Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA HomeFeedback
The Strategic Multimodal Analysis - Task 3: Chicago-New York City Corridor Analysis - Final Report

CHAPTER 4.0 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

This chapter focuses on the movements of freight along the networks, operating capacity, and operating safety. There is a discussion of the highway freight bottlenecks in the corridor that comes directly from An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways. The measurement of the bottlenecks, both nationally and within the corridor, was included in Phase 1 of the Strategic Multimodal Analysis (SMA). Finally this chapter addresses the safety of the highway and rail systems.

4.1 Highway Operations

Table 4-1 shows the traffic volume and percentage of trucks by State on the I-80 and I-90 highways between Chicago and New York City. Truck traffic as a percentage of the total traffic picture varies across the corridor. Ohio and Pennsylvania show the highest percentage of trucks in the traffic mix. Figure 4-1 shows the average annual daily traffic (AADT) and Figure 4-2 shows the average annual daily truck traffic (AADTT) volume on the I-80/I-90 highways linking Chicago to New York City. Truck traffic includes single unit trucks and combination trucks. These figures, based on 2002 traffic data, indicate that traffic on these two Interstate highways range between 2,000 to 5,000 vehicles a day. Highway I-90 between Cleveland and New York carries truck traffic of 7,000 to 10,000 trucks per day and 20,000 to 25,000 per day at some locations, especially close to the major cities. Truck traffic on the I-90 portion (Cleveland to New York) is higher than on I-80 between Cleveland through Buffalo to Albany. Figure 4-3 illustrates the variation of service-volume ratios along the I-80/I-90 highways between Chicago and New York City. These highways are operating below capacity for rural portions but approaching or above capacity in the major cities.

4.2 Highway Congestion and Freight Bottlenecks

In this corridor and throughout the United States, the last several decades have witnessed steady growth in the demand for freight transportation, driven by economic expansion and global trade. Over that same time freight transportation capacity has been expanding slower than the demand growth. If this continues the freight productivity improvements gained through the investment in the Interstate highway system and deregulation will begin to decline. The white paper An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways is an effort to identify and quantify, on a national basis, highway bottlenecks that delay trucks and potentially increase costs to businesses and consumers. Summarized from the report is the typology of freight bottlenecks, a summary of the national estimates and a presentation of freight bottlenecks in the Chicago – New York Corridor.

