Freight on Transit Delphi Study
by
Keith Cochrane
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto
© Copyright by Keith Cochrane 2012
ii
Freight on Transit Delphi Study
Keith Cochrane
Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto
2012
Abstract
The Freight on Transit Delphi Study was conducted to explore the concept of freight on transit –
using public transit vehicles and infrastructure for transporting things other than people. Three
rounds of web based surveys were conducted with a panel of 34 transportation experts to explore
the main issues related to freight and transit integration and to build and evaluate potential freight
on transit operations. Survey results were consistent with previous investigations and suggest
that organizational disputes are a larger barrier to implementation than technical challenges.
Traditional Delphi questions were used to determine the most important positive impacts,
negative impacts, and challenges of moving freight on transit networks while survey responses
combined with scenario building techniques were used to build and evaluate five potential freight
on transit operating strategies using public transit networks in the GTHA.
iii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisors Matthew Roorda and Amer Shalaby for
the advice, guidance, and expertise they provided throughout this research process.
I would also like to thank Metrolinx for supporting this project, in particular Anthony Caruso and
Maureen McLeod.
As well, I want to thank the 34 experts that participated in the Delphi Study as well as students
and other Metrolinx staff who participated in survey testing rounds.
Finally I would like to thank my family and Miriam for their encouragement and patience.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... xi
List of Acronyms/Variables .......................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Urban Goods Movement ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Public Transit Operations ................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research Questions and Objectives .................................................................................... 3
1.4 Thesis Structure .................................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Existing FOT Operations .................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 FOT-EX: Freight on Existing Public Transit Trips ................................................ 6
2.1.2 FOT-NEW: New Freight Trips on Existing Public Transit Infrastructure ............. 8
2.1.3 Transit on Freight .................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Proposed FOT Operations ................................................................................................. 13
2.3 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 13
2.4 The Delphi Method ........................................................................................................... 14
2.4.1 The Delphi Method for Transportation and Logistics Planning ........................... 16
Chapter 3: Research Methods ....................................................................................................... 18
3.1 The Delphi Method ........................................................................................................... 18
3.1.1 Justification ........................................................................................................... 19
3.1.2 Strength and Weaknesses ...................................................................................... 20
v
3.2 Typical Delphi Procedure ................................................................................................. 23
3.2.1 Number of Delphi Rounds .................................................................................... 24
3.2.2 Defining Expertise and Selecting the Number of Participants ............................. 24
3.2.3 Survey Structure and Evaluation .......................................................................... 26
3.2.4 Statistical Methods ................................................................................................ 28
3.2.5 Feedback Provided to Delphi Experts ................................................................... 32
3.3 FOT Delphi Procedure ...................................................................................................... 33
3.3.1 Objective 1: Explore main issues of FOT operations ........................................... 33
3.3.2 Objective 2: Build and Evaluate FOT Operating Strategies for the GTHA ......... 36
Chapter 4: Survey Process ............................................................................................................ 40
4.1 Web Based Survey ............................................................................................................ 40
4.2 Recruiting Experts and Minimizing Non-Response and Attrition .................................... 41
4.3 Survey Design ................................................................................................................... 42
4.4 Survey 1 ............................................................................................................................ 43
4.4.1 Layout ................................................................................................................... 44
4.4.2 Pretesting ............................................................................................................... 48
4.4.3 Delivery ................................................................................................................. 51
4.5 Survey 2 ............................................................................................................................ 52
4.5.1 Layout ................................................................................................................... 57
4.5.2 Pretesting ............................................................................................................... 60
4.5.3 Delivery ................................................................................................................. 63
4.6 Survey 3 ............................................................................................................................ 64
4.6.1 Layout ................................................................................................................... 66
4.6.2 Pretesting ............................................................................................................... 69
4.6.3 Delivery ................................................................................................................. 71
Chapter 5: Results and Analysis ................................................................................................... 72
vi
5.1 Response and Retention Rates .......................................................................................... 72
5.2 Demographics of Expert Panel ......................................................................................... 73
5.3 FOT Issues ........................................................................................................................ 76
5.3.1 FOT Positive Impacts ........................................................................................... 77
5.3.2 FOT Negative Impacts .......................................................................................... 81
5.3.3 FOT Challenges .................................................................................................... 86
5.3.4 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 91
5.4 FOT Strategy Building and Evaluation ............................................................................. 92
5.4.1 Strategy Building .................................................................................................. 92
5.4.2 Proposed FOT Strategies ...................................................................................... 98
5.4.3 Final Strategy Evaluations .................................................................................. 107
5.4.4 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................... 108
Chapter 6: Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 110
6.1 The Delphi Method ......................................................................................................... 110
6.2 Freight on Transit ............................................................................................................ 111
6.3 Future Work .................................................................................................................... 112
References ................................................................................................................................... 114
vii
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of Existing FOT Operations ......................................................................... 12
Table 3-1 Interpretation of Kendall's W ....................................................................................... 29
Table 3-2 Derivation of R ............................................................................................................. 31
Table 4-1 Survey 1 Drafts and Final Version ............................................................................... 48
Table 4-2 Survey 1 Response Frequencies ................................................................................... 54
Table 4-3 Survey 2 Drafts and Final Version ............................................................................... 61
Table 4-4 FOT Performance Criteria and Links to Survey 2 Items .............................................. 67
Table 5-1 Retention Rates by Round ............................................................................................ 72
Table 5-2 Round 1 FOT Positive Impacts .................................................................................... 77
Table 5-3 Round 2 FOT Positive Impacts Statistical Summary ................................................... 78
Table 5-4 Round 2 FOT Positive Impacts Response Frequencies ................................................ 80
Table 5-5 Round 3 FOT Positive Impacts Statistical Summary ................................................... 81
Table 5-6 FOT Positive Impacts Changes Between Rounds ........................................................ 81
Table 5-7 Round 1 FOT Negative Impacts ................................................................................... 82
Table 5-8 Round 2 FOT Negative Impacts Statistical Summary ................................................. 83
Table 5-9 Round 2 FOT Negative Impacts Response Frequencies .............................................. 84
Table 5-10 Round 3 FOT Negative Impacts Statistical Summary ............................................... 85
Table 5-11 FOT Negative Impacts Changes Between Rounds .................................................... 85
Table 5-12 Round 1 FOT Challenges ........................................................................................... 87
viii
Table 5-13 Round 2 FOT Challenges Statistical Summary .......................................................... 88
Table 5-14 Round 2 FOT Challenges Response Frequencies ...................................................... 89
Table 5-15 Round 3 FOT Challenges Statistical Summary .......................................................... 90
Table 5-16 FOT Challenges Changes Between Rounds ............................................................... 90
Table 5-17 Round 1 FOT Goods Types ........................................................................................ 93
Table 5-18 Round 2 FOT Goods Types Statistical Summary ...................................................... 93
Table 5-19 Survey 2 FOT Design Decisions - Feasibility ............................................................ 95
Table 5-20 Survey 2 FOT Design Decisions - Desirability .......................................................... 95
Table 5-21 FOT Operating Strategies and Links to Round 2 Inputs ............................................ 97
Table 5-22 Summary of Proposed FOT Operations ..................................................................... 99
Table 5-23 FOT Strategies Final Rankings ................................................................................ 108
ix
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-2 Key Delphi Features .................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3-3 Criteria Motivating a Delphi Study ............................................................................. 19
Figure 3-4 Typical Objectives of a Policy Delphi ........................................................................ 20
Figure 3-5 Delphi Strengths and Weaknesses .............................................................................. 22
Figure 3-6 Typical Delphi Process ............................................................................................... 23
Figure 3-7 Defining and Motivating Delphi Experts .................................................................... 25
Figure 3-8 KRNW for FOT Delphi Expert Recruitment .............................................................. 26
Figure 3-9 Sorted Rankings for Calculation of W ........................................................................ 30
Figure 3-10 Statistics Used ........................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3-11 FOT Delphi Survey Process ...................................................................................... 34
Figure 3-12 Likert Scales for Questions 2.1-2.3 ........................................................................... 35
Figure 3-13 Feasibility and Desirability Scale .............................................................................. 37
Figure 3-14 FOT Design Decisions: Questions 2.5-2.9 ................................................................ 38
Figure 4-1 FOT Delphi Survey 1 .................................................................................................. 44
Figure 4-2 Timing of Survey 1 Responses ................................................................................... 52
Figure 4-3 FOT Delphi Survey 2 .................................................................................................. 53
Figure 4-4 Question 2.1 - FOT Positive Impacts .......................................................................... 55
Figure 4-5 Question 2.2 - FOT Negative Impacts ........................................................................ 55
x
Figure 4-6 Question 2.3 - FOT Challenges ................................................................................... 56
Figure 4-7 Question 2.4 - FOT Goods .......................................................................................... 56
Figure 4-8 Likert Scale Modifications .......................................................................................... 63
Figure 4-9 Timing of Survey 2 Responses ................................................................................... 64
Figure 4-10 FOT Delphi Survey 3 ................................................................................................ 65
Figure 4-11 Timing of Survey 3 Responses ................................................................................. 71
Figure 5-1 Delphi Participants by Highest Degree Earned ........................................................... 73
Figure 5-2 Delphi Participants by Area of Expertise .................................................................... 74
Figure 5-3 Delphi Participants by Workplace Sector ................................................................... 75
Figure 5-4 Delphi Participants by Years of Work Experience ..................................................... 76
Figure 5-5 The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area .................................................................... 98
Figure 5-6 Air Rail Mail ............................................................................................................. 100
Figure 5-7 Paper Train ................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 5-8 Mall Haul .................................................................................................................. 103
Figure 5-9 Liquor Line ................................................................................................................ 104
Figure 5-10 Commuter Rail Mail ............................................................................................... 106
xi
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Survey 1 ................................................................................................................ 122
Appendix B: Survey 2 ................................................................................................................. 134
Appendix C: Survey 3 ................................................................................................................. 146
Appendix D: Invitation Email ..................................................................................................... 163
Appendix E: FOT Delphi Video Script ...................................................................................... 164
Appendix F: Recruitment Postcard ............................................................................................. 167
xii
List of Acronyms/Variables
3PL – Third Party Logistics
ARL – Air Rail Link
CBD – Central Business District
FOT – Freight on Transit
FOT-EX – Freight on Existing Public Transit Trips
FOT-NEW – New Freight Trips on Existing Public Transit Infrastructure
GTHA – Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
IQR – Interquartile Range
KRNW – Knowledge Resource Nomination Worksheet
LOS – Level of Service
PPP – Public Private Partnership
RAND – Research and Development Corporation
SD – Standard Deviation
TTC – Toronto Transit Commission
W – Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Urban goods movement is of considerable interest to transportation planners due to its
central role in the urban economy as well as the detrimental effects of truck movements on the
transportation network including congestion, emissions, noise pollution, and pavement damage.
Meanwhile, public transit agencies possess assets such as stations, transit vehicles and rail
networks that sit underutilized outside of peak periods. With space in urban areas at such a
premium, it might be worth exploring opportunities to use public transit infrastructure for goods
movement as a means of minimizing the impact of freight operations and increasing the
efficiency of existing infrastructure. This study begins with a description of both freight and
transit operations and some of the factors promoting their integration.
1.1 Urban Goods Movement
Urban goods movement, or freight transportation, is defined as any commercial or service
trip on the transportation network with its origin and/or destination inside an urban area
(Metrolinx 2011). This includes the transportation of construction materials, courier movements,
garbage collection, etc. Goods movement trips are usually split among the four major modes:
air, rail, road, and marine, but also include pipeline transport and active modes like walking and
cycling. Marine and rail are common modes for long haul trips but trucks dominate “last mile”
deliveries to final destinations, especially in urban areas. It is estimated that anywhere from 70-
90% of all freight movements in urban areas in Europe and North America are done by trucks
(Larsson and Gotland 2009; Metrolinx 2010). Trucks are the vehicle of choice for “last mile”
trips because they are flexible, cheap, and can make use of existing road infrastructure.
Operating trucks in urban areas comes with many challenges including inefficiencies,
accessibility issues, insufficient infrastructure, and a lack of consideration during the
transportation planning process (OECD 2003). Trucks usually operate at low profit margins and
due to a scattered customer base are forced to move empty for a large portion of the time. For
even the most efficient companies, 20% of truck miles are driven by empty trucks with the
percentage as high as 50% for inefficient firms (Rowinski, Ya and Boile 2001). The lack of
consideration for goods movement in land use and transportation planning leads to further
2
difficulties for trucks in urban areas including increased travel time and fuel consumption due to
a lack of parking, having to park far away from final destinations, and the high costs of parking
fines which can be a multimillion dollar expense for lager companies (Haider 2009).
Trucks are also extremely harmful to both the environment and the transportation
network. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 2011 Mobility Report estimates that though
trucks only account for about 6% of miles travelled in urban areas, they are responsible for
nearly 26% of congestion due to their size and driving patterns like wide turning movements and
curbside loading and unloading (Schrank, Lomax and Eisele 2011). Congestion leads to huge
costs with the largest components being time delays, fuel costs and costs related to greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. Congestion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) is
estimated to cost the regional economy roughly $6 billion every year (Toronto Board of Trade
2011). TTI reports even larger annual congestion costs from $8-$11 billion for the three largest
American cities (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles), and annual congestion delays of up to 50
hours per person living in these areas (Metrolinx and HDR 2008; Schrank et al. 2011). Trucks
have negative impacts in other areas as well including safety, as nearly 20% of road fatalities are
due to heavy truck collisions and pavement damage, as a single loaded 102’ truck wears out
roadways as much as 10,000 passenger cars (Bjorner 1999; Transport Canada 2010).
1.2 Public Transit Operations
Public transit, or public transportation, includes a variety of shared passenger
transportation services available for use by the general public, including buses, streetcars,
subways, ferries and their variations. The main benefits of public transit include congestion
reduction, energy and GHG reductions, lower road maintenance costs, increased road safety, and
increased social mobility (Litman 2012). The main costs include infrastructure and capital costs
as well as operating costs which are primarily made up of labour, fuel, and vehicle and network
maintenance costs. Public transit agencies generate revenue mostly through ticket sales,
advertisements, and government subsidies. Governments justify subsidizing transit to mobilize
citizens who are unable to afford automobiles; to reduce congestion, emissions, and road
maintenance costs; and to renew urban areas and promote economic growth (Cox and O'Toole
2004).
3
Operating an efficient public transit system is extremely challenging due to high
operating costs, fluctuating ridership and high passenger demands. Agencies struggle to cover
operating costs through fare revenue with fare box recovery ratios, the ratio of revenue generated
by fares to operating costs, in large North American cities ranging anywhere from 36% for the
New York City Metro Transit Authority (MTA) to 83.6% for GO Transit in the GTHA (Taylor
and Lindquist 2009). The remainder of costs is covered through advertising and government
subsidies, but if subsidies are not sufficient, agencies must reduce trip frequencies or eliminate
services altogether. Travel patterns make it difficult to keep operations financially viable as a
high proportion of transit riders are commuters producing heavy one way passenger flows
between suburbs and downtown areas in the morning and afternoon peaks. The high levels of
ridership are not sustained outside of these periods meaning vehicles run with low levels of
ridership while others will travel empty (deadhead) to storage yards or facilities and sit idle
between peak periods (Kim 2003). These travel patterns also result in fluctuating labour
requirements with labour costs making up the largest proportion of operating costs. Unions and
labour contracts often limit or prohibit split shifts and part time labour resulting in operations
that underutilize human capital as well as physical infrastructure (Taylor, Iseki and Garrett
2000).
1.3 Research Questions and Objectives
Both freight and public transit operations come with a variety of challenges, many of
which present opportunities for collaborative efforts that could benefit both sides. Moving
freight on underutilized public transit vehicles and networks could save money for freight
operators and provide revenue for transit agencies while minimizing the impacts of trucks on the
transportation network and environment. Freight vehicles have difficulty accessing downtown
areas – the same areas that are well served by public transit, but could freight service be added to
transit vehicles without hurting passenger operations? While there are potential benefits, are
they worth the associated costs and risks? In order for operations to work, infrastructure
upgrades would be needed in stations and on transit vehicles not intended to move goods; with
freight operators operating at low profit margins and transit agencies operating at a deficit, where
would this money come from? Freight operators and transit agencies operate with highly
different objectives with the former looking to maximize profit and the latter primarily looking to
4
provide a social need serving transit riders. Would these two contrasting groups be able to work
together to plan, design, and operate a service that works for both parties? What kind of goods
would be suitable for these operations? What kind of transit vehicles?
This thesis attempts to answer these and other questions related to Freight on Transit
(FOT), which is defined as follows:
Freight on Transit: a trip that uses public transit vehicles or infrastructure to move
things other than people
While FOT is a new term, it is not an entirely new concept and has been referred to
previously as light rail freight (Arvidsson 2010), cargo tram operations (Regue and Bristow
2012), shared track operations (Resor 2003) and mixed goods service (Sivakumaran, Lu and
Hanson 2010). FOT includes all of these and more. It can mean moving goods alongside
passengers on buses, attaching cargo trailers to transit vehicles, operating freight vehicles
between transit trips on subway lines, etc.
There are relatively few examples of FOT worldwide, and even fewer in North America,
because many practitioners are resistant to the idea of combining goods and passenger
movements as it is not central to the mandates of public transit agencies, involves the
cooperation of conflicting stakeholders, and is perceived as a large shift in the freight industry
which can be resistant to change. Transit operators might not comprehend how goods movement
could coexist with passenger operations on transit networks, while freight professionals might
not realize either the potential or the limitations of using transit networks as a part of their supply
chains. Because of the unconventional nature of FOT and the opposing goals of stakeholders, it
is difficult to connect necessary decision makers especially when performing day to day
operations, whether as a public transit agency or freight forwarder, can be extremely challenging
on its own.
In this study, the Delphi method was used to engage a heterogeneous group of
transportation experts from academia, government and the private sector with expertise in
freight, public transit, airport planning, intelligent transportation systems, urban planning, and
economics in order to explore FOT, compile a body of FOT knowledge and develop FOT
expertise. The Delphi is a multi-round, anonymous, iterative survey process that can be used to
5
generate a consensus or “generate the strongest possible opposing views on the resolution of a
policy issue” with this study using it for the latter application (Turoff 1971). The FOT Delphi
Study had two primary research objectives:
To explore the most important issues surrounding FOT operations (positive impacts,
negative impacts, challenges)
To build and evaluate potential FOT operating strategies in the Greater Toronto and
Hamilton Area
A traditional Delphi process was used to accomplish the first research objective while the
second objective was achieved using a modified version of the Delphi method and scenario
building techniques to design FOT operations based on the aggregate group opinion of the
heterogeneous expert panel. Both objectives were carried out in parallel on three separate web
based surveys with each successive survey being designed based on responses from previous
rounds. The final result were lists of the main positive impacts, negative impacts, and challenges
of FOT operations; five potential FOT operating strategies using transit networks in the GTHA;
and an evaluation of the GTHA’s potential for FOT.
1.4 Thesis Structure
Chapter 1 introduced the motivation for studying the integration of freight and transit
operations, the main research objectives and the selection of the Delphi method. Chapter 2
provides a summary of existing and theoretical FOT operations as well as a literature review of
other studies using the Delphi method to study transportation. Chapter 3 presents the research
method including the standard Delphi procedure and key methodological decisions, while
chapter 4 gives a detailed description of the three FOT Delphi surveys. Survey results are
analyzed and discussed in chapter 5 and chapter 6 concludes with a summary of key findings, an
evaluation of the survey process, and future directions for FOT both in general and in the GTHA.
