Good morning, or good afternoon, depending on where you are, and welcome to the Talking Freight Seminar series. I'm Jennifer, and I'll moderate the seminar, the topic is Free Analysis Framework Two. The seminar is being recorded.
Today, we will have three speakers, Tianjia Tang, Federal Highway Administration, Randy Curlee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Felix Ammah-Tagoe, of Macro Research and Technology.
In the freight office, Tang's responsibility is to run freight analysis framework and freight modeling improvement program. At the resource center, he served in the possession of Tans Taste Air Quality Special Significance position.
Main focuses were urban travel demand modeling and motor vehicle emission modeling in conjunction with transportation conformity issues.
He has worked in the transportation industry in a wide range of positions including project engineer, project manager, and program manager.
He is a registered professional engineer Georgia.
Dr. Randy Curlee is in Knoxville, Tennessee, adjunct professor of economics at the University of Tennessee. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Purdue University.
His research has focused on freight transportation, public transit, energy, and waste management. Working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dr. Curlee led the development of the Ohio River Navigation Investment Model,
which the course used to assess optimal investment, and did free analysis framework and the freight model improvement program. Which promotes new freight analysis framework and models for all frayed modes.
The present taste provides an overview of the method used in the 2002 FAS. Dr. Felix Ammah-Tagoe has several years of research in experience particularly in transportation, freight, logistics and transportation energy use.
He currently is a senior research consultant and project manager at macro cyst research for the Bureau of Transportation statistics, suffering at a primary analyst on a commodity flow survey and other freight projects.
Doctor Felix Ammah-Tagoe, Transportation and Interstate trade, and roles of domestic transportation of international trade.
He has performed a variety of analytical research and produced data reports on freight movement on the U.S.
transportation system, it's relationship with the state and economist, and impacts on freight corridors and gateways, has designed commodity flow surveys.
Designed and produced summaries from the commodity flow survey for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. He earned a Doctorate degree in geography.
I would like to go over a few logistical key details, it will last 90 minutes, with 60 minutes for the speakers, and final 30 minutes for audience questions and answer. Operate already will give you instructions on how to answer a question
during the Q&A period, if during the presentations, you think of a question, you can type it into the smaller text box under the chat area. Please make sure you are typing in the thin text box and not the large white area.
Presenters will unable to answer questions in the presentation, but you will use some questions to start off the question and answer session in the last half hour of the seminar.
Those questions that are not answered will be posted to the freight planning; for those of that you are not familiar with the list server.
It's a place where you can compose questions to find out what other subscribers have learned. If you haven't joined the list serve, the web address is showing on the slide on the screen.
Finally, I'd like to remind you this session is being recorded, file containing the audio and visual portion of the seminar will be positioned to the Talking Freight website in the next week.
Due to the sizes of the file, recorded files will be available for viewing and listening purposes only, and cannot be saved to your computer.
We encourage you to direct others in your office that may not have been able to attend to access the recorded seminar.
PowerPoint presentations used will be available in the next week, and I'll notify all speakers of the availability of the pour points and transcripts of the seminar.
Normally, we would wait a few minutes and get started, but I think at this point, we are going to go ahead and get started with the first presentation today since it is about 1:00, and we do have quite a few people online right now.
The first presentation is that of Tianjia Tang, of the Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations. Again, if you think of questions during the presentation, or during any of the other presentations,
type them into the chat area on the screen. Questions will be answered in the last 30 minutes of the seminar.
Thank you. Good afternoon, or good morning, I'm Tianjia Tang, and I'm the program manager here. I am going to start with an overview of the second generation of freight analysis framework.
Following my presentation, Dr. Randy Curlee will go over method in 2002 Base Case commodity database. Doctor Felix Ammah-Tagoe from research and technology under contract with BTS
will cover now component of 2002 database. Key pieces is freight shipment not covered by 2002 Commodity Flow Survey.
Outline is to start with the approaches we are going to take, and deliverables. Also I'm going to cover the structures, and components of the FAF 2 and last, Q&A, questions and answers. Now, let's take a look at the objectives.
That's to answer freight shipment volume and congestion questions. Route, and also to answer questions on the freight shipment motor issues, and all other usage which we define as --
the key here is to provide a big picture of the overview of the freight moment. Specifically, this national picture is to enable Fed Highway admission to do policy and investment analysis.
That is not to say we are not interested in ways to...
I am still looking for another freight to be my pilot project, if you are interested in this pilot effort, please nominate yourself or friend, send me e-mail or call me and we will proceed from there.