Table 4-1. Traffic Characteristics (2002)
Route Location Average Daily Traffic Average Daily Truck Traffic Percentage of Trucks
Illinois
I-90 Chicago 311,000 31,000 10
I-90 Chicago (Downtown) 31,000 5,000 16
Indiana
I-80 East Chicago – West of I-80/90 Merge 18,000 1,000 6
I-90 Gary 30,000 5,000 17
I-80/90 Gary 30,000 5,000 17
I-80/90 South Bend 25,000 4,000 16
Ohio
I-80/90 Toledo (West) 24,000 9,000 38
I-80/90 Toledo 31,000 9,000 29
I-80/90 Cleveland 38,000 11,000 29
I-90 Cleveland (East of I-80/90 Split) 9,000 2,000 22
I-90 Cleveland (East) 103,000 8,000 8
I-90 Conneaut – West of Pennsylvania Border 19,000 7,000 37
I-80 Youngstown (West) 51,000 15,000 29
I-80 Youngstown (East) 36,000 11,000 31
Pennsylvania
I-80 State College 23,000 8,000 35
I-80 Williamsport 33,000 9,000 27
I-80 Scranton 23,000 9,000 39
I-80 West of New Jersey Border near Stroudsburg 55,000 11,000 20
I-80 East of Ohio Border 21,000 6,000 29
I-90 Erie 47,000 10,000 21
New York
I-90 West of Pennsylvania Border near Fredonia 27,000 3,000 11
I-90 Buffalo (West) 130,000 13,000 10
I-90 Buffalo 139,000 14,000 10
I-90 Buffalo (East) 48,000 5,000 10
I-90 Rochester 30,000 3,000 10
I-90 Rochester (East) 41,000 2,000 5
I-90 Syracuse (West) 37,000 3,000 8
I-90 Syracuse (East) 39,000 7,000 18
I-90 Utica 26,000 3,000 12
I-90 Albany (West) 29,000 2,000 7
I-90 Albany 97,000 8,000 8
New Jersey
I-80 East of Pennsylvania Border 47,000 8,000 17
I-80 Paterson 120,000 16,000 13
I-80 New York (West) 162,000 16,000 10
Source: HPMS 2002.
Figure 4-1. Traffic Flow on I-80/I-90 (AADT)
Partial U.S. map showing seven corridor states in green-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York- and the routes of I-80 and I-90 in colors denoting 2002 traffic volume, according to the Highway Performance Monitoring System. Purple denotes traffic volumes of 0 to 10,000; dark blue denotes 10,000 to 20,000; light blue denotes 20,000 to 30,000; dark green denotes 30,000 to 40,000; light green denotes 40,000 to 50,000; yellow green denotes 50,000 to 100,000; orange denotes 100,000 to 250,000; and red denotes 250,000 to 500,000. The highest traffic volume is shown at Chicago. Other areas of high traffic volume are shown at Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany, and New York City.
Source: HPMS 2002.
Figure 4-2. Truck Traffic Flow on I-80/I-90 (AADTT)
Partial U.S. map showing seven corridor states in green-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York- and the routes of I-80 and I-90 in colors denoting 2002 truck volume, according to the Highway Performance Monitoring System. Purple denotes truck volumes of 0 to 2,500; dark blue denotes 2,500 to 5,000; light blue denotes 5,000 to7,500; green denotes 7,500 to 10,000; yellow denotes 10,000 to 25,000; orange denotes 25,000 to 50,000; and red denotes 50,000 to 100,000. Truck volumes do not reach 25,000 to 100,000 on either route. The highest truck volume, 7,500 to 25,000, is shown on the Ohio Turnpike and I-80 across Pennsylvania and New Jersey to New York City.
Source: HPMS 2002.
Figure 4-3. Volume-Service Flow Ratios
Partial U.S. map showing seven corridor states in green-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York- and the routes of I-80 and I-90 in colors denoting the ratio of volume to service flow, according to Highway Performance Monitoring System. Blue denotes below capacity (less than 0.8), orange denotes approaching capacity (0.8 to 1.0), and red denotes above capacity (greater than 1.0). Most of the routes are below capacity. Areas approaching or above capacity include Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany, and New York City.
Source: HPMS 2002.

4.2.1 Truck Bottleneck Typology

The first task of the research was to create a typology of truck bottlenecks to categorize bottlenecks clearly and consistently. A typology was necessary to avoid double counting when calculating truck hours of delay and to establish – for future policy and program analysis work – a framework for attaching strategies and costs for congestion mitigation to each type of bottleneck. Table 4-2 presents the truck bottleneck typology by the type of constraint, roadway utilized, and freight route.

Table 4-2. Truck Bottleneck Typology
Constraint Type Roadway Type Freight Route Type
Lane-Drop
Interchange
Intersection/Signal
Roadway Geometry
Rail Grade Crossing
Regulatory Barrier
Freeway
Arterial
Collectors/Local Roads
Intercity Truck Corridor
Urban Truck Corridor
Intermodal Connector
Truck Access Route

More detailed definitions of each element are provided below, but as an example, a truck bottleneck may be caused by a lane drop that creates insufficient lane capacity on a freeway used as an intercity truck corridor, or a bottleneck may be caused by lane drop on an arterial that serves as a urban truck corridor. Similarly, a truck bottleneck may be caused by congestion at an interchange on a freeway serving as an intercity truck corridor, or a truck bottleneck may be caused by poorly timed traffic signals at intersections on an arterial road that serves as an urban truck corridor.

Several combinations are not used; for example, neither signalized intersections nor rail grade crossings exist on freeways; and most truck access routes are by definition on arterial roadways or collectors/local roadways, not freeways. Other combinations such as an interchange involving a collector/local road are rare.

The six capacity constraints are:

