Good afternoon or good morning to those of you to the West. Welcome to the Talking Freight Seminar Series. My name is Jennifer Symoun and I will moderate today's seminar. Today's topic is Freight Performance Measures. Please be advised that today's seminar is being recorded.
Before I go any further, I do want to let those of you who are calling into the teleconference for the audio know that you need to mute your computer speakers or else you will be hearing your audio over the computer as well.
Today we'll have three presenters, Bill Gardner of the Minnesota DOT, Gordon Proctor of Gordon Proctor and Associates, and Jeff Short of the American Transportation Research Institute.
Bill Gardner is Director of Minnesota DOT's Office of Freight & Commercial Vehicle Operations is responsible for the Department's freight, rail, waterway and CVO programs and activities. Bill has been with Mn/DOT for 11 years and has over 30 years of multi-modal transportation planning, operations and management experience. He has worked for local, regional and state transportation agencies as well consulting and technology firms in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. He has degrees from the University of Wisconsin and the University of North Carolina.
Gordon Proctor is an independent consultant who has specialized in performance management, strategic planning and asset management in the transportation sectors. His recent projects include an international scan on linking transportation budgets to accountability, streamlining the project-agreement process with railroads and in developing strategic plans for AASHTO.
He was with the Ohio Department of Transportation for 15 years before forming his own company in 2007.
At the Ohio DOT he served as the head of planning, chief of staff and director.
Jeffrey Short is a Senior Research Associate with the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). In that capacity, Mr. Short has studied a variety of freight transportation topics. He currently serves as ATRI's project manager for the FHWA-sponsored Freight Performance initiative which has developed a national system for measuring the performance of truck movement along U.S. freight corridors and at international border crossings. He holds an M.S. from the Georgia Tech and a B.A. from Emory University.
I'd now like to go over a few logistical details prior to starting the seminar. Today's seminar will asked 90 minutes with 60 minutes for speakers and the final 34 question and answer. If you think of answers, you can send them to the chat area.
The presenters will not be answering questions during the presentation but I will start the Q&A with the questions in the chat box. Once we get the questions, the operator will give instructions over the phone.
If you think of a question after the seminar you can e-mail them or go to the free planning list serve.
Again I would like to remind you the session is being recorded and the file containing audio and video will be posted to the website within the next few weeks. We encourage you to ask others in your office to listen to this recording.
The PowerPoint recitation are available for download in the download box in your screen.
Presentation will also be available online and I will notify all attendees. A final note talking freight seminars are eligible for 1.5 certification for AICP CM. You must have walked in with your first and ask name.
Or have your name types into the chat box.
I will post evaluation forms in the file share box. For those of you who filed for AICP CM credit I encourage you to submit the evaluation after you fill it out so we can improve these seminars. I will go ahead and get started.
For those of you who just joined us,the topic is Freight Performance Measures and the first presenter is Bill Gardner, MN DOT. . Questions, please type them into the chat box and they will be answered during the Q&A session.
With that I will put -- put up your presentation and you can begin.
Thank you, Jennifer. Good afternoon or good morning depending on where you are in the country. I would like to talk about freight performance measures the from a DOT perspective.
And why states are coming together in different ways to define and develop common freight measures and indicators and create a agreed upon national set of freight metrics.
There have been a number of state active in measures for some time. States like ours regularly report measures relevant to the plans and investments we make . As well as broader indicators of transportation systems performance.
For purposes of reporting measures we typically classify the world in two ways. One, things have been agencies that we have correct control over and to those things that we don't have control over but we may in fact influence
or at least have a policy commitment that says this is something we care about.
For example,like other DOT reports on highway conditions and traffic congestion and dashboards.
That contained specific performance targets primarily guidance to internal decisions.
We also report on broader trends for free performance. For example, the amount of freight tonnage in our water ports. It is an indicator of economic activity in the state competitiveness.
MN DOT produces an overall performance report on an annual ASIS as you see here. As do a number of other states like Washington DOT, North Dakota and Garland and others.
They are targeted to decision makers as well as general public. They typically contain a mix of measures and indicators and also typically include at least some freight related context. States on certain University
and consultant research has helped a number of states to define and develop measures. For example, Oregon State University in Portland, a state university recently completed quite a comprehensive assessment.
For the organ -- Oregon DOT.
States are actively involved in freight research projects under the transportation research Board national co-op or do research program.
A number of these projects address freight data and metrics.
In particular project you will be hearing about today, from Gordon Proctor. Standing committee on or form its measures, has helped to serve as a venue to continuing state dialogue on transportation measures
and we will talk about more in a minute. Certainly states continue to develop freight for parvus measures as part of statewide plans or their statewide transportation plan
and many of you advisory committees to get private sector input to help ensure the measures that we are using are promoting and are relevant to the freight industry as well. Recently,
a lot of the push for state to work together on freight performance measures has been the result of federal transportation legislation introduced.
