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.
68 A P P E N D I X E Online Survey Questionnaire and Results SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE WITH EMBEDDED RESULTS You are invited to take part in an online survey conducted by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI), as part of the NCHRP Synthesis Project 20-05/Topic 49-01 âPrioritization of Freight Investment Projects,â funded by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The NCHRP Synthesis 20-05/Topic 49-01, âPrioritization of Freight Investment Projects,â aims at gathering information on the current state of freight investment prioritization processes and methods for state DOTs. The outcome of this research will be a guidebook to help stakeholders understand the current state of methods to conduct freight investment prioritization at the state level. This study will also identify gaps in project prioritization practices and knowledge and identify research needs. Freight investment project prioritization approaches that support planning and programming decisions can differ widely across the United States. These programming decisions become more
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 69 We are interested in the experience of agencies in applying freight investment prioritization methods in planning and programming processes, whether statewide or at a district and regional level. A brief synopsis of the research project is available at: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4385 This survey will gather information from state DOTs and other vital stakeholders engaged in state and regional planning and programming on the thoughts and application of these freight investment prioritization processes and methods. We recognize that answers provided by survey participants may represent a point of view from a single agency, or even the perspective of a single employee, in a planning environment where there are multiple organizations, agencies, and decision makers involved in the prioritization and selection of freight project investments. We also recognize that answers provided by survey participants do not necessarily reflect their agency's official response. The questionnaire has (18) questions and you will only be asked to contribute to those where you have experience. Of course, if you have any recommendation for other members of your agency who have experience on questions you are unsure about, we would greatly appreciate that you forward the survey link to them for their participation. The survey will take 15â20 minutes to complete. Thank you in advance for your participation. relevant as state DOTs effectively integrate freight prioritization processes into agency practices to address the changing dynamics of freight movements within their jurisdiction.
70 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects CONTACT INFORMATION NCHRP will e-mail you a link to the online report once it is completed. In case of questions and for NCHRP to send you a link to the final report, please provide your e-mail and telephone contact information. Agency Address City State Zip Code Questionnaire Contact Position/Title Telephone Email YOUR AGENCYâS INFORMATION AS RELATED TO FREIGHT PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 1. Which of the following best describes the primary function your department serves within your agency? (Select one) â¢ Planning and program development
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 71 â¢ Operations â¢ Maintenance â¢ Administration â¢ Other 2. Are the following statements true or false of your organization? (Select one for each) Scale to be used for each item True Sometimes False Donât know â¢ Our freight program has the independence, flexibility, and/or buy-in from agency leadership to test, evaluate, and implement new freight project prioritization methods and processes. â¢ Our freight program lead has an open invitation to provide direct input to the agency executive committee to advocate for freight and champion efforts to improve freight project prioritization efforts. â¢ We have the tools to effectively prioritize freight projects. â¢ We make use of an external (either to our department or to our agency) stakeholders advisory group to initiate improvements to freight project prioritization processes. â¢ We have the organizational capabilities needed to effectively prioritize freight projects.
72 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects â¢ We are reliant on [an] external (to our agency) stakeholders advisory group to provide the necessary information and data to effectively prioritize freight projects. â¢ We have the necessary information and data to effectively measure performance and prioritize freight projects. The online survey results revealed that agencies are largely oriented toward practices and institutional architectures favorable to freight project prioritization (Figure E-1). Sixty-four percent indicated that they have the independence to implement new freight project prioritization methods and processes. Fifty-one percent indicated that they have the tools to effectively prioritize freight projects and have the organizational capabilities to effectively prioritize freight projects. Sixty-one percent indicated that they are totally or sometimes reliant on external stakeholders for necessary information and data for freight project prioritization. Fifteen percent indicated that they do not rely on an external stakeholder advisory group in the freight prioritization process.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 73 Figure E-1. Organizational self-assessment for freight project prioritization. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Importance of Freight Project Prioritization Process and Methods Note: For the purposes of this survey, TTI considers a process to be at a higher agency level depicting general steps to accomplish improved freight project prioritization, whereas a method is a specific analytical approach or tool applied to help accomplish one or multiple steps within this larger freight project prioritization process.