  1. Lane-Drop Constraint. An example of this type of bottleneck would be a lane drop, where a highway narrows from three to two lanes or two lanes to one lane, reducing throughput and creating traffic queues. These bottlenecks typically affect one direction of traffic flow.
  2. Interchange Constraint. An example of this type of bottleneck would be an urban interchange connecting two Interstate highways (or an interchange connecting an Interstate highway and a major arterial) where the geometry of the interchange, traffic weaving and merging movements, and high volumes of traffic reduce throughput and create traffic queues on the ramps and the mainlines. Severely congested interchanges may cause queues on one or both highways. Where interchanges are closely spaced, queues from one interchange may create additional bottlenecks at upstream interchanges, producing a series of closely linked bottlenecks.
  3. Intersection/Signal Constraint. An example of this type of bottleneck would be an urban or suburban arterial road with closely spaced intersections operating at or near capacity, often with poorly timed signals. As with queues at closely spaced interchanges, queues at one congested intersection often impact traffic flow at other intersections upstream of the affected location. These bottlenecks may affect flows in both directions on all intersecting roadways.
  4. Roadway Geometry Constraint. An example of this type of bottleneck would be a steep hill, where heavily loaded trucks must slow to climb and descend. The total volume of traffic, the number of heavy trucks, the number of lanes, and the presence or absence of an additional climbing lane determines the throughput of these bottlenecks. Other roadway geometry barriers include curves with insufficient turning radii for trucks (usually on two-lane roadways), bridges with gross vehicle weight limits that force trucks to make long detours, and tunnels with reduced overhead or side clearance.
  5. Rail Grade Crossing Constraint. An example of this type of bottleneck would be a highway-rail at-grade crossing where an urban roadway carrying high volumes of truck traffic crosses a rail line carrying high volumes of passenger or freight trains. Frequent gate closings may cause long traffic queues in both directions on the roadway.
  6. Regulatory Barrier Constraint. Examples of this type of bottleneck include toll barriers, international border custom inspection stations, and increasingly, security inspection checkpoints. Also included in this category are safety, hazardous materials (hazmat), and weight restrictions that prohibit truck movements across a bridge, through a tunnel, or along a road, forcing trucks to make long detours.

The three roadway types are:

  1. Freeways. This group includes Interstates, expressways, toll roads, major state highways, and other limited-access (typically divided) highways with multiple lanes and access control.
  2. Arterials. This group includes major state and city roads. They are typically multilane, but not divided roadways. In urban areas, they carry much of the traffic circulating within the urban area.
  3. Collectors/Local Roads. Collectors are typically two-lane roads that collect and distribute traffic to and from the freeway and arterial systems, proving connections to and among residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial areas.

The four types of freight routes are:

  1. Intercity Truck Corridors. Intercity truck corridors are transcontinental and interregional routes, using rural Interstate highways and rural state highways. Almost all these corridors are designated as truck corridors on the National Truck Network and state truck networks.
  2. Urban Truck Corridors. Urban truck corridors are Interstate highways and major state and city arterials that serve both local distribution and through moves. Most but not all of these corridors are designated as truck corridors on the National Truck Network, and state and city truck networks.
  3. Intermodal Connectors. Intermodal connectors are the "last mile" of National Highway System roadway connecting major port, airport, rail, or truck terminals to intercity routes.
  4. Truck Access Routes. Truck access routes include designated truck routes to industrial or commercial zones, warehousing and distribution centers, central business districts, and suburban centers. The category includes local, urban, and rural routes not designated as urban truck corridors or intermodal connectors.

The typology is not exhaustive. The categories have been designed so that they can be broadened when additional detail is needed for future studies.

4.2.2 Freight Bottlenecks - National Summary

The study identifies and measures 14 types of highway truck bottlenecks. Table 4-3 lists the types of bottlenecks and the annual truck hours of delay associated with each type. The study's methodology first located the highway bottlenecks using the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), then determined the truck volumes at the bottlenecks using HPMS and the freight analytical framework, finally delay was calculated using a simplified queuing-based model, QSIM, developed by Rich Margiotta, Harry Cohen and Patrick DeCorla-Souza.3

4.2.3 Freight Bottlenecks – Corridor Summary

The Chicago – New York corridor encompasses several of the United State's major production and population centers. That economic activity creates a high freight demand on the corridor's infrastructure. That infrastructure contains some of the nation's first toll roads, turnpikes and earliest interstate segments. While that highway has been expanded and improved greatly since the first half of the 20th century, many areas are constrained by the metropolitan areas they serve.

The system strain is most evident at the freeway interchange bottlenecks. On a national basis, and for this corridor, the interchanges represent slightly over half of the annual hours of truck delay. Figure 4-4 shows the location of all the freeway interchange bottlenecks in the corridor. The bottleneck locations are indicated by a solid dot.