Now, let's look at the February 2 approach. Feb 2 approach. With regard to data sources, we are using public sources, all based on publicly data.
With regards to methodology, all methods are transparent and will be disclosed to you, at the federal level and state local priority. With the deliverables, in input and output are public available.
So what we have is what you will be able to see. With regard to the products, the Fab 2 products all deliver abilities can be separated into two groups, the first group is commodity related product,
second group is network related products. Commodity related products have three key components: first one is current 2002 Base Case orange destination, known is as OD database, for future years, 2010 to 2035, with a five year interval,
and third component is annual provision or key components of the Fab 2 products. Start with the bottom left, on left, right here. We have 2002 Basic Commodity OD.
When you have commodity OD, hear it, make sure you are aware of the unit we are using. Units we are using, commodity OD are tonnage and dollar, so that's really key.
I want you to remember that the leadership of Curlee was assigned to do the task of micro system research and technology and has provided us significant assistance in this effort.
Felix Ammah-Tagoe will cover the effort later here. From 2002 database, we are working with the future, working on the future commodity output data, future data, 2010 and 2035. With a five year interval.
Format of the future OD database will be similar with the 2002 Base Case. If you are going to take the opportunity to get yourself familiar with the 2002 database, you will know the format and content of the future of the database.
We are in the process of using proposals to get a contract on board to help us in this endeavor. By the end of next week, I hope it will be able to do that. Let's move to the truck OD, and unit of conversion.
As I said earlier, when we talk about commodity OD, the commodity OD is the unit of tonnage and dollar amount, we are not talking about number of vehicles, trucks. With regard to the highway network, we will...
We are in good shape, 95 percent there, so I'm so excited. It's very good. We are in good shape.
We will move to assignment of process, in a is we are all, all analysis will be conducted and generated here. Now we have covered all the key components, I'm going to shift gear to geography on the commodity details.
Total of 138 geographic regions, 138-degree graphic regions, 114 is from CFS. Diagrams shows the regions. Green color represents the 64 metropolitan areas, other 50 are either a complete state or remain of a state.
This diagram here shows you the 13 additional international gateways, keeping in mind additional gateways. There are over 400 gateways throughout the country. All major ones are covered in the CFS metropolitan areas,
or by 17 additional international Gateways, as we have them listed here, those cover border crossings, seaports, and one airport, in Anchorage, Alaska airport. The the and now we divide the world into seven regions:
Canada, Mexico, South America, Asia, Europe, middle east, none covered by those 6, they are covered with the rest of the world.
Transportation mode, we have several modes here, trucks, rail, water, air, and others. Which we don't know.
We made assumption that for a given commodity, for a given commodity, the motor split will stay the same unless we have other information to indicate that is incorrect, so default, commodity split will be the same.
This is is my crown jewel, our 2002 best case database, if you did not attend the TRB last month, you can still get the opportunity by visiting our website. You can download other data at www.OPS.gov,
from there, looking for the freight analysis framework, once again you'll be able to find all the data, make sure, we have five files here.
First one is the Microsoft Excel file. This has three tables and DOM stand for domestic.
Orange designation is in the United States. Second table here is underscore BRD, transporter. U.S., Mexico and Canada. Last one is underscore C, which is ocean.
This is our import/export with the rest of the world, and other countries, other regions . Opt with the domestic table, all data are presented in six columns, orange, designation, commodity, mode, MDL million dollar, we are rich,
KGON is thousand tons, units of it. This one is the international trade file format. We have seven columns here. Orange, designation, commodity, mode, port is referring to the point for export of point of entry for import.
Thin we will have the million dollar and thousand tons. Status of the Fab 2 project, as I said, we just released 2002, base case commodity OD touring the DRB last month,
2005 annual provisions and estimate will be released later o this year, and the rest of the products, flow database, projections, and it will be released by the end of September of '06 this year.
Before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to nominate yourself or friend for my pilot project; pilot project is our attempt
to use my Fab 2 data if you want to talk to me, feel free to contact me any time. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Tianjia. We are going to move on to our next presentation, which is Randy Curlee of the under for transportation analysis at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Thank you to those who are posted information in the chat area, if you do think of additional questions for Tianjia, or Randy, if you think of questions for Randy.
Feel free to post them.
Randy, you can go ahead.
Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to all of you out there, and tell you about the methodology that we developed working with macrocyst, and FHWA, and putting together the freight analysis framework OD matrix,
let me stipulate up front that this methodology discussion I'll go through today is, has to do with the origin designation flows Tianjia mentioned the other products for, of the Fab,
and I won't talk about the methodologies for those but will be talking about the methodology we developed for the OD flows. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the team members that put this together:
Dr. France Southwork, Bruce Peterson, Dr. Rich Swore, Dr. Bush, Chin, Wong, and Perry. We had an excellent team that worked together to come up with a methodology to meet the needs,
ambitious needs of the 2002 FAFF We will see this flow diagram throughout my presentation.
I'll refer to it again and again, it is a simplified flow diagram of the methodology that was used to develop the FAFF 2 flows table. I see there are a couple of questions.
I'll be giving you a lie level summary of the data we used to derive the flows. Let me mention that the end point is at the bottom right, final FAFF 2 flows table, and these various other boxes are intermediate points,
and the ovals represents method logical steps we took to reach our objective. Let's start with the final FAFF 2 flows table, this is somewhat duplicative of what Tianjia said, but it's better to say it twice if you want to make a point.
The dimensions are the 114 flow areas, and the 17 international gateways, and 7 international gateways. As he said, we use the two digit, refined the mode used in the CFS down from 11 down to 7,
and what we have then is a very, very large four dimensional set of matrices, one for dollars and one for tons, and this is approximately 12 million cells,
so when you get ready to download it on your computer, hopefully you have a high speed connection. This is just a repeat of the FAFF regions that Tianjia mentioned.
And the FAFF 2 commodities, the 43 categories within and there are some areas like alcoholic beverages, and then others that are fairly, include some several large commodities.
This the is a repeat of the modes of the 7 mode or truck rail water, air, air and truck, truck and rail, other enter modal and pipeline and unknown. There's return now to the methodology that we use, and we remember,
we are trying to remember to arrive to the bottom line. Where do we start? The starting point is with the commodity flow survey table 7, which is at the top middle. Now, what is this?
Tianjia said that we are very commented to keeping the FAFF 2 contingent upon publicly available data, so when we began this process, we asked the question, what information is available to the public
that can be reproduced, and the closest thing that comes to the objectives of FAFF 2 is the commodity flow survey, table 17. This is a four dimensional matrix at the state lift.
Level, it does have the required detail, it's at the state lift, not it the level of geography we need, but we can accomplish that and I'll talk a little bit about that later. This is a very large and very sparse table.
And the question is why is it so sparse? Well, only about five percent filled. The reasons are, there are three main reasons, first of all, its census is not,
do the not report cells that have coefficient of variation of greater than 50 percent, and there are disclosure rules they must follow, and in some cases, there are no observations for the cells at this very, very disaggregated level.
the challenge to all of us in developing FAFF 2 was to take this CFS table 17 and apply statistical approaches and other data, and whatever we can come up with that's defensible statistically, scientifically,
that we can build on to develop a publicly available FAFF based on publicly available information. The first step we took was to sum the census to identify those cells in CFS table 17
for which they had no observations in their survey, and they were kind enough to provide this information to us. We identify those and true zero cells from census.
Census identified these missing C cells by assumption, we concluded that those cells for which there were no observations we would label at true zeros and constrain them to be so.
So that cuts of size of our problem down significantly. But then we have the remaining cells that we better suppress for one of these other reasons, and thus must be estimated as part of this process.
How do we go about estimating those? Next step that we take is a statistical step, a log linear model, some of you are familiar with this, and won't go into the details of that,
but it's fairly straight forward in terms of what we did. If you don't have a cell at the four dimensional level in table CFS table 17, then what you do have, is you have information at other levels,
whether at the 3-D, two dimensional, one dimensional, and you can use statistical techniques, like log linear modeling, to define relationships between the various abilities that come into play,
and what we have in fact is fully saturated, if you will, log linear model that in the case of where we have data available, it can have up to 127 terms.
Which we drew upon because of the problems primarily we have with truck. Truck data are very difficult to come by, and we all know of all the modes,
that's probably the mode where we have the least date to work with, so we use the distance buckets, and we related all of these parameters through one, two, three dimensional relationships to identify,
if we don't have a number for that particular cell, then we know information about generally what happens with a particular region or commodity, and you can use the statistical relationships to estimate values for missing cells.
Now, if you say we have alternative data that we also use, this is extremely important, in the case of rail and water, we relied on the railcar weigh bill data, and we relied on the water borne commerce data.
For those cases where we had cells in table 17 for which we could not estimate relationships, we, first of all, converted the railcar weigh bills and water born commercial
from the commodity classification schemes they are presented in over -- this was not a trivial task, and there's some degree of error that goes along with that.
