Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
1
S U MMAR Y
Performance Measures for
Freight Transportation
The objective of the research on which this report was based was to develop measures to
gauge the performance of the U.S. freight transportation system. The measures as sought in
the project statement are intended to support investment, operations, and policy decisions
by a range of stakeholders, both public and private. The measures also are intended to reflect
local, regional, national, and global perspectives. The project's areas of emphasis include effi-
ciency, effectiveness, capacity, safety, security, infrastructure condition, congestion, energy,
and the environment.
The breadth and scope of the project's objective reflect the breadth and scope of the
national freight system. The U.S. freight system serves the world's largest economy. The
freight system spans the 24 million square miles of the North American continent while
linking it to international markets. The freight system comprises not only 4 million miles of
public roads, 140,000 miles of railways, 360 commercial airports, and a 12,000-mile marine
transportation system. It also consists of trucking firms, railroad companies, and maritime
and aviation companies and the public agencies that both serve and regulate them. Each of
the nation's diverse 6.2 million employers relies on some aspect of the freight system, some
for their entire livelihood. This research documents that the interests of stakeholders in
freight performance measurement are as diverse as are the stakeholders themselves.
The project's emphasis upon measuring efficiency, safety, security, infrastructure condi-
tion, energy, and the environment reflects society's cross-cutting and countervailing con-
cerns about freight. Producers and shippers are most concerned about travel times, travel
reliability, and travel costs. Other sectors of society primarily are concerned about freight
externalities. Externality concerns are evident in national programs to measure and con-
trol freight emissions, hazardous material releases, and accidents involving trucks or trains.
Another set of concerns addresses the control of certain types of freight shipments. Trade
agreements regulate imports. Concerns over agricultural pests and food safety lead to control
of agricultural imports. Illicit and unapproved drugs are controlled at the borders. Imports
of firearms, explosives, and nuclear material are closely regulated. Society's concerns about
the freight system span not only the system's efficiency at moving goods but also society's
ability to reduce externalities and to regulate undesirable movements.
To address the project's ambitious agenda, and recognizing the lack of resources to create a
new national freight data reporting structure, the project recommends creation of a Freight
System Report Card that relies upon existing sources. To reduce the cost of performance
measurement, the project bases it primarily upon existing federal data and proposes to link
the data through a Web-based application to more detailed explanatory reports. In this way,
the proposed Freight System Report Card can be succinct but also detailed.
The report card is proposed to be structured as a modified "Balanced Scorecard,"1 which
reports freight performance measures in six categories. These categories allow for the full
OCR for page 2
2
complexities and difficult tradeoffs of freight performance to be evident. Those six areas are:
freight demand, freight efficiency, freight system condition, freight environmental impacts,
freight safety, and the adequacy of investment in the freight system. The format of the Freight
System Report Card and the categories of measures within it are predicated upon several
critical findings from this research.
· First, successful performance measurement systems tend to provide summary, "at a glance"
compilations of performance, while also linking to detailed reports that allow users to "drill
down" into performance.2,3,4
· Second, successful performance measurement systems reflect a broad array of performance
concerns, not just certain narrow areas. The Balanced Scorecard has become popular in per-
formance measurement circles because it portrays broad, competing values so that the balanc-
ing of competing interests is evident.
· Third, successful performance measurement systems require an architecture. That is, they need
data protocols, common definitions, taxonomies, agreed reporting cycles, quality control/
quality improvement processes, and common consensus among users as to the accuracy and
efficacy of the measurement system and the data it uses.5
· Fourth, most performance measurement systems are evolutionary. Most developers of per-
formance measurement systems "begin with what they have." The systems tend to mature and
evolve over time, sometime over decades.
· Fifth, although a comprehensive freight performance measurement system does not exist, im-
portant aspects of freight performance are available in federal data sources. These data sources
are predominantly available regarding highway and waterway infrastructure condition, freight
volumes, and freight externalities such as air emissions and crashes.
· Sixth, private-sector trade associations often produce robust freight performance metrics that
can augment the public agency metrics.
· Seventh, there is no one agency or entity that has the mandate or resources to develop and
sustain a comprehensive freight performance measurement system. Many individual agencies
and private-sector trade organizations measure components of freight system performance,
but no one agency cuts across the numerous silos to compile a comprehensive reporting sys-
tem. Therefore, the recommended framework seeks to capture from existing federal and pri-
vate sources the existing performance measurement information that does exist.
An important caveat to the report card is that not all of its metrics qualify as performance
measures. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) defines performance measure-
ment as
the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress towards pre-
established goals. Performance measures may address the type or level of program activities conducted (pro-
cess), the direct products and services delivered by a program (outputs), and/or the results of those prod-
ucts and services (outcomes).6 [emphasis added]
There are no programs or goals for important aspects of freight performance such as
growth in freight volumes, changes in mode split, or travel time reliability. Several of the
included metrics are necessary to track important trends, such as freight volume growth.
Mixed within the report card are some true performance measures and some more general
indicators of freight trends.
Freight performance measurement is challenged by both an overwhelming abundance
of data and by a lack of complete data for many important freight system performance
functions. Sorting and selecting from the voluminous federal data sources is one daunting
OCR for page 3
3
challenge for freight performance measurement. Closing data gaps is another. Data about
infrastructure condition are more available than are data for freight system performance.
For instance, data for the condition of bridges and pavements have long been available.
Data about highway truck travel speeds are just becoming widely available. Systematic data
regarding multimodal freight performance are practically nonexistent.
Although freight system performance data are incomplete, information regarding freight
system externalities is available. It is possible to measure significant components of the
freight system's contribution to crashes, air emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions. In fact,
the data regarding externalities appear to be among the most comprehensive, well defined,
and granular of the freight data. The presence of targets and performance-measurement
architecture in federal safety and air quality programs partially explains the comprehensive
ness of performance data for them. As a corollary, the lack of national freight system perfor-
mance programs, performance goals, or targets partially explains the lack of freight system
performance data.
The various metrics within the Freight System Report Card were selected after a review
of 360 potential freight performance measures. The voluminous set of potential measures
was screened on the basis of surveys of public- and private-sector freight stakeholders, by
the quality of data to support the measures, and by their relevance to the project objec-
tives. In general, the public-sector stakeholders were interested in less frequently updated
measures to assist with policy, planning, and investment decisions. Private-sector stake-
holders were interested in more continuously available measures to make daily operational
decisions. Public-sector stakeholders were interested in policy and infrastructure issues,
whereas p rivate-sector stakeholders were more interested in cost, reliability, and travel
time measures. Two-thirds of private-sector respondents indicated that they never sought
government-provided freight performance measures.
Several major impediments confront a national freight performance measurement sys-
tem. First, no apparent agency or entity currently exists with the resources to independently
develop, staff, and sustain a new, comprehensive freight performance measurement system
that addresses all the issues raised in the NCFRP 03 problem statement. Second, the data
needs are enormous to address all nine performance areas described in the research state-
ment at the local, regional, national, and global levels for policy, investment, and operations.
No national infrastructure exists to define, collect, scrub, and deploy such comprehensive
data. Third, the lack of national goals or strategies obfuscates priorities for measurement.
Fourth, there is less than complete consensus as to how measures should be used. Some
favor their use for making policy and investment decisions, while others are concerned that
standard national measures will obscure important local considerations and skew policy and
investment decisions.