6
2 Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Existing FOT Operations Though there are several operations that integrate passengers and goods movement on the
same networks and/or vehicles, this is the first to refer to them all collectively as FOT. Many of
the following FOT operations were found through literature review while others were related by
Delphi panel members enforcing the notion that a Delphi process can “provide a more updated
exchange of scientific or technical information than a literature search by drawing upon current
knowledge of experts” (Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson 1975). For the purposes of this
study, FOT operations are divided into two types: those that move freight using existing public
transit trips (FOT-EX) and those that move freight using new trips on public transit infrastructure
(FOT-NEW).
2.1.1 FOT-EX: Freight on Existing Public Transit Trips
FOT-EX operations increase the efficiency of transit trips by adding freight to passenger
service. Goods may be located alongside passengers, in separate cargo areas, or in trailers
attached to the vehicle. They may be operated by a public transit agency or the arrangement may
be informal, with users taking advantage of the speed, price, and convenience of public transit
when transporting smaller items in congested areas. Notable FOT-EX operations include:
Greyhound Courier Express (Canada) / Greyhound Package Express (USA) –
Greyhound is an intercity bus operator that offers courier services within Canada and the USA
with parcels travelling in luggage bays or cargo trailers. The service is an add-on to generate
revenue and offset the high cost per passenger mile on rural routes while providing deliveries to
areas not typically served by express carriers (Lindly and Hill 2002). Greyhound has the most
expansive package service in North America but other intercity bus operators carry packages
with some reporting freight revenue exceeding revenue generated by ticket sales (Higgins,
Warner and Morgan 2011). Most of the revenue generated from bus parcel service is from
business to business deliveries (Greyhound 2012). No examples were found of North American
regional or local transit agencies currently offering parcel services, but GO Transit, the inter-
regional public transit system in the GTHA, used to deliver parcels on buses before the service
was discontinued in the 1970s (Armstrong 2012).
7
Matkahuolto (Finland) – Besides intercity deliveries, the Finnish bus operating
conglomerate, Matkahuolto, offers local courier service to roughly 10,100 locations across the
country as owners of almost 400 municipal and regional bus companies (Niemimukko 2011).
Matkauholto`s freight service takes advantage of existing infrastructure as nearly 85% of public
transit trips in Finland (outside of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area) are made by bus (Linja-
Autolitto 2012). This additional revenue is used to improve passenger services, and freight
capabilities strengthen the business case for adding new routes to less populated areas. Though
drop-offs and pickups are usually made at registered agencies, customers may also give packages
right to the driver making network coverage nearly ubiquitous in both urban and rural areas
(Matkahuolto 2009).
ic:kurier (Germany) – ic:kurier, operated by Lufthansa Cargo is the most notable FOT-
EX operation using a rail network by means of an official agreement by partnering with
Deutsche Bahn, the German national railway company (Lufthansa Cargo 2012). ic:kurier offers
regular and frequent same-day delivery of high-value documents to 140 locations in Germany as
well as to Vienna and Paris. Deliveries are insensitive to weather and traffic conditions and
competitive to air service in terms of both cost and time. As packages are monitored by train
operators, the service requires no vehicle upgrades. VIA Rail, Canada’s national railway and
Amtrak, the intercity rail operator in the USA offer package services to their customers called
VIAPAQ and Amtrak Express, respectively (VIA Rail 2012; Amtrak 2012). VIAPAQ offers
same day deliveries but the trips are not nearly as frequent as the 20+ daily trips offered between
certain routes by ic:kurier and Amtrak express does not offer same day deliveries with transit
times listed anywhere between 3-7 days (VIA Rail 2012; Lufthansa Cargo 2012; Amtrak 2012).
A-Way Express (Toronto, Canada) – A-Way Express is one of at least four Toronto-
based courier companies that uses public transit to make deliveries, giving couriers a transit pass,
or metropass, rather than a bike or car (A-Way Express 2012). Metropasser couriers provide low
emissions, cheap, and fast deliveries, especially during congested periods while avoiding
variable fuel and parking costs associated with van and truck operations. Good Foot Delivery
and Greenteam Courier are other Toronto companies that use metropassers while QA Courier
employs them in multiple Canadian cities (Good Foot Delivery 2012; Greenteam Courier 2012;
QA Courier 2012).
8
JogPost/DHL (London, England) – A unique application of metropasser deliveries was
implemented by the German logistics company, DHL and Jogpost, a British pamphlet distributer,
during the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London. Jogging couriers using the public
transit network were able to make deliveries as usual without adding to or being affected by the
30% increase in roadway traffic related to the Games (Logistics Manager 2012). It is expected
that metropassers operate in many other cities and countries but no information was found on
their operations.
Dabbawala (Mumbai, India) – The Dabbawala are a team of roughly 5,000 deliverymen
moving 200,000 hot lunches prepared in the suburbs by office workers’ wives to their husbands
in the urban core of Mumbai (Patel and Vedula 2006). The multimodal supply chain uses the
suburban rail network for long haul distances moving large volumes of aluminum lunch boxes,
or “tiffins”, outside of crowded AM peak periods with first and last mile legs being done by
walking or cycling couriers. The impressive supply chain, which is reported to have only one
error for every sixteen million deliveries, is made up of a “complex series of collection zones,
sorting points, and delivery zones supported only by a manual coding system … made up of only
numbers and colors because 50% of the employees are illiterate” (Moore 2011) . The success of
the Dabbawala shows the ability of FOT-EX operations to capitalize on the unique
characteristics of the transportation network, travel patterns, and human capital to provide a
niche service while minimizing the impact of deliveries.
Other FOT-EX operations may exist informally or even illegally but these are the most
notable.
2.1.2 FOT-NEW: New Freight Trips on Existing Public Transit Infrastructure
FOT-NEW operations differ from FOT-EX as they move freight on new trips using
public transit infrastructure. The following examples are exclusively rail operations as no
examples of FOT-NEW operations were found using buses. FOT-NEW is typically higher
impact and more expensive than FOT-EX and requires official partnerships or lease agreements
between shippers and transit agencies as well as moderate-to-heavy investment in spur tracks,
vehicles, and/or vehicle modifications. The main advantages of FOT-NEW are reduced
congestion, emissions, delivery time, and delivery costs. Following are notable operations, many
9
of which have been investigated more closely by Arvidsson (2010) and Regue and Bristow
(2012).
CarGo Tram (Dresden, Germany) – The CarGo Tram, operated by auto manufacturer
Volkswagen in cooperation with DVB, Dresden’s public transit operator, moves car parts
between a distribution center and a factory along a four kilometer section of the passenger tram
network with spur connections to the two activity nodes. Each 60-meter long CarGo Tram runs
between passenger trams during service hours carrying up to 60 tons of goods, eliminating three
truck movements with each trip (Arvidsson 2010). The CarGo Tram has never disrupted
passenger travel, is competitive with trucks, and was built with minimal initial investment due to
the proximal locations of the activity nodes to the tram network (Regue and Bristow 2012). The
operation was motivated by Volkswagen’s desire to construct a “transparent factory” where
people could witness the car manufacturing process from start to finish. Serving the factory by
CarGo Tram was the only way to allow for an attractive location without generating truck trips in
a downtown core highly sensitive to congestion (DVB 2012).
Cargotram (Zurich, Switzerland) – The Zurich Cargotram, a partnership between the
city’s tram operator and waste collection agency, moves bulky garbage and recyclables from
drop-off points to processing plants located near the tram network. The trams are faster and
cheaper than garbage trucks, operating in a dedicated right of way, free of congestion related
costs and delays (Arvidsson 2010). The Cargotram has annual savings of 37,500 liters of diesel
and 5 tons of CO2 from the elimination of 5,000 km of truck trips and 960 hours of idle time,
numbers that do not include savings related to the elimination of passenger trips to and from
waste processing plants (Neuhold 2005). This operation had low start-up costs (~32,000 €) due
to the existing network alignment and the conversion of retired passenger trams into waste
carrying vehicles (Neuhold 2005).
Guterbim (Vienna, Austria) – Seeing the success of operations in Zurich and Dresden,
Vienna’s public transit agency piloted a freight tram operation, the Guterbim, in 2005, using it to
transport spare vehicle parts between a warehouse and maintenance facilities (Ehrilch 2012).
Despite a successful pilot, the agency had no success partnering with retailers as capital costs
required contracts longer than anyone was willing to sign (Arvidsson 2010). That and a lack of
political backing halted Guterbim operations though the trams themselves are still functional
(Regue and Bristow 2012).
10
Tramfret (Paris, France) – The Paris Transport Authority and the Ile de France Regional
Transport Authority launched a successful freight tram pilot test in 2011, inserting empty trams
into an 8 km section of the passenger network (Alcaraz 2012). A survey of shippers will be
launched in early 2013 to assess shipper interest making Paris poised to become the next city
making deliveries using FOT-NEW (RFF 2012). Supporters of Tramfret are hopeful that a
suitable private partner will be identified as the Ile de France Regional Transport Authority has
authority over nearly 100 km of tram lines in Paris, allowing for a range of potential
collaborators (Alcaraz 2012).
City Cargo (Amsterdam, Netherlands) – City Cargo was an attempt to implement freight
tram delivery in combination with electric vehicles for last mile trips to supply shops in
downtown Amsterdam (Arvidsson 2010). According to initial feasibility studies “up to half of
[truck] movements in the city could be replaced by trams thus cutting pollution 20%” (Chiffi
2007). These claims and a successful pilot test in 2007 led to considerable interest and financial
support as City Cargo generated over 69 million Euros from investors. The operation eventually
failed when the tram operator, GVB, who were leasing the lines to City Cargo, demanded the
construction of additional tracks to eliminate the risk of passenger disruptions. Unable to afford
the upgrades or convince or the city to subsidize the additional 5.6 million Euros required to
meet GVB’s demands, City Cargo went bankrupt in 2009 (Chiffi 2007).
Garbage Subways (New York, USA) – New York’s MTA uses late night system
downtime and modified subways to empty 90 tons of garbage from subway stations every day.
Each of the eight garbage trains consists of three flatbed cars containing rows of wheeled
dumpsters connected to gutted passenger cars that serve as staff rooms for cleaning crews.
While the garbage trains have a positive effect on both congestion and emissions, they bring
some negative impacts as their arrival is an annoyance for passengers waiting for trains late at
night and their presence contributes to rodent infestations in the network (Donohue 2011)
Toronto had a similar operation emptying garbage from stations using gutted subways but
switched to truck operations in 2000 when one of them caught fire destroying the train and
damaging a station (Bateman 2012).
San Diego Imperial Valley (San Diego, USA) – San Diego Imperial Valley Rail Road
(SDIV) is a short haul freight mover that shares tracks with the San Diego Trolley, a light rail
system operated by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (Union Pacific 2012). It is the
11
most notable shared track operation in the USA made possible by a waiver granted by the
Federal Railway Administration (FRA) that allows freight movements on public transit tracks so
long as freight and transit vehicles do not occupy the tracks at the same time (Resor 2003). The
temporal separation specified in the FRA waiver limits freight services to short time windows at
night, leaving SDIV only enough time to send a single freight train carrying sand, aggregate and
other materials between San Diego and a transfer station near the Mexican Border between 1
AM and 4 AM each morning (Domen 2012). The San Diego Trolley lines were built as
exclusively freight corridors, then switched to shared use when the trolley system was built in
1981 (Resor 2003). As of 2008 there were 9 such shared track operations in the USA with SDIV
being the most notable and moving the most freight on urban transit lines (Pritchard 2008).
While other passenger rail systems share tracks with freight trains, SDIV operations are unique
in that the shared operations occur on lines used by light rail transit vehicles as opposed to
operations like GO Transit in Toronto, and other intercity rail operators where freight trains
share tracks with heavy rail passenger trains. Table 2-1 summarizes notable FOT-EX and FOT-
NEW operations.
2.1.3 Transit on Freight
In many ways, operations like SDIV and GO Transit are more transit on freight than
freight on transit as transit service was added to lines originally used to move freight, leading to
freight services eventually being almost or completely replaced by passenger operations, a
practice that is a feature of many of the operations under the FRA shared track waiver (Resor
2003). Certain European cities have used freight lines to create versatile passenger networks
without having to reduce or limit freight service, most notably in Karlsruhe, Germany where
“tram-trains” operate on light rail tram lines in the urban center and seamlessly connect to heavy
rail freight lines in the countryside where they act as commuter rail vehicles. This allows people
living in the suburbs access to high order urban transit without having to transfer between trains
(Chisholm 2002). While worth mentioning, this creative use of freight infrastructure to move
passengers is beyond the scope of this study of creative ways to use transit infrastructure to move
freight.
12
Table 2-1 Summary of Existing FOT Operations
Operation
(Location)
FOT-EX /
FOT-NEWGoods moved Service area Cargo Location Status?
Similar
operations
Greyhound
Courier and
Package Express(Canada, USA)
FOT-EXPackages and
parcels up to
100 lb
2,300 rural and urban
destinations in North
America
Trailers attached to
buses or bus luggage
bays
OngoingMany
intercity bus
operators
Mathkahuolto
(Finland)FOT-EX
Packages and
parcels up to 55
kg
2,000 urban and rural
destinations in Finland
Bus luggage bays or
near bus driverOngoing N/A
ic:Kurier
(Germany)FOT-EX
Packages and
parcels up 25 kg
140 Stations in
Germany; Paris and
Vienna
Separate area in
passenger coachOngoing
-VIAPAQ
-Amtrak
Express
A Way Express
(Toronto) FOT-EX
Packages up to
15 lb
Areas in Toronto served
by rapid transit network
Couriers riding transit
vehiclesOngoing
-Good Foot
-QA
-Greenteam
DHL/JOGPOST
(London)FOT-EX
Package that can
be lifted by
couriers
Areas in London served
by rapid transit network
Couriers riding transit
vehicles
Operational
during 2012
Olympics
N/A
Dabbawala
(Mumbai)FOT-EX Hot lunches
Office buildings in
Mumbai
Delivery men riding
transit vehiclesOngoing N/A
CarGo Tram
(Dresden)FOT-NEW Car parts
Factory and distribution
centerFreight only tram Ongoing N/A
Cargotram
(Zurich)FOT-NEW
Recylables and
electronic waste
9 collection points and 1
recycling plant
Garbage bins hauled
by tramOngoing N/A
Guterbim
(Vienna)FOT-NEW
Spare transit
parts
Garage and satellite
maintenance facilitiesFreight only tram
Stalled after
2005 pilot-Tramfret
Tramfret
(Paris)FOT-NEW
Retail
(proposed)
Downtown Paris
(proposed)Freight only tram
Identifying
private sector
partners
-Guterbim
City Cargo
(Amsterdam)FOT-NEW
Food to shops
and
Supermarkets
Downtown Amsterdam Freight only tram Bankrupt N/A
MTA Garbage
Metro
(New York)
FOT-NEWWaste from
Subway Stations
New York City Subway
Stations
Dumpsters on flatbed
carsOngoing
-Toronto
Tokyo Rose
Imperial Valley
Railroad
(San Diego)
FOT-NEWVarious – sand,
aggregate,
lumber, etc.
Downtown San Diego
with connection to
Mexican Border
Freight Train Ongoing-8 others
under FRA
waiver
13
2.2 Proposed FOT Operations
Other researchers have explored freight and transit integration, advocating and/or
demonstrating the feasibility of FOT in Barcelona, San Francisco and Gothenburg. An economic
feasibility study of two freight tram operations in Barcelona found that a garbage tram had rapid
return on investment (ROI) while trams serving malls would only be feasible with subsidies
(Regue and Bristow 2012). Another study modeling the movement of express air packages
between airports and sorting hubs using the Bay Area Rapid Transit Network (BART) in San
Francisco showed that with a high initial investment and guaranteed demand, the service would
save money compared to trucking but would not largely reduce congestion (Sivakumaran et al.
2010). As with the Barcelona study, the FOT scenario in San Francisco would only be feasible if
subsidies were provided with ROI increasing with increased subsidies. Finally, after an in-depth
investigation of the reasons for the failure of Amsterdam City Cargo, Arvidsson (2010) presents
a strategy for developing a potentially zero emissions freight operation in Gothenburg, Sweden.
He argues that an operation similar to City Cargo would be feasible on the well developed tram
network in Gothenburg but would be more likely to succeed if it were small scale, open source,
and made use of “roll on roll off” transfers between freight trams and electric distribution
vehicles.
2.3 Summary of Findings As seen from existing operations, successful FOT operations tend to focus on either
specific or small commodities, take advantage of existing infrastructure to minimize startup
costs, and/or operate at times when networks are not crowded - meaning outside of AM and PM
peak periods. More recent successes have been FOT-NEW operations in Dresden and Zurich
while FOT-EX operations such as the intercity bus parcel and metropasser models have been
profitable for decades. Perhaps the most complex and famous operation is also the most
enduring as the Dabbawala of Mumbai have operated for over 125 years (Patel and Vedula
2006).
The failed operations in Amsterdam and Vienna attempted to emulate successful
cargotram models in Dresden and Zurich but lacked key elements that made the latter two
successful. Clearly, having a well-developed tram network and advocates championing the
operation is not enough to make FOT work as both Vienna Guterbim and Amsterdam City Cargo
14
failed due mainly to internal barriers like a lack of focus, a lack of support, and difficulty
coordinating multiple stakeholders. Proponents of Vienna Guterbim likely figured their
successful pilot test would attract investors but could find none able to meet the length or terms
of contracts necessary for infrastructure upgrades. Had City Cargo not set the lofty goal of
eliminating 50% of truck movements during feasibility studies and started smaller scale, they
likely would have been able to meet the financial demands of the tram operator. For this reason,
proponents of Paris Tramfret are approaching implementation with caution and engaging private
sector partners before making any major investments. Even the trams run during pilot testing
were regular passenger trams. Economic analyses of FOT-NEW freight tram operations all seem
to come to the conclusion that subsidies are needed for operations to succeed which motivates
the claim made by Arvidsson (2010) that an open source freight tram system would be best. The
government could not justify providing subsidies to a single company but might be able to justify
subsidizing a system that could be used by multiple freight operators, similar to the way that
governments subsidize roads used by multiple trucking companies. Such an operation would
have to be carefully thought out and managed in order to be able to function without disrupting
passenger travel.
The diversity of existing operations in terms of logistics, vehicle type, hours of operation,
commodities carried, etc. indicates that each transit network may show potential for widely
different FOT operations showing little resemblance to those listed. An FOT system in a
different city might have an entirely different impact on the network and come with an entirely
new set of challenges not accounted for previously. The author chose to conduct a Delphi study
to verify claims made about FOT, identify issues not revealed in previous studies, and develop
new and innovative FOT operations.
2.4 The Delphi Method
The Delphi method, or Delphi technique, is a research tool that was first developed by
researchers at the Research and Development Corporation (RAND) in the 1950’s as a
forecasting tool for the United States’ military to predict the impacts of emerging technologies
on future warfare (Stitt-Gohdes and Crews 2004). The Delphi method uses multiple surveys and
iterative feedback to generate consensus among a group of experts. On the first questionnaire,
individuals are asked to respond to broad questions and each subsequent questionnaire is built
15
upon these responses creating an iterative process that continues until consensus has been
obtained, enough information has been generated, or a pre-defined stopping point is reached
process (Delbecq et. al 1975; Dalkey 1969).