Table 4-3. Truck Hours of Delay by Type of Highway Freight Bottleneck
Bottleneck Type
Constraint
Bottleneck Type
Roadway
Bottleneck Type
Freight Route
National Annual Truck Hours of Delay, 2004 (Estimated)
InterchangeFreewayUrban Freight Corridor123,895,000
Subtotal 123,895,000*
Steep GradeArterialIntercity Freight Corridor40,647,000
Steep GradeFreewayIntercity Freight Corridor23,260,000
Steep GradeArterialUrban Freight Corridor1,509,000
Steep GradeArterialTruck Access Route303,000
Subtotal 65,718,000
Signalized IntersectionArterialUrban Freight Corridor24,977,000
Signalized IntersectionArterialIntercity Freight Corridor11,148,000
Signalized IntersectionArterialTruck Access Route6,521,000
Signalized IntersectionArterialIntermodal Connector468,000
Subtotal 43,113,000
Lane DropFreewayIntercity Freight Corridor5,221,000
Lane DropArterialIntercity Freight Corridor3,694,000
Lane DropArterialUrban Freight Corridor1,665,000
Lane DropArterialTruck Access Route41,000
Lane DropArterialIntermodal Connector3,000
Subtotal 10,622,000
Total 243,032,000
* The delay estimation methodology calculated delay resulting from queuing on the critically congested roadway of the interchange (as identified by the scan) and the immediately adjacent highway sections. Estimates of truck hours of delay are based on two-way traffic volumes. However, the methodology did not calculate delay on the other roadway at the interchange. This means that truck hours of delay were calculated on only one of the two intersecting highways or two of the four legs on an interchange, probably underreporting total delay at the interchange. The bottleneck delay estimation methodology also did not account for the effects of weaving and merging at interchanges, which aggravates delay, but could not be calculated from the available HPMS data. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest thousand.
The HPMS sampling framework supports expansion of volume-based data from these sample sections to a national estimate, but does not support direct estimation of the number of bottlenecks. Estimates of truck hours of delay are based on two-way traffic volumes. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

Figure 4-4. Interchange Capacity Bottlenecks on Corridor Freeways Used as Urban Truck Corridors
Partial U.S. map showing seven corridor states in green-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York- and the routes of I-80 and I-90 in yellow, the routes of other Interstate highways in blue, and bottlenecks as solid red dots, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Areas with the greatest number of bottlenecks include Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and portions of New Jersey and New York near New York City. Only Indiana has no bottlenecks.
Source: An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways, FHWA, October 2005.

Table 4-4 lists the corridor's top 25 interchange bottlenecks ranked by annual hours of delay for all trucks. The full bottleneck report also contains tables ranked by the percentage of trucks traveling over 500 miles.

Although the highway interchange bottlenecks represent the largest portion of bottleneck congestion, the corridor also contains bottlenecks arising from steep grades, signalized intersections and lane drops. Figure 4-5 focuses the bottleneck locations that arise from these other types of bottlenecks. The steep grade bottlenecks (shown as purple circles) are broadly dispersed throughout the corridor. The signalized intersections and lane drop capacity constraints, like the interchange bottlenecks, are localized around the major metropolitan areas.