To overcome these constraints, the research report recommends creation of a first-
generation Freight System Report Card that relies primarily upon existing freight perfor-
mance reports. The reliance upon existing reports partially overcomes the lack of an agency
and budget to generate a new measurement process. It also reduces the time, cost, and
complexity of implementing a reporting system. The existing reports that are selected for
the report card generally already have a supporting architecture. These reports result from
mature processes that include taxonomies, data protocols, quality assurance processes, and
an ongoing support structure. The population of the report card would require additional
effort because the data producers would need to contribute their data to the report card.
However, the level of effort would be orders of magnitude less than that of creating new
measures. Models of such cooperation exist already with the seven Class I railroads contrib-
uting to common performance reports and the states in Australia and the nation of New
OCR for page 4
4
Zealand contributing to an Austroads performance website and to emerging efforts by the
state transportation agencies to jointly identify performance metrics.
The framework seeks to simplify the enormous complexity of measuring the U.S. freight
network by focusing primarily upon the disproportionate importance of key freight net-
work components, such as the Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I rail-
roads, and the top 20 U.S. ports.
Finally, the framework is proposed to address a key requirement of performance report
cards. They need to provide front-page "at a glance" summaries that provide busy executives
with a succinct and instantaneous assessment of performance. However, the framework also
needs to allow the user to drill into details to answer more nuanced questions, or to explore
trends in further detail. The framework is heavily weighted toward inclusion of composite
measures that provide both brevity and insight. The composite measures summarize trends
but also can be disaggregated for drilling down into the factors that contribute to the per-
formance.
In addition, the report card is proposed to function in a three-tiered fashion intended to
serve the various levels of detail required by users. A governor or legislator can be served with
highly consolidated, trend line information. A metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
board member, a department of transportation (DOT) senior executive, or an inquisitive
reporter may seek more detailed information. A DOT staff person, an academic researcher,
or a logistics provider requires even more detail. The framework is envisioned to address
the increasingly detailed information needs of all three levels of users. It provides varying
degrees of insight by having a highly summarized Freight Transportation Report Card, a
summary report for each measure in the report card, and a link to a much more compre-
hensive report that can explain the context of each measure. In this way, the report card is
intended to be both succinct and insightful, as illustrated in Figure S.1.
The key in Figure S.2 includes four different colors of indicators used in the report card.
The need for multiple indicators is reflective of freight's complexity. Some decreases are posi-
tive, such as decreases in emissions. Some increases are negative, such as increases in crashes.
Other changes could be considered either positive or negative depending upon the stake-
holder's viewpoint. Increases or decreases in freight volumes are shown in black, indicating
their change could be viewed as either positive or negative depending upon the stakeholder's
perspective. Changes in red clearly are negative, such as increases in freight-related fatalities.
The report card attempts to illustrate trends but also whether those trends are positive or
10 Year 20 Year
Performance Measure Analysis
Trend Forecast
Freight Demand Measures
Despite declines in the past 18 months, steady growth in freight volumes occurred
Freight Demand Measures, All Modes over the past 10 years. Future long-term growth of 2-3 % annually for 20 years is
likely as the economy improves.
Truck freight grew at 2 to 3% annually in the past decade, except in the past 18
Truck Freight Volumes months. Future 2-3% growth is predicted when the economy improves to historic
levels
Rail freight volumes steadily grew in the 2000s until the recent recession. Long-term
Rail Freight Volumes
rail freight volumes are predicted to continue growing with an economic rebound.
Inland water traffic growth is expected to remain at relatively low rates of 1% to 1.5%
Inland Water Freight Volumes
through 2035, the rate of growth for the past 10 years.
Containerized freight volumes grew rapidly in the past decade until 2008 when they
Containerized Waterborne Freight Volumes sharply. Long-term growth is likely to resume to previously robust levels with
improvement in the global economy.
System Efficiency Measures
A near doubling of traffic volumes in the past 25 years has slowed peak hour
speeds in most urban areas. Long-term traffic growth is likely to continue to outpace
Interstate Highway Speeds
physical or operational improvements to the Interstate System. As a result, travel
speeds are likely to continue declining.
Rising traffic volumes combined with a low rate of investment is likely to result in
Travel speeds at top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks slower travel speeds and increased delays at the nation's top Interstate Highway
Bottlenecks.
Operating speeds at Class I railroads have remained stable for the past decade.
Class I RR Operating Speed The RRs warn of long-term congestion and delay if investment levels are not
increased.
Cost of Logistics as a Percent of GDP After decades of decline, logistics as a cost of GDP appears to be tracking upward.
System Condition Measures
Approximately 50 percent of the NHS pavement conditions are in `Good' condition,
representing improvement over the past decade. However, higher costs and
NHS Pavement Conditions
uncertain funding levels create uncertainty whether those relatively low levels can be
sustained.
Structural deficiencies on the NHS have declined by 40 percent in recent decades
and were forecast to continue improving. However, dramatically higher material
NHS Bridge Conditions
prices in the past two years and uncertain funding levels threaten the long-term
improvement that had been expected.
Environmental Condition Measures
Freight-produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions are expected to rise commensurate
Freight-Produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) with the increase in truck, rail, and water freight volumes. Current emission
technology does not control vehicular GHE.
Truck-related GHE are predicted to rise steadily with a projected 30% increase in
Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions
vehicle miles traveled by 2030.
Rail GHE steadily increased from 1990 to 2005 but leveled off because of declining
Rail Greenhouse Gas Emissions
rail volumes and cleaner locomotives.
Ozone precursors from trucks have declined dramatically in recent years and are
Freight-Produced Ozone-Related Emissions predicted to continue to decline as cleaner vehicles replace current ones and as the
benefits of cleaner fuels are realized.
These ozone-contributing emissions produced by trucks have fallen dramatically
Truck-related VOCs
because of cleaner fuels, and vehicles.
Truck-generated NOX emissions are forecast to fall 82 percent from 2002 levels by
Truck-related Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions
2020 because of cleaner fuels and vehicles.
The elimination of sulfur from fuel and introduction of cleaner locomotives are
Rail NOX Emissions
expected to reduce RR NOX emissions by 41% by 2020 and by 83% by 2040.
The same fuel and locomotive changes are forecasted by USEPA to reduce per-
Rail VOC Emissions
gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040
Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an
Truck Particulate Emissions
82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions.
Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for US-flagged merchant
Ship produced NOX and PM vessels. Both PM and NOX emissions are predicted to decline significantly through
2040 on a per-gallon basis.
Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed
and granular.
Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular.
Key The key in Figure S.2 includes four different
Black arrows indicate trends which are not colors of indicators used in the report card. The
necessarily positive or negative, such as growth need for multiple indicators is reflective of
in freight volumes. freight's complexity. Some decreases are
Green arrows indicate trends which are positive, such as decreases in emissions. Some
OCR for page 5
Rail VOC Emissions
gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040
Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an
Truck Particulate Emissions
82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions.
Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for US-flagged merchant
Ship produced NOX and PM vessels. Both PM and NOX emissions are predicted to decline significantly through
2040 on a per-gallon basis.
5
Figure S.1. Tiers of reporting from general and summarized to highly detailed and granular.