Since its origins as a forecasting tool, the Delphi method has evolved into a versatile
research technique that can be applied in a number of different situations. In the late 1960s,
Linstone and Turoff (1975) developed a method for using the Delphi for evaluating policy
decisions. While the traditional Delphi attempts to generate consensus among a group experts,
the Policy Delphi “seeks to generate the strongest possible opposing views on the potential
resolution of a major policy issue” (Linstone and Turoff 1975). The following key distinction
separates the Policy Delphi from the traditional Delphi:
“The Policy Delphi … rests on the premise that the decision maker is not interested in having a
group generate his decision; but rather have an informed group present all the options and
supporting evidence for his consideration.” (Linstone and Turoff 1975, 80)
A third variation of the Delphi, called the Decision Delphi, was proposed by Rauch
(1979) who suggested that the Delphi could be used to make actual policy decisions by
populating the expert panel with panelists who are recruited not because of their expertise but
with regard to their actual position in the decision making hierarchy. By carrying out a Delphi
process with participants that have the authority to make decisions, “reality is not predicted or
described: it is made” (Rauch 1979).
Following the first public description of the Delphi method in 1964 and the development
of the policy and decision Delphi techniques in the 1970s, the Delphi has been used to perform
research in a variety of fields including curriculum development, nursing, knowledge sciences,
information technology, accounting, psychology, career development and urban planning, to
name a few (Novakowski and Wellar 2008). Robust compilations of studies using the Delphi for
undergraduate, graduate, and corporate research have been compiled by Skulmoski et al. (2007),
Linstone and Turoff (1975) and Dfouni (2002). This work will limit its review of other Delphi
studies to those that employed it in the fields of transportation, logistics, and scenario building –
subjects all closely related to the primary research objectives. Some of the previous
16
transportation, logistics, and scenario building Delphi studies provided useful research
techniques while others indirectly hinted at the emergence of FOT.
2.4.1 The Delphi Method for Transportation and Logistics Planning
Starting in the field of logistics, von der Gracht and Darkow (2010) used the traditional
Delphi method and a group of 30 logistics professionals to predict the future of the global
logistics industry. Experts were presented with a list of 30 scenarios and were asked to rate each
in terms of likelihood, impact, and desirability (von der Gracht 2008). Modified versions of
these scales were used in this study to determine the most desirable aspects of FOT operations.
A larger scale logistics Delphi was conducted by DHL to predict global developments, habits of
future customers and how logistics will be altered in the coming years. 81 statements were
presented to participants who estimated the likelihood of each occurring over forecasting periods
of 5, 10, and 10+ years (Deutsche Post DHL 2009). While nowhere in these 81 statements was
there a direct mention of FOT, certain scenarios rated as “likely to occur” by the expert panel
would certainly encourage it, including a doubling in oil prices by 2015, the emergence of
renewable technologies, a shift towards competitors collaborating to achieve sustainability, the
emergence of zero-emissions cities, and a willingness of the consumer to pay more for “green”
products and services (Deutsche Post DHL 2009). A final study using the forecasting Delphi to
study the future of freight resulted in experts predicting the future mode split of trucks would
drop from 64% in 2006 to 59% in 2020. At first glance this result seems to encourage FOT
uptake, but a reported standard deviation of 6% shows a large degree of uncertainty regarding the
future of the logistics industry (Piecyk and McKinnon 2010).
Transportation planning Delphi studies were useful in developing many of the research
methods employed in this study. In terms of building and evaluating scenarios, Shiftan et al.
(2003) conducted a two round Delphi asking experts to rate policy decisions based on probability
and desirability to develop scenarios for future transportation development in Tel Aviv. This
study used similar scales and questions to design potential FOT operations. A study by Brennan
Ramirez et al. (2006) determining the top 10 performance indicators of activity friendly
communities from a list of 230, provided useful techniques for paring down large lists of items
by identifying and combining duplicate items. Finally, a Delphi of done by MacCarthy and
Atthirawong (2003) modelling the decision making process for businesses choosing to send
17
manufacturing operations overseas provided useful methods for developing ordered lists of
qualitative measures as well as methods for aggregating open ended responses of a large number
of experts.
The most similar work found to a Delphi studying FOT, was one examining the
likelihood of a modal shift from trucks to short sea shipping in the UK (Saldanha and Gray
2002). The study brought up many issues relevant to FOT implementation as some of the largest
barriers to the modal shift included a fear of change exhibited by freight professionals, a lack of
collaboration among competitors, and the desire to avoid double handling of freight. Perhaps the
most intriguing point brought up by this expert panel was general agreement on the point that the
government should consider themselves justified in subsidizing coastal shipping as the
development and maintenance of roads has already established an uneven playing field where
trucks have a distinct advantage over other modes (Saldanha and Gray 2002). This same point
would be brought up by members of the Delphi panel in this study regarding governments
subsidizing FOT.
This brief review demonstrated that the Delphi is an established tool for exploring
transportation and logistics issues with many of the studies providing critical guidance during
survey design, delivery, and analysis. While there was no direct mention of FOT in any of them,
certain studies may have unknowingly hinted at its emergence.
18
Chapter 3: Research Methods
A 3 round policy Delphi was conducted to investigate the most important issues
surrounding FOT operations and to build and evaluate potential FOT operating strategies for the
GTHA. The main research questions grouped under each of the two primary research objectives
are presented in Figure 3-1.
3.1 The Delphi Method
The Delphi method employed in this study is the Policy Delphi, an exploration tool that
relies on multiple surveys of experts to explore an unresolved policy issue. It is different than
the traditional Delphi as there is no expectation of reaching a consensus, only to explore an issue,
in this case, moving freight on public transit networks. There are no strict guidelines for
conducting a Delphi study meaning that many of the design decisions are left to the judgment of
the research team (Hasson, Keeney and McKenna 2000). Though there is no fixed method, for a
study to qualify as a Delphi, it must include at minimum the features shown in Figure 3-2. While
there are some so called Delphi studies that do not include all of these features, a true Delphi
process is a series of iterative surveys interspersed with feedback that engages experts and uses
statistics to describe their aggregate opinion.
Figure 3-1 Research Questions OBJECTIVE 1: Explore main issues of FOT operations
Question 1.1: What are the main positive impacts of FOT operations?
Question 1.2: What are the main negative impacts of FOT operations?
Question 1.3: What are the main challenges of implementing FOT operations?
OBJECTIVE 2: Build and Evaluate FOT operating strategies for the GTHA
Question 2.1:What potential FOT operations could be integrated onto transit networks in the GTHA?
Question 2.2: Which (if any) of these operations are the most feasible and/or desirable?
19
3.1.1 Justification
Linstone and Turoff (1975) advocate the use of the Delphi for studying issues that meet
one or more of the criteria listed in Figure 3-3 and an argument can be made that FOT fits all of
them. As few operations exist, especially in North America, a Delphi will be useful to discover
the opinions of decision makers regarding merits and shortcomings before analyzing detailed
operations that may be rejected by those with the authority to implement them. Potential FOT
operations could involve a variety of logistics movements on a range of transit networks and in
order to explore the full range of possibilities, inputs are needed from many heterogeneous
decision makers making face to face meetings infeasible due to time and financial restraints. As
disagreements are likely to arise especially between freight and transit professionals, anonymity
and the use of a facilitator are both justified in order to ensure that the interests of all parties are
considered and that the group is not dominated by one or more highly influential group members.
Figure 3-2 Key Delphi Features
Figure 3-3 Criteria Motivating a Delphi Study
• Anonymity
• Iterations
• Controlled Feedback
• Statistical Group Response
• The Use of Experts
(Dalkey 1969) (Turoff 1970) (Rowe and Wright 2001) (von der Gracht 2008) (Goodman 1987)
• The problem does not lend itself to precise analytical techniques but can benefit from subjective judgments on a collective basis
• More individuals are needed than can effectively interact in a face-to-face exchange• Time and cost make frequent group meetings infeasible• Disagreements among individuals are so severe or politically unpalatable that the
communication process must be refereed and/or anonymity assured• The heterogeneity of the participants must be preserved to assure validity of the results, i.e.,
avoidance of domination by quantity or by strength of personality ("bandwagon effect")
(Linstone and Turoff 1975)
20
Turoff (1971) and von der Gracht (2008) suggest that a policy Delphi should be able to
serve any one or a combination of the objectives shown in Figure 3-4, all of which are relevant to
this study. Sections of this study dedicated to the exploration of FOT issues exposed and
explored assumptions causing changes in judgment, correlated informed judgment on the topic
of FOT, and educated respondents that had previously had little knowledge of FOT operations.
The development of potential FOT operating strategies in the GTHA estimated the impact and
consequences of a range of alternatives and examined the acceptability of each. Though this
study was not able to consider all possible options for moving freight on transit networks, it did
achieve all of the other listed objectives.
3.1.2 Strength and Weaknesses
The anonymity and flexible structure of the Delphi makes it a powerful communication
tool. Quite often in transportation planning, policy decisions are made by high status individuals
based on analysis performed by lower level employees resulting in a disconnect between
knowledge and decision making. The Delphi allows for communication between all groups,
allowing low status individuals to engage with high ranking officials and high ranking to be a
part of initial analysis. As well, in a Delphi, participants can speak freely and the group will not
be dominated by members with dominant personalities as the facilitator will not allow it. The
process allows conflicts and disagreements to be discovered and the iteration interspersed with
feedback allows them to be explained. Participants may abandon initial positions based on new
information received through feedback without appearing to be weak in the eyes of their peers.
Figure 3-4 Typical Objectives of a Policy Delphi
• To determine or develop a range of possible alternatives• To explore or expose underlying assumptions or information leading to differing judgments• To seek out information which may generate a consensus of judgment on the part of the
respondent group• To correlate informed judgments on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines • To ensure that all possible options have been put on the table for consideration• To estimate the impact and consequences of any particular option• To examine and estimate the acceptability of any particular option• To educate the respondent group as to the diverse and interrelated aspects of the topic
(Turoff 1975) (von der Gracht 2008)
21
That there are no face to face interactions means the Delphi can engage a large number of busy
individuals from a range of fields and locations, and participants can complete surveys at the
time and location of their choice without having to coordinate with others’ busy schedules.
Finally, as there is no fixed method, the facilitator is able to modify study objectives and survey
design as more interesting and critical issues are discovered by the expert panel.
Though powerful, the Delphi also has many limitations, a large number of which stem
from the fact that there are no set guidelines for conducting a Delphi study. The “elusiveness of
a fixed universally agreed working upon definition of Delphi” leaves many of the major
methodological decisions in the hands of the facilitator which increases the likelihood of errors
and sloppy research (Sackman 1974). Another critique is the fact that the eventual outcomes of
the study are not facts but the opinions of a specific group of experts and that a second group
going through the exact same process could produce an entirely different set of outcomes
(Goodman 1987). As well, the definition of expertise and selection of panel members are
decisions left to the research team leading to inherent bias. Anonymity is able to produce honest
discussions but also has the potential to produce thoughtless answers as it can lead to a lack of
accountability. Other critics of the Delphi suggest that the effect of feedback in between rounds
is minimal, and that experts tend to ignore feedback that contradicts previously held beliefs
(Scheibe, Skutsch and Schofer 1975). As well, it is up to the facilitator to decide what feedback
to present which can result in the presentation of skewed opinions that may not be representative
of the entire group.
Other inherent problems are related to study length, questionnaire design and the process
of conducting multiple surveys. For starters, there is no standard regarding the number of Delphi
rounds with studies ranging anywhere from one to thirteen (Skulmoski, Hartman and Krahn
2007; von der Gracht 2008). As well, statements on Delphi questionnaires may be interpreted in
many different ways and there is no agreement regarding the adequate length of statements, the
number of statements to include, or the appropriate wording of questions (von der Gracht 2008;
Rowe and Wright 2001; Linstone and Turoff 1975). Finally, designing, testing, and distributing
multiple questionnaires is very time and resource intensive for the research team and a long
drawn out process may lead to high dropout and low response rates from a busy expert panel
22
(Hsu and Sandford 2007a). Figure 3-5 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of Delphi
studies.
Being aware of strengths and weaknesses allowed for a more careful process as well as a
more realistic interpretation of the study’s results. The flexibility of the method was considered
a strength as it allowed the study to change with the opinions of the panel, and while there is no
fixed method to fall back on, there were many best practices and good examples of Policy
Delphis by which to base methodological decisions. Regarding feedback and survey design, it is
up to the facilitator to present as much honest feedback as possible without burdening
participants, and to pretest questionnaires to reduce confusion and ambiguity, all techniques
employed in this Delphi study. Another method of reducing response ambiguity employed in
this study was to provide space on surveys for participants to justify and explain their answers.
Strengths Weaknesses
• Is flexible• Engages participants from a range of
backgrounds and remote locations• Can engage many busy individuals• Anonymity promotes an honest view• Eliminates confrontations and time
wasting• Multiple opinions• Eliminates group domination by high
status individuals• Can describe opinions statistically• Can discover and explain disagreements
• No set guidelines on how to conduct a Delphi
• Results based on the opinions of a single group of experts
• Expert selection based on biased judgment of research team
• Anonymity may produce thoughtless answers
• Effect of feedback may be minimal• Questionnaires likely to be ambiguous
or confusing• Responses may be affected by current
state of mind of participant or other external factors
• Time and resource intensive• High dropout rates are common
Figure 3-5 Delphi Strengths and Weaknesses
23
• Preliminary research• Expert panel identification
and recruitment• Development and testing of
first questionnaire
1. Exploration of the subject
• Analysis of first questionnaire• Development and testing of second
questionnaire• Continued expert recruitment
2. Discovery of Opinions
• Analysis of second questionnaire• Development and testing of third questionnaire• Recruitment concluded
3. Determining most important
issues• Analysis of third questionnaire• Preparation of a report to present conclusions, major points of
disagreement, final recommendations, etc. to send to expert panel
4. Data analysis and conclusions
Send Survey 1
Send Survey 2
Send Survey 3
Send Final Report
START!
3.2 Typical Delphi Procedure
This study was loosely based on guidelines set out by Hasson, Keeney, and McKenna
(2000), who divided the Delphi into the four phases shown in Figure 3-6. During the initial
phase the subject is researched through literature reviews and informal interviews to determine if
a gap exists and whether the Delphi method is an appropriate tool to fill that gap (Skulmoski et
al. 2007). Once it is decided that a Delphi will be conducted, the first questionnaire is
developed, tested, and sent out to the desired participants. Responses from the first round
questionnaire are analyzed by the facilitator who designs the second questionnaire based on these
results. After testing, the second questionnaire is sent to the same participants along with
feedback describing the general opinion of the group. Participants respond to the second survey
and this process is repeated in an iterative manner until a stopping point is reached. While this
general process is the same across different Delphi studies, there is a high degree of variability
regarding the number of rounds, the definition of expertise, the size and makeup of the expert
panel, survey evaluation methods, statistical methods, and the type of feedback provided to
respondents (Dfouni 2002). Following is a discussion of how these vary across Delphi studies
and the choices made regarding each one in this study.
Figure 3-6 Typical Delphi Process
24
3.2.1 Number of Delphi Rounds
Standard Delphi studies are conducted over three rounds, with studies generally varying
from two to five with more unconventional ones using anywhere from one to thirteen (Skulmoski
et al. 2007; von der Gracht 2008). Skulmoski et al. (2007) conducted a review of 41 Delphi
studies done at the graduate level finding 29 three round Delphis, 7 two round Delphis, 4 four
round studies and a single study employing five Delphi rounds. While Turoff (1971) and von
der Gracht (2008) both suggest that for Policy Delphis, “4-5 rounds are needed until there are
sufficient results for the final committee to formulate a required policy”, this study was not
looking to implement policy but rather to explore FOT and test the feasibility and acceptability
of different operating strategies (von der Gracht 2008). The decision therefore was made to
conduct the study over three Delphi rounds as this is the most common and also the most
realistic given time constraints. In general, the number of rounds depends on the amount of time
available, whether or not there is a pre-determined stopping criteria (e.g. level of consensus), and
how long participants remain interested (Hasson, Keeney and McKenna 2000). Too few rounds
will produce results that may not be meaningful and too many rounds may exhaust the topic or
fatigue and anger participants (Schmidt 1997a). Few studies use more than three rounds and in
fact, some argue that answers may even decrease in accuracy in rounds four and beyond due to
participant fatigue and carelessness (Martino 1972).
3.2.2 Defining Expertise and Selecting the Number of Participants
Defining and identifying experts is another key Delphi element that varies from study to
study. The rationale for using experts is that they are “more likely than non-experts to be correct
about questions in their field” (von der Gracht 2008). The quality of data produced by the
Delphi will be directly related to the quality of the participants and therefore careful
consideration must be made in defining and selecting the appropriate ones (Hsu and Sandford
2012). Linstone and Turoff (1975) suggest that experts should have knowledge of the subject as
well as a desire to participate as a highly knowledgeable person will not be useful if they give no
thought to the study. Adler and Zigilio (1996) provide a useful set of requirements in identifying
potential Delphi experts and Delbecq et al. (1975) provide a useful set of factors likely to
motivate an expert to participate with the two lists shown in Figure 3-7. The ideal expert will be
willing, knowledgeable and interested enough to devote time to the Delphi study and must be
25
able to communicate their opinions or the facilitator will spend excessive amounts of time
deciphering responses.
These “expert motivating” criteria were applied to the topic of FOT, identifying the best
experts as those that already have knowledge of FOT, those concerned about the ways that FOT
might affect them or their business and those that are simply interested in learning more. Rowe
and Wright (2001) recommend that “one should … choose experts whose combined knowledge
and expertise reflects the full scope of the problem domain” and suggest a good way to do this is
to develop a knowledge resource nomination worksheet (KRNW) to be filled in with
stakeholders involved in fields related to all facets of the subject. For the FOT Delphi, the
KRNW shown in Figure 3-8 was developed to guide the recruitment of a heterogeneous panel in
terms of workplace sector (Academia, Public Sector, Private Sector, NGO) and field of expertise
(Freight, Public Transit, Airport Planning, Environment, ITS, Planning, Economics). Okoli and
Pawlowski (2004) recommend the split across these four workplace sectors as professionals
working in each are likely to have different perspectives thereby ensuring a more complete range
of opinions and viewpoints. The divisions of expertise were decided upon after reviewing
existing and theoretical FOT operations and related literature. Experts were added to the KRNW
as they responded in order to track and ensure panel heterogeneity.
Knowing the types of experts, the next step is to decide how many to survey. The review
of graduate level Delphi studies included panels of anywhere from 3 to 345 members with ~80%
of the studies containing 20-50 members (Skulmoski et al. 2007). Selecting the appropriate
Figure 3-7 Defining and Motivating Delphi Experts
A good expert will have... An expert will participate if...
• knowledge and experience with the issues under investigation
• capacity and willingness to participate• sufficient time to participate in the
Delphi• effective communication skills
• he/she feels personally involved in the problem of concern
• he/she has pertinent information to share• he/she is motivated to include the Delphi
in their schedule of competing tasks• he/she feels that they will gain
information which is valuable and which he/she would otherwise not have access
(Adler and Zigilio 1996) (Delbecq et al. 1975)
26
panel size involves tradeoffs. If the panel is too small, the study runs the risk of missing key
issues while too large a panel can result in irrelevant arguments, more frequent conflicts, and
information overload (Rowe and Wright 2001). As Delphi studies are often plagued by high
dropout rates between rounds, another risk of having too small a sample is that these dropouts
could significantly change results based on statistical tests. For studies using a heterogeneous
sample, like this one, Delbecq et al. (1975) recommend that the panel size consist of anywhere
from 20-40 members which matches well with the split in the review of graduate level Delphis
done by Skulmoski et al. (2007). As FOT is a broad subject, the desired panel size was on the
larger end of this spectrum with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 40 members.