There is a desire amongst the states to get ahead of the curve and to be part of the solution for developing a national system of performance measures rather than having something imposed upon them.
HR3617 Includes freight improvement program which is designed to improve operations, capacity and access. And support economic development. The House bill, proposes several categories of freight system performance the measured
and on a trip it each state including speed, reliability and access. It also proposes a federal state reporting process that I think is may be raised eyebrows
and perhaps some level of concern amongst the states not going exactly how target levels will be except by the Feds and what it will be used for. For example would be used for state to state comparisons or funding allocations?
Would it be used to impose new requirements on states that are not meeting their performance targets? Questions like this, have motivated a lot of states to elevate the national conversations about performance measures
and really again take a leadership role. And how this all might play out.
On a Senate site senates -- Senators from New Jersey and Washington state recently introduced Senate Bill 3629 also called the freight act which is probably a more creative act.
The act establishes a national freight transportation policy it defined objectives and identify some fairly specific goals as you can see here. It includes increasing travel time for liability on major freight corridors.
The bill requires within two years of H meant -- of enactment that freight transportation strategic plans be developed with proposed investment plans. Mayor T. freight corridors and gateways. -- Priority freight court orders and gateways.
It establishes a competitive infrastructure grant program that is open to any public entity and really modeled on the Tiger program. Overall, the act proposes performance-based approach for freight project selection. The focus,
seems to be on a nationally to find freight system and performance rather than individual state performance.
In order to provide leadership and developing national system for freight performance measures, and to prepare states for this type of federal legislation,
AASHTO performance management which is chaired by Pete on of the Surrey has established eight task forces for the purposes of identifying decision support tools and appropriate performance measures, and tightens and education.
As you can see passports represents a mix of functional and topical areas.
Does include a freight/economic task force. This task force is commissioned by my task force and is a very strong advocate for multiple transportation.
The freight task force initially included eight or nine states and we have tried to broaden the conversation to include more safe by contacting a national survey and I will talk that about that more later.
The time -- AASHTO for each DOT completes a online survey with Russians about how we should go about developing freight performance measures on an national basis. We received a poll of 21 state DOT responding. As a starting point,
the list -- suggested in the House bill. Speed or travel time, reliability and access. The thinking that they've DOT is interested in state
and regional first -- system performance particularly highway performance with these categories and the key attributes. I would like to present the results of these four questions that you see here.
We asked states to rate the importance of each of these categories to their own states. Also in point on how freight access should be defined. Which geographic scale is most important and perhaps most it and think,
how the measures should be used.
Of the three broad categories, the highest rated was reliability.
Followed by speed or travel time.
And then access. We don't really know without probing whether the responds rated group importance or whether they were trying to represent system users and their responses, in other words the trucking dignity for example.
Ranking system was a top priority which was consistent. It suggests a more predictable system helps to optimize service planning and what mode to use and what route to take and when to travel.
Which in turn of course helps minimum -- minimize costs. We asked about access and what that means to people. Suggesting several possible responses as you can see here.
Respondents said the adequacy connected roadways to major highways and also a blast mile connector.
They are the most important definitions of freight access.
Certainly access can be defined in a lot of other ways and would be very different for some of the other modes like real or -- rail or commercial navigation. We asked what the most important geographic scale,
statewide versus significant freight quarters versus urbanized areas or secondary separate court orders versus worker crossings.
They are -- border crossings are they are much the same. This graph shows the results of reliability. With the overwhelming response being significant freight corridors in urbanized areas. We know both recurring
and nonrecurring in urbanized areas are the source of unreliability and significant freight quarters are those from critical connections to larger regional.
Certainly overlap exists. For example major quarters obviously connect our trade centers and in other words the urbanized are realized areas. Finally,
we asked states to think about how freight measures might be used particularly funding scenarios. I didn't if I am is potential answers. -- Identifying these potential answers. They are all across the boards.
And they reflect the national discussion.
Everyone has ideas on how to to best use of freight performance measures and how not to use them.
The highest rated used was for evaluation of project impact on system performance. In other words capturing impact of construction, projects and operational improvement on the corridor performance.
Some of the comments in the discussion we have with other states, some states are genuinely concerned about how freight measures might be used
and for see some scenarios where they think they might not receive what they perceive to be inequitable share of the funding. Or they would be unfairly compared against other states by ignoring oval circumstances
or not fully event -- evaluating contributions to the national freight system. And so forth. A number of concerns there about going down this avenue.
Based upon the input and discussion of far, the task for at this point recommend pursuing measures of reliability.
As well as speed or travel time on significant freight corridors including urban core doors.
There seems to be a general consensus on these priorities and definitions and there is a national data base of truck GPS data that Jeff Short, ATRI will talk about.
Which can be used to calculate measures.
And there will be compare ability and that data across the states.
We do have, substantial work ahead. Some which is unchartered heard worry for the most part. We need to agree on what is a significant freight corridor. We talk about the intrastate system, the national network,
the national highway system? Some other definition of the national freight system?