Key The key in Figure S.2 includes four different
Black arrows indicate trends which are not colors of indicators used in the report card. The
necessarily positive or negative, such as growth need for multiple indicators is reflective of
in freight volumes. freight's complexity. Some decreases are
Green arrows indicate trends which are positive, such as decreases in emissions. Some
benign. They can be either downward trends, increases are negative, such as increases in
such as a decrease in crashes, or upward, such
as increased levels of investment. crashes. Other changes could be considered
either positive or negative depending upon the
Yellow arrows indicate performance which is
not clearly positive and may be indicative stakeholder's viewpoint. Increases or decreases
of future problems. in freight volumes are shown in black,
Red arrows indicate negative trends, that can indicating their change could be viewed as
either be increasing, such as emissions, or either positive or negative depending upon the
decreasing, such as the adequacy of
investment.
stakeholder's perspective. Changes in red
Figure S.2 Report card key clearly are negative, such as increases in
Figure S.2. Report Card key. freight-related fatalities. The report card
attempts to illustrate trends but also whether those trends are positive or negative. Admittedly,
stakeholders with strong positions may disagree with the characterization. For instance, advocates for one
mode may see increases in freight volumes for another mode as negative. The formatting is oriented to a
negative. Admittedly, centrist,
stakeholders with strong
public-sector positions may disagree with the characteriza-
viewpoint.
tion. For instance, advocates for one mode may see increases in freight volumes for another
mode as negative. The Trend lines also
formatting isare emphasized
oriented to a in the report
centrist, card to provide
public-sector additional context regarding how
viewpoint.
Trend lines also areperformance
emphasized hasinchanged overcard
the report time,to
or provide
how it is likely to unfold
additional into the
context future.
regarding
how performance has changed over time, or how it is likely to unfold into the future.
As noted in Figure S.1, accompanying the report card are summaries that elaborate on each performance
As noted in Figuremetric.
S.1, accompanying the card,
Following the report report card
below, isare summaries
a representative that elaborate
summary onof logistics as a
for the cost
each performance metric. Following the report card (see Figure S.3) is a representative sum-
percentage of gross domestic product. That summary defines and further elaborates upon the measure.
mary for the cost of logistics as a percentage
The summary also includesof gross domestic
references product
to even more (see
detailed Figure S.4).
information thatThat
may be of interest to a more
summary defines and further elaborates upon the measure. The summary also includes ref-
5
erences to even more detailed information that may be of interest to a more demanding user.
In this example, the link is to the full report by the Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals (CSCMP) that examines the inputs into the 2009 analysis of logistics costs as a
percentage of the nation's gross domestic product. The three-tiered structure addresses the
project statement's requirement that the framework appeal to decision makers and users at
various levels.
Freight Performance Indices and Measures
The report card attempts to balance the tension between users desiring a wide array of
measures and the potentially crippling cost and complexity of sustaining a massive measure-
ment process. The score card relies on only six categories and 29 measures. However, most
are composite measures that can be broken down into their component elements for greater
understanding of performance. The data often can be broken down into categories, or into
geographic regions and, in some cases, to corridors, links, and nodes. The composite nature
is an attempt to provide both "at a glance" summation while also accommodating detailed
deconstruction of underlying trends, factors, and performance.
Links to Source Documents
In the proposed Freight System Report Card, this summary would be linked to the source
document, in this case the CSCMP 2010 State of Logistics Report. The links to source docu-
ments provide the greater detail and context that some readers would desire.
The complete set of explanatory summaries is included in Appendix F.
OCR for page 6
6
10-Year 20-Year
Performance Measure Analysis
Trend Forecast
Freight Demand Measures
Despite declines in the past 18 months, steady growth in freight volumes occurred
Freight Demand Measures, All Modes over the past 10 years. Future long-term growth of 2-3 % annually for 20 years is
likely as the economy improves.
Truck freight grew at 2 to 3% annually in the past decade, except in the past 18
Truck Freight Volumes months. Future 2-3% growth is predicted when the economy improves to historic
levels
Rail freight volumes steadily grew in the 2000s until the recent recession. Long-term
Rail Freight Volumes
rail freight volumes are predicted to continue growing with an economic rebound.
Inland water traffic growth is expected to remain at relatively low rates of 1% to 1.5%
Inland Water Freight Volumes
through 2035, the rate of growth for the past 10 years.
Containerized freight volumes grew rapidly in the past decade until 2008, when they
Containerized Waterborne Freight Volumes sharply declined. Long-term growth is likely to resume to previously robust levels
with improvement in the global economy.
System Efficiency Measures
A near doubling of traffic volumes in the past 25 years has slowed peak-hour
speeds in most urban areas. Long-term traffic growth is likely to continue to outpace
Interstate Highway Speeds
physical or operational improvements to the Interstate System. As a result, travel
speeds are likely to continue declining.
Rising traffic volumes combined with a low rate of investment are likely to result in
Travel speeds at top Interstate Highway Bottlenecks slower travel speeds and increased delays at the nation's top Interstate Highway
Bottlenecks.
Definitive Interstate Highway System reliability data do not exist for the past
decade. However, increases in traffic volumes and freight volumes are well
documented and extensive localized data indicate that travel on urban Interstate
Interstate Highway Reliability highways has become less reliabile. ATRI reliability measurement on 25 Interstate
corridors indicates variability in reliability on congested urban segments, with future
traffic volumes expected to increase. It is reasonable to assume that reliability will
worsen if current trends continue.
Operating speeds at Class I railroads have remained stable for the past decade.
Class I RR Operating Speed The RRs warn of long-term congestion and delay if investment levels are not
increased.
After decades of decline, logistics as a cost of GDP has become more uncertain. It
Cost of Logistics as a Percent of GDP rose in the mid-2000s but fell signficantly with the recession of 2008. The decline
was due to unsustainable conditions such as freight prices falling below costs.
System Condition Measures
Approximately 50% of the NHS pavement conditions are `Good',
representing improvement over the past decade. However, higher costs and
NHS Pavement Conditions
uncertain funding levels create uncertainty whether those relatively low levels can be
sustained.
Structural deficiencies on the NHS have declined by 40% in recent decades
and were forecast to continue improving. However, dramatically higher material
NHS Bridge Conditions
prices in the past two years and uncertain funding levels threaten the long-term
improvements that had been achieved.
Figure S.3.
Figure S.3.The Freight
The System
Freight Report Card.
System Report Card.
Balancing Competing Objectives
Reflecting the diverse and often competing interests in freight measurement, the report
card is set up similar to a Balanced Scorecard. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance
measurement system that includes measures that reflect the tensions that exist for decision
making. Instead of focusing on a few narrow measures, the scorecard juxtaposes measures
of competing values, such as freight efficiency and freight externalities. Normally, Balanced
Scorecards have four components that balance metrics for finances, internal processes, cus-
tomer satisfaction, and the institution's ability to learn and innovate. Reflecting the complex
nature of the U.S. freight system, the proposed report card has six categories. They are freight
demand, freight efficiency, freight system condition, freight environmental impacts, freight
safety, and the adequacy of investment in the freight system, as seen in Figure S.5. These cat-
egories respond to the original research statement and reflect commonly expressed interests
of stakeholders.
A similar logic led to a preference given to composite measures. Composite measures
consist of an aggregation of data, such as combined speed on the Interstate Highway System.
The overview, composite measure can be disaggregated, or "drilled into," in order to exam-
ine the performance of the constituent highway links. The use of composite measures was
OCR for page 7
7
10 Year 20 Year
Performance Measure Analysis
Trend Forecast
Environmental Condition Measures
Freight-produced greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise commensurate
Freight-Produced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHE) with the increase in truck, rail, and water freight volumes. Current emission
technology does not control vehicular GHE.
Truck-related GHG are predicted to rise steadily with a projected 30% increase in
Truck Greenhouse Gas Emissions
vehicle miles traveled by 2030.