74 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects 3. Considering your agencyâs goals, please rank the topic areas in importance (with 1 being highest and 7 being lowest) as they are considered in your agencyâs current freight project prioritization process. (Rank 1â7) â¢ Safety â¢ Optimized system efficiency â¢ Environmental sustainability â¢ Infrastructure condition â¢ Economic development/vitality â¢ Reduce congestion â¢ Other(s) State DOTs revealed that among common agency goals and subsequent weights and rankings applied to project selection, safety ranked first and environmental sustainability ranked sixth out of seven (Figure E-2). In the seventh-ranked category, project readiness, accessibility, and intermodal connectivity were outlined specifically as Other in terms of agency goals in relation to freight project prioritization. Reducing congestion had the most even distribution across rankings 2â6, never winning out against other goals.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 75 Figure E-2. Ranking agency goals (1â7) within the freight project prioritization process. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
76 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects 4. How important are the following methods in your agencyâs freight project prioritization process? (Select one for each) Scale to be used for each item Critical Somewhat important Not important at all Donât know â¢ Benefitâcost analysis methods (e.g., benefitâcost ratios less than 1 = project terminated). â¢ Elected official inputs into project scoring (e.g., numeric scoring method where score from 4 to 1 assigned to each project for various legislative priorities such as economic benefits, safety, asset preservation). â¢ Project readiness scores (e.g., partner funding availability, project development schedule, current budget). â¢ Stakeholder impact assessment (e.g., assigning benefits and costs for each project to multiple user groups, modes, and levels of government in a benefitâcost matrix; freight transportation listening sessions). â¢ Performance measures analysis (e.g., truck-involved crash rate and severity to denote project safety needs; total delay based on unit delay [delay per vehicle] to estimate possible benefits to reducing congestion).
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 77 â¢ Data-driven current and future freight deficiency analysis (e.g., stakeholder needs assessment coupled with current and future freight network demand projections). â¢ Freight point-of-contact/technical lead (e.g., agency staff or staff member with lead responsibility to interact with private-sector freight and business community and develop freight improvement projects). Statewide freight plan/freight link/chapter/section in statewide and regional/local/MPO planning and program development (e.g., development of a freight planning framework to illustrate how freight projects are prioritized and connected to the transportation improvement program). â¢ Freight data needs assessment and collection program (e.g., development of a commodity flow database with links to unique state-level data resources). â¢ Internal freight planning training and resources to improve agencyâs freight planning expertise. â¢ Cooperative and coordinated freight partnerships (e.g., in some states, much of the available funding goes to the regions, not the state. So, the state has to partner more with MPOs and local governments on items related to scoring criteria to get projects built). â¢ Other. â¢ Donât know (for all the above).
78 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects Many participants gave the highest marks for critical importance of method to âperformance measures analysisâ (62%), âproject readiness scoresâ (62%), and âdata-driven current and future freight deficiency analysisâ (54%) (Figure E-3). Of reduced importance was âelected official inputs,â which received the largest score for ânot important at allâ (33%). Sixty-nine percent felt it somewhat important to use stakeholder impact assessments. In the other comments provided to this question, two new methods were added: estimated construction costs and asset management. Estimated construction costs received a mark of critical in terms of importance for the one agency that reported it. Figure E-3. Importance of common freight project prioritization methods. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 79 5. How important are the following factors in applying freight project prioritization methods in your agency? (Select one for each) Scale to be used for each item Critical Somewhat important Not important at all Donât know â¢ Assets owned by the state (e.g., freight rail, highways). â¢ Freight project prioritization decision level (e.g., state, regional, MPO). â¢ Institutional barriers (e.g., information and data sharing; state and regional coordination/formal feedback mechanisms on last mile freight network needs; hidden project development and readiness challenges because of multiple permitting and compliance offices at local, regional, state, and federal levels). Urban land use (e.g., at-grade highway/rail crossings in urban areas with increasing congestion for both roadway and rail networks; planned freight capacity expansion within constraints of urban land use). â¢ Rural land use (e.g., accommodating new developments in agricultural and energy extraction freight).