We need to do some additional batting -- getting -- vetting. We do need to get our arms -- around the concept of access and other freight modes in the Moto service and economic measures. A lot of things to think about.
In summary I think the states got off to a good start. In trying to define freight performance measures and on national level. We will certainly welcome additional participation in this effort.
I think at this point I will stop with my presentation and look forward to the discussion a little bit later.
Thank you, Bill. I think you have a few questions and we will get to those after all three presentations. I will turn it over to Gordon Proctor of Gordon Proctor associates.
Thank you very much. Our project with the national Cooperative great research project program of three and I have to stress that project is not been approved or published. Everything I will be talking about is very preliminary.
A broad project objectives which was developed in performance measures to engage freight transportation systems in performance -- but -- investment and to be relevant to both the public and private sectors.
We had a broad scope in the areas of emphasis that were included. It was basically every aspect of the how the freight network effects the national transportation system or a fax society.
-- Affects society.
We had a broad area of emphasis.
I think this breath is the first in this -- diverse interests. This is just the third project in the freight research program. We -- literature review is comment on this project and we found from looking at the private sector use
and performance measures used was that if we were developing the metric for the freight systems we might want to include forward-looking and leading indicators.
Not just backward looking and lagging indicators. We also might want to suggest that juxtapose competing values into a balanced scorecard. The concerns of society have not -- are quite diverse.
It may be a good way to portray free performance measures because it does compare the competing interests into one set of metrics.
What ever metrics we come up with will probably need to be composite one so we can roll up performance into a national level.
Or drill down into a local level.
Another thing that we can come across is we probably in a pre--- in a free performance of sometimes just a set of numbers may not give insight into why a trend occurs.
If we develop a set of natural free performance we need to to Bell up and architecture so the databases are all compatible and consistent area and if we were to do this, we should expect a metrics to evolve.
Because nearly every case where the performance measures systems they have default quite consistently. We spent time talking to the private sector
and interviewing them to see if we can come up with a common set of metrics entrusting to both private and public sectors.
We found while the private sector uses performance measures. Intensely in their own operations, only few of them expressed interest in government provided metrics. We did a survey, of the private sector,
two thirds said they never sought publicly provided performance metrics.
They seem to struggle to think about how they would use them with the exception of the things that Jeff Short, ATRI will talk about the little bit.
When I say the private sector I talk about day to day logistics people that we interviewed. They didn't express a lot of information -- in interest. Associations like the Chamber of Commerce were very interested in performance and tricks.
-- Performance metrics.
I need to clarify the difference between trade associations who are airy interested in the private sector people who use metrics intensely but hadn't expressed a lot of interest for government provided performance metrics.
That the private sector ranked measures they use and in this order. Their own performance, reliability and vendors. They were very interested in cost of logistics and also interested in the performance of national transportation networks.
We found quite a bit of contrast when we surveyed the public sector.
Primarily being the same people that Bill surveyed and also the state planning people. The rankings between the public and private sectors respondents were basically inverse from each other.
The highest ranked measures were cost in the private sector network performance was the highest rated measure in the public sector. Cost was the very low. We found quite a bit of difference in what they were interested in.
We also found an awful out of all can I station -- balkanization. What are agencies were interested in water measures. Highway agencies were interested in highway measures and rail in Grail. -- Rail measures.
We did not find a lot of crosscutting interested in particular measures they were all interested in travel time, reliability and cost. When you boil down to protect you were metrics we struggled to find a lot of commonality.
We found little cross sector conference. -- Concurrence.
They were looking at this quite differently. We -- some of the agencies such as the army, struggle to think of metrics that would work for them.
They really struggled with it. What they needed on the outfield is different from what they need in terms of logistics of supplies in the United States. The courts -- the courts -- ports were six -- skeptical of comparative measurements.
Primarily, they were repeatedly saying each individual port was so different in terms of land slides and whether it was a container port or both port -- bulk port.
They were skeptical that performance measures that were consistently compare ports could be developed.
The research team also looked at the data. If we develop a national set of great performance measures that we were going to have to have very consistent data or here -- very high quality. It will have to be sustainable.
We did two case studies of the freight analysis framework and transportation services Index. We both offered good examples of nationwide systems for measuring free performance and also monitoring free performance.
One thing, if we developed a freight performance measurement system it will take substantial investment.
The FAF cost $1.6 million to get up and running and TSI which is three measures take a staff of 23 people and five to sustain.
The implications of this are if we are to develop a set of national free performance measures we need to think through how we find -- find and -- fund and staff.
The major constraints to developing a national measurement system are several. We have right now ambiguous national goals. We don't have a single agency with the broad span to compile all the measures that the public may be interested in.
We don't have dedicated budget and we don't have common data definition all protocols. For all the agencies to how they would actually report a metrics.
Another thing, if we produce metrics and we should we should also provide interpretation.