Rail GHG steadily increased from 1990 to 2005 but leveled off because of declining
Rail Greenhouse Gas Emissions
rail volumes and cleaner locomotives.
Ozone precursors from trucks have declined dramatically in recent years and are
Freight-Produced Ozone-Related Emissions predicted to continue to decline as cleaner vehicles replace current ones and as the
benefits of cleaner fuel are realized.
These ozone-contributing emissions produced by trucks have fallen dramatically
Truck-related VOCs
because of cleaner fuels, and vehicles.
Truck-generated NOx emissions are forecasted to fall 82% from 2002 levels
Truck-related Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions by 2020 because of cleaner fuels and vehicles.
The elimination of sulfur from fuel and introduction of cleaner locomotives are
Rail NOX Emissions
expected to reduce RR NOx emissions by 41% by 2020 and by 83% by 2040.
The same fuel and locomotive changes are forecasted by USEPA to reduce per-
Rail VOC Emissions
gallon diesel emissions of VOCs by 60% by 2020 and by 88% by 2040.
Cleaner low-sulfur fuel and cleaner engine technology are predicted to lead to an
Truck Particulate Emissions
82% reduction in combination truck particulate emissions.
Similar fuel and engine improvements are required for U.S.-flagged merchant
Ship produced NOX and PM vessels. Both PM and NOx emissions are predicted to decline significantly through
2040 on a per-gallon basis.
Freight Safety Measures
Between 1988 and 2007, the large truck injury crash rate decreased from 67.9 to
Truck Injury and Fatal Crashes 31.8 per million miles traveled. The 2007 rate is the lowest on record. The large
truck fatal crash rate has also declined. In 2007, this rate was 1.85, down from a
peak of 5.21 in 1979. The 2007 rate is the lowest rate on record.
Between 1998 and 2008 the number of incidents at RR crossings involving both
Highway/Rail At-Grade Crashes vehicles and pedestrians declined 32%. Nearly 2,400 annual incidents still
occur, with 289 deaths in 2008.
System Investment Measures
The 2004 FHWA Condition and Performance Report indicated that then-current
Estimated Investment in NHS to Sustain Conditions investment levels were adequate to sustain most NHS conditions. However, since
then construction costs increased significantly and funding for the federal highway
program remains undecided.
The Cost of Capital for the Class I railroads has steadily declined, which is a positive
Rail Freight Industry Earning Cost of Capital economic trend for them. Lower Cost of Capital reflects lower costs to acquire
capital to improve the rail network.
A rail industry analysis concluded that the Class I RRs need to increase capital
Estimated Rail Capital Investment to Sustain Market
investment in expansion to sustain market share. Their ability to raise sufficient
Share
investment capital is not definite and may not be sufficient to sustain market share.
Inland Waterway Investment to Sustain Lock and The average age of locks on the inland waterways system is estimated to be in
Dam Average Age at Less than 50 Years excess of 51 years. Current expenditure levels do not appear to be sufficient to
improve that average age.
Figure S.3. Continued.
emphasized to respond to the project objective of having measures that allow for analysis
at national, state, and regional levels. Generally, measures based upon inventories allow for
granular analysis, whereas those based on estimates do not.
The report card also is proposed to include trend lines of future performance, or leading
indicators, in addition to retrospective measures. Most performance measurement systems 8
begin with lagging indicators, but users have consistently grown dissatisfied with backward-
looking trends alone. Leading indicators are important for policy and investment decisions.
For instance, the indicators within the Report Card forecast that national emission targets
for ozone-causing nitrogen oxide (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are on
track to be met. However, greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are forecast to increase sig-
nificantly if current trends continue. Such information could well indicate that traditional
emission strategies to control harmful ozone precursors are working, while society has yet to
develop an effective GHG strategy for freight. Likewise, the leading indicators that forecast
that overall freight volumes are to increase for highways, railways, ports, and intermodal
OCR for page 8
8
Logistics a
Logistics
Logistics a
Assa
s aPercentage
A Percentageof
Percentage of
of GDP
GDP
GDP
Logistics As A Percentage of GDP
Year
Year Transport
Transport Inventory Total
Total
Performance
PerformanceIndicator
Indicator
Indicator
Paradoxical
Paradoxical
Paradoxical Year Transport Inventory
Inventory Total
The
The cost
costofoflogistics
logisticsas asaa percentage
percentage
percentage of
ofofGross
Gross
Gross Domestic
Domestic
Domestic 1986
1986 6.3 4.9 11.6
1 1986 6.3 6.3 4.9 4.9 11.611.6
Product
Productfellfelltotothe
thelowest
lowest level
level
level ever
ever
ever recorded
recorded
recorded in
inin2009.
2009. 1
2009. 1
This 1988 6.1 4.9 11.5
This precipitous
precipitousdecline
decline generally
generally
generally represents
represents
represents negative
negative
negative 1988
1988 6.1 6.1 4.9 4.9 11.511.5
trends such as the rapid
trends such as the rapiddecline decline
declinein ininmanufacturing
manufacturing
manufacturing 1990
1990 6.1 4.9 11.4
output,
output, the
theunemployment
unemployment
unemployment of
ofofthousands
thousands
thousands of
of oftruck
truck
truck drivers
drivers
drivers 1990 6.1 6.1 4.9 4.9 11.411.4
and
and aa significant
significantdownturn
downturn
downturn in
inintruck,
truck,
truck, rail,
rail,
rail, air
airairand
andand water
water
water 1992 5.9 3.7 10
1992
1992 5.9 5.9 3.7 3.7 10 10
freight movement.
freight movement. Ascan As can
canbebe seen
beseen
seen in
ininthe
the
the table
table
table and
andandchart,
chart,
chart,
logistics costs as a percent of GDP had been generally 1994 5.9 3.7 10.1
logistics costs as apercentpercentof ofGDPGDP had
had been
been generally
generally 1994
1994 5.9 5.9 3.7 3.7 10.110.1
declining
decliningsince
since1985.
1985.The The
The gradual,
gradual,
gradual, long-term
long-term
long-term decline
decline
decline 1996
1996 6.0 3.9 10.2
was
was generally
generallyviewed
viewedas asaaapositive
positive
positive factor.
factor.
factor. It represented
ItItrepresented
represented 1996 6.0 6.0 3.9 3.9 10.210.2
increased innovation and efficiencies in the logistics
increased innovation andefficiencies efficiencies inin thethe logistics
logistics 1998
1998 6.0
6.0 3.7
3.7 10.1
10.1
industry. Logistics costs were were not
not rising
rising as
as fast
fast as
as GDP
GDP , 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1
industry. Logistics costs were not rising as fast as GDP,
which signaled increased
Performance Indicator productivity
productivity
Paradoxical and
and lowerlower Year
2000 Transport
6.0 Inventory
3.8 Total
10.3
which signaled increased productivity and lower 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3
relative costs for moving goods. goods. 2000 6.0 3.8 10.3
relative
The cost costs for moving
of logistics as a goods.
percentage of Gross Domestic 1986
2002 6.3
5.6 4.9
2.9 11.6
8.8
However, the severe recession of 2008 and
and 2009 2002 5.6 2.9 8.8
Product fell
However, theto
recession
the lowest
severe recessionlevel ofever
2008
of 2008 recorded 2009
and 2009 incaused
caused
2009.
caused
1
2002 5.6 2.9 8.8
logistics
This volume
precipitous to fall
decline significantly.
