Multimodal Freight Transportation Within the Great Lakes--Saint Lawrence Basin (2012)

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.

11 2.1 Project Structure The project was developed in several stages, as set out in Figure 2-1. The present Final Report is the output of Task 8, which combines earlier work developed as part of Tasks 1 through 7 of the assignment. 2.2 Methodology The CPCS team developed interim working papers corresponding to Tasks 1 through 4, pre- pared an Interim Report (Task 5), conducted validation of research findings with stakeholders (Task 6), and developed a communications plan (Task 7). Together, these documents inform this Final Report. The inputs used in developing this Final Report and previous working papers include the following. 2.2.1 Previous Literature The team completed a literature review (60+ studies) to identify existing research relevant to this NCFRP Project 35 study. The full list of studies reviewed is included in Appendix A. 2.2.2 Use of Public Data The team drew extensively on a variety of transportation and infrastructure data, obtained from public U.S. and Canadian sources. This data was analyzed and treated to generate meaningful insights, as appropriate. In many cases, we had to manipulate data for greater consistency and comparability when obtained from different sources. Where data was obtained from different jurisdictions, the most recent data for a common period was used. In some cases, this meant using older data than may have been available in certain jurisdictions to ensure a common data year across jurisdictions. In all cases, references to source data used are provided. Relevant data has also been consolidated in a geographic information system (GIS) format. 2.2.3 Stakeholder Consultations The team consulted extensively with relevant stakeholders in the GLSLB. The team contacted 88 stakeholders in the U.S. and Canada, 53 for which consultations were completed, representing views from all levels of government in the U.S. and Canada, all freight transportation modes and related industry associations (Figure 2-2). A full list of the organizations consulted is provided in Appendix B. A formal consultation guide was used to solicit input from study participants. This consultation guide is included in Appendix D. c h a p t e r 2 Research Approach

12 Multimodal Freight transportation Within the Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence Basin Figure 2-1. Study structure. Total 53 Consultations: Breakdown of Stakeholders Consulted By Primary Mode of Focus By Jurisdiction By Region Figure 2-2. Breakdown of stakeholders consulted (Source: CPCS, based on the detailed list of stakeholders consulted).

research approach 13 2.2.4 Economic Impact Analysis The evaluation of economic impacts (Task 2) focuses on the overall economic impact of the transportation industry in the U.S. and Canada. This includes an analysis of transportation activity in the GLSLB region as well as direct and indirect impact of this activity on U.S. and Canadian economies outside the region. Standard economic methods, relying mainly on input- output models of the U.S. and Canadian economies, were used for conducting the economic impact analysis. 2.2.5 Stakeholder Validation The Interim Report was distributed to a selection of relevant stakeholders with an interest in the GLSLB multimodal freight transportation system, including all those consulted in the preparation of the Interim Report. This survey was viewed by 108, was started by 50, and was completed by 20 of the invited participants. Additionally, a webinar was held on September 15, 2011, for interested stakeholders, oversight committee members, and consultation participants. Respondents felt that the topic was well covered and that the supply-chain approach to defining cargo movements was helpful in coming to terms with the bigger picture of GLSLB freight flows. Some respondents, however, felt that more granularity within some commodity groupings and the addition of more definitive conclusions would have provided greater insight. Further, the need to understand and measure external costs and better formulate and explore legislative differences between jurisdictions were all seen as necessary next steps. On the whole, the majority of those surveyed as part of the validation process agreed with the major findings of the study. A greater number agreed with the general conclusions and recommendations (Figure 2-3). 2.3 Caveats and Limitations The reader should be aware of the following caveats. Data used in this report comes from a variety of public sources and is not in all cases compre- hensive, complete, or consistent. CPCS does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of data provided by third parties. As appropriate, CPCS did its best to ensure the reasonableness of the data used and to treat the data to be consistent (e.g., U.S. and Canadian data). In some cases, Figure 2-3. Summary of validation process (Respondents = 12). “Do you concur with the major findings and conclusions [of the Interim Report]?” “Do you feel this report accurately depict s the state of b i - n ational planning efforts between U.S. and Canada?” “Do you agree with the recommend a- tions for future research?”

14 Multimodal Freight transportation Within the Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence Basin assumptions were made to this end. Related assumptions are noted as appropriate. Confidential data was not used for this study given that the report will become public. In terms of the consultation process, we believe that we have received input from a representa- tive sample of stakeholders with an interest in the GLSLB multimodal freight transportation system. For the most part, those consulted asked not to be quoted or for comments to be attributed to them. Accordingly, most comments referenced are included without reference or attribution. CPCS does not guarantee the completeness of comments provided, although we did our best to ensure that key themes and issues noted by stakeholders are appropriately reflected in this Final Report. Lastly, unless otherwise indicated, the opinions expressed in this working paper are those of CPCS, and do not necessarily reflect the views of TRB, the governments of the U.S. and Canada, or other stakeholders in the GLSLB.