. This guidance should be useful to the many transportation agencies that are now conducting freight plans or considering freight as part of corridor plans or project development efforts.

Next: CONTENTS »
Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Capacity Project S2-C15-RW-2: Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide provides examples of how state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations might improve the quality of their interactions with the freight community.

The guide synthesizes best practices of collaborative, market-based highway-freight planning. The guide may be used in conjunction with the final report.

  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!