80 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects Multimodal coordination (e.g., assigning benefits/costs for each project to multiple user groups, modes, and levels of government in a b/c matrix). â¢ Political influence (e.g., ebb and flow of freight as priority issue with changeover in freight champions, freight committees, political appointees). â¢ Scale and term-length of project (e.g., regional project containing multiple phases of intense activity in a 2- to 3-year period before completion; statewide effort with shorter delivery terms for operational improvements). â¢ Coordinating statewide and regional portfolio analysis and management principles (e.g., application of federal data sources to prioritize statewide projects in coordination with regional prioritization efforts based on privately procured commodity data with different prioritization results). â¢ Federal requirements (e.g., meeting regulatory and legislative-driven requirements). â¢ Environmental issues (e.g., greenhouse gases, environmental justice, and environmental sustainability). â¢ Source of project funding (e.g., differences in project prioritization methods for projects 100% funded by state or local regions and projects funded with a federal freight program match). â¢ Use and development of freight data (e.g., for use in freight performance analytics, project selection). â¢ Other.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 81 â¢ Donât know (for all the above). Agencies indicated in the online survey that factors with critical impacts on freight project prioritization processes and methods include asset ownership (72%) and federal requirements (69%) (Figure E-4). The decision level on freight project prioritization, whether local or state, was more evenly split, with 51% feeling that it was critical and 44% feeling that it was somewhat important. Similarly, factors for source of funding and available freight data were also evenly split between critical and somewhat important (both falling between 44â49%). Urban land use, rural land use, multimodal coordination, scale of project, and environmental issues were strongly (> 60% of respondents) in the somewhat important ranking. Eighteen percent of respondents felt that political influence had no importance to freight project prioritization, which was the largest response in the category of âno importance.â Figure E-4. Importance of related factors in freight project prioritization. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
82 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects 6. Are freight project prioritization methods applied differently based on the source and mix of project funding? If so, please provide a reference to related documentation of the different funding-driven prioritization process. (Select one) Yes No Donât know In a follow-up question on source and mix of funds, 66% of respondents indicated that it did not impact freight project prioritization. Five who did indicate that it was a factor also provided additional information on how it affects the prioritization process. Table E-1 indicates the state, comment, and links provided as examples of how source and mix of funding are incorporated into freight prioritization processes and methods.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 83 Table E-1. Select comments on application of source and mix of funding to freight project prioritization processes. State Comment/Reference Ohio Yes, funding and available funding sources and types and flexibility of funding sources drive project selection and types of projects. Each funding source has regulatory strings attached. FHWA funds are for surface transportation only, not in water work for maritime, which means no dredging, no sea walls or berths, and no storage buildings or customs facilities for freight. Maine Some freight projects are prioritized based on being a better fit for certain funding programs. Missouri We incorporate source and mix of funds into our State Freight Plan for infrastructure and into project rankings criteria for the Freight Enhancement Program fund. Florida Additional criteria and prioritization efforts can be program specific, including Strategic Intermodal System (state), Freight Operational Quick Fix (state), Intermodal Logistics Center Infrastructure Support (state), National Highway Freight Program (federal), INFRA/TIGER (federal), etc. Washington 2017 Washington State Freight Investment Plan, Appendix A: Freight Investment Plan, https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/394F83FB-3447- 45CA-BB7B-9CEC9F96D807/0/FreightPlanAppendixAInvestmentPlan.pdf. 7. Which freight assets are owned by the state, the private sector, or through other arrangements in the state? (Select all that apply) Scale to be used for each item
84 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects State Private sector Other (i.e., local authority, long-term lease, concession, publicâprivate partnership [PPP]) Donât know â¢ Airports â¢ Seaports â¢ Rail â¢ Inland ports â¢ Intermodal freight facility â¢ Other â¢ Donât know (for all of the above) On the question of multimodal freight asset ownership, findings indicate that an average of 35% of multimodal freight assets, which include the asset categories of airports, seaports, rail, and inland ports, are owned by states (Figure E-5). The private sector retains the largest share of freight assets related to rail and intermodal freight facilities, averaging approximately 96%