The next step is though we have an issue that arises which causes the need for proportion fitting. Why do we have that?
After you estimate the cells in CFS table 17, there's no, there's no reason or constraint to force them to add up what the higher level totals are in the CFS table.
So proportional fitting is a straightforward process to force the margins, if you will, in table 17 and for that matter, tables at higher levels of aggregation to be consistent with those totals.
Computationally, with a settle of matrices as large as this, it is not trivial. We are talking about computational times in the hours, not minutes. We did constrain the marginals to be consistent with the totals,
and constrained those cells within table 17 that had values to remain unchanged if they are at the level needed in term of geography, they did not change.
They have been maintained. That then brings us to an enhanced CFS flows matrix that at this point we have taken the CFS very sparse matrix, we've used the three approaches, the identifying true zeros,
using the, using the log linear model approach, and enter proportion gnat fitting to come up with an enhanced fully filled matrix at the fourth dimensional level.
But this doesn't include flows that are outs of scope to the CFS or throws that are generally thought to be under counted. And Felix will talk about this more in great detail,
but there are several omissions that do exist, and this is something that we decided early on in this process, that this FAFF would address those CFS out flows and do it the best we can given the resources available.
So we came to, come to the work for the CFS out of scope sectors, we did this in collaboration with Mack macrocyst. There were 15 studies, let me mention some of the main ones we did.
Some things are out of scope to the CFS, for example it, doesn't include crew patrol, doesn't include natural grass, doesn't include municipal solid waste, then wed to go out and identify the data that are available in these areas,
to pull them together, put them in the right format for FAFF needs. All of these required independent and special studies. There are some areas such as, farm based movement and fisheries,
which are partially missing. Let me give you an example. For farm based movement, CFS does not capture the freight movements from the farm itself to, for example, the grain elevator.
From the farm to the grain elevator. Those are short trips, and in terms of ton miles, but large number of tons. Same thing applies to fisheries, we don't capture from the boat to the first point of process
so we did special studies for those, so each of these categories, of special studies is, represents one aspect of one of those 34 skating groups, so by doing the studies,
filling in aspects of those commodities for which we did not have information from the CFS, we then had the task of taking these national totals and aggregating those down to the geography needs of FAFF 2, and this was
in some cases challenging and we developed a set of a variety methodologies that had to be dependent on the data we have, the resources we have to do this with, and it had to be defensible from all perspectives.
In some cases, we disaggregated the national numbers down to the required FAFF regions based upon economic activity in those sectors, in other cases, municipal solid waste, we collected information at the FAFF regional level.
So it was a detailed study that has information that we collected on movements from a city to either nearby disposable facilities or possibly long transport by rail or truck or whatever you, by barge.
So there were a variety of methods into we developed, but what we did was to arrive at a regional disaggregation for all of these out of scopes.
Well, that just about gets us to where we need to be for the FAFF, coming back to our main diagram here. We then can straightforwardly add the two matrices, this at the required flow dimensions,
and the CFS out of scope sectors, which we have started out with national totals and through the disaggregation processes we've taken them down to the requirement fourth dimensional level required by FAFF,
and it's a simple addition, if you call 12 million cells adding to 12 million cells, it's simple, so that allows us to arrive at the final FAFF 2 flows,
OD flows for the FAFF 2 objective. So with that, I'll await your questions and thank you very much.
Our final presentation is going to be that of Felix Ammah-Tagoe.
This is Felix Ammah-Tagoe, consultant with macro cyst, I want to thank you for the invitation to participate in this seminar. I want to thank BTS, the sponsor of this project. In managing this project from the BTS side.
What I would like to do this afternoon is to follow up with what Randy just presented and what Tianjia presented,
and give you a feeling for some of the things that we did in terms of the coverage, method we used in exiting the data for the out of school sectors.
So, compiling the date attachment for those of you, seeing the names of the participants, and a number of you are aware of the CFS, so I won't bore you too much with that,
but if you think of it, the primary sectors that are covered are manufacturing, wholesale, and mining. In all the CFS, 93 to 97, and 2002, we tried to cover the retail sector but for different reasons,
only a very small part of retail was covered, so in order to arrive at the totality of freight that moved from the national freight transportation system, we had to go outside the CFS and try to catch up the sectors that are not covered.
In the next box, it shows some sectors, now, this is a cross section, some are sectors and some are commodities that what we try to do was look at imports,
construction, fisheries, municipal solid waste, and others that are listed. Few sectors that are partially covered, and I'll explain what I mean by that.