significantly.
generally The
The
representslogistics
logistics costs
costs
negative 1988
2004 6.1
5.6 4.9
2.9 11.5
8.8
logistics volume to fall significantly. The logistics costs 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8
decline
trendswas
such viewed
as the as creating
rapidcreating
decline unsustainably
unsustainably
in manufacturing low
low prices
prices 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8
decline was viewed as creating unsustainably low prices 1990
2006 6.1
6.1 4.9
3.4 11.4
9.9
for goods movements , which
which were
were often
often below
below the costs
for goods movements, which were often below the costs 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9
output, the unemployment of thousands of truck drivers
ofand
logistics firms. Layoffs,
a significant Layoffs,
downturn bankruptcies
bankruptcies
in truck, rail, , and
and operating
airoperating
and water 2006 6.1 3.4 9.9
of logistics firms. Layoffs, bankruptcies , and operating 1992
2008 5.9
6.1 3.7
2.9 10
9.4
losses were prevalent in the
the logistics
logistics industry
industry
freight movement. As can be seen in the table and chart, as
as aa 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4
losses were prevalent in the logistics industry as a 2008 6.1 2.9 9.4
result.
logistics costs as a percent of GDP had been generally 1994
2009 5.9
4.9 3.7
2.5 10.1
7.7
result. 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7
declining since 1985. The gradual, long-term decline 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7
Forecasted Trend Line - Uncertain 1996 6.0 3.9 10.2
1 was generally viewed as a positive factor. It represented
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report.
The declineinnovation
increased in oil prices andand extraordinary
efficiencies in the softness
logistics in the economy caused the cost of logistics in
1 1998 6.0 3.7 10.1
Council
relation of
toSupply
GDP Chain
to Management
decline in 2008
industry. Logistics costs were not rising as fast Professionals
and 2009 , but 2010 Annual trends
long-term
as GDP
but long-term State
trendsof the Logistics
could
could send the
send Report
the costs
costs . upward.
upward. After
After
1
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report. 9
rising
which 50signaled
percent increased
in the previous five years
productivity and total
lower logistics costs fell
2000in 2008 and6.0fell further in3.8
2009. 10.3 9
Inventory carrying
relative costs costs plunged
for moving goods.primarily in 2008 because interest rates were over 50 percent lower 9
than 2007. In 2009, transportation costs fell significantly to push 2002
logistics as a 5.6
percent of GDP 2.9to 7.7 8.8
However, the severe recession of 2008 and 2009 caused
percent. In the years leading up to the recession of 2001, logistics costs as a percentage of GDP had
logistics volume to fall significantly. The logistics costs 2004 5.6 2.9 8.8
been rising until they surpassed the 10 percent mark. Greater efficiencies and innovations caused the
decline was viewed as creating unsustainably low prices
rate to fall in the mid 2000s. The recession of 2008 caused overall freight movement
2006 6.1 to plummet
3.4 , which
which 9.9
for goods movements which were often below the costs
drove overall logistics costs further downward. When the economy rebounds, there will be fewer trucks
of logistics firms. Layoffs, bankruptcies and operating
in service as the trucking industry has shed excess drivers and vehicles. 2008 Also, the 6.1 recession softened
2.9 9.4
losses were prevalent in the logistics industry as a
demand for fuel. As the economy rebounds these factors plus inventory costs could put upward pressure
result. 2009 4.9 2.5 7.7
on logistics costs.
1
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 2010 Annual State of the Logistics Report.
Links S.4.
Figure to Source Documents
Representative summary.
9
In the proposed Freight System Report Card, this summary would be linked to the source document, in
this case the CSCMP 2010 State of Logistics Report. The links to source documents provide the greater
detail and context that some readers would desire.
The complete set of explanatory summaries is included in Appendix F.
OCR for page 9
9
Figure S.5. The Balanced Scorecard approach.
shipments indicate that current levels of congestion are likely to become more severe. Also,
the forecasts showing that current levels of investment are unlikely to sustain highway and
rail performance lend insight into the magnitude and adequacy of system investment needs.
Evolutionary Approach
The report card is proposed to be evolutionary. Much of the performance measurement
literature and the experience of the practitioners who were interviewed indicated that per-
formance measurement systems tend to mature and improve over time. Few of the agen-
cies that today have comprehensive measurement systems began with those systems intact
from the beginning. "Begin with what you have" is a near-universal recommendation from
the performance management practitioners interviewed. Also, it is acknowledged that no
proposed measurement system will meet the needs of all stakeholders. As a result, it is likely
that stakeholders will advocate for additional measures, which can be added over time. Also,
flaws in the current data will be found as the report card is published and examined. As a
result, continuous efforts to improve the data that feed the report card should be anticipated.
The report card also attempts to select metrics that have companion interpretative reports.
This is because it is unlikely than numeric values alone can provide insight for sophisticated
investment and policy decisions. Factors that influence a rate of change for a measure are
essential for understanding the measure, such as those factors enumerated in the CSCMP
cost-of-logistics measure. Similarly, each metropolitan area's air-quality "conformity" anal-
ysis provides the context for its emission results. Unfortunately, not every metric has an
explanatory report to provide context and analysis, but those that do were given higher
consideration for inclusion as a metric. They provide context and interpretation for the
changes in the metrics.
Initial Focus on Key Freight Network Components
The framework seeks to simplify the enormous complexity of measuring the U.S. freight
network by focusing primarily on the disproportionate importance of key freight network
components, such as the Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I railroads,
OCR for page 10
focusing primarily on the disproportionate importance of key freight network components, such as the
Interstate and National Highway systems, the Class I railroads, and the top 20 US ports. The powerful
10 market forces that lead logistics professionals to seek the lowest-cost, most direct routes from freight
origins to destinations have led to considerable consolidation of volumes on the network, as shown in
Table S.1. This significant consolidation simplifies measurement considerably. Out of 4 million miles of Comm
define o
Table
Table S.1. Freight
S.1. Freight volumes consolidated
volumes consolidated oncomponents.
on the key network the key network components.
Facility Size Percent of Freight
Interstate Highway System 1% of highway system 49% of Truck VMT
National Highway System 4% of highway system 75% of Truck VMT*
Class I RRs 7 out of 563 carriers 93% of Rail Revenue
Top 20 container ports Out of 124 nationally 96% of Container Traffic
public roads, 4 percent, the National Highway System, carries more than 70 percent of the truck freight.
Container port traffic is highly concentrated, as are freight volumes on U.S. railroads. Monitoring of
performance of the national system is greatly simplified by focusing upon these key networks. The
and the top 20 U.S. ports. The powerful market forces that lead logistics professionals to
framework is established, however, to allow all regions to measure their own freight network
seek the lowest-cost,
performance. The ability most direct routes
to disaggregate from
the data freight
would alloworigins to destinations
a less populated region tohave
breakled
out to
thecon-
siderable consolidation of volumes on the network, as shown in Table S.1. This significant
performance data down to its region and, in several cases, down to individual links, or bridges. In this
consolidation
way, the nationalsimplifies
report cardmeasurement considerably.
could be mirrored at the state or Out of 4 million
metropolitan level. miles of public roads,
4 percent, the National Highway System, carries more than 70 percent of the truck freight.
Container port traffic is highly concentrated, as are freight volumes on U.S. railroads. Moni-
Deployment and Maintenance of Report Card
toring of performance of the national system is greatly simplified by focusing upon these
key networks.