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 85 ownership of these asset categories. Local authorities, PPPs, and long-term lease concessions predominantly own 83% of airports and 74% of seaports. Figure E-5. Multimodal freight asset ownership. Multimodal Freight Prioritization Frameworks Note: The term âframeworkâ is defined as a set of conditions and concepts that encompass the freight project prioritization process. For example, the freight prioritization process may or may not pertain to the multimodal operations framework. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 8. Does your agency prioritize freight projects within a broader multimodal prioritization framework (i.e., considering all modes of freight transportation)? (Select one that applies)
86 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects Yes No Donât know For the question of whether state DOTs apply a multimodal framework to freight project prioritization and selection, responses were split between 53% for those who do and 45% for those who do not (Figure E-6). Figure E-6. Agencies that apply multimodal prioritization framework to freight. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 87 9. What type of method or processes are used to prioritize freight projects in comparison to other modes? (If you check more than one item, please provide a comment indicating how it relates to the other items.) (Select all that apply) â¢ Highway only benefitâcost analysis â¢ Multimodal benefitâcost analysis â¢ Demand based â¢ Industry assessments â¢ Freight fluidity (multimodal) supply chain analysis â¢ Donât know â¢ Comment for other economic factors or state plans â¢ Comment for multiple selections Responses to the question on freight project prioritization methods and processes that were applied across multiple modes were varied (Figure E-7). Forty-eight percent of respondents applied economic factors and methods from state plans, and 43% applied highway-only costâ benefit analysis methods across multiple modes. Comments provided by 13 respondents detailed the use of several of the above methods in a multimodal freight project environment (Table E-2).
88 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects Figure E-7. Application of freight project prioritization methods across multiple modes. Table E-2. Comments on use of multiple methods in prioritizing freight across multiple modes. State Comment Caltrans Caltrans does not have a framework for prioritizing freight projects. We are in the process of developing a strategy. Florida DOT Projects are generally identified and prioritized by mode, then compared across modes as needed to identify relative priority or to justify shifting funding around to address critical needs. Information can include priority levels from a modal system plan or the state freight plan, feedback from industry participants in the Florida Freight Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 89 Advisory Committee, and individual project-level benefitâcost or demand analysis. Idaho Transportation Department We incorporate employment gain and business attraction/retention. Iowa DOT We use a number of different data and stakeholder inputs to prioritize multimodal freight projects. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Safety of public and multimodal workforce. Maryland DOT State Highway Administration This year we will be moving toward economic/benefitâcost analyses. We are interested in doing more freight fluidity supply chain analysis and working to understand data needed for the latter. Minnesota DOT Safety Missouri DOT The FRE program compares multiple modes; all other freight prioritization is done within modes aligning with funding sources. The FRE Program considers jobs retained or created, amount of freight removed from highways. New Hampshire DOT Inaugural state freight plan development in processâanswers TBD completion. North Dakota DOT We use a modified B/C analysis method that considers system improvements in relation to expected performance/service/asset characteristics (i.e., demand) as the primary benefit. Oregon DOT All these factors are used (or will be used) in some form, non-highway modes through the Connect Oregon program considers the overall benefits in a subjective fashion not qualitative. Highway B/C is new