3.2.3 Survey Structure and Evaluation
After defining the number of Delphi rounds and the desired types and number of
participants, decisions regarding survey structure and survey evaluation methods must be made.
Typically, the first questionnaire is a “brainstorming” exercise involving open ended questions,
but “brainstorming” may also be performed in focus groups or through literature reviews prior to
the start of the Delphi process (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). The traditional 3 round Delphi
includes the brainstorming phase and two structured questionnaires (Linstone and Turoff 1975).
The first questionnaire in this study was of the brainstorming variety containing a number of
WorkplaceAcademia Private Sector Public Sector NGO
Fie
ld o
f E
xper
tise
Freight/ Logistics
Public Transit
Environment/ Sustainability
Traffic Engineering / ITS
Airport Planning
Policy/ Planning
Finance/Economics
Figure 3-8 KRNW for FOT Delphi Expert Recruitment
27
open ended questions about FOT with first round responses guiding the design of surveys 2 and
3.
The usual result of the brainstorming phase is a long list of items for each open ended
question. Designing the second survey, involves compiling and organizing these into a list of the
most frequent and compelling items that is more manageable for survey participants. The
objective of the second survey is to determine which items are the most important which is
typically done in one of three ways: 1) participants select a fixed number of items they consider
to be important; 2) participants rank items against each other; or 3) participants rate all items on
a Likert scale (Hsu and Sandford 2012; Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). Early Delphi studies only
used selection and ranking approaches until Watson (1989) performed the first Delphi asking
participants to rate issues on a scale. Since then many studies have employed the rating method
based on the rationale that human beings have a limited capacity of processing information
simultaneously making ranking exercises difficult (Dfouni 2002). Attempting to rank lists of N
items can result in having to make up to pair-wise comparisons or 36 different
judgments for a list of 8 items and up to 120 for a list of 16. Besides being more straightforward,
rating has other advantages over ranking as a rating system generates data for each item, can
more easily deal with tied items and allows for more detailed statistical analysis. As this study
involved identifying important items from longer lists, rating type questions were used for most
parts of the survey in order to generate more data and reduce survey completion time. The one
section that used ranking type questions was the final evaluation of FOT operating strategies. As
there were only five such strategies, issues related to ranking long lists did not apply.
The major decision to make in design of the final Delphi survey is how to determine
which round 2 items will continue to be rated again in the final round. Items are typically sorted
by relative importance based on either the median or the mean rating of expert opinion obtained
in the second round (Powell 2003). Lists are then reduced by either keeping all items that
obtained a certain minimum rating, or by selecting the top few (e.g. 5-10) factors (Dfouni 2002).
For FOT issue exploration, the top 5 items based on mean rating continued to the final round, a
decision made based on best practices and in order to minimize completion time of the final
survey.
28
3.2.4 Statistical Methods
When measuring group opinion using the Delphi method, Rowe and Wright (1999)
recommended using statistics that measure the central tendency of the group opinion, the range
of opinions and the level of consensus.
Central tendencies in Delphi studies are typically measured through the mean or the
median with a small number of studies using the mode (Rowe and Wright 1999). The choice
usually comes down to whether to use the mean or median, and ample research is available to
support the use of either one as documented in literature reviews performed by Hanafin (2004)
and others (Skulmoski et al. 2007). Both mean and median were measured in this study but it
was the mean that was finally used as the measure of central tendency due mainly to the fact that
using median values resulted in a large number of ties making it more difficult to use it to
distinguish between important and unimportant items. In rating type Delphi studies, statistics
that measure the range of opinions are the standard deviation, interquartile range (IQR) (e.g.
measure of the spread of responses between the 75th and 25th percentiles), histograms, and/or the
percentage of respondents answering above or below a certain threshold value (Rowe and Wright
1999). All of these were computed and explored for each of the Delphi items in this study to
explore the range of answers. Finally, a Delphi study must include some statistical measure that
describes the level of agreement among experts. Standard deviation and IQR provide some
insight into levels of agreement as low values of these statistics mean that experts’ ratings tend to
be similar. Consensus can also be measured by looking at how certain statistics change between
rounds such as changes in mean, the changes in standard deviation, and changes in IQR (Hasson,
Keeney and McKenna 2000). All of these were used to measure consensus in this study.
The final statistic used to measure consensus, and the traditional measure of consensus in
Delphi studies is the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W). W indicates the current level of
agreement between panel members when ranking items on a list (Dfouni 2002). W may also be
used on rating type Deplhis by converting ratings into rankings. W ranges from 0-1, with 0
indicating complete disagreement and 1 indicating complete consensus. Schmidt (1997a)
provides the guidelines in Table 3-1 to help interpret values of W but stresses to use them only as
guidelines and not exact cut-offs.
29
Calculation of W is best described by Siegel and Castellan (1988) who present two ways
to compute its value: for the case where there are tied values and the case where there are no tied
values. This study involved many tied items, so W was calculated using the correction factor for
ties. The following section describes the steps set out by Siegel and Castellan (1988) for
calculating W among a group of N experts rating K items on a list. For each expert (E), Delphi
items (D) are arranged based on their ratings from highest to lowest. Ratings are then converted
to rankings (R).
Ei = expert i (1)
Dj = item j (2)
(3)
i = 1,2,3…N (4)
j=1,2,3…K (5)
To illustrate the method for correcting for ties, suppose four items all receive top scores
and occupy the top four ranking positions. Rather than all being assigned a ranking of one, they
are assigned the average ranking which in this case is 2.5 as = 2.5. This process is
repeated for all experts resulting in the N x K matrix shown in Figure 3-9 with matrix entries Rij
referring to the ranking of item j by expert i.
W Interpretation Confidence in Ranks
.1
.3
.5
.7
.9
Very weak agreementWeak agreementModerate agreementStrong agreementUnusually strong agreement
NoneLowFairHigh
Very High
Schmidt (1997)
Table 3-1 Interpretation of Kendall's W
30
Figure 3-9 Sorted Rankings for Calculation of W
Columns are summed and divided by the number of experts to obtain the average ranking
of each item. The average ranking of all items by all experts ( ) is also calculated and
simplifies to as shown in Table 3-2.
∑
(6)
∑ ∑
(7)
Delphi Items (D)
D1 D2 D3 … … … Dj
Exp
erts
(E)
E1 R11 R12 R13 … … … R1j
E2 R21 R22 R23 … … … R2j
E3 R31 R32 R33 … … … R3j
… … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … …
Ei Ri1 Ri2 Ri3 … … … Rij
31
Table 3-2 Derivation of R
Following these preliminary calculations, W is calculated using Siegel and Castellan’s
(1988) formula:
∑
(8)
The numerator is the sum of the squares of deviations of the average ranking of each item
from the average ranking of all items. The greater each items average ranking deviates from the
average ranking of all items, the higher the value of W, and the higher the level of agreement,
showing how tied items tend to suppress the value of W. The denominator 1 is
the maximum possible sum of the squared deviations of the rankings if there were perfect
agreement among experts resulting in a W value of 1 if all experts rank all items equally. In
order to further minimize the impact of ties, the following correction factor is used for each
expert i:
∑ (9)
Number of items
Possible rankings
Average Ranking
1 1 1
2 1,2 1.5
3 1,2,3 2
4 1,2,3,4 2.5
5 1,2,3,4,5 3
K 1,2…K-1,K K+12
32
tr = number of tied items in the rth group of ties (10)
r = number of groups of ties within the rankings of expert I (11)
After computing the correction factor for each expert, the final formula for calculating W
with the correction factor applied is (Siegel and Castellan 1988, 266):
∑
∑ (12)
Equation (12) was used for calculating W on the lists of FOT issues as there were large
numbers of ties, while equation (8) was used to calculate W when evaluating experts’ rankings of
the five FOT strategies for the GTHA as these lists contained no ties.
The statistics used in this study are summarized in Figure 3-10 and analysis was
performed exclusively using Microsoft Excel.
Figure 3-10 Statistics Used
3.2.5 Feedback Provided to Delphi Experts
A unique feature of the Delphi is that it is able to provide feedback to experts between
rounds. Though Dalkey (1969) suggests that more than just the mean rating of values must be
relayed to experts, many past studies have not followed this rule. Similar to deciding on the
number of Delphi rounds to conduct, the decision of how much feedback to provide is a balance
between providing enough feedback without tiring or angering participants causing them to
dropout. The decision was made to provide a minimal amount of feedback in this study as the
questionnaires involved more questions than are typical in the standard Delphi study (Linstone
and Turoff 1975). Surveys 2 and 3 each began with a page summarizing the previous round
To measure central tendency To measure the range of opinions To measure levels of consensus
• Mean (primary)• Median• Mode
• Standard Deviation (primary)• IQR• Histograms• % above/below
• Change in mean• Change in Standard Deviation• Kendall’s Coefficient of
Concordance
33
noting the key points of agreement and disagreement among experts and clarifying any points of
confusion. Survey 3 was the only one that provided numerical feedback and this was limited to
the mean ratings of FOT issues obtained during the second round as well each individual
expert’s round 2 responses.
While this may seem like a minimal amount of feedback, many Delphi researchers,
including Rowe and Wright (1999) and Dfouni (2002) argue that providing too much feedback
encourages participants “to conform to the group without actually changing their opinions”. As
well, many of the typical Delphi statistics may not be familiar to all participants which could
create further confusion. As this study was a policy Delphi and was not attempting to achieve
high levels of consensus, written feedback summarizing the outcomes of previous rounds and the
small amount of numerical feedback described above was sufficient.
3.3 FOT Delphi Procedure
The following section summarizes the general method of the 3 round policy Delphi
process with detailed descriptions of each questionnaire to follow in chapter 4. The survey
process simultaneously accomplished the two research objectives described in section 3.1 which
were to explore main FOT issues and build and evaluate FOT operating strategies for the GTHA.
The contents of all surveys are summarized in Figure 3-11with numbers in the figure referring to
question numbers on the different surveys (e.g. 3.4 = question 4 on survey 3). As the design of
surveys 2 and 3 were based on responses and information generated throughout the Delphi
process, results will be briefly touched upon in this section and in chapter 4 as much as is
necessary with a complete analysis of results in Chapter 5.
3.3.1 Objective 1: Explore main issues of FOT operations
The method for the exploration of the main issues of FOT operations was that of a typical
3 round rating type Delphi study with an in initial open-ended brainstorming round followed by
structured surveys in rounds 2 and 3 (Skulmoski et al. 2007). During the brainstorming survey
participants answered a number of open ended questions about FOT and were encouraged to
answer freely in order to “generate the body of knowledge on which to base the rest of the study”
(von der Gracht 2008). Questions 1.1-1.3 had participants list and describe up to 7 positive
34
impacts of FOT operations, negative impacts of FOT operations and challenges of implementing
an FOT operation resulting in three lists of FOT issues.
These items were compounded and rephrased by the research team during the design of
survey 2 and resulting in three lists of the most frequent and compelling responses. On survey 2
questions 2.1-2.3, these lists were presented with items arranged randomly for participants to rate
on 5-point Likert scales in order to measure the relative perceived importance and impact of each
Brainstorm FOTissues
Brainstorm FOToperating strategies
List up to 7…
1.1 FOT positive impacts
1.2 FOT negative impacts
1.3 FOT challenges
Determine most important FOT Issues
Determine most feasible and desirable FOToperating decisions
Re-evaluate most important FOT Issues
Determine best FOToperating strategies
Rate on 5 point likertscale…
2.1 13 FOT positive impacts
2.2 13 FOT negative impacts
2.3 16 FOT challenges
Re-rate on 5 point likertscale…
3.1 top 5 FOT positive impacts
3.2 top 5 FOT negative Impacts
3.3 top 5 FOT challenges
List up to 7…
1.4 FOT stakeholders
List up to 5…
1.5 suitable FOTgoods types, transit routes or goods movement corridors
Rate on 5 point likertscale…
2.4 13 FOT goods types;
Rate on 5 point likertscales most feasible and desirable:
2.5 cargo location2.6 delivery strategy2.7 integration strategy 2.8 delivery schedule2.9 operating authority
Comment on 5 FOT operating strategies…
3.4 Mall Haul3.5 Paper Train3.6 Air Rail Mail3.7 Liquor Line3.8 Commuter Rail Mail
Rank 5 FOT Strategies on the following criteria:
3.9 congestion reduction3.10 profitability3.11 expansion potential3.12 expected resistance3.13 overall
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3
Survey Objectives
FOT Issues Questions
FOTStrategy Building Questions
Figure 3-11 FOT Delphi Survey Process
35
one. For each of these questions, participants were left with space to defend and justify their
answers, as well as to suggest any additional items not listed. The scales used in questions 2.1-
2.3 were the same used in questions 3.1-3.3 and are shown in Figure 3-12.
Figure 3-12 Likert Scales for Questions 2.1-2.3
Values of 0-4 were assigned to items receiving each of the respective ratings and any
items that received a rating of “I don’t know” were removed from analysis. The scale is an
example of an imbalanced Likert scale which is not typically used but justified in this case
“where it is known a priori that virtually all respondents are leaning in one direction” (Friedman
and Amoo 1999). Typical 5 point Likert scales are balanced having two favorable options, a
neutral option, and two unfavorable options, but this type of scale would have produced
responses heavily weighted to one side. The inclusion of the zero point gave participants the
option of re-classifying a positive impact as a negative impact or vice-versa, and the inclusion of
“I don’t know” allowed participants to skip items they did not feel comfortable rating to
encourage respondents to complete questionnaires even if certain items fell outside of their area
of expertise. Deciding how many points to include and scale labels was done following best
practices and consultations with more experienced researchers. Cox (1980) suggests that the
exact number of points is not as critical but that three choices are not enough and anything over
nine is too many and that more important than the number of alternatives are the inclusion of
“comprehensible instructions and labeling of response alternatives.” The chosen labels were
Question #QuestionSubject
Scale Labels
2.1 and 3.1FOT
Positive Impacts
Notpositive
Slightlypositive
Moderatelypositive
Verypositive
Extremelypositive
I don’tknow
2.2 and 3.2FOT
Negative Impacts
Notnegative
Slightlynegative
Moderatelynegative
Verynegative
Extremelynegative
I don’tknow
2.3 and 3.3FOT
ChallengesNot
challengingSlightly
challengingModeratelychallenging
Verychallenging
Extremelychallenging
I don’tknow
Scale Values
All 0 1 2 3 4 N/A
36
based on the results of a comprehensive study of the most preferred labels for rating 5 point
scales and validated through two rounds of pretesting (Rohrmann 2007).
The relative importance of the items from survey questions 2.1-2.3 was determined based
on the mean group rating with the top five items continuing to be re-rated on the final survey.
Questions 3.1-3.3 presented these three five-item lists along with group mean scores and the
Delphi member’s own responses giving experts the chance to re-evaluate initial opinions and
change their ratings based on the aggregate opinion of the group. The final result of FOT issue
exploration were lists of the top five positive and negative impacts of FOT as well as the top five
challenges of implementing an FOT operation as determined by the group aggregate opinion.
3.3.2 Objective 2: Build and Evaluate FOT Operating Strategies for the GTHA
The method for building and evaluating FOT operating strategies for the GTHA followed
scenario building approaches described by Linstone and Turoff (1975), von der Gracht (2008),
and Shiftan et al. (2003). Specific design decisions were changed and modified throughout the
course of the study allowing this portion of the research to “be directed by the opinions of the
participants” (Skulmoski et al. 2007). Even the selection of the GTHA as the network was not a
choice made by the research team but was selected due to the fact that it was the most frequent
network suggested by experts during the brainstorming phase, a result of the fact that a large
number of panel members were from this area.
The development of FOT strategies began with responses from questions 1.4-1.5 during
the brainstorming phase. In question 1.4 participants were asked to list up to seven stakeholders
that would be involved in the design, planning, and operation of an FOT service and in question
1.5 participants were asked to list up to 5 goods types, transit networks, or goods movement
corridors suitable for FOT. These were also open ended questions, resulting in very diverse
responses on question 1.5 ranging from one word descriptions of commodities suitable for FOT
delivery to detailed proposals of FOT operations on actual transit networks. During this section
some participants also made the facilitator aware of real FOT operations which were included in
the literature review of FOT operations presented in section 2.1.
Survey 2 continued the exploration of potential FOT operating strategies with questions
related to the types of goods suitable for FOT delivery (question 2.5) as well as the feasibility
37
and desirability of different operating decisions including the location of cargo on transit
vehicles, whether to have point to point or collective FOT deliveries, whether to implement FOT
on new or existing transit networks, what time of day to operate an FOT service, and finally who
should be in charge of coordinating FOT logistics (questions 2.5-2.9 respectively). Commodity
classes mined from open ended responses in question 1.5 were used to construct question 2.4, a
list of thirteen goods to be rated on a 5-point imbalanced Likert scale parallel to the ones used in
questions 2.1-2.3.
Questions 2.5-2.9 were included to develop inputs for potential FOT operating strategies
and were set up in the following, way using question 2.8 as an example. A question was asked,
in this case: “On what transit routes should FOT be implemented?” Following each question
were lists of possible answers, in this case “on existing transit routes” and “on new transit
routes”. Experts would rate each answer based on both feasibility (i.e. can we do this?) and
desirability (i.e. should we do this?) using balanced 5 point Likert scales with two favorable
options and two unfavorable options centered by a neutral option with values ranging from (-2 to
+2). Linstone and Turoff suggest that “on the resolutions of policy issues it is usually necessary
to assess both desirability and feasibility” and the scales used for questions 2.5-2.9 were based
on those suggested by them and shown in Figure 3-13 (Linstone and Turoff 1975, 86-87). The
FE
AS
IBIL
ITY
Definitely feasible Probably feasibleMay or may not be
feasibleProbably infeasible Definitely infeasible
Can be implemented Current technology and
available resources are adequate
No political roadblocks or public resistance expected
Can probably be implemented
May require new technology and/or additional resources
Political roadblocks and public resistance may arise
Uncertain if it can be implemented
Would require new technology and/or additional resources
Political roadblocks and public resistance are very likely
Probably cannot be implemented
Would require new technology and a large increase in resources
Political roadblocks and public resistance are almost a guarantee
Cannot be implemented
Would require new technology and an unacceptable increase in resources
Major political roadblocks and public resistance are guaranteed
DE
SIR
AB
ILIT
Y
Very desirable Somewhat desirableNeither desirable nor
undesirableSomewhat undesirable Very undesirable
Major positive effect and little or no negative effect
Justified with benefits greatly exceeding costs
Positive effect and minimum negative effects
Justified with benefits exceeding costs
Roughly equal positive and negative effects
May be justified with benefits roughly equal to costs
Negative effect and minimum positive effects
Unjustified with costs exceeding benefits
Major negative effect and little or no positive effect
Unjustified with costs greatly exceeding benefits
(Linstone & Turoff, 1975, pp. 86-87)
Figure 3-13 Feasibility and Desirability Scale
38
questions and potential design decisions from 2.5-2.9 are shown in Figure 3-14.