Despite The
the efforts framework
to reduce the costisand
established, however,
other barriers to of
to creation allow all regions
the Freight System to measure
Report their
Card, the
own freight
undertaking network
would performance.
still require The
a substantial ability
effort to disaggregate
by a yet-unidentified the data
coalition would allow a less
of collaborators.
populated region
However, such to break
coalitions out
exist. As the performance
mentioned, Austroadsdata
hasdown to its region
been producing and, in several
a transportation agencycases,
performance
down reporting links,
to individual systemorfor more than
bridges. Inathis
decade bythe
way, relying on contributions
national report card of data from
could bethe
mirrored
Australian
at the statestate transportation agencies
or metropolitan level. and by the central transportation agency in New Zealand. An
association of Nordic States shares performance information, and the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Performance Management has
Deployment and
taken several preliminary stepsMaintenance of
to populate a Web-based Report
compilation Card
of state performance metrics.
Despite the efforts to reduce the cost and other barriers to creation of the Freight System
Report Card, the undertaking would still require a substantial effort by a yet-unidentified
coalition of collaborators. However, such coalitions exist. As mentioned, Austroads has been
producing a transportation agency performance reporting system for more than a decade 12 by
relying on contributions of data from the Australian state transportation agencies and by the
central transportation agency in New Zealand. An association of Nordic States shares per-
formance information, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Performance Management has taken several
preliminary steps to populate a Web-based compilation of state performance metrics.
The coalition for the Freight System Report Card would need to extend to various federal
agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) with the Freight Anal-
ysis Framework (FAF) and its modal agencies, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
as illustrated in Figure S. 6. However, these agencies' contribution would be to provide the
Web-based report card reports that they already produce.
One complexity would be the contractual arrangements and cost for the private-sector-
produced measures and related reports, such as the CSCMP report, and the data produced
by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and the Association of American
Railroads (AAR). States and metropolitan regions' participation would be voluntary. There-
fore the degree of coverage across states and metropolitan regions would depend upon the
degree to which state and local participation is engendered.
OCR for page 11
One complexity would be the contractual arrangements and cost for the private-sector-produced measures
and related reports, such as the CSCMP report, and the data produced by ATRI and the Association of
11
American Railroads (AAR). States and metropolitan regions' participation would be voluntary. Therefore
the degree of coverage across states and metropolitan regions would depend upon the degree to which
state and local participation is engendered.
National Crash Data
National Bridge Data
National Highway Condition
Data
Proposed Performance
Measure Framework
Data Sources
CSCMP Cost Study FAF
National Air Quality Inventories
ATRI/FHWA Speed Data
FHWA Condition and
Performance
Figure S.5. The Report Card would rely upon many data sources,
Figure
as shown.S.6. Report card data sources.
A summary of the six categories of measures includes:
A summary of the six categories of measures includes:
Freight Demand Measures: These measures provide insight into the past and future performance of the
freight system and
Freight Demand Measures: shed light
These on every
measures other measurement
provide insight into category.
the pastThey
andare particularly
future per- important for
planning, investment, and policy decisions at all levels of government.
formance of the freight system and shed light on every other measurement category. They In the case of freight performance
measures, the measures of System Efficiency and System Conditions document increased congestion and
are particularly important for planning, investment, and policy decisions at all levels of
declining key system conditions in recent years. In the System Investment Measures, it is documented
government. In the case of freight performance measures, the measures of System Efficiency
that recent levels of investment are inadequate to sustain current conditions. Therefore, when the
and System Conditions document increased congestion and declining key system condi-
measures documenting inadequate system performance today are viewed in light of forecast future freight
tions in recent years. In the System Investment Measures, it is documented that recent levels
of investment are inadequate to sustain current conditions. Therefore, when the measures
13
documenting inadequate system performance today are viewed in light of forecast future
freight demands and continued underinvestment, an overall picture of further degradation
in the condition and performance of the national freight network emerges. Although general
in nature, the rate of growth in freight demand provides insight into the future trends of
several other measures, such as levels of congestion. However, not all conditions are linearly
linked to volume. For instance, some emissions are declining, even though freight volumes
are expected to increase. As seen in the report card, the rates of growth are shown for truck,
rail, and water volumes. These metrics are included pending more sophisticated forecasts
being available in all measurement categories.
The Estimated Rate of Growth in Containerized Imports/Exports was chosen as an addi-
tional measure because of the disproportionate impact containerized goods play in the
global economy. Additionally, growth in the movement of containerized goods will impact
all three major freight transportation modes. Other waterborne freight is important, but
inland domestic bulk shipping volumes have been relatively stable over the past 20 years.
Meanwhile, containerized shipments have grown substantially. The relative per-ton value
of containerized shipments is substantially above comparable values for bulk commodities.
The containerized shipments represent the high-value, high-growth imports and exports
critical in the modern global economy.
OCR for page 12
12
System Efficiency Measures: These measures are selected for insight into the overridingly
critical Interstate Highway System (IHS) and Class I railroad network. Each network is dis-
proportionately important to the overall freight system:
· The IHS comprises only 1 percent of public highway miles but accounts for 49 percent of all
truck vehicle miles of travel.
· The seven Class I railroads generate 93 percent of all rail freight revenue of the more than 500
railroad companies.
Focusing upon these two systems greatly simplifies data collection and maximizes the
return on investment in terms of system performance measurement. The IHS is proposed
to be measured in terms of various average link speeds, as well as in terms of its most critical
bottlenecks and its reliability. Performance measurement should eventually be expanded to
the larger National Highway System (NHS). The NHS, including the IHS, is only 4 percent
of the public highway network but carries 75 percent of all truck vehicle miles of travel.
The Class I railroad network is proposed to be measured in terms of the composite oper-
ating speeds of trains reported by the Class I railroads. Another critical railroad measure
is rail's relative market share of overall freight ton-miles. This measure was selected as a
barometer of change over time in the mode split of surface transportation.
The final measure in the efficiency category is the Cost of Logistics as a Percentage of the
GDP. This measure is produced with statistical rigor by CSCMP and serves as an insightful
barometer as to the relative cost of freight movement. Because it is a composite measure of
all modes, and because it is produced as a percentage sensitive to overall economic growth,
the project team believes it provides valuable trend line insight into the efficiency of the
national freight network.
System Condition Measures: Obviously, the condition of the system is a critically important
factor in the future performance of the freight system. The conditions of the NHS bridge
and pavement inventories are proposed measures. In addition, the critical "last mile" of
the NHS intermodal connectors is proposed for reporting, but only at the local level at this
time. These two components--the NHS and its last-mile connectors--serve to reflect the
condition of the national network and its performance in terms of its last linkage to key
freight generators. At present, because the NHS intermodal connectors are not subject to any
standardized reporting, they are not included in the national report card. They are recom-
mended, however, in the local report card.
Environmental Condition Measures: Although other measures such as hazardous chemi-
cal spills or nonpoint source pollution caused by highway runoff could be considered, it
is the air emissions that have been most extensively regulated. Therefore they are included
in the freight performance measurement system. Various GHG emissions are combined into
one measure each for the trucking, rail, and water modes. Ground-level ozone is regulated
by addressing its primary precursors, which are VOCs and NOx. Although GHG emissions
are the focus of significant public discussion currently, VOCs and NOx have been the sub-
ject of more than 30 years of regulatory effort at the national, state, and local levels and are
therefore included.