Policy maker in particular will understand a set of measures and then maybe -- need to understand --
Also with substantial narratives.
To explain trends that underlie performance that was supported. We needed to describe what good performance is. What the definition is. We found good performance could be interpreted very differently.
Supporting documentation was needed also. And context and understanding in addition. An example is cost of logistics as a percentage of GDP. It comes from the supply-chain professionals.
It is good that it looks at total cost of logistics and divide that by the gross domestic product to see how efficient logistics and process has been.
The red line, shows the justice, cost as a percentage of GDP has gone down and in general is good until you get to the last year you see the plunge on the right side of the graph. Initially you might say, it is good,
logistics industry was very efficient but it reflects a severe outturn and manufacturing output and a severe downturn in great removal. Which is not good for the economy.
This is an example of if we produce a set of performance metrics we ought to produce interpreter stated to go with it. -- Data to go with it.
Even though we have an awful lot of obstacles to develop a national set of performance measures there is also opportunities.
Society has a lot of what we called in for performance measures.
Such as air quality, crash rates, hazardous materials, custom and trade volumes. Metrics were not devised necessarily as national free performance measures but they actually are available. We found that areas of extra ,
such as air quality or hazardous materials, society found and had defined goals.
They had protocols for measuring them. As we go forward, the measurement freight impacts in terms of external, are more mature.
Air-quality, for instance all the regions that do air quality conformity analysis. If you dissect the data it goes into that makes reasonable inferences. As to how much came from freight. Injuries to railroads vehicles and pedestrians.
Truck safety is very closely reported. Another opportunity is from the private sector groups. Such as the American Association of Railroad and others. They produce data that can be captured and is quite sound.
There are opportunities such as those provided by the Association of American rail roads which are nearly a decade of producing credible websites of comparative performance of all railroads.
In Australia the states and --
The core of engineers, EPA all produce metrics can be gathered and put into a performance measure system.
What is possible? It doesn't beat -- appear to be possible to generate. It could be modeled upon the quantitative report or that they AAR put together and also a set of metrics looking at things such as efficiency, effectiveness, cost
and so on. Here is an example of a simple great report card. One thing, important is trend analysis and not just a point in time.
Indicators are important and line is important. Taking truck injuries and fatal crashes, the 10 year trend has been very cost -- positive. You can produce an at a glance analysis.
And a yearly forecast based on the trends. The example, we are trying to the think if we had to take these measures and boil them down to one or two pages to the member of Congress or a governor or a nude devotee member
and getting complete understanding of the trends in major areas.
This by itself has some value and limited value. When we think of the important to provide 10 year past performance or forecast future performance and link it briefly to source documents, a person can dig into these.
This is quite obviously very brief. If someone wants to understand it they would have to seek additional information. We think it would be a good idea to have tiers of insight.
For each metric they ought to have a summary report provides a little bit more information and each one should have a source report
and in this case the supply-chain management professional report on the cost of logistics percentage of GDP.
We all may want to consider, if we do develop a freight performance measurement system we ought to develop a documentation system. To explain the metrics and the detail behind them. If we use these for policy and investment decisions,
people such as Governors or Congressman or those of us that work day today with it need for information and a simple number to dig into.
As we developed a Freight Performance Measures we ought to think of an underlying documentation system.
What would society learn? From the simple report cards? They would learn obviously the freight volumes have increased dramatically.
That freight systems have stressed and its future performance is uncertain.
We have made significant progress in some areas such as safety and air-quality. But in the area of greenhouse emissions we have not seen much progress.
The report card would also show at a glance infrastructure is aging and the level of investment is probably lacking in the overall future performance of the report card for freight system may be uncertain.
The impediments to developing such a system are that we need to develop a consensus among broad group stakeholders. And to begin with what we have. Obviously a budget and staff is necessary to compile and support this.
We need a broad number of agencies to contribute. And a consensus has to develop among people like ourselves that we would emulate what the AAR has done to begin a cross departmental reporting process.
The potential rewards are great.
We could have a consistent reliable source of information. Your is a potential for sick advocate expansion.
You can take any one of these metrics and expand it into its own sub report card.
There is also this kind of metric reporting system that pulls together metrics from a variety of sources and is probably the most easily reduced. If we were to -- reduced.
If we were to develop one it would be under the understanding of the report of great. I will stop and turn it over to Jeff and answer questions later.
Thank you Gordon. We have a number of questions and comments coming in.
I will turn it over to Jeff Short. Our final presenter. Then we will get to the questions.
Thank you. We are going to move from it ride discussion of Freight Performance Measures 28 discussion of specific measures related to travel speed. Liability and distribution of truck movement along the nation's highway.
Specifically I will discuss federal highway administration measurement initiative and the work associated with that project.
As background, free performance measures also known as FPM is a project that began in 2002. ATRI is the lead group and the federal highway office of freight management operations is the leading sponsor.