Exports. It's collecting information on outbound shipments, it covers exports, but we know from comparing the CFS data with favorable trade data that CFS don't cover all the exports,
so there's the need for us to bring in export data from multiple sources and we will talk about that in that minute. In transit, that will also out of school that we tried to cover,
so these sectors and groups together forms the basis for the national estimate that were generated and that became the basis for them being segregated into the difference regions.
I'm going to go through the eight or so sectors that macro handled and give you a sense of it again without going into details, this is part of the transparency that Tianjia talked about,
to give you a sense of what are the public data sources that we used, and what are some steps we used in compiling the data.
Goal here is to give you a sense of that there are wide papers for these sectors that will be available online that you can download and look at details.
I'm going to starts off with retail. As you can imagine, countless retail outlets in the United States, and the survey could not sample them and collect data from those sectors in parts
because sometimes from the retail outlet, you have business to customer retail transactions where I could go to Home Depot or Lowe's,
pick up some items, and take it home myself, that is not captured in the CFS, you can order things from Staples, or OfficeMax, and deliver it to them, that's a retail business to business transaction.
That's not captured in the CFS, goal was to look at the retail sector overall, look at the shipments from that, and see how we can then incorporate a portion that is freight related.
Data sources we used, we used some data from the input/output models basically we took the value of retail sales trade and took out the profit margin, sales margin
to bring the value closer to what the produced purchase price would be which is what you would find. I realize a question from the participants, how come we don't have ton miles, and we can talk about that question later on.
For the construction sector, again, as you can imagine, there are shipments that are related to the construction, and that whole sector is not covered in the CFS as, in part, because the businesses that are classified as construction,
if you look in the North American industry classification system, some of them are really construction companies that are involved in handling the architecture part of the construction, and not necessarily handling the freight side,
or anything that involves the movement of goods per se, but they are part of the construction sector. That engages in moving materials to west side. Transporting materials from west side in handling construction debris and such,
and for this sector, we also went to the survey to get the ton miles for tracks that are engaged in the construction sector, so from the miles information and tonnage information,
we can work our way back to continues and tons and value, and apply ratios. Commodities that are likely to be transported by the vehicles.
For services, the source of the data were similar and methods we used were fairly similar to what we did, like from the ton miles to ton, and to the value.
With both services and construction, one limitations was we were unable to find information on goods handled by the service sector. It is limited to only truck and federal research, further research is needed to branch out of the truck
and look at rail-related shipments. One of the other sectors that is out of scope in 2002 was the log-in sector. Issue here is slightly different because log-in was covered in the '97, and '93 CFS, unfortunately, in 2002,
log-in was not covered because log-in as a sector was moved from manufacturing into agriculture, so that moved out of the CFS and became out of scope in it's a classification.
That was used. So the goal was to try and get that sector and complete the data set to do that, we went to the USDA Agricultural Statistics Data, Railway building, and Army Corps of Engineers.
Primary, we to the economic to get information on the value and sales receipts from that log-in sector. Used DASH, we looked at 97 Tate date, and '93,
grew it based on the average group rate, '97, and back down the value, using value to weight ratios again from the '97 CFS. This was one of the other sectors that got lost in the 2002 because of the transition from SIC.
Again, publishing was moved from manufacturing into your information and information as a sector is not covered. And you can imagine there are publishers that are envolved in printing of the product,
involved in printing books and such, and transporting the books from the printing presses to wholesalers or to retailers, so that part of it is not covered, and that's where we try to cover here.
And essentially, working from the economics sense, we were able to get the value of using value to ton ratios.
Got a ton miles from that.
Imports. Wish imports is different from the other ones, and that's because imports is not covered at all because the CFS is only, only samples domestic U.S. business, so anything coming into the airports is not covered, because...
So to get this, we have to go to the official trade data from U.S. Census Bureau. It's not a straightforward thing because we are doing this as you can imagine as a model level,
and detailed commodity level, and in part, and the CFS is in the, the standard classification of transported foods we have to convert it goods.
But essentially, that brought us to where we could get a value to get a ton mile, we have to apply average levels of, from the weigh bill that is more specific. There is still some remaining issues with imports
in part because it's not too early to ask how much imports may have been covered already in the CFS. When an import is transported, it's relatively straightforward, but on the weight side, on the surface mode,
there is no official data for the tonnage of U.S. export to Canada and to Mexico, we simply don't collect that data. So we have to find appropriate value to convert detailed commodity and mode level
and roll it back up to the total subtotal for tonnage. This is a relatively small sector. I'm not going to spend a lots of time. Some goods that are moved...