90 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects mobility. Tennessee DOT Both data analysis and input from industry advisory committee is for large scale highway modernization, which often improves freight used. Virginia DOT The Commonwealth of Virginia has a prioritization process called Smart Scale that measures benefitâcost; the airport, rail, and port agencies also have their own plans that are ranked outside other modes and included in the multimodal transportation plan. Respondents provided additional comments on the use of economic factors and state plans in freight prioritization processes for multiple modes (Table E-3). Table E-3. Comments on use of economic factors and state plans in freight prioritization processes for multiple modes. State Comment Alabama DOT Congestion issues and safety issues. Connecticut DOT Overlap with State of Good Repair and Safety projects. Georgia DOT We rely on the recommendations that were developed from our Freight and Logistics Plan. Iowa DOT Iowa State Freight Plan. Minnesota DOT Freight congestion/efficiency. Washington State DOT The Washington State DOT developed a freight system benefit evaluation methodology for ranking freight projects (roadway and multimodal) based on the state transportation system policy goals.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 91 priority over freight. No formal modal prioritization is used. Freight Data Sources and Project Prioritization 10. On a scale of 1â5, with 1 being agreement and 5 being disagreement, please provide your opinion on how important it is to have better freight data in order to (rank each item from 1 to 5): â¢ Develop a broader multimodal project selection framework. â¢ Improve freight project prioritization processes for all modes of freight. â¢ Achieve my agencyâs strategic goals in delivering improved freight network performance. â¢ Understand the link between transportation and economic development. â¢ Understand the link between transportation and environmental impacts. â¢ Articulate freight impacts to leadership and the public for project support. Survey respondents were more certain in their use of data to articulate freight impacts of certain projects on freight network performance, multimodal process planning improvements, and solidification of the link between transportation and economic development. The greatest uncertainty (46%) was over the use of data to understand the link between freight and environment. There was no absolute disagreement on the use of data in all the selections (Figure E-8), and the category receiving the highest percentage of those who somewhat disagreed on the Wyoming DOT Asset condition is the biggest issue and given a higher
92 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects framework (13%. In this case, 13% is a count of 5 out of 40, rounding up from 12.5% for broader multimodal project sel importance of data was the topic of applying the data to a broader multimodal project selection ection framework; in the case of transportation and environment 39 respondents were counted, and 5 indicated that they somewhat disagreed, or 12.8%, rounding up to 13%). Figure E-8. Importance of data in freight project prioritization. 11. Please select the activities associated with all contributing stakeholder agencies involved in the state and regional freight prioritization processes (select all that apply): Scale to be used for each item Data sharing Planning review Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 93 No participation in state and regional freight prioritization processes Donât Meeting participation know â¢ MPOs â¢ Freight rail â¢ Port authorities â¢ Aviation and airport authorities â¢ Intermodal freight facilities and inland ports â¢ Logistics companies â¢ Private sector distribution centers and warehousing â¢ RPOs and county or municipal governments not part of the MPO â¢ Communities/impacted neighborhoods â¢ Other Survey respondents indicated that an average of 77% of stakeholder agencies listed were involved in meeting participation activities as part of the freight project prioritization processes (Figure E-9). Fifty-three percent on average were involved in planning review, and 45% on average participated in data-sharing activities. On average, 14% of all stakeholder agencies did not participate in the state and regional freight prioritization process, with the largest percentage
94 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects intermodal freight facilities and inland ports (22%). Individually, MPOs participated evenly across all activities, while logistics companies and communities/impacted neighborhoods of this nonparticipation coming from the communities/impacted neighborhoods (23%) and participated more heavily in meetings with reduced participation in data-sharing activities. The lowest participation rate for data sharing was 14% for communities/impacted neighborhoods, while the largest participation rate was for MPOs in planning review (93%) and meeting participation (90%). Figure E-9. Freight stakeholder involvement in freight prioritization process. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 95 12. Does your agency currently collect the following types of data in support of freight project prioritization? (Select all that apply) Scale to be used for each item Data collected Federal data source State data source Local data source Private data source â¢ Capacity (the capacity of the system and flow of freight traffic over it). â¢ Commodities (types of commodities being carried, weights, special needs like hazardous materials). â¢ Maintenance (data from monitoring of freight asset condition, use, external environment, alerts, and notification of status changes). â¢ Operations (data on optimizing freight asset operation in real time, performance of operational response plans to nonrecurring events, increasing equipment uptime, or the availability and productivity of staff). â¢ Capital investment (data on user-driven freight demand and growth forecasts, return on investment models).