The program compiled a monthly data set of truck position data and related information such as speed, time information, date stamp information. Each record within the data set also contains a letter to do and longitude as well.
All of the information -- latitude and longitude.
To produce performance measurements. Just as an additional side note, the data set can this is -- consists of billions of data sets.
It is I can take amount of -- gigantic amount of information. What is the purpose of collecting all this information?
Why do we turn truck information into freight performance measures? On a national still -- scale it's important to identify highway improvements that benefit move me.
Such an activity is further edited from using a standardized data set national in scope.
The data actually covers all of North America. And it is consistent with North America. If a truck goes to a certain place and it is in the data set, we will have a record.
Therefore we don't have truck information for roads that don't allow the trucks on them for instance. It is important to know the effectiveness of those investments. Our made to improve performance at specific locations.
This is generally a function of accountability. One location of note, is in Chicago. When we first did our automatic in 2007, bottleneck in 2007, it had pretty bad traffic. It turns out, it was a construction zone
and after the construction was complete, the location operated at free flow speeds. At all hours of the day. One might say, that this was a successful investment.
In general it is important to understand and benchmark levels of congestion.
Especially in urban areas. For a full understanding of the cost, the rate of the urban chokepoints. And where freight is coming to. Or going to. Is of interest to many who is involved in planning and economic development. Movement
and route can be told to the analysis of free performance measures. And the data sets.
Next, we move to key measures. The key measures that we look at through the program are average speed and speed data in general. These measures are central to producing transportation system performance measures related to efficiency.
The measures we produce are derived from analysis of thought speed and the calculation of space means speed or average speed. Additionally the the speed can be converted to travel time.
We also look at reliability measures which are measures to consistency of travel time over a period of time. Typically, over a period of time that is longer than one year. As was mentioned on a reliability webinar yesterday. Finally,
we look at truck flow which is economic activity and patterns and demand for roadways and that sort of thing.
First, to get into greater detail on the actual measures, we will look at system performance is measured at the interstate level.
Through the SCM. We are producing measures for and analyzing more than 20,000 of a directional highway site is. Which is roughly 30,000 mile of highway.
You see on this map, but coverage.
What you see in the map is basically a GIS presentation of the average speed data during a one-year time.
There is a very large amount of information behind just these colored lines. Looking through the slides, further, you can see close-ups of the regions.
You see some red in the New York and Chicago areas.
The information these maps allow, travel speed and most travel, and reliability for those interstate court orders.
They -- court orders. They can be viewed by day or week or etc. Additionally, the data behind these is available to transportation agencies through eight poll called a PM Web which you may have heard of.
It can be found at freightperformance.org.
In addition to these broad interstate corridor they use spot speed data for performance of smaller segments of her record or highways. -- corridor highways. There is no road layers on this map it is just pure truck position data.
The green indicates the trucks are moving at highway free flow speed. The red areas and yell -- yellow areas are stopped and particular facilities.
One example of the work, that we have been doing in this area, as freight bottleneck monitoring.
In 2009 program conducted analysis of average rates using this type of urban spot speed data at 100 national locations. Which are indicated on this map. These are 100 locations we look at. Quantify the level of congestion.
It each location. Most highly congested areas of the 100 monitored locations are shown in the chart. 250 locations will be monitored by 2011. The analysis will be released as a report on 2010 activity at the beginning of next year.
We will be increasing the number of areas of locations that are monitored.
For this particular type of analysis.
We will increase that greatly in the year to come.
Monitoring reports for each location include peak and nonpeak.
As well as severity and duration of times when free flow of these are not reached.
When combined, with data on trucking operations of cost like studies like this 2008 ATRI report.
Here is a look at some of the operational cost information that goes into our calculations.
We determined that on average, the marginal operating cost per mile are $1.73 and per hour are $83.68. If you take this type of information and plug it into a look Asian -- plug it into a location.
Such as this spaghetti Junction. You look at the hourly decreases in speed during peak periods especially during the PM timeframe. Speed times are down to 25 mph. You can come up with the calculation. In this case it is $5.
7 million annually of additional marginal operating cost that the trucking industry received for just these particular operating costs. You add that up across all locations. This number increases exponentially.
It certainly is justifying infrastructure investment.
A brief discussion on border crossing. The program is actually in the middle of producing a new border crossing tool that will calculate border crossing measures.
The information produced by this tool using the Freight Performance Measures data will be available to the public and show monthly or weekly average trip time between two virtual locations that are detected, here. In this graphic.
Moving onto freight flows. Where and when freight flows tells a story of which highways are critical to freight transportation systems. What economic activities are occurring.
The first method of truck analysis that we cannot-- conduct for FPM , each segment has a vehicle trip that goes into a give an average travel we -- great calculation to get an idea of when and where freight is moving as shown in the map.
The lines indicate higher levels of demand during a particular for our time. -- For our -- four-hour time period. These show key hubs.
There is no road layers in this map they are just the trips that include five day segments of trucks. It shows the lines of travel that occurred.