I'm going to skip this.
What does it mean? After we put all of this data together, I wanted to briefly describe what the national estimate came to, why should we care, and what did we find out?
When it was said and done, the total estimates that we got indicate that nearly over $19 billion tons, 19 billion of goods move on the U.S.
transportation system and this was generated almost 4.4 trillion ton miles. Now, this was significant because if you take this and compare it to the CFS, you could tell much more freight move on the transportation system than indicated.
By the estimates. This slide shows you the modal breakdown by single mode, and multiple mode. One of the things you find out when you look at the estimates is that on the single mode side,
the estimate for rail and water vary from where you would find from the army corps of engineers, part of the reason is because those are single mode estimates on the bottom part where we have multiple mode,
once you, this aggregate, and appropriately reassign component back to rail and back to water, the estimate in the far two are very comparable to what you find for rail and water from the army corps of engineers and from...
One of the major findings, as you can expect, is that truck remains mode of choice.
Another interesting finding is that nearly 1.7 billion tons of the 19 billion tons is related to international trade, meaning that 9 percent of the total tonnage has to do with international merchandise trade.
And of course, this 9 percent varies by state, for states like California, Texas, Michigan, and New York that it's a larger percent ranging from 15 to about 20 percent.
One of the other things that we learn from this was that when you compare the composite national systems with the CFS,
nearly 36 percent of that freight is not covered in the CFS, that's by value, by tonnage, about 40 percent, it's not covered,
and by ton miles, about 29 percent is not covered in the CFS. And here is the table to show you that. So just to wrap up, it was CFS was the main source for the FAFF 2,
they are quite reasons why when you do your state to state flows and for those interested in the sub state geography, when you look at those, it's important to use the FAFF 2 data only because FAFF 2 covers almost --
the out of scope areas that are not covered in the CFS, and so when you look at the CFS data, and try to flow that on a network, you are not representing the totality of freight on the network,
and hopefully, by bringing all these other things together, we are close to what that totality should be. Are we two percent off? Five percent?
We don't know that yet, but we feel strongly that numbers are close to what totality of freight actually is. Thank you very much, and we'll take your questions.
Thank you, Felix. I hope everybody enjoyed the presentations. We are now going to start with the question and answer session with the questions that have been posted online.
And if we get through those and have time, we can open the phone lines up for questions. I'm going to try to direct the questions to the appropriate presenter, but because all three kind of overlapped on the topic,
if any one of you wants to jump in and provide an answer, that's fine. Start off with the first questions that were typed in and move on down the list. I think Randy might have addressed this,
but I'll ask it again, what are the primary sources of public data being used to develop the FAF 2? Randy, I don't know if you are the appropriate person or somebody else?
Would you like me to take that?
Go ahead, Randy.
Well, the primary sources for the CFS side of it are the table 17 and the weigh bill data and the water born commerce data. And then Felix mentioned the export/import data, and I think he covered that
out of scope is maybe and that really depends by the commodity. So there are, and there are it will be documentation available on that, but there are numerous, numerous sources of data for those out of scopes.
That you have to really look down into the details of that. But the main sources are CFS, the freight, excuse me, weigh bill data, and the corps of engineers data are the three main sources with numerous other,
and I mean 20 other data sources that come in to, or even more. I'd be happy to go into anymore specific if we can be more specific with the question.
I want to add one more thing. Bottom line here at the CFS, 2002. Backbone of 2002 FAF, it's rarely just a combination effort, you know?
Let me adjust one other thing to follow up on Tianjia's point. Recall that while we used other data sources for that CFS components of this to identify missing cells, we constrained the totals to be consistent with CFS.
Thus, if we had a total from water born commercial or weigh bill for a particular OD movement that was different than what the total that the aggregated level was for CFS, we went with the CFS total.
Next question is for the 1997 commodity flow survey, summary reports were prepared for each state. Will state or retail summaries be prepared for the 2002, FAF 2?
These would be useful as a FAF 2 users try to organize the data for their own uses. I'm not sure who would be -- Tianjia?
We are pretty much done.
During last months TRB, we released most of the state profile. Still in the final stage to put all the state summary data on the web so, if your state is not on web yet, it will be on web.
I got the raw data, everything, we got the raw date attachment now we just need to put it in the right format. But majority of the states are done.
Thank you. Next question is if all data is being collected, why can't we get a breakdown in ton miles in various modes of freight transport. Felix, I think you addressed that.