Selection of the questions and responses in questions 2.5-2.9 were chosen based on a
literature review of existing FOT operations as well as recurring issues brought up by
participants during the brainstorming round. The aggregate opinion of the feasibility and
desirability of different design decisions was based on mean scores and any option with a mean
feasibility rating greater than zero qualified as a potential input for the final design of potential
FOT operating strategies for the GTHA. In the end, five strategies were constructed based on the
most suitable commodities obtained in question 2.4, feasible design decisions obtained in
questions 2.5-2.9, suggested FOT operating strategies from question 1.5, and other remarks and
ideas proposed by experts throughout the first and second Delphi rounds.
The second half of survey 3 (3.4-3.13) involved evaluating these five strategies. First
participants were shown a map of the GTHA and its transit networks in order to educate those
unfamiliar with the region. On questions 3.4-3.8, participants were shown each of the five
strategies (presented in random order) including a map, a one paragraph description, and key
QuestionNumber
Question/Response Option
2.5 Where should the freight be located?
Freight only vehicle
Freight/cargo trailer
With passengers on public transit vehicles
2.6 What is the delivery strategy?
Point to point deliveries
Collective deliveries
2.7 Where to implement FOT operations?
Integrate freight onto existing routes
Design new routes to accommodate FOT
2.8 What is the FOT delivery schedule?
During system downtime
All day FOT service
2.9 Who is in charge of the FOT service?
Public private partnership between transit authority and logistics providers
Logistics providers lease capacity from transit authority and coordinate logistics
Transit authority runs and all aspects of FOT service
Figure 3-14 FOT Design Decisions: Questions 2.5-2.9
39
design decisions. They were asked to comment on each strategy in terms of strengths,
weaknesses, likely impacts and potential improvements. The final four questions, (3.9-3.13) had
the experts rank each of the five strategies against each other across the following performance
criteria: a) congestion reduction; b) profitability; c) expansion potential; d) excepted amount of
resistance; and e) overall. These criteria were selected as each of them was seen as an important
issue based on mean ratings of FOT issues obtained in questions 2.1-2.3. The final results of
strategy building and evaluation were detailed evaluations of the five strategies; their relative
value against each other; the acceptability of each strategy; and a broad assessment of the
potential for FOT in the GTHA.
Though the two research objectives have been described here separately, they were
conducted in parallel and completely interrelated. The exploration of FOT issues helped to
determine performance criteria for evaluating FOT operations and the final evaluation of FOT
operating strategies also provided feedback on the most important positive and negative impacts
of FOT as well as the most challenging aspects of implementing FOT operations. Details of the
survey process are described in the following chapter.
40
Chapter 4: Survey Process
4.1 Web Based Survey
A web based survey was chosen over mail or phone surveys for a number of reasons.
Web-based surveys offer the advantage of faster responses, lower costs, and generally provide
higher quality answers than other modes (Dfouni 2002). Time is saved as the researcher does
not have to input responses, talk on the phone, or mail surveys, and money is saved on pens,
paper, postage, and calling charges. Web-based surveys are also geographically unrestricted and
may be accessed from anywhere in the world which was crucial in this case for increasing
sample heterogeneity and accessing experts with different knowledge and expertise (Schmidt
1997b). Web surveys are also more dynamic than other modes making it easier to randomize
questions and create multiple personalized surveys. Finally, web surveys can provide longer and
more detailed responses than phone and paper modes as they are not restricted by space (Schmidt
1997b).
All surveys were conducted using a Gold SurveyMonkey account, a paid version of an
online survey software and questionnaire tool (SurveyMonkey 2012). There are hundreds of
similar programs but SurveyMonkey is the most widespread (Van Bennekom 2012).
SurveyMonkey has its strengths and weaknesses, but is generally user friendly, offers an
unlimited number of survey questions and responses, and a variety of different question types.
Participants are also able to work on surveys over multiple sittings as responses are saved
automatically, and will remain even in the case of outages or power disruptions. A drawback of
this feature is that it makes it difficult to measure survey completion time as SurveyMonkey only
records the time the survey was first opened and the time of the final submission.
Other disadvantages include limited functionality, limited survey logic, and a lack of
automated processes making the design process quite lengthy at times. Though they take long to
design they are straightforward for respondents, have many options for analysis, and generate
data files compatible with spreadsheet software like Microsoft Excel. SurveyMonkey also
allows users to layout surveys using HTML which serves as a workaround for some of the
limitations and helps create surveys compatible with different internet browsers. As this study
41
did not involve logic or dynamic survey questions, the limited functionality of SurveyMonkey
was sufficient and the ease of use was the largest factor in its selection over other platforms.
4.2 Recruiting Experts and Minimizing Non-Response and Attrition
As described previously, the desired Delphi expert panel was a group of 30-40
heterogeneous transportation professionals from the private sector, public sector, NGOs, and
academia with expertise in freight, public transit, airport planning, sustainability, transportation
planning, traffic engineering, and economics. The pool of potential experts was found through
literature reviews of work directly or indirectly related to FOT, by researching organizations or
institutions that would have knowledge or a stake in FOT operations, and by searching the
networks of members of the research team. Participants were invited to the study through
personalized emails that included information about why the person was being contacted, the
benefits of participating in the study, the required time commitment, and why their expertise and
input would be valuable. The use of personalized invitations is said to be a major factor in
increasing response rates (Dillman, Smyth and Christian 2009). Another traditional approach
used in this study to increase response rates, was having senior members of the research team
forward the invitation within their networks as individuals with more credibility are more likely
to elicit a response. (Hsu and Sandford 2007b). As the number of desired participants was
relatively small, there was no need for mass or group emails.
Emails were not sent out until the first survey was complete giving participants the option
of completing the survey upon opening the initial email. As contacting potential participants
multiple times has a huge effect on response rates, multiple personalized reminder emails were
sent as well (Dillman et al. 2009). Up to three emails were sent to potential participants (initial
invitation and two reminders), with a third reminder being unnecessary as the desired sample had
already been obtained at this point. Other participants were obtained using “snowball sampling”
where participants are encouraged to forward the invitation within their network resulting in the
potential that multiple experts could be generated from a single invitation (Faugier and Sargeant
1997).
42
An invitation postcard and a recruitment/background video were created to increase
awareness of the study and generate higher response rates. The postcard advertised the study and
was distributed to potential participants at various conferences and symposiums. It included the
subject of the study, the desired participants, time requirements and contact information. The
video was embedded in the initial invitation emails as well as the first questionnaire and
contained information about existing FOT operations, the factors motivating FOT, the Delphi
process, and previewed the process and outcomes of the Delphi study. These pieces of media,
especially the video were intended to both motivate and educate participants and to display a
level of professionalism that would increase the credibility of the study. The video script is
included in Appendix E and the postcard is included in Appendix F.
Besides recruiting experts for the first round, Delphi studies have the additional challenge
of retaining experts and “maintaining high response rates in the following iterations” (Hsu and
Sandford 2007b). Key to the Delphi process is maintaining the same group of participants
throughout the process in order to measure how opinions change throughout. Many techniques
were employed to maintain a high retention rate during the second and third rounds. This
included semi-regular updates letting the participants know the status of the research as well as
fast and thorough responses to questions and queries. Deadlines were included in order to
motivate participants to respond quickly, but exceptions were made for participants that were not
able to meet them. As well, care was taken to keep survey completion times to less than 20
minutes in order to retain even the busiest individuals. Keeping in close touch with participants,
establishing trust, and developing relationships were the main tools used to retain experts and the
high final retention rate was likely a result of persistence and professionalism more than anything
else.
4.3 Survey Design
Surveys were designed using best practices in questionnaire development suggested by
Dillman et al. (2009) and Dfouni (2002) including using clear and simple wording, providing
clear instructions, defining unknown terms, making questions relevant, easy to answer and
interesting, grouping questions with similar qualities, and pretesting questionnaires with experts
from the actual research sample. Web based surveys were tested using different browsers
43
(Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari) and different sized monitors to
ensure compatibility.
For Delphi studies, at least one round of pretesting is recommended “especially … for
inexperienced researchers who may be overly ambitious regarding the scope of their research or
underestimate the time it will take a … participant to fully respond” (Skulmoski et al. 2007). As
this was not only the first Delphi that the researcher had conducted but also the first survey of
any kind, each survey underwent two rounds of pretesting, first with a group of graduate students
and then with a group of transportation planners. Pretesting with students was done to solve
major issues regarding time of completion, wording of questions, question selection, clarity of
subject matter and web survey issues. Pretesting with transportation planners was for smaller
refinements and served as a pilot test for the actual survey helping to identify which questions
generated the most useful data, which questions were difficult to answer, and what
improvements would improve retention rates and response quality.
4.4 Survey 1
The objectives and questions included on the first survey are shown in Figure 4-1. As
described previously, survey 1 was a brainstorming round and all questions were of the open
ended variety with no limits on word count or content. This method was chosen to minimize
input from the research team and to allow the participants to guide the issues generated and the
eventual outcomes of the study. Care is very necessary in this phase because the responses in
round 1 are used to develop all subsequent questionnaires and a poorly designed question can
lead to inappropriate answers and/or frustrated participants (Delbecq et. al 1975). The number of
answers that the participants may provide for each question is also debated, but should be limited
in order to keep participants from burdening the facilitator with too much information. Schmidt
(1997a) recommends that each participant be allowed to list and describe at least six issues for
each question as “respondents are likely to raise the same issue using different terms”. In
general, round 1 questions had spots for up to seven responses except for question 1.5 which had
five. As well, all round 1 questions, with the exception of 1.4 and 1.5 had text boxes for
participants to explain their answers in order to minimize confusion and ambiguity.
44
4.4.1 Layout
The following section describes the different elements that made up the final version of
survey 1 with the full survey included in Appendix A. Targeted participants received an email
with the link to the first survey marking the beginning of the FOT Delphi process.
Invitation Email
Participants were invited to participate in the Delphi via personalized emails written
based on the experiences and knowledge of the recipient and/or the connection to the research or
researchers. The letter began with a brief overview of subject matter and objective of the study
followed by a link to the recruitment video. Including the video was in a sense paying it
forward, illustrating that the researchers had put considerable effort into its production and would
put in a maximum effort for the duration of the study. It also served to prime participants to be
able to answer rather demanding questions about a potentially unfamiliar topic. Following this
Brainstorm FOT issues
Brainstorm FOT operating strategies
Collect demographic information
List up to 7…
1.1 FOT positive impacts
1.2 FOT negative impacts
1.3 FOT challenges
List up to 7…
1.4 FOT stakeholders
List up to 5…
1.5 suitable FOT goods types, transit routes or goods movement corridors
Survey Objectives
FOT Issues Questions
FOTStrategy Building Questions
Figure 4-1 FOT Delphi Survey 1
45
was a paragraph unique to each participant explaining why their particular expertise was critical
in making the study a success and letting them know the time commitment required. Following
this was a link to the first web survey and a section urging potential participants to share the
survey with any interested colleagues, promoting the concept of “snowball sampling”. The note
ended with the facilitator’s contact information and a suggestion to contact the facilitator with
any questions regarding the study or survey instrument. A sample email invitation is included in
Appendix D.
Page 1: Consent Form
Participants with even a moderate level of interest would have opened the web survey
leading them to the consent form that formally introduced them to the study. This form
explained the full objective, the time commitment required, the fact that the survey was
voluntary, and the point that participants were able to drop out at any time without excuse or
reason. It also repeated that the study was confidential, anonymous and that their information
would be securely stored and not shared. Finally, it included the name of the three researchers
conducting the study. Participants that remained interested clicked a box labeled “agree”
indicating that they agreed with the terms of consent while those that did not clicked a box
labeled “disagree”. The “agree” box led participants to the survey while the “disagree” box
redirected them to a page containing a short thank you message as well as link that redirected to
the first survey in case they had clicked “disagree” by mistake.
Page 2: Background and Motivation Video
The background page was included to give a formal definition of FOT and the
recruitment video was included to provide background, to prime participants and to make them
feel at ease in answering a potentially difficult survey.
Page 3: Email Verification
This page was included so that the research team could have a way of contacting the
participants with reminder emails and links to the second and third questionnaires. While this
type of sensitive question is usually put at the end of a survey, asking for it at the beginning
allowed for the contact of participants that filled in the survey only part way (Dillman et al.
46
2009). The fact that most participants were originally contacted via email means that this
information was already readily available and was not likely to lead to non-response.
Page 4: Instructions
This page informed participants of the objectives of the survey and informed participants
that they did not need to complete the whole survey at once and that their responses would be
saved even if they exited the survey either by mistake or on purpose. It also provided contact
information of the facilitator in the event that they had concerns with the question wording or
survey software.
Page 5: Question 1.1: List up to 7 FOT positive impacts
This page contained the first question, asking participants to list what they considered to
be positive impacts of FOT as well as a few pointers to aid them in their responses. Respondents
were able to list up to seven items in seven different text boxes and were also given the option of
describing, explaining, or justifying each one. Including the option to explain their responses
allowed the data to be more specific, less open to the facilitator’s interpretation, and much more
robust. Participants could list anywhere from 0-7 positive impacts and were able to explain all,
none or some of them. The page included a “next” button that was to be clicked once they were
satisfied with their responses or ready to skip to the next question. There was no word limit
imposed on any of the text boxes for this question (or any question) which allowed participants
to be as verbose or succinct as they liked.
Page 6: Question 1.2: List up to 7 FOT negative impacts
Page 7: Question 1.3: List up to 7 barriers or challenges of implementing FOT
The layout, format, wording and response method of these two pages were identical and
parallel to page 5. Rather than list what they saw as the positive impacts of FOT, they were
asked to list what they saw as the most negative impacts as well as the greatest challenges and
barriers standing in the way of FOT implementation. Again primers were given and
respondents could proceed by clicking the “next” button located on the bottom of the page when
they were ready to proceed.
47
Page 8: Question 1.4: List up to 7 Stakeholder Groups that would design, implement, and
operate an FOT service
This question asked participants to list up to seven stakeholder groups that would be in
charge of the design, implementation and operation of an FOT service. Unlike questions 1.1-1.3
there was no option to describe the responses as there was less room for interpretation on this
question. Participants proceeded to the next page in the same fashion as others.
Page 9: Question 1.5: List up to 5 markets, goods types or goods movement corridors that show
potential for FOT service
This question had participants list up to 5 potential markets, goods types, and transit
corridors suitable for FOT. It was the objective of this question to allow participants to suggest a
suitable alignment that they were familiar with, or a specific type of commodity that was
especially suitable for FOT deliveries to help to construct potential FOT operating strategies in
later Delphi rounds.
Page 10: Demographic information
The last page of the survey asked for participants’ demographic information which was
used to ensure that the sample was heterogeneous and of a certain level of expertise. Having this
information also allowed for the analysis of opinions among different demographic groups.
Experts were asked to provide their highest level of education (including concentration/major);
their main area of expertise (freight, transit, etc.); a description of their current workplace
(private sector, public sector, academia, NGO) and the total number of years of work experience
in each workplace sector. Again, participants could skip questions on this page if they wanted
to. This page contained a final “submit” button. After clicking this button, the survey browser
closed and respondents were directed to a thank you page letting them know that their
participation was appreciated and that they would be receiving an update on the progress of the
study soon.
48
4.4.2 Pretesting
The main objectives of pretesting questionnaires were to obtain the proper wording of
questions, prevent confusion among participants, and ensure that the survey was of an
appropriate length. Two pretests were conducted, first with a group of P.H.D. and Master’s
students at the University of Toronto and second with a group of transportation planners at
Metrolinx, the regional transportation planning agency in the GTHA and co-sponsors of this
study. Rigorous testing was necessary as this was an unfamiliar method as well as an unfamiliar
subject matter which meant the survey had the potential to be confusing, time consuming, and
frustrating. The first survey underwent massive design changes as a result of pretesting, most of
them occurring during pretesting with students. The major issues with earlier versions of the
survey were a lack of a clear explanation of FOT and completion times well over the advertised
20 minutes. Table 4-1 summarizes the questions included on each of the three versions of the
surveys which show just how long early versions were compared to the final product.
4.4.2.1 Pretesting with Master’s and PHD Students
Four PhD students and one Master’s student studying transportation engineering at the
Question
NumberDRAFT 1 DRAFT 2 FINAL SURVEY
1List and describe up to 7 FOT Positive Impacts
List and describe up to 7 FOT Positive Impacts
List and describe up to 7 FOT Positive Impacts
2List and describe up to 7 FOT Negative Impacts
List and describe up to 7 FOT Negative Impacts
List and describe up to 7 FOT Negative Impacts
3 List and describe up to 7 FOT BarriersList and describe up to 7 FOT Barriers
List and describe up to 7 FOT Barriers or Challenges
4List up to 7 stakeholder groups to design, implement and operate an FOT service
List up to 7 stakeholder groups to design, implement and operate an FOT service
List up to 7 stakeholder groups to design, implement and operate an FOT service
5List up to 7 positively affected stakeholder groups
List up to 7 positively affected stakeholder groups
List up to 5 markets, goods types, or goods movement corridors that show potential for an FOT service:
6List up to 7 Negatively affected stakeholder groups
List up to 7 negatively affected stakeholder groups
7 FOT strategy 1 - List up to 3 pros and cons Design your own FOT strategy
8 FOT strategy 2 - List up to 3 pros and cons
9 FOT strategy 3 - List up to 3 pros and cons
10 FOT strategy 4 - List up to 3 pros and cons
Table 4-1 Survey 1 Drafts and Final Version
49
University of Toronto participated in the first pilot test. Students wrote the survey and gave
specific comments via email and in individual meetings. Major changes are summarized
individually and minor changes are summarized together
CHANGE 1 – Replaced written description of FOT with FOT video
Where the final version of survey 1 included the video describing FOT and the Delphi
method, the first draft merely had a written description of FOT and external links to videos of
FOT operations in Dresden and Zurich. Many test participants skipped over this section and
entered the survey without a clear view of FOT or of the Delphi method. This caused them to
struggle to answer questions as the outcome of the study and subject matter were both unclear.
Their concerns were met through the production of the video which served a triple bottom line as
it explained the concept of FOT, explained the process and outcomes of the Delphi study and
displayed a level of professionalism and commitment that was hoped to motivate participants to
continue with the survey.
CHANGE 2 – Removed questions 7-10
The original version of questionnaire 1 concluded with four FOT operating strategies
presented on the transit network in the GTHA asking participants to list three pros and cons of
each. While this was a part of the survey that was seen as enjoyable, the answers were generally
similar for all four strategies and did not effectively compare them against each other.
Furthermore, the time to complete the survey was upwards of thirty minutes meaning that
something needed to be removed. Cutting these questions was the natural way to reduce
completion time and in turn keep the input of the facilitator to a minimum.
An original objective of including the scenarios was to help participants visualize exactly
what was meant by FOT, but the addition of the FOT video filled this purpose. Through
discussions with those familiar with the Delphi method and reviewing other Delphi studies, it
was decided that including specific FOT operations in the first round was atypical of a
brainstorming phase. In staying true to the nature of the Delphi these specific scenarios were
replaced by question 7 on the second draft which asked participants to design their own FOT
operation. This question would be modified further during the second round of pretesting,
finally being replaced by question 5 on the final version.