When this information is analyzed in the GIS environment there is a high-level origin nation of patterns. Here's a close-up. Of the Atlanta Metro area.
You can see that the major truck over -- of that are going through -- truck movement is going through the city of Atlanta. In her state 85, 25 meet -- interstate -- Interstate 85 and 25 meet.
Moving onto the next slide. We will move through a series of life that show freight slows for trucks traveling from three different urban areas.
The first location is Chicago as we progress through the slides you will see the origin location of 1000 trucks that are used in each analysis.
Your is where we -- here is where we took 1000 trucks that were at a given point any good -- given time of day. I think it was October 2009. At this particular location after one day of travel, 24 hours, this is where the vehicles moved.
After two days, this is the location. Within five days they reached these locations and you see some trucks made it all the way to California, Florida, New York City. Many are staying within the region and going back and forth, of course.
Here's after seven days.
Next I will show Phoenix in the bottom left-hand corner. After one day. After two days. After five days. And, after seven days.
Finally, I will move through the -- point Michigan -- after one day.
Today's -- after two days, after five days, after seven days. It is interesting to notice, the clear connection between Mexico and the Ontario, Detroit region. There is clearly travel between those locations.
That is all I have a will turn it back over to Jennifer.
Thank you, Jeff. We will start off the question and answer session with the questions online. Once we get through those, if people have time we will open the phone lines.
Continue to type your questions and we will move through them. Until we are out of time. I will bring up the introduction slide that has information about the presenters e-mail addresses.
I will start at the top of the list of questions and work our way down. The first questions were primarily for Bill but I invite any center to jump in. This was directed towards your presentation.
Most states don't have international borders. Do you want to comment on that?
That could be. I think this is like peeling the layers of an onion. Some things are going to be more applicable to some states and -- than others. Border crossings are not only important for the states that are on the borders,
but for trade overall. And national trades. I don't think there is any intent at this point to exclude or specifically include, order costing activities. -- Crossing activities. It is obviously critical for the nation as a whole.
Okay. The next question. What is the list of -- included in the task force questions?
I see there is a follow-up question on whether the survey results are posted online. I don't recall whether the list of states responding specifically in that report. If it is not, we will confirm
or provide that listing within that summary. And confirm the summary is still online. Which, I believe is under material of the ATRI --- statement.
Is there a need to consider more than that interstate highway system in terms of corridors?
Certainly. In my mind that is key discussion. How do we define significant freight corridors? Obviously it is not just interstate.
Lot of heavy truck volumes are on the interstate system. Both large regions of corridors. That may have portions off the interstate system. Some of the work that Jeff was talking about as well as freight analysis framework,
would probably be needed to define where those significant moves are and make sure they are incorporated. Yes. Certainly more than the interstate system. Although that may be a good place to start.
The first -- we have good data there.
We have at least a good starting point.
Can you mention again are the reports online?
I'm pretty certain they are.
If you look under the committee under performance management measures. Under AASHTO. I believe it is in the list of materials there. We will verify and make sure it is posted.
I will type in the AASHTO website.
What about included measures for energy used and source?
What measures are included in terms of energy use?
Is that the question?
Okay don't think we had energy used other than total petroleum use and we had -- we were suggesting all the air quality measures that are commonly used or conformity analysis such as TOC's, and particulars.
And we mentioned greenhouse emissions.
We did have an extensive series of energy measures just to watch measure -- just to one measure but related would be the greenhouse emissions. As a recommended measure.
If the last two years of the decline of GDPFL reflect that the decline, how does it affect overseas?
That, I am not sure.
If you were to read, several years of the Council supply-chain management professionals report, the general trend line has been because efficiencies in the overall transportation system. And logistics industry
and the cost of inventory and good in particular. The major factor, last year, was manufacturing a.
To the case of smaller percentage of the overall economy.
The decline had last goods for deuce. He amount of freight to GDP fell.
And our point of using that example, shows that us just saying the decline unadjusted as a percentage of GDP, you may want to understand what the under -- other consequences of that trend.
Therefore if you measure freight performance we should also provide clarifying background explanations.
As to why the trend occur. As I recall from the councils management of professionals report from last year the overall decline in economic output particularly in manufacturing led to rather steep drop-off in overall logistics.
Do we need to develop entered compared to USA against Europe and Asia, for example?
It would be nice. But the level of detail to -- I mean the level of complexity to compare exactly what they mean by what we mean by it particular measurement. It makes it more complex. What we came up against, over
and over again in research, if you compare two different bodies you have to have a common architecture and data system for both. They have to define everything the exact same way and report on the same timeframe.
While it would be nice, to compared Europe and the United States, you might be able to do so at it very gross level. The literal performance metric it was critical,
Extremely complicated on an ongoing analysis.
If you are trying to get it down to a precise metrics to measure the success of in investments or performance of a facility you talk about a great deal of granularity that becomes very expensive to maintain.