Table 4-4. Corridor's Top 25 Interchange Bottlenecks for Trucks
Bottleneck
Location
Bottleneck
Urban Area
Bottleneck
Critically Congested Route No.
Bottleneck
No. of Lanes
All Vehicles
AADT
All Vehicles
Daily Minutes of Delay per Vehicle
All Trucks
AADTT
All Trucks
Percent of All Vehicles
All Trucks
Annual Hours of Delay All Trucks
"Large Trucks Making Longer-Distance Trips"
AADTT
"Large Trucks Making Longer-Distance Trips"
Percent of All Trucks
"Large Trucks Making Longer-Distance Trips"
Annual Hours of Delay Large Trucks …
"Large Trucks Making Longer-Distance Trips"
Annual Commodity Tons Large Trucks …
"Large Trucks Making Longer-Distance Trips"
Annual Commodity Value Large Trucks …
"Large Trucks Making Longer-Distance Trips"
Percent Trips Greater Than 500 Miles
Annual Hours of Delay … Greater Than 500 Miles
I-90 @ I-290Buffalo-Niagara Falls904136,5008.333,10024%1,661,9007,30022% 367,000 2,632,500 $2,968,00058%212,900
I-90/94 @ I-290 Interchange ("Circle Interchange")Chicago-Northwestern IN908305,8009.726,3009%1,544,9009,20035% 540,400 3,718,000 $4,218,00053%286,400
I-94 (Dan Ryan Expwy) @ I-90 Skyway Split (Southside)Chicago-Northwestern IN948271,7007.931,60012%1,512,90011,10035% 531,500 4,485,900 $5,089,00053%281,700
I-80/I-94 split (southside)Chicago-Northwestern IN804139,6008.625,60018%1,343,6009,00035% 472,400 3,637,200 $4,127,00053%250,400
Pulaski Rd @ I-55Chicago-Northwestern IN556197,2007.528,70015%1,300,40010,00035% 453,700 4,041,300 $4,585,00053%240,500
I-290 @ I-355Chicago-Northwestern IN2906223,1008.324,80011%1,246,2008,70035% 437,300 3,515,900 $3,989,00053%231,800
I-75 @ I-74 InterchangeCincinnati (OH-KY)756193,1009.719,20010%1,128,9006,90036% 405,300 2,735,200 $3,044,00063%255,300
SR-315 @ I-70 InterchangeColumbus315264,0008.321,80034%1,097,6005,50025% 276,500 2,180,200 $2,426,00014%38,700
I-270 @I-70 Interchange (West)Columbus2704122,6009.518,60015%1,077,8004,70025% 271,900 1,863,100 $2,073,00014%38,100
I-55 (Stevenson Expwy) @ I-294 InterchnageChicago-Northwestern IN556172,6009.617,20010%1,001,6006,00035% 349,900 2,424,800 $2,751,00053%185,400
I-76 @ Girard AvPhiladelphia (PA-NJ)766200,4007.322,10011%982,2005,60026% 249,200 2,133,600 $2,397,00026%64,800
I-71 @ I-70 InterchangeColumbus713112,5008.319,30017%968,8004,90025% 246,300 1,942,400 $2,162,00014%34,500
Darby Paoli Rd @ US-202Philadelphia (PA-NJ)2024114,2008.318,90017%950,6004,80026% 241,300 1,828,800 $2,055,00026%62,700
I-75 @ US-35 InterchangeDayton754127,4008.318,40014%923,1007,90043% 397,100 3,131,600 $3,485,00054%214,400
I-70 @US-23 InterchangeColumbus705163,9008.316,70010%839,1004,20025% 211,100 1,664,900 $1,853,00014%29,600
I-57 @ 12th StChicago-Northwestern IN576174,2003.831,60018%733,80011,10035% 257,600 4,485,900 $5,089,00053%136,500
I-76 @ SR-77 Interchange+J179Akron764122,6008.314,00011%705,2007,00050% 351,900 2,774,800 $3,088,00052%183,000
Southern State Parkway @ Exit 25ANew York-Northeastern NJ9086204,5005.421,40010%699,8006,20029% 203,200 2,235,800 $2,521,00027%54,900
I-75 @ I-275 InterchangeCincinnati (OH-KY)756174,8004.723,40013%662,9008,40036% 237,800 3,095,900 $3,451,00063%149,800
I-278 @ Exit 36New York-Northeastern NJ2786210,0007.713,9007%654,6004,00029% 188,200 1,442,500 $1,626,00027%50,800
US-1 @ I-95 InterchangePhiladelphia (PA-NJ)958207,8005.718,6009%643,9004,70026% 162,600 1,742,100 $1,938,00026%42,300
I-94 @ I-75 InterchangeDetroit946167,2006.915,4009%643,7004,40029% 184,200 1,597,400 $1,795,00032%58,900
I-90 @I-94 Interchange ("Edens Interchange")Chicago-Northwestern IN906189,7008.311,9006%596,3004,20035% 211,100 1,697,300 $1,926,00053%111,900
I-278 (Staten Island Expwy) before Verrazano BrNew York-Northeastern NJ2786204,4007.313,3007%593,4003,90029% 173,600 1,406,400 $1,586,00027%46,900
I-95 @ Chestnut StPhiladelphia (PA-NJ)956177,0004.719,60011%553,9005,00026% 141,500 1,905,000 $2,141,00026%36,800

Figure 4-5. Other Bottlenecks on the New York – Chicago Intercity Truck Corridor
Partial U.S. map showing seven corridor states in green-Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York- and the routes of I-80 and I-90 in yellow, the routes of Interstate highways in blue,  steep-grade bottlenecks as solid purple dots, sign intersection bottlenecks as solid green dots, and lane-drop bottlenecks as solid red dots, according to the Federal Highway Administration. Steep-grade bottlenecks are clustered in southern Indiana, in Michigan, and in southern and eastern Ohio. Sign intersection and lane-drop bottlenecks are clustered in southeastern Pennsylvania, in New Jersey, and in southeastern New York.
Source: An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highways FHWA, October 2005.