50
SUMMARY OF MINOR CHANGES
One minor change was rearranging the order of the names of the research team on the
consent form. Originally, the names of the two professors involved were listed first to add
credibility to the study, but it was suggested that the main facilitators name should go first in
order to minimize confusion. Also, on this version, email addresses were asked for at the end of
the survey. This portion was moved to the beginning so that participants that only completed a
part of the study could be added to the participant pool and contacted with reminder emails
asking them to complete all parts of the survey. Other changes included fixing layout and
question wording.
4.4.2.2 Pretesting with Transportation Planners
After making the above modifications, a second round of pretesting was done with a
group of six transportation practitioners working for Metrolinx. Their level of knowledge and
experience more closely resembled that of the expected participant pool and this served as the
pilot test. Comments and suggestions were received via email.
With the inclusion of the video and the removal of specific FOT scenarios it was
expected that the survey would be more straightforward and quicker to complete. Overall the
responses from this round of pretesting were positive and the only complaints were regarding the
length of the survey and the difficulty of answering questions on an unfamiliar topic. The first
point was addressed by removing some questions and modifying others while the second point
was addressed through the addition of more helpful and detailed instructions. The fact that
participants found the concept of FOT to be confusing was not a major concern as their level of
knowledge and expertise was not quite as high as that of the desired participant pool. Following
is a list of major and minor changes made as a result of the second round of pretesting.
CHANGE 1 – Inserted more guidance and pointers for open ended questions
A small but critical change that was suggested by a member of the second test group was
the addition of pointers to make the open-ended questions easier to answer. By suggesting the
types of impacts or challenges (impacts on passenger travel, technical challenges, etc.) that were
desired, the survey instrument became much more user friendly, thereby increasing the odds of
expert retention.
51
CHANGE 2 – Removed questions 5 and 6
Questions 5 and 6 on the second draft asked participants to list the stakeholders that
would be positively and negatively affected by an FOT operation. Though they elicited
interesting responses, they were deemed unnecessary as this information could be inferred in
questions 1 and 2 which had participants list the major positive impacts and major negative
impacts of FOT operations. Another reason for removing them was to reduce survey completion
time.
CHANGE 3 – Modified question 7 for ease and variety of responses
Question 7 on the second draft asked participants to design their own FOT strategy but it
did not produce any interesting or useful results. This question was replaced with question 5 on
the final survey asking participants to list up to 5 goods types, transit corridors, or markets that
could be served by FOT. This was less demanding of participants and encouraged a wider range
of responses. Those that had big ideas could provide them, and those that did not could feel
alright by simply listing five suitable classes of commodities. This change was a success as
responses on question 5 on the final survey ended up producing a long list of both suitable goods
for FOT as well as potential operating strategies on different transit networks.
SUMMARY OF MINOR CHANGES
The minor changes that occurred during the second round of pretesting included
removing a question asking for the participants’ names and adding the word “challenge” to
question 3. Asking for participants’ names was deemed unnecessary as actual names are not
really important in an anonymous survey. As well, first and last name is almost universally
included in email addresses which were collected on the third page of the questionnaire.
Inserting the word “challenge” to question 3 was done to produce a wider range of results. The
question initially asked participants to list “barriers” that impeded FOT implementation but it
was decided that this wording was a bit limiting. ”Challenge” was added with hopes that it would
more broadly capture all of the difficulties surrounding the implementation of FOT.
4.4.3 Delivery
Having undergone two rounds of rigorous pretesting, the final version of survey 1 was
finalized and sent to potential participants. Initial invitations were sent out on January 11, 2012
52
and the final response was received on February 6 for a total of 28 days of sampling. Reminder
emails were sent on January 17 and January 26 resulting in spikes in responses on January 17
and 27. From 65 emails sent a total of 32 participants completed the first survey. The timing of
responses is summarized in Figure 4-2 and a complete discussion of response rates and the
composition of the expert panel are presented Chapter 5.
4.5 Survey 2
The second survey was designed based on the responses received in round 1 and was the
first structured Delphi survey. Objectives and questions included in the second survey are shown
in Figure 4-3. While all of these questions were structured, each one also included a text box
where participants were encouraged to justify, defend, and explain their answers, suggest items
not presented, and /or ask for clarification. Traditionally, the objective of the second Delphi
round is to determine the most important issues and where points of disagreement exist between
members of the expert panel (Hasson, Keeney and McKenna 2000). Survey 1 resulted in a large
number of responses as seen in Table 4-2 showing the number of responses provided by each
respondent for each question. As some responses involved participants listing multiple items in
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan 10
Jan 11
Jan 12
Jan 13
Jan 14
Jan 15
Jan 16
Jan 17
Jan 18
Jan 19
Jan 20
Jan 21
Jan 22
Jan 23
Jan 24
Jan 25
Jan 26
Jan 27
Jan 28
Jan 29
Jan 30
Jan 31
Feb 01
Feb 02
Feb 03
Feb 04
Feb 05
Feb 06
Daily ResponsesTotal ResponsesInitial Invite1st Reminder2nd Reminder
Num
ber
of R
espo
nses
Date
Figure 4-2 Timing of Survey 1 Responses
53
a single box, the actual lists generated contained even more items than are shown here, though
many of these were duplicates where different experts provided the same item using different
words.
Design of the second Delphi survey involves taking these long lists and paring them into
a more manageable size for participants to rate or rank against each other (Schmidt 1997a).
Schmidt (1997a) suggests that lists on second round Delphi surveys can have up to 20 items but
the objective in this case was to make them shorter because there were more questions on these
surveys than in other typical Delphi studies (Skulmoski et al. 2007). The long lists generated in
questions 1.1-1.3 were pared down and rephrased for consistency resulting in shorter lists
presented in survey 2 questions 2.1-2.3 of positive impacts, negative impacts, and challenges.
Determine most important FOT Issues
Determine most feasible and desirable FOT operating decisions
Collect demographic information from new participants
Rate on 5 point likert scale…
2.1 13 FOT positive impacts
2.2 13 FOT negative impacts
2.3 16 FOT challenges
Rate on 5 point likert scale…
2.4 13 FOT goods types;
Rate on 5 point likert scales most feasible and desirable:
2.5 cargo location2.6 delivery strategy2.7 integration strategy 2.8 delivery schedule2.9 operating authority
Survey Objectives
FOT Issues Questions
FOTStrategy Building Questions
Figure 4-3 FOT Delphi Survey 2
54
Each list was arranged with items in random order and participants rated all items on the
imbalanced 5 point Likert scale previously described and shown in Figure 3-12. Policy Delphi
studies typically try to rate issues based on their probability, desirability and impact and the
wording of questions 2.1-2.3 attempted to capture all three of these elements without having to
ask for them separately (von der Gracht 2008).
The transition from brainstorming to the structured surveys of the 2nd and 3rd Delphi
rounds must be approached with caution as it represents the shift from strictly qualitative data to
data of a quantitative nature. Rating qualitative statements against each other is in a sense
attempting to “quantify the unquantifiable” and great care was taken to ensure that the statements
in questions 2.1-2.3 were parallel, clear, and of an appropriate length. Loveridge (2002) presents
the most useful guidelines for writing Delphi statements suggesting that they should be
unambiguous, should not contain conditional statements, and should contain anywhere from 10-
30 words. von der Gracht (2010) suggests that the actual length of questions is not as critical as
is the point that each statement should contain only a single issue or item as participants may
agree with one half of a statement but not the other if they contain too much information. This
research did not hold statements to any restrictions on word limit and issues regarding statement
clarity and ambiguity were resolved during survey design and pretesting. As a final note, though
members of pretesting were not included in final analysis, at least one statement on the lists in
questions 2.1-2.3 was suggested by one of the members of the pretesting group. Items presented
for questions 2.1-2.3 are shown in Figure 4-4, Figure 4-5, and Figure 4-6.
Design of questions related to FOT strategy building was a bit more straightforward.
Survey question 1.5 had participants list not only good types, but also specific transit routes and
goods movement corridors suitable for FOT Delivery resulting in 94 responses including 70
QUESTION Number of Respondents Providing ___ Responses
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Total
Responses1.1 Positive Impacts 1 1 1 11 5 4 5 4 1341.2 Negative Impacts 1 1 2 7 5 8 6 2 1361.3 Challenges 0 2 3 10 9 2 3 3 1231.4 Stakeholders 1 1 1 4 5 6 2 12 1611.5 Goods Types 7 3 7 7 5 3 0 0 73
Table 4-2 Survey 1 Response Frequencies
55
CODE FOT Positive ImpactsP1 Increased transportation network efficiency
P2 Reduced traffic congestion as freight shifts from trucks to FOT vehicles
P3 Continuous work for public transit operators which could help eliminate split shifts
P4 New jobs in design, construction, and operation of the FOT service
P5Increased speed and reliability of delivery service using rail vehicles that are insensitive to weather and traffic conditions
P6 Reduced operating costs of goods movement service
P7 Reduced energy use, fuel consumption, and emissions
P8 A new revenue stream for public transit agencies
P9 Improved business case for public transit projects by adding shippers and carriers to customer base
P10 New branding opportunities for public transit agency
P11 Innovative ideas that could be exported or sold
P12Improved business case for mixed use development at mobility hubs by adding low cost and regular goods delivery
P13 A paradigm shift in the freight business that would lead to other sustainable initiatives
CODE FOT Negative ImpactsN1 Decreased safety and security of transit users
N2 Added conflicts between freight operators and transit users at stations and stops
N3 Reduced level of service on transit lines
N4 Increased traffic disruptions and congestion at transit stops and stations
N5 Increased damage to public transit vehicles and infrastructure
N6 Reduced maintenance time for public transit vehicles and infrastructure
N7 Reduced jobs in the trucking industry
N8Increased delivery costs due to additional handling and transfers (costs = time, money, supply chain risk, etc.)
N9Reduced delivery schedule flexibility since FOT would be subject to transit schedules and maintenance activities
N10Reduced freight service flexibility since FOT would be limited in terms of goods types and areas served
N11 Reduced security of goods
N12 Would require large subsidies for initial capital investment
N13 Reduced reliability of freight service since deliveries are sensitive to transit delays
Figure 4-4 Question 2.1 - FOT Positive Impacts
Figure 4-5 Question 2.2 - FOT Negative Impacts
56
CODE FOT ChallengesC1 Finding capacity on crowded public transit networks and vehicles
C2 Coordinating multiple stakeholders
C3 Dealing with resistance from transit users
C4 Financing the initial capital investment
C5 Dealing with resistance from transit agencies, workers, and unions
C6 Dealing with resistance from politicians and decision makers
C7 Communicating operational changes to transit users
C8 Dealing with resistance from freight carriers and couriers
C9 Designing/retrofitting transit vehicles and stations to accommodate goods movement
C10 Coordinating freight and passenger movements at stations and on vehicles
C11 Coordinating last mile logistics from transit vehicle to end user and vice versa
C12 Ensuring safety and security of transit users
C13 Ensuring safety and security of goods
C14 Integrating public transit and goods delivery schedules
C15 Identifying suitable markets, goods types, routes, and clients to be served by FOT
C16 Designing a service with very few examples to build on
CODE FOT GoodsG1 Parcels/mail/courier packages
G2 Waste/garbage/recycling
G3 Bulk construction material
G4 Medical supplies
G5 Print (magazines/newspapers, etc.)
G6 Retail products
G7 Car parts
G8 Tools
G9 Office supplies
G10 Non perishable foods
G11 Agricultural products
G12 Beverages (kegs/wine/soft drinks, etc.)
G13 High turnover groceries (bread/milk/produce, etc.)
Figure 4-6 Question 2.3 - FOT Challenges
Figure 4-7 Question 2.4 - FOT Goods
57
goods types, 17 transit routes and 7 goods movement corridors of which some were duplicates.
The list of 70 goods types was pared down resulting in the list of goods to be rated regarding
suitability for FOT delivery in question 2.4 shown in Figure 4-7. Some of the transit routes
listed were specific routes (e.g. Yonge Street Corridor in Toronto) while others were general
(e.g. convert outlying subway stations to intermodal transfer points). Of the 13 specific transit
routes suggested by experts, 11 were suggestions for the GTHA which guided the decision to use
this network as the base for proposed FOT operations. None of the goods movement corridors
listed were specific but were all general (e.g. small businesses; connections to ports). These
were also set aside to be used for round 3 FOT strategy building.
Questions 2.5-2.9 were described previously and were included to generate inputs for the
design of proposed FOT strategies by presenting different options for the location of cargo on
transit vehicles (2.5); whether FOT should be used for collective or point to point deliveries
(2.6); whether to design FOT on new or existing transit routes (2.7); whether to implement FOT
during or outside of passenger hours (2.8); and who should be in charge of operating the FOT
service (2.9). Participants rated each of design decision based on feasibility and desirability on
the scales shown previously in Figure 3-13. Again, participants had the option of describing and
explaining all responses.
4.5.1 Layout
In a Delphi where the first round is a brainstorming round, it is typical to continue to
invite new participants to join in rounds 2 and 3 (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). In order to deal
with new participants, two versions of survey 2 were created: one for returning participants and
one for new participants. The body of each questionnaire was exactly the same, with the only
differences being that the questionnaire designed for new participants also contained the
following elements from survey 1: consent form, background/FOT video, email verification, and
demographic information ( survey 1: pages 1-3 and 10). The following section describes the
different elements that made up the final version of the second questionnaire with the complete
survey 2 included in Appendix B.
Notification email
An email notifying first round participants that the second round survey was ready was
58
sent using SurveyMonkey’s automated email service. The email included a personalized link to
the second survey coded specifically to each expert in order to link responses to demographic
information. The email also included a second link directing to the survey designed for new
participants to be forwarded to interested colleagues that had not participated in the first round.
It also contained the deadline for survey completion as well as a short description of the expert
group that had participated in the first round. The description of the group was included to
encourage experts to continue to participate by noting the number of participants, as well as the
level and breadth of experience. A follow up email was also sent to account for the possibility
that certain email servers would mark emails sent from SurveyMonkey as spam.
Page 1: Cover and Instructions page
The first page introduced the time commitment and structure of the second survey, the
same web survey instructions that were included in round 1, the names of the research team, and
the contact information of the facilitator.
Page 2: What is FOT?
As many participants had expressed confusion as to what was meant by FOT during the
brainstorming round, this page was included to stress the fact that the research team was using a
very broad definition and that FOT could include any operation where public transit
infrastructure was used to move something other than passengers. They were encouraged to
make note if their answers were referring to a certain type of FOT operation.
Page 3: Part 1 Instructions: FOT Issues
This page introduced the objective of the first part of survey 2 and gave a detailed
description of the instructions. The main point that was stressed on this page was for the
participants to answer all question based on their own informed opinions as some of the
questions may have been difficult for those lacking knowledge in certain areas. The point that
the survey was seeking informed opinion and not fact was included to put the participants at ease
and give them more confidence in their responses thereby minimizing dropouts and non-
response.
Page 4: Question 2.1: Rate 13 FOT Positive impacts on 5 point Likert scale
The objective of the first survey question was for participants to identify the top positive
59
impacts of FOT operations by rating them on the Likert scale shown in Table 3-12. The list of
13 items were arranged randomly for each participant to minimize bias. The question was
worded in the following way:
“Rate each item on the scale provided based on your own informed view of how positive
each would be if FOT were implemented”
Wording the question in this way was done in order to capture both impact and
likelihood. Participants rated all of the items by clicking an appropriate bubble and were able to
select “not positive” for items that they did not consider to be positive impacts or items that they
did not believe FOT would impact in a positive way. There was also given the option to select “I
don’t know” for any items that were unclear or that they were unfamiliar with. A text box was
provided below the list where participants could explain or justify their answers or add any
additional items. The research team would have preferred giving participants the option of
commenting on each item individually but this was not possible with SurveyMonkey.
Participants were required to provide a rating for each item and were not permitted to proceed
until all items had been rated. If they tried to proceed without rating all items, an error screen
would appear alerting them that a rating was required for all items and encouraging them to
select “I don’t know” for any items where they were not sure of. Once all items had been rated,
participants clicked the “next” button to continue with the rest of the survey.
Page 5: Question 2.2: Rate 13 FOT negative impacts on 5 point Likert scale
Page 6: Question 2.3: Rate 16 FOT challenges on 5 point Likert scale
Page 7: Question 2.4: Rate 13 FOT goods types on 5 point Likert scale
Pages 5-7 were laid out in exactly the same was as page four. Questions were worded as
follows:
2.2 “Rate each item on the scale provided based on your own informed view of how
negative each would be if FOT were implemented”
2.3 “Rate each item on the scale provided based on your own informed view of how
much of a challenge each would pose to successful FOT implementation”
60
2.4 “Rate each item on the scale provided based on your own informed view of how
suitable each is for FOT delivery”
Page 8: Part 2 Instructions: FOT Strategies
The instructions for part 2 were presented informing experts that they were to rate certain
operating decisions based on feasibility and desirability. Feasibility was defined as describing
the answer to the question: “CAN we do this? (given current resources, technology, political
climate, etc.)” while desirability was defined as describing the answer to the question:
“SHOULD we do this? (given the associated social and economic costs and benefits). They
were again reminded that answers should be their own informed opinions.
Page 9: Question 2.5: FOT Cargo Location + Question 2.6: FOT Delivery Strategy
Page 10: Question 2.7: FOT Implementation Strategy + Question 2.8: FOT Delivery Schedule
Page 11: Question 2.9: FOT Operating Authority
Pages 9-11 displayed the feasibility and desirability ratings scales from Figure 3-13 at the
top of the page so participants would have reference to the scales at all times. The questions
related to FOT design decisions from Figure 3-14 were split among the three pages so that
participants could see questions and scales at the same time without having to scroll up or down.
Participants rated items based on both feasibility and desirability by selecting the appropriate
rating from drop down menus next to each response item. Each page also had a comment box
where participants could leave comments. Again, participants were not able to proceed without
answering all parts of all questions with an error message appearing if they attempted to do so.
Upon completion of question 2.9, returning participants hit the “submit” button to submit
responses and new participants hit “next” to continue to the demographic information page.
Again, a “thank you” page was included thanking participants and reminding them that their
efforts were critical to the success of the study.
4.5.2 Pretesting
Survey 2 underwent the same pretesting process as survey 1 and like survey 1, underwent
large changes during testing. Questions 2.1-2.4 underwent complete redesign as the original
draft of survey 2 had these as ranking questions while the final version used the rating approach.
Other issues addressed during pretesting included the selection and wording of Delphi
61
statements, as improving instructions throughout the survey. Table 4-3 summarizes the
questions included on each of the three versions of the survey and the following sections
summarize the changes made during pretesting.
4.5.2.1 Pretesting with Master’s and PHD Students
Two PhD students and one Master’s student participated in the first round of pretesting
all having been involved in pretesting survey 1. Students wrote the survey and gave specific
comments via email and in individual meetings.
CHANGE 1 – Questions 2.1-2.4 changed from ranking to rating type
On questions 2.1-2.4 of the first draft, participants were asked to select and rank the top 5
items by marking them in adjacent text boxes with the number 1-5 respectively and to mark any
insignificant or unimportant items with the number 0. This is a typical Delphi question but
proved extremely confusing for two out of three members of the test group. Rather than rank the
top five items, test group members naturally rated the items on a five point scale, even though
they had not been asked to do so. They had assumed that they filled in the survey correctly when
Table 4-3 Survey 2 Drafts and Final Version
62
in fact; they had not fully read the instructions and merely answered the questions in the most
natural way. The research group discussed improving the instructions for this page but instead
decided to change the questions to the rating style in order to make the surveys simpler, generate
more data, and take advantage of peoples’ natural dispositions. Changing to rating questions
also resulted in removing certain items and rewriting all statements to be parallel with the
wording of rating questions.