It may be nice to compare on an ongoing basis to the degree of complexity that we do with other areas.
We now have questions for Jeff.
The real -- Rio Grande value, with her or -- for bridge crossings, seems to be a large growing area.
As far as interstates, we have a list of top 25 interstate locations. We -- that were deemed the most freight significant corridors in the United States. Based on FAF data. Those are the five that we went through.
We what -- as far as cross time into Mexico they tend to be very difficult to calculate because of the amount of data. It is rather small. Not many US carriers send drivers into Mexico.
And many vehicles coming from Mexico are not equipped with this type of technology. I hope that answers the question.
Is there a reason why ih30 and Texas was not included in your presentation?
Again, the same reason. That I just mentioned. We want with point 5/4. -- We went with 25 corridors.
We are going to, as I said monitor additional bottlenecks that we hope to increase the number of interstate quarters that we conduct -- court orders -- corridor .
The $5.7 million that you mentioned for the spaghetti jumped in -- Junction. Would there be afraid these are charged to pay for it?
I am not sure. If in that location a user charge for the freight industry would be advisable. Or if the freight train that you would embrace that.
I would suggest the current amount of money put in the highway trust fund could be allocated towards that particular location. I don't want to go into a spiel about how much money is raised through the diesel tax annually.
It is mostly paid through or paid for by the truck industry.
That money for instance, could go towards that particular project and would help freight movement.
This is ill. I want to add a comment -- our department is conduct in a research project with the University of Minnesota to look at. Scenarios of congested pricing. Whether
or not there would be sufficient evidence that would accrue to those users that they would impact support that kind of a shame.
-- Scheme. Internationally as well as in this country. And to better define what the benefits might be. It is very important that any type of a scheme like that produces an equitable distribution of both benefits and costs, of course.
In response, I encourage the dialogue to continue in the chat area. We encourage that.
Is speed data available on not interstate roads especially near MPO roads?
Absolutely it is available anywhere from where our truck population of several hundred thousand trucks travel. We are involved with several MPO studies touches used in -- Houston.
We just finished a study with the Atlanta regional commission. All of North America. If the truck is in our database that will have speed data. Thinking back to the slide showed for Houston, is a small time.
There is a lot of data in that map that I showed you.
Could PM data be used for volume of interregional or MPO regions?
Yes, we worked with MPO's on this and can't isolate specific trips that either do or do not have stops within a particular polygon or region.
What are key measures that you have come across in measuring flexibility especially pinpointing bottlenecks.
We have been involved in, I flexibility I don't know what the intent was. We are part of a research project in the Mississippi value -- Bally.
Looking at -- Valley looking at resiliency. The primary measure, is the cost of to lay assessment. -- Delay assessment.
That is one is being explored, currently. The
I think our project was intended to support the if function of congressional decision-making and when we look at Intermodal bottlenecks, we were stuck with the dilemma of how you would defined a Intermodal bottleneck
and how you put in place and in post the measurement system that would be in place for years at a time. We do not come up with a set of Intermodal bottleneck measures.
We recognize that a national highway system, the Intermodal connectors are important, we say that for instance the porch for an example.
-- Ports for an example. A were among the groups most skeptical for an ongoing accurate reporting performance measurement process. They said, just because the extreme variability a twin their ports and what -- between their ports
and what would be given any day. When you try to develop a way to measure all Intermodal exchangers on a consistent basis, we decided the preliminary stage, of national freight performance measurement,
that would have to be left for later time. When the process is more mature. We could not envision at this point with the available tools how you would measure, staff and support it on in ongoing basis.
Jeff? We have been done a lot about up analysis of Intermodal information. We focused on trucking specific operations. We can see trucks entering and leaving Intermodal facilities and we see delays in these facilities.
We work with trailer, tracking data. We do focus on national park trips primarily, it it is less than 4% of all college. -- Hundred and -- 4% of all tonnage.
It was mentioned that courts are skeptical of measurements.
What measurement would any of you suggest or recommend for ports?
This is court. We ask that question repeatedly -- as is court and -- Gordon and we get that question repeatedly.
We cannot recommend that they are good measures. The turnaround time of the ship in port and efficiency of roadway connections into the port and the storage area.
We tried to interview the port and they would come back and say about based on the configuration of our port we may be efficient in that sector.
We make up for it in some other compensation.
The overall things such as cost and the amount of time per left and physical facilities into the port, such as good highway access. Those configuration measures, one can envision. When we get into operational,
that is where we reach a lot of skepticism. It is interesting that we spent a lot of time on the area in Congress. Not only could they not measure the port . But it would be agreed upon by the port industry.
That seems to be an area that will need a lot of additional work if we are going to measure and understand the efficiency.
I think our primary focus in Minnesota has been more of an indicator. The amount of freight and commodity types that move through various port . That to compare them within a date but at the comparison with other states.
And to me industry analysis of what is going on.