4.3 Rail, Intermodal, and Water Movements

Unlike highways, there are no publicly available network models currently available to evaluate the capacity of the rail, intermodal, and water modes of freight movements. The discussion of the operational characteristics and capacity of these modes is based on anecdotal information from literature that reflects the current and projected capacities of these modes in handling and transporting freight. As such, the discussion is less specific to the corridor. However, to the maximum extent possible, the discussion focuses on capacity issues that are closely related to freight movement along the corridor. Note that railroads and port are private entities with limited public data on their infrastructure and operations.

4.3.1 Rail Capacity Outlook

Macroeconomic forecasts for 20054 suggest that strong rail freight demand patterns will continue. Shipments of raw materials and finished goods are expected to remain strong as U.S. manufacturing output continues to grow. Coal volumes, which are responsible for approximately 21 percent of the revenue at the top four Class I Railroads, are expected to be robust. Coal demand from electric utilities, in particular, will remain strong due to a growing need for electrical power in the United States, combined with a preference for using coal while natural gas prices remain high. Intermodal volumes, which lately have driven about 18 percent of revenues at the largest Class I Railroads, will also continue to increase, largely due to strong U.S. demand for imported goods and foreign demand for U.S. exports. Demand was also high for other railroad staples such as coal, chemicals, and agricultural products. Adding to railroad demand was a shortage of truck drivers that led to capacity constraints in the trucking industry.

Although the railroads have been adding capacity in 2004 to improve operational efficiency and customer service, it is expected that capacity will continue to remain fairly tight relative to demand in 2005. Against this backdrop of increased demand is a relatively constrained supply of rail capacity.

4.3.2 Port and Intermodal Capacity

The growth in container volumes at the Port of New York and New Jersey is accompanied by increased demand for capacity for direct-to-rail movements of international shipping containers. The growth at the port and the railroad can be attributed to several trends in international and domestic shipping. The following are significant trends:

4.4 Highway Safety

Safety is the critical mission of freight operations. There are a mix of factors that influence safe operations: driver performance; roadway design and condition; weather and light conditions; vehicle design; and motor carrier management commitment to safety. This section summarizes the results of the corridors freight operations with respect to safety.

Law enforcement officers within the jurisdiction report crashes on the highway network. Data from these reports are collected and maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), a census of all crashes involving a fatality, and the General Estimates System (GES), a sample of all law enforcement reported crashes. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) maintains the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), which contains data on truck crashes and for this report, is used to distribute GES truck involved non-fatal crashes to states.

Vehicle types involved in fatal crashes during 2002 are summarized in Table 4-5. Eighty-three percent of vehicles involved in fatal crashes within the corridor States were passenger vehicles, including light weight service/trade vehicles. Large trucks accounted for 7.9 percent, slightly above the national average of 7.8 percent.

Table 4-5. Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes by Vehicle Type (2002)
State Total Percent
Passenger Vehicle
Percent
Motorcycle
Percent
Bus
Percent
Large Truck
Percent
Other/Unknown
Illinois1,94083.05.30.48.23.2
Indiana1,15780.77.70.110.41.1
Michigan1,85686.94.70.66.61.2
Ohio2,00081.57.00.49.41.7
Pennsylvania2,19883.66.20.67.91.6
New York2,07681.97.21.26.33.4
New Jersey1,04385.35.01.26.61.8
Corridor12,27083.36.20.67.92.1
US Total58,42683.95.80.57.82.0
Source: FARS, 2002.

To examine the distribution of fatal crashes by highway functional class, Table 4-6 shows the number of all fatal crashes while Table 4-7 shows the number of fatal crashes involving large trucks. The corridor States accounted for 21 percent of the nation's fatal crashes as well as 21 percent of the fatal crashes in which a large truck was involved. However, the highway types on which those crashes occurred vary between the two distributions as well as among the study States.

In the corridor states, 9.3 percent of fatal crashes occurred on interstate highways in 2002, while 12.7 percent of fatal crashes nationwide occurred on interstate highways. Table 4-5 shows a similar absolute difference for fatal crashes involving a large truck – 24.2 of these crashes occurred on interstate highways nationwide, while 21.3 percent occur on interstate highways in the corridor states.