Diesel engines historically produced a disproportionate amount of particulate emissions,
which have become an increasingly regulated emission category. The ability of microscopic
particles to travel deep into the lungs has become recognized as a serious air quality and public
health concern. The regulation of particulates affects trucking, rail, and water transport because
of those modes' reliance upon diesel engines and their historical rates of particulate emissions.
OCR for page 13
13
Freight Safety Measures: Highway fatalities involving trucks tend to be a disproportion-
ately low percentage of all highway crashes, considering the amount of miles traveled by
these vehicles each year. Despite their relatively good safety record, concern over truck
safety remains significant because of the size, weight, and reduced handling characteristics
of trucks as compared to automobiles. To provide a more stable measure over time of the
trucking industry's safety performance, the primary measure included in the framework is
the number of injury and fatal crashes involving trucks per 100 million miles of travel.
For railroads, only about one-third of fatalities involve highwayrail crashes. The majority
of fatalities are to trespassing pedestrians on railroad rights-of-way, or to railway workers.
Nonetheless, public efforts to reduce highwayrail at-grade crashes have been extensive, and
a measure to address them is included in the proposed framework.
System Investment Measures: The final set of measures relates to the level of investment
necessary to sustain the freight system, both in terms of its condition and its performance.
Regarding the highway mode, the level of investment sufficient to sustain conditions on the
NHS is the proposed measure. Tracking of this measure provides insight into whether
the NHS is likely to improve, sustain, or degrade in performance. For railroads, there are
two measures. First is the measure of whether the railroads' earnings exceed the cost of capi-
tal, which is calculated by the Surface Transportation Board (STB). It is an indicator of the
railroads' financial health and of their ability to generate earnings and attract investment
sufficient for their long-term viability.
The second rail measure is the level of investment in rail system improvement to allow
railroads to sustain existing market share. The level of investment necessary to sustain
market share was determined by a definitive study performed by AAR. Their level of invest-
ment is reported in filings to the STB. Although there are no national goals for mode split or
modal market share, there does appear to be significant public consensus to capitalize upon
rail's greater energy efficiency and lower emissions on a per-ton basis compared to air or
trucking modes. If the railroads are not able to invest sufficiently to sustain or grow market
share, that fact could influence other goals, such as improving air quality, reducing GHG
emissions, or improving energy efficiency.
For the inland waterway system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports the average
age of the lock system at just over 50 years. The level of investment necessary to sustain this
average age is proposed as a measure of the relative adequacy of investment into the complex
and diverse inland waterway system.
To the extent possible, measures were selected because they offer discrete levels of granu-
larity and meet the project objective of being comparable across geographic levels. For the
most part, the performance measures based upon inventories--such as the National Bridge
Inventory--or captured through national reporting processes, such as crash reports, allow
granularity or comparability across geographic levels. Also, the uniformly collected ATRI
truck-speed data allow for granularity. As illustrated in Figure S.7, the truck speeds can be
generated for an entire interstate, for the interstate within one state, within a region, or down
to an individual link. In this way, the congested links that degrade travel times can be identi-
fied and prioritized. Survey-based data such as the Freight Analysis Framework or rail oper-
ating speed do not provide local or temporal granularity. They are based upon private-sector
reporting, which is intentionally consolidated to protect the privacy of the data providers.
The framework is intended to be included with the periodic interpretation of results, such
as an annual freight system performance report. Isolated metrics by themselves provide a
degree of insight. However, most require considerable interpretation. "Dashboards" and
reports at most departments of transportation (DOTs) are accompanied by analytic reports,
which provide context and interpretation. Such would be expected with a national freight
OCR for page 14
sustain or grow market share, that fact could influence other goals, such as improving air quality,
reducing GHG emissions, or improving energy efficiency.
14
For the inland waterway system, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports the average age of the lock
system at just over 50 years. The level of investment necessary to sustain this average age is proposed as a
measure of the relative adequacy of investment into the complex and diverse inland waterway system.
National Speeds
State Speeds
Local Speeds
Figure S.6.
Figure S.7. Granularity is possible in most
Possible granularity measures, such
of Interstate as Interstate
Highway Highway speeds.
truck-speed data.
To the extent possible, measures were selected because they offer discrete levels of granularity and meet
the project objective of being comparable across geographic levels. For the most part, the performance
measures based upon inventories--such as the National Bridge Inventory--or captured through national
reporting processes,
performance measurementsuch assystem.
crash reports,
Mostallow
of thegranularity
measures or selected
comparability
haveacross geographic
at least levels.
one founda-
Also,
tional the uniformly
report that cancollected ATRI truck-speed
be referenced to give the data allowgreater
reader for granularity.
insight As illustrated
into in Figure S.6,
the performance
the aspect
of that truck speeds can
of the be generated
freight system.for an entire interstate, for the interstate within one state, within a
region, or down to an individual
All the measures chosen were selectedlink. In this way, the
at least congested
in part links
because that had
they degrade travel times meth-
documented can be
identified and prioritized. Survey-based data such as the Freight Analysis Framework or rail operating
odology for how their data were collected, normalized, and presented by a credible organi-
speed do not provide local or temporal granularity. They are based upon private-sector reporting, which is
zation. Again, because there is no current budget or organization devoted to supporting a
intentionally consolidated to protect the privacy of the data providers.
set of multimodal, comprehensive freight performance metrics, the framework relies upon
The framework
existing is intended
data sources to be on
produced included with the periodic
an ongoing basis byinterpretation of results, such
some long-standing as an annual
organization.
freight system performance report. Isolated metrics by themselves provide a degree
Inherent in the assumption of the framework is that reliance on existing sources would of insight. However,
most require considerable interpretation.
lower the cost to sustain the framework. "Dashboards" and reports at most departments of transportation
(DOTs) are accompanied by analytic reports, which provide context and interpretation. Such would be
Asexpected with a national freight performance measurement system. Most of the measures selected have at
illustrated conceptually in Figure S.8, the framework is proposed with the potential
least one foundational report that can be referenced to give the reader greater insight into the performance
for it to be populated at the national level, the state level, and then down to the MPO level.
of that aspect of the freight system.
If populated in such a fashion, it would provide cascading levels of insight into the perfor-
mance Allof
the measures
the system. chosen were
In such a selected
fashionat itleast in partsatisfies
partially because they had documented
the project problem methodology
statementfor forhow
their data were collected, normalized and presented by a credible organization. Again,
the framework to provide insight into global, national, regional, and local considerations. because there is no
current budget or organization devoted to supporting a set of multi-modal, comprehensive
If a state or MPO chose to fully populate the framework with its comparable data, it would freight
performance metrics, the framework relies upon existing data sources produced on an ongoing basis by
provide the state or MPO region with the ability to compare its freight network performance
some long-standing organization. Inherent in the assumption of the framework is that reliance on existing
against other comparable regions or states. With such comparability, various analyses can
sources would lower the cost to sustain the framework.
be conducted to determine how performance changes over time by state, or by region. By
putting all states and regions upon a comparable and consistent framework, greater insight 16
could be gained over time into not only how the overall freight network is changing but also
where best practices have been successful at improving conditions over time.
For instance, in terms of NHS operating speed or the top 10 freight bottlenecks on the
IHS, those can be measured and their performance tracked over time to see the aggregate
national performance of travel speeds on the IHS or the rate of change of performance for
a selected cohort of representative bottlenecks. The data can be further separated at a state
level. The state-level analysis can be used by federal decision makers to focus efforts or
resources upon the states with the greatest degree of congestion or delay. Or each state can
replicate the analysis for evaluation of its top bottlenecks and congested links. In addition,
within a state, the individual links and bottlenecks can be evaluated and ranked for priority
within each MPO's area.