On a programmatic level, as we have investment levels available. To improve rail lines and rogue wave connectors -- roadway connectors. We are moving towards an asset management approach. To try to suggest a strategy for improving.
It is not so much a report card level but programmatically developed to identify projects and to request funding the state level.
If Jeff has anything to add? Is Jeff on the line?
Sorry I was on mute. I do not.
Can we identify a truck are running full or empty or running imports or exports?
We do not have commodity information for these performance measures. Is it possible in the future, I believe so.
Will that be a need related to gross weight? Which state will applies secondary and primary aspects? For example growth rate table in state statute is linked to primary and secondary road next the nation -- grow designation.
Is this how other states operate as well?
I'm not sure. I can't answer that.
The only thing I think of, state senators versus -- state statutes versus allowable truck weights and size. That is a. Defined system. I have not thought about it in terms of performance in relationship to a. -- Relationship to wait.
I'm not sure what the question is about.
Of course, Mary if you want to retype that question.
Do you include Mexico as well as Canada or only at roadway congestion or only security measures?
We look at both congestion related to roadway congestion and security measures. The time it takes to get from one location on one side of the border to one location on the other side of the border. What we are looking at,
is it US Canada crossings both it directionally. The tool that we use will include 15 locations between US and Canada. We are not looking at US Mexico crossings.
For reasons that I mentioned earlier.
I believe there are others that are looking at.
The next question. For truck movement in general do you have data on vehicle types and cargo?
No, I think Dan mentioned this in the chat.
We have met with Oak Ridge national laboratory and as many of you know they are working on the facts. We discussed thinking FAF and FHWA. And a couple of us combined the two data sets regarding average annual daily truck traffic
and that information.
The two data sets, we have been able to connect. It is just a matter of looking at commodities from this point. As far as the data we receive, we don't directly receive that at the moment from the sources of data we have.
Anyone linked the value of commodities specific such as from FAF Lotus -- loads can we do it or pre-economic value on the slowed?
We absolutely can, when you look at the maps I showed at the end of the presentation, it is 1000 trucks moving over seven days. The information can be compiled and analyzed in a GIS environment for years.
Looking at hundreds of thousands of trucks.
Can we put economic value on these be absolutely -- can we put economic values on these? Absolutely. These truck those that are to the nations economy.
It is a lot of number crunching and computing. We are definitely looking at how this is best done. And areas methodologies. -- Various methodologies.
It seems to be the real challenge.
When we have used analysis framework data and cross-reference with our own truck counts it has been problematic. It works better in some places than others. It is absolutely eight areas to pursue.
The wonderful things, it is actual movement of actual trucks. It is not modeled, it is exactly what they are doing.
I don't see any other questions.
We will give instructions on how to ask questions on the phone.
If you would like to ask a question press star, one on your phone. On mute your phone and state your name clearly.
If you are listening on the computer, you will not be able to do this.
Only if you have called in on the phone.
We have no questions at a time.
If there are no further questions we will go ahead and end a little bit early. I want to thank all three presenters. We had a very interesting presentation. Thank you for everyone in attendance.
We had a lot of good discussion going on. The recording from today and the presentation and the transcript, if you give me one minute another question came in.
Will there be a performance measure for gross weight as compared to speed and reliability such as is a truck or efficient at eight given gross weight? That's the first part of the question.
In our research project we did not get into that degree of granularity on a national set of metrics.
This is till. We -- Bill we pursued that under different initiatives. And there is configurations of the benefits of cost of that to users and systems managers. We have calculated a lot of that.
We haven't discussed trying to incorporate that per se into a national set of metrics. Their art initiatives at a national level affecting truck sized and wait and efficiencies and allowing higher weights with additional outflow.
[ Indiscernible - low volume ]
I believe there is a report related to that on the website.
To other states maintain a gross weight table with primary and secondary designations?
I invite people online to type in and exchange information.
We don't define our gross with those labels. They are defined in other ways.
There are weight limit applicable to other types of roads. Whether local or state or the interstate. Each with a own that you -- peculiar allowance. In general we do do that. But we don't have tables of primary or secondary.
In Ohio there is some weight.
-- Wait aviation -- weight variation. There is some aeration by class. When we get to over 80 pounds.
If anyone in attendance has any thoughts on that they can type that in. I don't see any more questions.
We will go ahead and close.
As I mentioned, the recording and presentation and transcript will be available online within the a few weeks. I will send and e-mail to everyone who registered. If you didn't register and attended
and want to see if follow-up information send a private note with your e-mail address.
If you are a AICPA member be sure to sign in with your first and last name. Or type your name in the chat box if you are in group.
Please mode your evaluation form. The next seminar is September 15 about freight and carbon footprint to enhance supply chains. This seminar is not open for registration yet but will be later today or tomorrow.
I encourage you to visit the talking freight website. And sign up for others as soon as they get posted as well.
With that, thank you to the presenters and everyone in attendance and enjoy the rest of your day.