Overall, fatal crash rates are lower in the corridor than the nation as a whole for all fatal crashes as well as for truck involved fatal crashes. Truck involved fatal crash rates in the corridor states are significantly below the national rates for interstate and other principal arterials and somewhat higher than the national rates on minor arterials, collectors and local roads.

Table 4-6. Fatal Crashes by State and Functional Highway Class (2002)
  Fatal Crashes
State Interstate Highway Other Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Road Total*
Illinois1713152242123511,273
Indiana6023121170336714
Michigan1083012193212021,173
Ohio1182402184402561,285
Pennsylvania1123693502933341,462
New York1014652912522951,411
New Jersey7924810389178698
Corridor7491,9611,5261,7771,9528,016
US Total4,90310,2956,8798,2887,86838,491
* Total columns include crashes that were not assigned to any highway functional class.
Source: (i) Crash data – FARS
(ii) VMT data – Highway Statistics, 2002, FHWA State vehicle class VMT estimates.

  Fatal Crash Rate (per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled)
State
Interstate Highway
Other Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Road Total*
Illinois0.5631.1811.0791.4312.7461.208
Indiana0.3790.1290.9581.033.440.985
Michigan0.4890.9521.0481.9682.1911.171
Ohio0.380.9741.292.5811.4041.191
Pennsylvania0.4661.1941.7141.9362.3911.399
New York0.3991.2221.0261.1211.5631.06
New Jersey0.5760.8740.9211.4141.7150.998
Corridor0.4610.991.1641.6372.0941.156
US Total0.7121.2031.3341.9882.0751.348
* Total columns include crashes that were not assigned to any highway functional class.
Source: (i) Crash data – FARS
(ii) VMT data – Highway Statistics, 2002, FHWA State vehicle class VMT estimates.
Table 4-7. Fatal Crashes Involving Large Trucks by State and Functional Highway Class (2002)
  Number of Crashes Involving Large Trucks
State Interstate Highway Other Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Road Total
Illinois3548251816142
Indiana214402717110
Michigan214130234120
Ohio3351424213182
Pennsylvania3757331910157
New York2345162415123
New Jersey212457663
Corridor19127019116081897
US Total1,0191,4417746423244,214
Source: (i) Crash data – FARS
(ii) VMT data – Highway Statistics, 2002, FHWA State vehicle class VMT estimates.

  Truck Involvement Rate (crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled)
State Interstate Highway Other Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Road Total
Illinois0.5112.5212.8653.3344.0491.345
Indiana0.5970.2044.5092.1281.7321.277
Michigan0.9282.1063.8483.8111.1342.018
Ohio0.631.5253.873.0342.3171.567
Pennsylvania0.9243.0363.7882.7061.5691.94
New York0.8251.9721.52.6512.6611.617
New Jersey1.6361.411.0832.7288.8831.67
Corridor0.7361.7983.1712.8272.2761.596
US Total1.1662.3892.8912.6442.0541.964
Source: (i) Crash data – FARS
(ii) VMT data – Highway Statistics, 2002, FHWA State vehicle class VMT estimates.

Table 4-8 shows a summary of all truck involved highway crashes in the corridor. Of the total number of truck involved crashes, 44.2 percent were without casualty, 52.3 percent resulted in injury and 3.5 percent resulted in death. About two percent of the crashes involved a truck hauling hazardous materials in a quantity requiring the truck to be placarded.

Table 4-8. Summary of Number of Large Trucks Reported in Crashes (2002)
State Fatal and Non-Fatal Crashes Fatal Crashes Non-Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes Tow-away Crashes HM Placard Crashes Fatalities Injuries
Illinois3,5431593,3841,5983,385541562,238
Indiana4,4021203,9221,7223,8171021312,424
Michigan2,9631232,8402,2861,269261353,159
Ohio4,4921894,3032,8592,8541512034,156
Pennsylvania2,1921742,0181,2291,425761741,748
New York3,4151313,2841,5343,1801311322,270
New Jersey6,928696,8593,1936,4930724,694
Corridor27,93596526,61014,42122,4235401,00320,689
Source: FARS & MCMIS.

4.5 Rail Safety

Rail operations in the corridor consist of freight service, intercity passenger service and commuter rail service. The extent of the freight railroad network is described in Chapter 2. Commuter rail, operating primarily on track owned by other railroads, operates approximately 4,000 route miles in the corridor. Amtrak owns and operates about 360 miles in the corridor, primarily in the northeast, as well as operating over freight railroad rights-of-way in other parts of the corridor.