96 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects â¢ Finance (data on expenditures, revenue, asset values, capital outlays). â¢ Safety (data on rate of injury, exposure, near miss, deaths, crashes). â¢ Land use data. â¢ Environment. â¢ Other. Survey respondents indicated that the lowest use of certain types of data applied to freight project prioritization and performance measures occurred in the environmental data type (55%) and capital investment data type (68%). Highest use rates in freight project prioritization included capacity (93%), maintenance (93%), and safety (90%) data types (Figure E-10). Figure E-10. Types of data applied to freight project prioritization. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 97 When considering freight project prioritization processes specifically and use of data types by federal, state, local, and private data sources, the greatest use of federal data was in the field of commodities (63%), capacity (53%), and safety (35%). The greatest use of local data was in the field of land use (53%), while the greatest use of private data was in commodities (63%), capital investment (45%), capacity (33%), and operations (25%). Respondents derived the greatest use of state data from the maintenance (85%), safety (85%), and capacity (73%) categories (Figure E-11). Figure E-11. Freight project prioritization data collection by source and type. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
98 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects 13. Does your agency currently collect the following types of data in support of freight performance measures? (Select all that apply) Scale to be used for each item Data collection (Y/N) Associated freight (Y/N) Performance measure (Y/N) Federal data source (Y/N) State data source (Y/N) Local data source (Y/N) Private data source (Y/N) â¢ Capacity (the capacity of the system and flow of freight traffic over it). â¢ Commodities (types of commodities being carried, weights, special needs such as hazardous materials). â¢ Maintenance (data from monitoring of freight asset condition, use, external environment, alerts, and notification of status changes). â¢ Operations (data on optimizing freight asset operation in real time, performance of operational response plans to nonrecurring events, increasing equipment uptime, or the availability and productivity of staff). â¢ Capital investment (data on user-driven freight demand and growth forecasts, return- on-investment models).
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 99 â¢ Finance (data on expenditures, revenue, asset values, capital outlays). â¢ Safety (data on rate of injury, exposure, near miss, deaths, crashes). â¢ Land use data. â¢ Environment. â¢ Other. Regarding the use of data for freight performance measures, the greatest use of federal data was in the fields of capacity (65%), commodities (73%), safety (47%), and environment (50%). The greatest use of local data was in the field of land use (83%), while the greatest use of private data was in capacity (44%), safety (38%), and operations (38%). Respondents derived the greatest use
100 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects of state data in freight performance measures from the safety (81%), environment (80%), finance (83%), maintenance (74%), and capacity (65%) types of data (Figure E-12). Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 14. Please provide the titles of associated performance measures. (Open-ended comments box) Table E-4 provides responses from survey respondents on the use of freight performance measures. Figure E-12. Freight performance measures data collection by source and type.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 101 Table E-4. State DOT freight performance measures. State DOT Title of Associated Freight Performance Measures Arkansas DOT Truck travel time reliability. Number of trucks involved in crashes/fatalities. Pavement condition on Arkansas Freight Highway Network. Annual tonnage on Arkansas waterways. Road clearance time (not only for freight). Florida DOT Safety: Fatal and serious injuries related to impaired driving, speeding and aggressive driving, distracted driving, at-risk drivers, vulnerable road users. Preservation: Percent of pavement and bridges meeting condition standards, percent of maintenance activities that meet department standards, roadway clearance times due to incidents and crashes. Mobility: Vehicle miles traveled, freight tonnage, freight and port access, hours of delay, travel time reliability, travel that is heavily congested. Economy: Return on investment of Florida DOT programs, capacity funds for the strategic intermodal system, Florida share of U.S. trade, Florida value of freight, construction projects completed on time and within budget. Illinois DOT Truck travel time reliability. Indiana DOT The Indiana DOT committed to two performance measures in our state freight plan: truck travel time reliability (required under federal transportation performance management rule) and truck- involved fatalities (to help us identify priority areas for safety projects). Iowa DOT https://iowadot.gov/iowainmotion/files/Iowa-State-Freight-Plan-Update-2017.pdf (pages 148- 151). Kentucky Transportation Cabinet National performance measures from FAST Act: congestion, reliability.