CHANGE 2 – Removed and combined items from lists
Nine items were either removed or combined with other items from the lists in 2.1-2.4 as
a means of making surveys clearer and quicker to complete: four from 2.1, three from 2.2, and
one each from 2.3 and 2.4.
SUMMARY OF MINOR CHANGES
Minor changes included rewording the instructions page and modifying the
feasibility/desirability scales to make them more consistent with each other. No changes were
made to questions 2.5-2.9 except to question 2.9, rating of FOT operating authority. Originally
there was a space for participants to suggest a group to manage an FOT operation, but it was
removed as it was considered confusing and inconsistent with other questions. Finally,
originally questions 2.5-2.9 were all on the same page but were split to three different pages so
all questions could be viewed at the same time as rating scales without having to scroll up and
down.
4.5.2.2 Pretesting with Transportation Planners
After making the above modifications, a second draft of the survey was completed by the
same six transportation planners that had completed the first round pilot. The general feelings
were that the surveys were interesting and thought provoking but a bit too long and somewhat
confusing, particularly questions 2.1-2.3. Following is a summary of major and minor changes
made as a result of the second pilot test.
CHANGE 1 – Added “You are an expert!” to instructions
On each instruction page, the note “You are an expert! Answer all questions based on
your own informed opinions!” was added in bold. This small but crucial modification was made
63
to make participants feel more at ease during the survey process, based on the comment that test
members felt unsure about certain items causing them to spend too much time on some
questions, leading to long completion times. This note would be included on all instructions
pages on the second and third surveys.
CHANGE 2 – Modified wording and rating scales in questions 2.1-2.4
these questions were reworded considerably in order to make them more parallel with
each other and easier to answer. On the 2nd draft, the questions were too wordy resulting in
many misinterpretations. Final versions were much more succinct and easier to interpret.
Changing the questions resulted in changes to the rating scales. Figure 4-8 shows the changes
made for the scale in question 2.1 with parallel modifications made to scales used for questions
2.2-2.4. The final scale qualifiers were selected as these were the most frequently selected words
for the given values on an imbalanced 5 point Likert scale according to a survey of scale
qualifiers done by Rohrmann (2007).
Figure 4-8 Likert Scale Modifications
SUMMARY OF MINOR CHANGES
On each survey page, the word “outcome” was changed to “objective”; “benefits” and
“costs” were changed to “positive impacts” and “negative impacts”; and a final item was
removed from question 2.2
4.5.3 Delivery
Having undergone two rounds of pretesting, the final version was sent on March 6, 2012
to round 1 participants, those that did not respond to round 1 invitations and others that had since
expressed interest in joining the study. Reminder emails were sent on March 14 and March 26
Final Survey
Notpositive
Slightlypositive
Moderatelypositive
Verypositive
Extremelypositive
I don’tknow
Pilot TestNot
positive atall
A little bit positive
Somewhat positive
Quitepositive
Verypositive
I don’tknow
Value 0 1 2 3 4 N/A
64
with the final response received on April 23 as shown in Figure 4-9. While responses received
on April 17 and 23 were used for final analysis, their inputs could not be used for FOT strategy
design as survey 3 was nearly complete upon their receipt. 31 responses were received from 29
returning participants and 2 new ones.
4.6 Survey 3
The third and final survey was designed based on responses received on surveys 1 and 2
and survey 3 objectives and questions are shown in Figure 4-10. As it involved presenting
feedback from round 2, new experts were not invited to participate and the survey was only sent
to the 31 individuals that had participated in round 2. Questions 3.1-3.3 involved re-rating the
top five issues from questions 2.1-2.3, and the second half of the survey involved discussing and
evaluating proposed FOT operating strategies for the GTHA which were designed based on
responses from the two previous rounds. This section was included to determine which (if any)
of the proposed strategies was the most feasible, and if any of the strategies, or operating
characteristics were complete non-starters. The decision to include the strategies was motivated
by the desire of members of the expert panel to see actual strategies in order to better understand
the concept of FOT. Including the strategies made survey 3 considerably longer than surveys 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Mar 06
Mar 08
Mar 10
Mar 12
Mar 14
Mar 16
Mar 18
Mar 20
Mar 22
Mar 24
Mar 26
Mar 28
Mar 30
Apr 01
Apr 03
Apr 05
Apr 07
Apr 09
Apr 11
Apr 13
Apr 15
Apr 17
Apr 19
Apr 21
Apr 23
Daily ResponsesTotal ResponsesInitial Invite1st Reminder2nd Reminder
Num
ber
of R
espo
nses
Date
Figure 4-9 Timing of Survey 2 Responses
65
and 2 and this section was presented as optional in order to maintain high response rates on
questions 3.1-3.3.
The design of questions 3.1-3.3 was reasonably straightforward. The lists of positive
impacts, negative impacts, and challenges were pared down and the top five items from each list,
based on mean group opinion were presented to each expert along with the group rating and his
or her own rating of each item. Presenting the average rating as well as each individual’s own
rating gave experts the opportunity to re-evaluate and/or defend initial opinions.
As much as was possible, the design of the five FOT operating strategies presented in the
second half of survey 3 was based on input from the expert panel, and not by the opinions of
research team. This included the decision to present strategies for the GTHA as 11 of the 13
Figure 4-10 FOT Delphi Survey 3
Comment on 5 FOT operating strategies…
3.4 Mall Haul3.5 Paper Train3.6 Air Rail Mail3.7 Liquor Line3.8 Commuter Rail Mail
Rank 5 FOT Strategies on the following criteria:
3.9 congestion reduction3.10 profitability3.11 expansion potential3.12 expected resistance3.13 overall
Re-evaluate most important FOT Issues
Determine best FOT operating strategies
Re-rate on 5 point Likert scale…
3.1 top 5 FOT positive impacts
3.2 top 5 FOT negative impacts
3.3 top 5 FOT challenges
Survey Objectives
FOT Issues Questions
FOTStrategy Building Questions
66
specific transit networks suggested by experts in survey question 1.5 were located in this region.
Presenting all strategies on the same network was simpler given the time constraints between
surveys and also allowed for direct comparison and a more robust analysis of FOT in the GTHA
by a group of experts with knowledge of the region and/or the authority to begin a conversation
about implementation. On the survey, participants were shown a map of the GTHA followed by
a brief description of the region as well as the transit networks that would be used for proposed
FOT strategies. All FOT operating strategies were proposed for transit networks serving urban
areas as the focus of the study was urban goods movement. A description of the GTHA and the
five FOT strategies is presented in the next chapter.
Following the description of the GTHA Participants were shown each of the five
strategies (presented in random order) which included a map, a one paragraph description, and
key design characteristics including cargo type, last mile logistics, etc. Participants were asked
to evaluate scenarios, suggest possible improvements, and rate scenarios against each other. The
first two objectives would be accomplished in open ended responses (questions 3.4-3.8) and the
third would be accomplished by having participants rank scenarios against each other on four
different performance criteria as well as overall (questions 3.9-3.13). Final criteria for FOT
strategy evaluation were selected as they were items that frequently appeared in open ended
responses and/or received high ratings during FOT Issue Exploration on survey 2. A summary
of the FOT performance criteria selected is shown in Table 4-4 including the links to round 2
items and each items round 2 mean rankings.
4.6.1 Layout
Preparation of the third survey involved creating a different version for each participant
containing their own responses from round 2 questions 2.1-2.3. As well, five different versions
of questions 3.4-3.13 were created with different orderings of the proposed FOT scenarios in
order to reduce bias. FOT scenario images were hosted on an external site in order to achieve
higher resolution than that offered by Survey Monkey. While there were 31 different versions of
survey 3, each contained all of the same elements described in the following section. A full
version of survey 3 is included in Appendix C.
67
Table 4-4 FOT Performance Criteria and Links to Survey 2 Items
Notification email
A notification email was sent to participants thanking them for their participation and
encouraging them to continue. The high response rate from survey 2 was referenced as well as
the fact that it was critical that they completed the third survey in order for a more complete
statistical analysis. Finally, it was noted that survey 3 was longer than the previous 2 because of
the inclusion of FOT scenarios and that they could view this section as optional in order to
encourage a high retention rate for the first three questions in order to measure changed opinions
regarding the most important FOT issues.
Page 1: Cover and Instructions page
The first page introduced the structure of the third survey, presented the web survey
instructions the names of the research team, and the contact information of the facilitator.
Rd. 2 Code
Rd. 2 Text Rd. 2 Rank
Criteria 1: Congestion Reduction
P2 Reduced traffic congestion as freight shifts from trucks to FOT vehicles 3
N4 Increased traffic disruptions and congestion at transit stops and stations 5
Criteria 2: Profitability
P6 Reduced operating costs of goods movement service 11
N8 Increased delivery costs due to additional handling and transfers 2
N12 Would require large subsidies for initial capital investment 1
C4 Financing the initial capital investment 1
Criteria 3: Expected Resistance
C3 Dealing with resistance from transit users 13
C5 Dealing with resistance from transit agencies, workers, and unions 6
C6 Dealing with resistance from politicians and decision makers 10
C8 Dealing with resistance from freight carriers and couriers 5
Criteria 4: Expansion Potential
N10 Reduced freight service flexibility since FOT would be limited in terms of goods types and areas served
6
C1 Finding capacity on crowded public transit networks and vehicles 2
C15 Identifying suitable markets, goods types, routes, and clients to be served by FOT 11
68
Page 2: Round 2 Summary
This page summarized general trends observed in round 3 regarding points of agreement
and points of disagreement including the point that most observers found it difficult to discuss
FOT without viewing actual operating strategies. Finally, it reinforced the fact that all questions
on the survey, including FOT operating strategies were based on responses on the two previous
surveys.
Page 3: Part 1 Instructions: FOT Issues
Page 3 summarized the instructions for the first three questions where participants would
re-rate FOT issues (positive impacts, negative impacts, challenges) on the same scale as was
used on survey 2. It also made the note that the most suitable goods from survey 2 (question 2.4)
would not be re-rated as these were included as inputs to FOT operating strategies.
Page 4: Question 3.1:Re- Rate top 5 FOT Positive impacts on 5 point Likert scale
This page showed participants the top 5 positive impacts based on group mean opinion
from round 2 arranged in descending order with their own round 2 responses next to the group
mean score. They were then asked to re-rate each item on the same unbalanced 5 point scale.
The functionality was exactly the same as the second survey and all items had to be rated in
order to continue. As well, a text box was included for participants to comment on both their
own responses as well as the group opinion, and to explain if and why their opinions had
changed between rounds.
Page 5: Question 3.2: Re- Rate top 5 FOT negative impacts on 5 point Likert scale
Page 6: Question 3.3: Re- Rate top 5 FOT challenges on 5 point Likert scale
Pages 5 and 6 were arranged in the exact same way as page four but contained the top 5
negative impacts and challenges respectively.
Page 7: Part 2 Instructions: FOT Operating Strategies
Page 7 presented the instructions for the remainder of the survey: first to comment on
five proposed FOT operating strategies and second to rank the five strategies against each other
across different performance criteria. A note was included encouraging participants to spend as
much or as little time on these questions as they pleased as completion time would vary
drastically based on the amount of thought given and the number of words written.
69
Page 8: GTHA Description
This page included a map and a short description of the GTHA and the selected transit
routes for participants unfamiliar with the area. Included with the picture was a link that could
be clicked to open a larger version of the map in a separate browser window that would not
affect the completion of the survey.
Pages 9-13: Questions 3.4-3.8: Evaluate 5 Built FOT Operating Strategies
Each of these pages contained one of the five different FOT strategies including a map, a
summary of the operating characteristics, and a short paragraph describing the operation. Below
each scenario was a text box for participants to comment including prompts suggesting that they
note strengths and weaknesses, potential improvements, and any possible expansion into other
markets.
Page 14: Questions 3.9-3.13: Rank FOT Strategies Across Different Performance Criteria
The final page contained a summary table of the five strategies followed by five
questions where participants would rank them against each other on the performance measures
listed in Table 4-4 and finally overall. Questions were laid out with the five strategies presented
in the same order as they had been presented in questions 3.4-3.8 and participants would assign
a ranking of 1-5 for each strategy, where a rank of 1 was given to the “best” strategy (e.g. most
congestion reduced, least resistance expected) and a ranking of 5 given to the “worst” one (e.g.
least profitable; least expansion potential). Questions 3.9-3.13 used forced rankings meaning
participants had to assign a value to all scenarios for all questions or they would not be able to
proceed and they could not assign two strategies the same ranking. Once they completed all
parts of this page, they hit the final “submit” button to complete the third survey. A final thank
you note was sent to participants that let them know a final report would be sent containing
survey results and analysis once the study was complete.
4.6.2 Pretesting
Survey 3 underwent the same pretesting process as surveys 1 and 2 but unlike the
previous surveys, few changes were made during pretesting rounds. This was due to the fact that
the design of survey 3 took into account feedback from previous pretesting and survey rounds
70
and many questions were repeats from round 2. The changes that were made during each
pretesting round are summarized below.
4.6.2.1 Pretesting with Master’s and PHD Students
2 PhD students and one Master’s student, all repeats from previous pretesting rounds,
completed the first version of survey 3. This round of pretesting was to ensure surveys were
clear, that images could be viewed on different browsers and that the survey was not too long. In
general feedback was positive, with the one issue being survey completion time. Major changes
are summarized individually and minor changes are summarized together.
CHANGE 1 – Remove questions “re-rating” FOT operating strategies
The first version of survey 3 included an entire section after question 3.13 where
participants suggested improvements to each of the strategies and then provided an updated
overall ranking based on their own suggested improvements. The general comment was that this
section was superfluous and that it was unlikely that any suggested improvements could
drastically alter the relative value of any of the strategies. Indeed, all three participants had
identical rankings before and after improvements. It was decided that this question did not add
enough value to justify the additional completion time and was therefore removed.
CHANGE 2 – Question 3.11 changed from “expected number of conflicts” to “expansion
potential”
The first version of survey 3 asked participants to rank FOT strategies based on the
expected number of conflicts each would have with transit users. However, since two of the
strategies occurred outside of passenger hours, and a third on a self propelled vehicle, it was
fairly easy to deduce what the answer would be. It was decided that a more interesting question
would be to explore which of the strategies might be able to move other kinds of goods or
operate on other transit routes, so this was changed to “expansion potential” on the next draft.
SUMMARY OF MINOR CHANGES
Minor changes made during the first round of pretesting included cleaning up the maps of
FOT strategies as well as improving the images presenting participants’ own responses on
questions 3.1-3.3.
71
4.6.2.2 Pretesting with Transportation Planners
After making the above modifications, a second draft of the survey was completed by
five of the six transportation planners that had completed the first two pilots. An issue arose as
participants were unable to view any external images included on the survey as the image
hosting site was blocked by the Metrolinx firewall. It was fortunate that this occurred during this
round and not during actual survey implementation. After re-uploading the images the survey
was sent back and completed by test group members. As there were no major issues or concerns,
it was sent out essentially unchanged.
4.6.3 Delivery
The final version was sent on April 26, 2012 to the 31 participants that had written survey
2. Reminder emails were sent on May 2, May 9, and May 23 with a final reminder sent on June
1. Timing of responses is summarized in Figure 4-11. The window for completion was kept
open for longer than in previous round because there was no rush to get results, as there were no
more surveys to design. All of the 31 experts that completed the 2nd survey completed
questions 3.1-3.3, and 25 completed all parts of the third survey. A further discussion of
response rates follows in chapter 5.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Apr 25
Apr 26
Apr 27
Apr 28
Apr 29
Apr 30
May 01
May 02
May 03
May 04
May 05
May 06
May 07
May 08
May 09
May 10
May 11
May 12
May 13
May 14
May 15
May 16
May 17
May 18
May 19
May 20
May 21
May 22
May 23
May 24
May 25
May 26
May 27
May 28
May 29
May 30
May 31
Jun 01
Daily ResponsesTotal ResponsesInitial Invite1st Reminder2nd Reminder3rd ReminderFinal Reminder
Num
ber
of R
espo
nses
Date
Figure 4-11 Timing of Survey 3 Responses
72
Chapter 5: Results and Analysis
This chapter describes and analyzes results from the three round FOT Delphi Survey
process. Following a discussion of the response rates and the expert panel is the analysis of FOT
Issues Exploration organized into sections on positive impacts, negative impacts and challenges.
Survey questions related to the second research objective are split into three sections: FOT
strategy building, final FOT strategies, and FOT strategy evaluation.
5.1 Response and Retention Rates
34 experts participated in at least one survey with 25 recruited directly and a further 9
joining because of snowball sampling. The 25 responses were received from 65 email
invitations for a 38% response rate which is reasonably high compared to other Delphi studies
(Hsu and Sandford 2007b).
The round by round retention rates are summarized in Table 5-1. The retention rate
shown in the rightmost column was obtained by dividing the number of returning respondents by
the total number of respondents in the previous round. Three participants dropped out after the
first round and an additional two joined at the beginning of round 2. All round 2 respondents
completed at least the first part of the final survey with 25 completing all sections. Of the 34
experts, 29 participated in all rounds, 2 participated only in rounds 2 and 3 and 3 participated
only in round 1.
Delphi SurveyResponses Received
New Lost Return Total %
Round 1 32 - - 32 -
Round 2 2 3 29 31 91%
Round 3Part 1 - 0 31 31 100%
Part 2 - 6 25 25 81%
Table 5-1 Retention Rates by Round
73
5.2 Demographics of Expert Panel
The demographic information collected directly on the surveys included the highest level
of education and field of study, the area of expertise, their current workplace (private sector,
public sector, etc.) and the number of years of work experience. Demographic information was
collected to measure the level of expertise of the panel, to ensure heterogeneity, and for analysis
of opinions among different groups. The following section summarizes the demographic
information provided by the 34 professionals that completed at least one Delphi survey.
Education
A summary of the highest degree obtained by each panel member is shown in Figure 5-1.
All members received some kind of post secondary education with the majority receiving either a
Masters or a Ph.D. Additionally, one member was pursuing a Ph.D. another pursuing a Masters,
and at least three had received multiple Masters Degrees. At least 11 earned their highest degree
studying transportation planning or transportation engineering with the rest being scattered
among different disciplines including business, civil engineering, geography, urban planning,
etc.
Figure 5-1 Delphi Participants by Highest Degree Earned
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
College Bachelors Masters Ph.D.
74
Area of Expertise
A summary of self reported expertise is shown in Figure 5-2. Many participants noted
that they had expertise in more than one of these areas, and in this case, were asked to select a
single area in which they most identified themselves as an expert. A sixth category,
“environment/sustainability” was included on questionnaires but not selected. There was a good
split among freight (11) and transit (9) professionals who made up just over half of participants.
Three of the experts that identified themselves as logistics professionals also noted previous
experience studying and/or designing FOT operations.
Workplace Sector
A summary of the self reported workplace sector is shown in Figure 5-3. The final
distribution had good representation from the private sector, public sector, and academia with
only three participants working for NGOs. This split was considered to be reasonably
representative of the transportation planning field.