Continuing I think it goes to a product that Tanya mentioned, before you can generate ton miles, particularly for the out of scope,
which originally we don't have ton miles from the CFS, but if Tianjia want to follow up on that to the metric, and from that, one can generate ton miles.
We have OD data. Without assigning into the route, what effect on which route because it takes, I don't know which route it takes, hard to have a precise distance, so the ton mile; so it is not there.
That's not complete either, we do have a route estimate of ton miles, you know, and the way I use is rough estimate in our computation. Database matrices 2, but as relates to the final ton mile numbers,
we feel comfortable from, I think the bottom line was that we did calculate those, ton miles, but in evidently, we will have another set of ton miles once it goes to the network,
I think the decision was made that having two sets of ton miles estimates might essentially be confusing and not add to general knowledge.
Next question, is it anticipated FAF effort will be undertaken on a five year recurring cycle? Tianjia? Do you want to address that?
CFS is really our backbone of FAF 2 project. FAF 2 data.
Next one is 2007. Yes, next generation maybe the third, okay?
Next question is are there special studies done to fill in out of scope sectors available to other, special studies done to fill in the out other DOT modes? Randy?
Would you be the one to address that?
We have special studies?
Various states of completion in terms of availability, so I'll direct that to Tianjia.
As I said, beauty of a FAF 2 project is most input and output are publicly available, doesn't matter if you are outside DOT, all what we have down here as related to FAF 2 will be available. All those out of scope started.
Are you are sure, you know, all those documents will be available to you.
This next question is for all of presenters. Can you please generally describe the changes and methodology or data that were made for the FAF 2?
What lessons were learned from FAF 1 that are applied to FAF 2. I'm not sure, Tianjia, do you want to start?
Sure. As you know, I'm sure from the question, you probably note FAF 1 fairly good, key difference here is FAF 1 is based on proprietary data. That's why folks deal outside here,
you not be able to see anything smaller than a state summary. That is the proprietary nature. But success of FAF 1 is so overwhelming, we have so much for your demand requirement,
so we took a different approach this time, we said you know, key here is public availability. We also heard smaller geographic data, county levels, preferably from...
Same time, have folks down to the DOT level
Under the summary numbers, for your state. You know, Randy, you guys can jump in.
Felix, do you want to add anything?
I think Tianjia covered most of the differences, the differences in the data, and the private data source that was used for the 98-5, was based in part also on the CFS, but it was based on the 93 CFS, so although the data
was coming out in '98, it was coming out of '93 CFS, and the pro pirate tier that made and while it did try to cover some of the sectors,
approach was different in that, in this case, we making sure that all of individual sectors for crude petroleum is appropriately covered.
Shipments are covered, and the other sectors that I went through, from that conception, the methods are different, taking different approaches to arrive at the totality of freight shipment.
I was saying, and just to follow up on that, that FAF 2 is not directly comparable to FAF 1, because of these, addition of the out of scopes, which I think Tianjia referred to. But, yes, it is different product, it is,
the threads of coverage is broader, I think the fact that all of these are public data, if you so desired, we would provide you all of the data such that you could recreate this and our hope is that by having that transparency with FAF,
it will allow users to go down into the details in a way that will make it much more usable to a variety of FAF customers familiar with FAF 1.
Thank you. The next question mainly nor Tianjia, is there a way for FHWA like the freight planning list serve?
If you are on my mailing list, typically I will send an e-mail out, but the freight, you know, server, that's a good place, we will do that.
Next question is the public use weight bell data, how did you break it down to state to state movement?
I'm not sure which one is best to address that.
This has to do -- which question is this?
This was just sent to me.
I don't think...
Okay, the question is, I believe, how the BA activities and the level of disaggregation that's required for the out of scopes, which this refers to, depends on the methodology,
and some indications you take it down, you take your totals for the nation down to state, and to the, to whatever appropriate level of geography, and you add back up,
so you may be taking disaggregating flows down to fairly low level of disaggregation, it varies from product mix, commodity to commodity, so I guess I'm not fully following the question,
we did use those kinds of data to disaggregate to the regions, and add back up to the appropriate regions for FAF purposes.
the other thing also is that the weigh bill provides you state to state information.
So while it provides the state-to-state, and the private use weigh bill access too, it provides you with little bit more details on that also.
Methodology here will help, depending on which FAF we are dealing with...