102 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects PM 3.2âfreight mobilityâTTTR. Pavement/bridge conditions. Congestion. Safetyâcommercial vehicles. Truck injury and fatal crash rates. Minnesota DOT Federal MAP-21 performance measures: truck travel time reliability index. Statewide target of 1.5 travel time reliability index. Freight bottlenecksâlocations of significant truck freight bottlenecks. State performance measuresâfreight/automobile safety crash rates. Mississippi DOT Truck travel time reliability index. Missouri DOT Percent major highways in good condition. Percent structurally deficient deck areas on NHS bridges. Number of commercial vehicle crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. Rail-crossing crashes/fatalities. Freight tonnage by mode. Annual hours of truck delay. Truck reliability index. Average time to clear traffic incident. Travel time and reliability on major routes. All freight performance measures located in the Missouri DOTâs statewide TRACKER. North Carolina DOT Truck time reliability and safety are the two required federal measures. Our freight plan also outlines other performance measures that we plan to track moving into the future. North Dakota DOT Percent of state system unconstrained. Maryland DOT State Highway Administration PM 2.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 103 Interstate TTR: truck reliability index. Tennessee DOT TTTR index. Traffic volumes (including truck volumes). Highway crash data. Roadway and bridge condition data. Highway incident clearance data. Oversize, overweight, or overlength permits. Virginia DOT Safety. Congestion mitigation. Accessibility. Environmental quality. Economic development. Land use (âSmart Scale Policy Guide,â http://vasmartscale.org/documents/20171115/smart_scale_policy_guide_oct24_2017.pdf, p. 5). Washington State DOT Freight traffic volume by modes (truck, air, water, rail). Truck travel time reliability. Condition of short-line railroad. Truck-related fatalities and serious injuries. Rail crossing/trespass incidents. Wisconsin DOT Delay (hours of vehicle delay). State highway pavement condition (backbone). State highway pavement condition (nonbackbone). State bridge condition. State-owned rail line condition. Airport pavement condition. Traffic fatalities. South Dakota DOT Interstate: percent person-miles traveled that are reliable. NHS non-Interstate: percent person-miles traveled that are reliable.
104 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects On-time performance. On-budget performance. 15. Please select all data sources collected by your agency that support freight project prioritization and freight performance measures. (Select all that apply) FEDERAL DATA General Freight: FederalâFHWA Freight Analysis Framework. FederalâU.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, North American TransBorder Freight Data. FederalâStatewide Freight Analysis Models (SAM). Water/Marine: FederalâU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) data (e.g., Waterborne Commerce Statistics). FederalâPIERS dataâU.S. DOT Maritime Administration (e.g., U.S. Waterborne Foreign Container Trade). Highway: FederalâNational Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS). Railroad: FederalâSurface Transportation Boardâs (STB) Waybill data. Serious traffic injuries. Traffic crashes.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 105 Air Cargo: FederalâU.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Air Carrier Statistics database. Federal Aviation Administration Air Cargo/Air Traffic Division data. Federal Census and Economic Data: FederalâU.S. Census Bureau County and Zip Code Business Patterns. FederalâU.S. Bureau of Economic AnalysisâMake/Use tables from Input- Output Accounts Data. Accounts Data: FederalâU.S. EIA Company Level ImportsâMaritime (petroleum). STATE DATA Trucking/Highway: StateâState DOT WIM Truck countsâHighway. LocalâRegional Vehicle Probe Projects (e.g., I-95 Coalition). Port or Waterway StateâStatewide Port Profile data. LocalâRegional Maritime Databases (e.g., Maritime Exchange for Delaware River and Bay). PrivateâPort Gate Turn CountsâHighway. Railroad PrivateâClass I RailroadsâRegional train counts (e.g., daily train, volume). Economic and Commodity PrivateâUSA Trade OnlineâMaritime & Air. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety Analysis.
106 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects PrivateâPrivate Sector-Maintained Regional Employment Data (e.g., National Establishment Time Series). Freight Facilities and Finders PrivateâTank Terminals.com. PrivateâPrivate sector land use data (e.g., CoStar or Torto Wheaton Database). Other. Survey respondents provided mixed answers on use of certain data sources for freight project prioritization processes and methods (Figure E-13). The private source of data with the most use was IHS Global Insightâs TRANSEARCH database for economic and commodity data, at 45% of respondents. The largest source of state-level data in use was the state DOT weigh-in-motion truck counts for the trucking/highway data, at 80% of respondents. The most heavily used federal data source was the NPMRDS, at 98%, for highway use and the FHWA Freight Analysis Framework, at 85%, for general freight data. PrivateâIHS Global Insights, TRANSEARCHÂ® data.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 107 Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 16. In your opinion, how significant are the following factors, as barriers to integrating freight into project prioritization processes? (Select one for each) Scale to be used for each item Very significant Somewhat significant Not significant at all Donât know â¢ Data and Performance: o Lack of quality data to support prioritized project selection. Figure E-13. Use of data sources for freight project prioritization.