Incidents involving loss of life, injury/illness, or property damage are reported by the railroads to the Federal Railroad Administration. Highway crossing accidents and rail equipment accidents are reported on FRA Forms F-6180.57 and F-6180.54 respectively. Other incidents involving illness or injury not resulting from highway crossing or equipment accidents, primarily railroad workers injured on the job, are reported on FRA Form F-6180.55a. The summary safety statistics reported here do not include incidents reported on the latter form.

Table 4-9 shows the average annual number of highway crossing and rail equipment accidents in the corridor between 2000 and 2004 as well as the average annual number of deaths and injuries associated with these accidents. Table 4-9 shows the distribution of these accidents by train consist type - Freight, Yard/Switching, Passenger and Other.

Table 4-9. Rail Accidents and Casualties in Corridor States (annual average 2000-2004)
State Highway Crossing Accidents
Count
Highway Crossing Accidents
Deaths
Highway Crossing Accidents
Injuries
Equipment Accidents
Count
Equipment Accidents
Deaths
Equipment Accidents
Injuries
Total
Count
Total
Deaths
Total
Injuries
Illinois190297424604043629113
Indiana169214777052462152
Michigan10793937031441039
Ohio1391839113042521844
Pennsylvania7641411607192521
New York38613120031158644
New Jersey4061170012110623
Corridor Total7599423477911011,53895336
US Total3,1893811,1013,016105866,2053911,687
Note: Columns and rows may not sum to Total due to rounding of annual averages.
Source: Summary of data from Federal Railroad Administration's Rail Equipment Accident/Incident reports and Highway-Rail Accident/Incident reports from years 2000 – 2004.

From Table 4-9 it can be seen that although highway crossing and equipment accidents each comprise about half of the combined total accidents, the number of casualties is much higher for crossing accidents than equipment accidents. This is expected, as equipment accidents, which are over two-thirds derailments, often do not involve conflict with persons, while highway crossing accidents almost always do.

Table 4-10 indicates that a significant number of highway crossing accidents in the corridor involve consists other than freight trains - including accidents in yard and switching freight service and in passenger service. In states with extensive commuter rail service, Illinois, New Jersey and New York, over one-fifth of highway crossing accidents involve passenger rail service. Each of these states has over 900 route miles in commuter rail service.

Table 4-10. Distribution of Rail Accidents in Corridor States by Consist Type
State Highway Crossing Accidents
Freight
Highway Crossing Accidents
Yard/Switch
Highway Crossing Accidents
Passenger
Highway Crossing Accidents
Other
Equipment Accidents
Freight
Equipment Accidents
Yard/Switch
Equipment Accidents
Passenge
Equipment Accidents
Other
Illinois62%9%21%9%42%39%3%16%
Indiana78%6%10%7%42%35%2%21%
Michigan70%10%9%12%59%30%4%7%
New Jersey36%16%30%18%14%31%27%27%
New York61%5%23%12%28%26%29%17%
Ohio83%6%4%7%47%39%1%14%
Pennsylvania78%5%5%11%51%26%15%8%
Corridor Total71%8%12%9%40%34%10%16%
US Total75%8%8%9%50%31%5%13%
Source: Summary of data from Federal Railroad Administration's Rail Equipment Accident/Incident reports and Highway-Rail Accident/Incident reports from years 2000 – 2004.

3 Richard Margiotta, Harry Cohen, and Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Speed and Delay Prediction Models for Planning Applications, Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Conference on Planning for Small- and Medium-Size Communities, Spokane, Washington, 1998. For copies of the paper, contact the author, Richard Margiotta, through the Cambridge Systematics web site "Contact Us" page at www.camsys.com/conta02.htm.
4 "Fitch: Healthy Economy Should Fuel U.S. Rail Performance in 2005." http://railforce.com/Rail_Performance.htm.
5 NY/NJ Port Activity Increases During First Half of 2003. PortViews. A newsletter for port tenants and users. Vol. 2, No. 3 December 2003.
6 NY/NJ Port Activity Increases During First Half of 2003. PortViews. A newsletter for port tenants and users. Vol. 2, No. 3 December 2003.

< 3.0 | Table of Contents | 5.0 >


FHWA Home | Feedback
FHWA