In other words, the framework is designed to allow comparable analysis at all levels across
the country--by aggregate national performance, by state performance, by multistate
regions, or down to the MPO level.
OCR for page 15
15
Figure S.8. Framework from national to local measurement.
In summary, the proposed measures are intended to provide a synopsis of the complex
national freight network. They are designed to serve as a dashboard or report card summa-
rizing at a very high level the major areas of freight system performance and condition. At
the same time, the framework is brief, to minimize the crippling cost and complexity that a
national freight performance measurement system could entail. The framework balances the
cost and availability of data with the need to provide insight at the global, national, regional,
and local levels in the areas of investment, policy, and operations.
Table S.2 shows how the broad national goals connect to each individual measure as it
supports decision making in operations, investment, and policy. It also illustrates in the far
right column the scope of granularity of the measure and whether it can provide insight into
the national, state, or local level, or at all three levels.
Recommendations and Further Research
NCFRP 03 had a broad scope, which was to identify freight performance measures per-
tinent to the public and private sectors, relevant to investment, policy, and operations deci-
sions, made by a range of stakeholders at the national, regional, and local level and address-
ing the areas of efficiency, effectiveness, capacity, safety, security, infrastructure condition,
congestion, energy, and environment. Important tasks in the research included identifying
stakeholder interests in those broad subject areas.
The surveys and interviews conducted for this project revealed that stakeholder interests
in freight performance are broad and diverse, covering almost every aspect of freight sys-
tem performance. A review of national programs also revealed a host of what this report
calls "inferred" stakeholder interests in the areas of environmental impacts, security, and
trade. These inferred stakeholder interests are manifest in the numerous laws that affect
freight performance, such as truck size and weight limits, emission standards for freight
vehicles, and import-export controls that control many goods. Joining this existing list of
OCR for page 16
16
Table S.2. A crosswalk of each measure to the elements it addresses.
Framework for National Freight Performance Measures
National Goals Proposed Decision Areas Supported
Measures within
Measurement
Categories Operations Investment Policy Scope
Categories
Forecasted rate of growth for National
all modes of freight
Truck freight forecast All
Rail freight forecasts National
Freight
Demand Water freight forecasts National
Rate of growth in
National
containerized imports/exports
Transportation Services
System National
Index
Performance NHS travel speed urban National
NHS travel speed rural Variable
Trend line of top 10 highway
All
freight bottlenecks
Freight
Efficiency Composite Class I RR
All
speeds
Rail freight market share All
Cost of logistic as percent
All
GDP
Pavement All
NHS pavement conditions
Measures All
System Bridge All
NHS bridge conditions
Condition Measures All
Intermodal Condition of NHS intermodal
All
Connectors connectors
Safety
Truck injury and fatal crashes All
System Safety
Highway/rail at-grade
All
crashes
Air Quality Freight-related greenhouse Nat.
System
emissions Reg.
Environmental
Impacts Other emissions: VOC, Nat.
NOX,CO, SOX, PM Reg.
Estimated investment in NHS
Highway versus amount necessary to All
sustain conditions
Rail freight industry earning
Rail All
System cost of capital
Investment Estimated rail capital
investment to sustain market All
Water share
Inland water investment to
sustain age of system All
2
OCR for page 17
17
stakeholder interests in freight are emerging issues such as the efficiency of freight move-
ments. R esearchers are exploring how efficiently freight moves between modes, and they are
examining how best to improve freight efficiency.
The research also has documented the daunting obstacles to creating a national freight
performance measurement system. For performance measurement systems to be credible,
they have to compile metrics consistently over time, across the entire population being
measured. AASHTO has sponsored research in recent years that addressed significant
differences in how states measure basic performance, such as pavement smoothness and
traffic crashes. That research addressed very basic highway-measurement processes and
how those processes need substantial normalization in measurement for cross-state mea-
surement to be accurate. Expanding performance measurement to the nine broad subject
areas of this research is necessary but creates data-normalization challenges that are signifi-
cantly more complex than measuring pavement or bridge conditions. The resulting conclu-
sion of this project is that research into improved means of measuring freight performance
must continue.
The research report notes, and the report card illustrates, that performance measures can
be developed for many aspects of freight system performance, such as emissions, crashes,
infrastructure condition, and basic measures of truck and train speed. Missing are measures
of freight reliability. Research by ATRI and the FHWA have compiled reliability or "buffer
indices" for 25 Interstate Highway corridors.
Such measures are still in the research stage, but they demonstrate that reliability measures
within a single mode are possible, particularly when captured with technological means. The
ATRI reliability data rely on capturing hundreds of thousands of anonymous truck move-
ments by capturing distinct GPS signatures as trucks move across the highway network. By
measuring the movement of hundreds of thousands of individual trucks across the highway
network, both travel speeds and the variability in those speeds can be measured. From the
variability, reliability can be estimated.
AAR publishes some similar train-speed data based upon self-reported results from the
seven Class I railroads. Again, however, those data are mode specific.
Freight movement is often multimodal. The research illustrated that no existing source of
cross-modal or multimodal freight reliability data resides in the public domain. Such data
would be valuable for public decision makers who are interested in optimizing performance
of freight efficiency across all modes. The private-sector logistics industry has voluminous
data regarding the efficiency of its shipments across multiple modes. Consumers who use
FedEx or UPS can glimpse such data when they track their packages on line. Third Party
Logistics (3PL) firms, Class I railroads, and many trucking firms provide similar tracking
services to freight consumers. However, this type of multimodal freight efficiency perfor-
mance is not compiled and made available for public-sector research or decision making.
Future research into how to capture multimodal freight efficiency is recommended.
The use of technology to track thousands of shipments from point of import to final
destination--or from point of manufacture and ultimately to the consumer--could pro-
vide important insight into where freight bottlenecks exist. Mode-specific bottlenecks
such as highway interchanges or long mountain highway grades can be identified today.
Far less clear is whether other chokepoints exist, such as at multimodal transfer points.
Some bottlenecks such as Chicago's rail-transfer inefficiencies are well known. Unclear
is whether such modal conflicts exist to a lesser scale across the freight network and, col-
lectively, whether they create substantial inefficiencies that raise the cost and lessen the
reliability of freight transport.
OCR for page 18
18
As noted later in the research, freight data exist for many externalities such as freight-
related crashes or emissions because national goals, national legislation, and national data
systems exist for those externalities. The emerging interest in federal freight legislation even-
tually could result in greater focus upon measuring multimodal freight efficiency. Con-
current research into how to measure freight system reliability would complement those
national policy efforts.
Endnotes
1 "Balanced Scorecard" refers to the system originated by Robert Kaplan and David Norton. See http://www.
balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx.
2 Drucker, Peter. The Information Executives Truly Need (Harvard Business Review, Jan./Feb. 1995). In Harvard Business
Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998, pp. 124.
3 Frigo, M. L. Strategy-Focused Performance Measures, Strategic Finance, Sept. 2002.
4 Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard--Measures That Drive Performance (Harvard Business
Review, Feb. 1992). In Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, Mass., 1998.
5 Eccles, Robert G., The Performance Measurement Manifesto (Harvard Business Review, 1991). In Harvard Business Review
on Measuring Corporate Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1998, pp. 2545.
6 Government Accountability Office, Performance Measurement and Evaluation, Definitions and Relationships, 2005, p. 1.