108 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects o Lack of clear performance measures and associated goals, and objectives. o Disagreement or lack of clarity over applicable freight performance measures. o Projects that donât align well with state or regional goals. â¢ Funding: o Lack of project funding and capital investment resources. o Lack of a specific freight capital program or freight project category identifier in a capital program. â¢ Organizational: o Lack of leadership or decision-making authority within the department and organizational structure. o Gaps between division (finance, planning, project development, maintenance and operations, safety, etc.) information systems and data flows. o Resistance from within organization. o Lack of leadership buy-in to freight program and project prioritization inputs into larger transportation planning and programming processes. â¢ Resources: o Lack of project selection staff resources. o Uncertainty over how to align stakeholder needs with suitable benefit, cost, and performance measure assessment and tracking mechanism. o Incomplete or complex list of freight project types and associated stakeholders impacted.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 109 o Fragmented project database with relevant history on benefit, cost, and performance measures across all project types and stakeholders. o Lack of access to necessary skill sets with freight and supply chain logistics experience to improve prioritization methods. o Disjointed use of private and public sector investment tools and decision- making activities (e.g., risk assessments). o Lack of coordinated scheduling of cost and benefit assessments across stakeholders. â¢ Stakeholder Input: o Inadequate freight stakeholder needs assessments from privately held freight modes. o Inadequate freight stakeholder needs assessments from regional state DOT districts and MPOs. o Privacy concerns on the part of freight stakeholders. o Inadequate stakeholder outreach, and staff resources/funding to conduct the outreach. o Other. On the topic of general perceptions related to barriers to integrating freight into statewide project prioritization processes, 69% of respondents selected the lack of a specific freight capital program or freight project category identifier in a capital program (Figure E-14). Other very significant barriers were lack of project funding and capital investment resources (80%), lack of quality data to support prioritized project selection (40%), and lack of leadership or decision-
110 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects making authority within the department and organization (41%). Barriers that received the highest counts for somewhat significant included inadequate freight stakeholder needs assessments from privately held freight modes (53%), disjointed use of private- and public-sector investment tools and decision-making activities (49%), and lack of quality data to support prioritized project selection (50%). Survey respondents were least concerned with lack of project selection staff resources (59%), uncertainty over how to align stakeholder needs with suitable methods (58%), resistance to freight project prioritization within the organization (53%), and privacy concerns on the part of freight stakeholders (55%). Figure E-14. Barriers to integrating freight into statewide project prioritization processes. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 111 17. What are the opportunities in your state that freight prioritization will help to achieve? (Check all that apply) â¢ Efficiencies in the freight system â¢ Support for economic development â¢ Improved maintenance of heavy freight corridors â¢ Improved safety and reduction of freight-related incidents â¢ Improved environment â¢ Other Survey respondents were most optimistic about the prospects of freight system efficiency improvements (100%) and economic development (95%) resulting from improved freight project prioritization processes (Figure E-15). On the less certain side were the prospects for improved environment (55%) as a result of freight project prioritization improvements.
112 Prioritization of Freight Investment Projects Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 18. How well do the capital programs or transportation funding programs for your state reflect the freight priorities determined through your prioritization process? (Select one) â¢ The freight priorities are mostly or always included. â¢ The freight priorities are sometimes included. â¢ The freight priorities are limited, maybe a few projects included. â¢ Freight priorities are often rare or excluded. Figure E-15. Opportunities from freight project prioritization.
Online Survey Questionnaire and Results 113 Fifty percent of survey respondents indicated that freight priorities are sometimes reflected in their capital programs (Figure E-16). Thirty-seven percent of survey respondents indicated that freight priorities are mostly or always included in their capital programs. Thirteen percent of survey respondents indicated that freight priorities are limited to the inclusion of a few projects. Figure E-16. Degree to which capital programs reflect freight project prioritization process. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 19. If you would like to provide any additional comments on topics within the survey please provide them here: (Open-ended comments box) No responses were recorded here.