In some cases, when we say data is public, in the case for example of identifying the true zeros in the CFS table 17, there were cases where we made special requests to obtain data that heretofore was not publicly available,
in other words, you couldn't open a book, or couldn't go online to obtain it, but when we made the special requests, both of the Corps of Engineers and in the case of census,
their approval process said "Yeah, that's okay, we can give you that information."
So it is something, in some cases we relied on information in date that that you can't directly just pull off the web, but it is public. Just not readily available.
Next question is, in FAF 1, demand for freight transportation was forecast to double by 2020. Is that still the case in FAF 2?
I think the forecast for FAF 1 is about 70 percent growth all the way to 2020. FAF 2 forecast is, well, we don't have that number on hand, but we are accepting by end of May, we will have that number.
Next question, how does the FAF compare to other data bases like the Trance Search Database developed by Global Insight previously the Reid Corporation.
I can say this, both data and components of CFS, of course, Reid has a lot of their proprietary information from their clients,
and so but the difference here is ours, you know, whatever we add to it, you get to know it. That's how roughly the big picture window of what components are...
Randy, you said there are two sets of ton miles data, is this publicly available?
It's not as of now. I guess that's more a question for Tianjia. I think the philosophy behind that was, and it's not on the CD,
that that might be more misleading than informative. When we say the two sources of ton miles, there's, the reliable way to do it is to calculate your ton miles after you sign the flows to the particular network.
Just measuring centroid to centroid doesn't suggest that's the route it's going to take. That is something that will be forthcoming as Tianjia indicated after the assignments step
when you can then actually calculate how did it go, and thus calculate the ton miles associated with that particular shipment.
We are not applying it; well, we are, but we don't provide you one set on numbers...
Next question is, I believe this is for you, Tang, it would be interesting to see an analysis of all enter metro traffic between the economic identified economic areas.
And those cities that you have collected data for along the inland waterways and gulf coast intercoastal areas.
We worked hard to try to do this with FAF 1, but it was not easily available on the less than state level. Would this be possible for a pilot project?
I think, you know, we will talk more about this.
Clearly, that is what my goal is, something, what we will be able to do, and what we are thinking here right now with pilot project is the key thing here, some kind of methodology,
remember, FAF 2, the true data, only has 138 geographic regions, so that how we can be reliable, have competence to have methodology to allocate the numbers into the different notes and links, you know?
This is some clarification on the weigh bill data question. The public use version is a BEA to BEA table.
How did you transform the BEA to BEA table toss FAF 2 zone to zone or centroid to centroid table?
That is a question that's probably better answered by Frank Southworth on the team who did that. This is not the only case of where that came up.
It comes up with respect to the water born commerce, and we developed crosswalks to translate this information, whatever level of this aggregation. So I guess I would aim to address that offline as a more detailed something.
Okay. That's all the questions we have typed in, but we still have time left, so at this point, we can open the phone lines for questions.
So operator, if you can give directions for asking questions over the phone, and we can see if anybody has questions.
If you would like to ask a question, dial star-one on your touch tone phone. If the answer has been answered or you wants to withdraw, press star-two. First question comes from the line of James.
I was wanting to ask about a pilot project, but I noticed there are were lots of people asking about what's expected of a pilot project, what do you expect from us,
what do you expect, what do you want to accomplish? Can you give us more detail as to where you want to go with those?
Mostly what of those required is from MPOs, you are smaller geographic area say DOT, and so tell the truth, would you like to see a state DOT,
they make this request. What you are -- it is based on MPO, single MPO. I think what you have said, will be more interesting.
How to reallocate a large number to a smaller geographic area. So that is our effort.
Again, ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, dial star-one at this time. There are no questions in the cue at this time.
You will potentially be my pilot project, I'll get back to you by end of next week, I will sends you more specific material and my thoughts. More discussion on it. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Tianjia.
Since we don't seem to have anymore questions, we will close out of seminar for today. Thank you to all three presenters for a great present takes and thanks to everybody who attended.
The recorded version of the seminar will be available online within the next week on Talking Freight Website, and I'll send out an e-mail to everybody letting you know how to access the recording as well as
the PowerPoint and transcript of the seminar. Next seminar is scheduled for March 15th, and titled Commodities From Origin to Designation, and we do have one other seminar scheduled for next week, February 21st.
It had been planned for past Monday, but was rescheduled. You can sign up for the February 21st seminar and March 15th seminar, both of them on the Talking Freight website.
I also encourage you to visit the site and sign up for other seminars that interest you. So with that, thank you everybody, and enjoy the rest of the day.
Thank you. This concludes the presentation, you may disconnect. Good day.