Freight and Logistics
Public Transit
Planning
Airports
Finance/Economics
ITS
311
9
7
31
Figure 5-2 Delphi Participants by Area of Expertise
75
Years of Experience
Figure 5-4 summarizes the number of years of work experience of expert panel members
split into ten year bins. Almost half had over 30 years of work experience due to the fact that
initial invitations were sent out mainly to professionals holding senior positions. More
experience did not necessarily mean having greater knowledge of FOT as two of the three
participants with previous FOT experience had been working for less than 10 years. The median
number of years of work experience was 30 which was skewed towards an older demographic.
Gender and Geographical Location
Gender and geographical location were not self reported but extracted from email
addresses and/or web searches. Like average age, these both presented potential sources of bias.
Of the 34 experts, there were 32 males and only 2 females. The imbalanced gender distribution
is partially because transportation is typically a male dominated field as indicated by a random
survey of 360 transportation professionals by Handy et al. (2002) that produced a 70/30 male to
female split. This expert panel had an even lower proportion of females at under 10% which
might be indicative of gender disparity in positions of influence. Attempts to recruit more
female panel members were unsuccessful.
Public Sector
Private Sector
Academia
NGO
13
11
7
3
Figure 5-3 Delphi Participants by Workplace Sector
76
By location, 27 experts were located in Ontario with 4 located in Europe and the final 3
located in the United States. This imbalance was mostly a result of the fact that invitations were
sent out within professional networks of individuals working in Toronto. While it would have
been interesting to have a broader distribution of experts, having a large portion of experts with
knowledge and/or influence over transportation planning in this one region allowed for a robust
exploration of the potential for FOT in the GTHA.
In general, the expert panel was a heterogeneous group of highly experienced
transportation professionals working in the GTHA with a small number of females and
professionals located in Europe and the United States. There was a level of bias due to the
recruitment process as well as inherent bias within the transportation field but the good
distribution of participants across both the area of expertise and workplace sector suggested that
a broad exploration of FOT would be attainable.
5.3 FOT Issues
The following section presents statistical analysis, analysis of open ended comments, and
a general discussion of the first research objective, the exploration of FOT issues. Positive
impacts, negative impacts, and challenges are analysed separately and then discussed together in
a summary at the end of this section.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40+
Figure 5-4 Delphi Participants by Years of Work Experience
77
5.3.1 FOT Positive Impacts
Survey question 1.1 asked participants to list and explain up to 7 positive impacts of
moving freight on public transit networks, resulting in 134 total responses and 25 unique
responses. Data was processed to remove duplicates and reword questions resulting in the list of
FOT Positive Impacts shown in Table 5-2. Many of the more frequently listed items including
“reduced emissions”, “increased network capacity”, and “reduced congestion” were the same as
those found in the literature. Interestingly enough, every expert listed “reduced
emissions/fuel/energy use” in some shape or form. Some of the more unexpected items included
the suggestion that FOT might provide more work for transit operators, that FOT might provide
positive branding for both freight operators and transit agencies, and that FOT could provide
transit that is friendly for shopping. It is unclear if this last item was suggesting that FOT would
produce transit networks that conveniently served commercial areas or if there was potential for
putting shopping centres directly on transit vehicles. As seen by the diverse and extensive list,
the brainstorming round was successful in exploring the positive impacts of FOT.
Response Frequency Response Frequency
Reduced emissions/fuel/energy use 32 Better case for public transit investment 1
Better use of network/capacity 18 Better case for mixed development at transit stations 1
Reduced congestion 16 More work for transit operators 1
Cheaper deliveries 12 Paradigm shift in freight business 1
More reliable and fast deliveries 12 Branding opportunities for transit agency 1
Revenue for transit agency 11 Innovative ideas that could be exported or sold 1
More routine deliveries 5 Branding opportunities for freight carriers 1
Increased network versatility 4 Improved transit frequency 1
Improved road safety 3 It has been proven successful 1
Include freight in urban design 3 Potential to have multiple vehicles 1
Reduced wear on roads 3 Routine pick-up in underserviced areas 1
New Jobs in FOT construction and operation 2 Shared cost of infrastructure 1
Transit that is friendly for shopping 1
Table 5-2 Round 1 FOT Positive Impacts
78
Though this list had already been pared down from 134 to 25 items, it was still too long
to present on the 2nd survey. The most frequent items were kept, multiple items were combined
into single items, while others were removed completely based on the discretion of the research
team. This resulted in the 13 most frequent, compelling and diverse positive impacts to be rated
by experts on the second survey on a five point imbalanced Likert scale ranging from 0 (not
positive) to 4 (extremely positive). The full list of round 2 positive impacts and a statistical
summary of question 2.1 is shown in Table 5-3.
Positive impacts will be referred to by the code shown in the leftmost column. The
summary includes mean, standard deviation (SD), the percentage of respondents rating items as
“very positive” or “extremely positive” (%>2), the percentage of respondents rating items as
“slightly positive” or “not positive” (%<2), the percentage of respondents rating items as “not
positive” (%NOT), the mode, and the interquartile range (IQR) measuring the difference
between the upper and lower quartiles. Also included is Kendall’s coefficient of concordance
(W) which is a measure showing the level of agreement among experts’ rankings of items where
a W value of 0 indicates no agreement and a value of 1 indicates complete agreement. Items are
Positive Impact (W = 0.14) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) Mode IQR
P7 Reduced energy use, fuel consumption, and emissions 2.32 1.14 45% 32% 0% 1 2
P8 A new revenue stream for public transit agencies 2.26 1.21 45% 35% 3% 1 2
P2 Reduced traffic congestion as freight shifts from trucks to FOT vehicles 1.97 1.08 26% 39% 3% 1 1.5
P9Improved business case for public transit projects by adding shippers and carriers to customer base
1.94 1.21 32% 42% 10% 1 2
P1 Increased transportation network efficiency 1.87 1.12 32% 42% 10% 1 2
P3Continuous work for public transit operators which could help eliminate split shifts
1.86 1.15 32% 35% 13% 3 2
P12Improved business case for mixed use development at mobility hubs by adding low cost and regular goods delivery
1.84 1.00 26% 35% 10% 2 1.5
P13A paradigm shift in the freight business that would lead to other sustainable initiatives
1.77 0.86 26% 48% 0% 1 1.75
P5Increased speed and reliability of delivery service using rail vehicles that are insensitive to weather and traffic conditions
1.67 1.30 29% 52% 19% 1 2
P4 New jobs in design, construction, and operation of the FOT service 1.60 0.97 19% 55% 6% 1 1
P6 Reduced operating costs of goods movement service 1.54 1.04 13% 52% 10% 1 1
P10 New branding opportunities for public transit agency 1.48 1.18 23% 52% 26% 0 1.5
P11 Innovative ideas that could be exported or sold 1.45 0.93 16% 58% 13% 1 1
Table 5-3 Round 2 FOT Positive Impacts Statistical Summary
79
ordered in descending order based on group mean score.
Four of the top five items (P7, P8, P2, P1) were among the top 6 most frequently listed
items in the first round. Other highly rated items (P9, P3, P12) were only listed once in round 1
while lower rated items (P5, P6) were referred to multiple times during the brainstorming round
but not rated highly in round 2. A few trends can be observed from analyzing the mean values.
Most of the top rated items are either societal benefits (P7, P2, P1) or benefits for transit agencies
(P8, P9) while positive impacts related to the logistics industry were rated in certain cases as
being “not positive” and in others as having only a marginal benefit. 52% considered the effects
FOT would have on delivery speed, reliability, and costs as being marginally positive at best
(P5,P6) with 19% rating the effects on delivery speed and reliability (P5) as “not positive”
meaning they felt FOT would actually result in a slower and less reliable delivery service.
In general there was not a high level agreement among participants especially on higher
rated items. There was some level of agreement, shown by low standard deviation (SD<1) and
IQR values (IQR<=1), that benefits related to jobs in the building and construction of FOT
would be marginal at best (P4) and that it would not be easy to export the idea of FOT to other
systems (P11). The fact that the top five rated items all had a mode of 1 shows that a large
proportion of participants did not believe that FOT would have any significant positive impacts
in any of these areas. A more complete analysis of rating distributions is shown in Table 5-4.
The centering of P2 between 1 and 2 shows that although this item had the third highest mean
rating, not many of these experts expect FOT to have a significant impact on reducing
congestion. The reasonably flat distributions of items P3 and P5 reveal the range of opinions on
FOT and also the opinions of members of different industries. Creating continuous work for
transit operators (P3) would be a major benefit for transit agencies and increased speed of
deliveries (P5) would be a major benefit for freight professionals. However, after splitting
responses by demographic group, freight operators rated P5 much lower than transit
professionals and transit professionals rated P3 much lower than those in the freight industry.
This might be due a limited understanding of the others’ industry or may be telling of resistance
to change within each workplace. Finally, the relatively low W of 0.14 indicates little agreement
among experts on the relative ratings of FOT positive impacts and was also likely low because
80
items could be interpreted in a number of different ways depending on the type of FOT operation
and the amount of modal shift.
The top five items were re-rated in survey 3. A statistical summary is shown in Table 5-5
and the changes between rounds 2 and 3 are shown in Table 5-6. In general, experts’ opinions
did not change much. Of the 155 responses received for question 3.1 (based on 31 experts
answering 5 questions each), responses changed only 44 times. Of these, 32 were changes from
more positive to less positive leaving only 12 items rated as more positive in round 3. The mean
value of all items decreased between rounds suggesting that in general participants saw the
impacts of FOT as less positive in round 3 than in round 2. The main reason for the reductions
in mean were that certain participants had been initially very excited about the idea of moving
freight on transit networks and later realized that they had been a bit over optimistic in their
initial ratings. The reduction of W from 0.14 to 0.08 indicates that the relative rankings of items
in round 3 was less similar than in round 2. The reason for this reduction was mostly due to the
fact that the list in round 2 contained many items that were mainly judged to be not very positive
resulting in more agreement regarding the relative importance of items. The five items in round
Table 5-4 Round 2 FOT Positive Impacts Response Frequencies
Positive Impact 0 1 2 3 4 IDK
P7 Reduced energy use, fuel consumption, and emissions 0 10 7 8 6 0
P8 A new revenue stream for public transit agencies 1 10 6 8 6 0
P2 Reduced traffic congestion as freight shifts from trucks to FOT vehicles 1 11 11 4 4 0
P9Improved business case for public transit projects by adding shippers and carriers to customer base
3 10 8 6 4 0
P1 Increased transportation network efficiency 3 10 8 8 2 0
P3Continuous work for public transit operators which could help eliminate split shifts
4 7 7 9 1 3
P12Improved business case for mixed use development at mobility hubs by adding low cost and regular goods delivery
3 8 12 7 1 0
P13A paradigm shift in the freight business that would lead to other sustainable initiatives
0 15 7 8 0 1
P5Increased speed and reliability of delivery service using rail vehicles that are insensitive to weather and traffic conditions
6 10 5 6 3 1
P4 New jobs in design, construction, and operation of the FOT service 2 15 7 5 1 1
P6 Reduced operating costs of goods movement service 3 13 8 2 2 3
P10 New branding opportunities for public transit agency 8 8 8 6 1 0
P11 Innovative ideas that could be exported or sold 4 14 8 5 0 0
81
3 on the other hand were all relatively positive. The reduction in W indicates that there was no
consensus among the expert panel regarding which of these five positive impacts was the most
positive which was not entirely unexpected.
In general trends observed in exploring FOT positive impacts were consistent with the
literature with the greatest benefits of FOT being environmental savings, positive impacts for
transit agencies in terms of increasing revenue and improving the business case for transit
projects, and the network benefits of congestion reduction and increased efficiency. An
interesting positive impact revealed in this study and not previously mentioned in the literature is
the idea that FOT might lead to a more efficient usage not only of transit networks, but of transit
staff as well, as seen by the relatively high rating of P3 in survey 2.
5.3.2 FOT Negative Impacts
Question 2 on survey 1 asked participants to list and explain up to 7 negative impacts of
FOT resulting in 136 total responses that were processed in the same way as the positive impacts
Positive Impact (W = 0.06) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) Mode IQR
P7 Reduced energy use, fuel consumption, and emissions 2.06 0.77 32% 26% 0% 2 1.5
P8 A new revenue stream for public transit agencies 1.97 1.05 29% 39% 3% 1 2
P2Reduced traffic congestion as freight shifts from trucks to FOT vehicles
1.84 0.78 16% 35% 0% 2 1
P1 Increased transportation network efficiency 1.81 0.95 23% 39% 6% 2 1
P9Improved business case for public transit projects by adding shippers and carriers to customer base
1.74 0.93 23% 48% 3% 1 1
Positive Impact (W = -.08) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) IQR Rank
P7 Reduced energy use, fuel consumption, and emissions -0.26 -0.37 -13% -6% 0% -0.5 n/a
P8 A new revenue stream for public transit agencies -0.29 -0.16 -16% 3% 0% 0 n/a
P2 Reduced traffic congestion as freight shifts from trucks to FOT vehicles -0.13 -0.30 -10% -3% -3% -0.5 n/a
P9 Improved business case for public transit projects by adding shippers and carriers to customer base -0.19 -0.28 -10% 6% -6% -1 +1
P1 Increased transportation network efficiency -0.06 -0.17 -10% -3% -3% -1 -1
Table 5-5 Round 3 FOT Positive Impacts Statistical Summary
Table 5-6 FOT Positive Impacts Changes Between Rounds
82
resulting in the list off 22 unique negative impacts shown in Table 5-7. Many of the most
frequently listed items including “Reduced level of service (LOS) on transit networks”,
“Additional handling”, “More expensive to shippers”, and “Legal issues with taxes supporting
private business” were similar to those found in the literature. In general, none of the items
generated were particularly novel, but they showed the range of negative impacts FOT might
have on both freight and transit operations. In this survey section, and throughout the Delphi
process, those experts that were in favour of FOT operations stressed that while these would be
negative if they happened, that they could be mitigated with proper design. Regarding subsidies
and government supporting private businesses, more than one member of the expert panel
believed that supporting FOT would be no different than governments maintaining roads as this
already gives trucks a competitive advantage. As with the list of positive impacts, the 22 items
listed above were reduced to the 13 most frequent, compelling and diverse FOT negative impacts
to be rated on the second survey. The full list of round 2 negative impacts along with the same
descriptive statistics used to describe group opinion of FOT positive impacts is shown in Table
5-8. In this case, participants rated items on a four point scale ranging from 0 (not negative) to 4
(extremely negative).
Findings were generally consistent with the literature as some of the largest negative
impacts of moving freight on transit networks were considered to be the need to subsidize
operations (N12) and the fact that FOT would not be competitive with trucking (N8, N10, N9).
Response Frequency Response Frequency
Reduced LOS on transit networks 21 Last mile logistics still requires road vehicles 5
Additional handling and employees to deliver goods 18 Inflexible delivery times 5
More expensive to shippers 15 Limited in types of cargo 3
Limited in areas served 11 Competition with passengers for space 3
Damage and reduced maintenance time for PT vehicles 8 Loss of jobs in trucking industry 3
Legal issues with taxes supporting private business 8 Too complicated/complex 2
Slower and more unreliable goods delivery 8 Loss of freight security 2
No capacity on transit networks 6 Loss of security for passengers 2
Conflicts between passengers and freight at stations 6 Potential requirement for large public subsidy 1
More traffic congestion at or near transit stations 6 No growth potential 1
Distracts from transit core practices 6 No demand 1
Table 5-7 Round 1 FOT Negative Impacts
83
As in the rating of positive impacts, many items at the top of the list are related to the societal
impacts of FOT like added conflicts at transit stations (N2), reduced LOS on transit lines (N3),
and increased congestion near transit stations (N4). The fact that 16% of experts rated item N3
as “not negative” indicates that they do not believe that FOT would have negative effects on
transit service. As well, 39% of experts indicated that eliminating jobs in the trucking industry
(N7) was actually a good thing with more than one citing a shortage of truckers in North
America as being a major concern for the future of the industry. This suggests that this item may
actually have been misclassified showing the advantage of including the zero point on the scale.
The range of mean values went from a minimum of 1.03 to a maximum of 2.07 indicating that all
of these negative impacts were considered to be slightly to moderately negative based on their
likelihood and impact as a result of moving freight on transit.
As in the rating of positive impacts, there was not a large amount of agreement on most
items. N10 had both the highest standard deviation and IQR as some experts saw reduced freight
service flexibility as being a deterrent while others were of the opinion that despite its
limitations, FOT could still usefully serve certain markets. There was a reasonable level of
agreement that FOT would not be highly damaging to transit vehicles or operations as seen by
Negative Impact (W = 0.12) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) Mode IQR
N12 Would require large subsidies for initial capital investment 2.07 1.03 29% 29% 3% 2 2
N8Increased delivery costs due to additional handling and transfers (costs = time, money, supply chain risk, etc.) 2.03 1.15 35% 35% 6% 1 2
N2Added conflicts between freight operators and transit users at stations and stops 1.93 0.83 23% 32% 0% 2 1
N3 Reduced level of service on transit lines 1.86 1.33 29% 39% 16% 2 2
N4 Increased traffic disruptions and congestion at transit stops and stations 1.77 1.07 26% 48% 6% 1 1.75
N10Reduced freight service flexibility since FOT would be limited in terms of goods types and areas served 1.73 1.28 29% 45% 19% 1 2
N9Reduced delivery schedule flexibility since FOT would be subject to transit schedules and maintenance activities 1.63 1.07 19% 52% 10% 1 1
N6 Reduced maintenance time for public transit vehicles and infrastructure 1.40 1.07 19% 55% 23% 1 1
N5 Increased damage to public transit vehicles and infrastructure 1.34 1.04 13% 58% 19% 1 1
N11 Reduced security of goods 1.33 1.24 19% 61% 29% 1 2
N13Reduced reliability of freight service since deliveries are sensitive to transit delays 1.23 1.09 13% 65% 29% 1 2
N7 Reduced jobs in the trucking industry 1.06 1.09 16% 71% 39% 0 2
N1 Decreased safety and security of transit users 1.03 1.05 6% 77% 32% 1 1
Table 5-8 Round 2 FOT Negative Impacts Statistical Summary
84
the low ratings of items N6, N5 and N1 as well as their low standard deviations and IQR. A
more detailed look at the distribution of opinions is shown in Table 5-9. As in the examination
of positive impacts, responses are skewed to the left side of the scale. This can mostly be
explained by the general opinion that FOT would not obtain a large market share of goods
movement operations and its impacts, both positive and negative would be minimal. The lower
rated items tended also to have higher levels of agreement (N1, N7), while other items had
generally flat distributions (N12, N8, N3, N10). Freight professionals were just as concerned
with reducing transit LOS as transit professionals as indicated by almost identical ratings of N3.
Amazingly, both groups provided identical mean ratings of N8 indicating that transit
professionals are equally concerned with maintaining efficient logistics operations. Members of
the freight industry were more concerned than those in other demographic groups with the
reduced flexibility of freight service provided by FOT (N10), suggesting a resistance to changing
operations. Freight operators were also generally more turned off by the need to subsidize
operations, rating item N12 as more negative than other groups, likely because they would not
want competitors to gain any kind of advantage. As in the rating of positive impacts, the value
Negative Impact 0 1 2 3 4 IDK
N12 Would require large subsidies for initial capital investment 1 8 11 6 3 2
N8Increased delivery costs due to additional handling and transfers (costs = time, money, supply chain risk, etc.)
2 9 7 8 3 2
N2Added conflicts between freight operators and transit users at stations and stops
0 10 13 6 1 1
N3 Reduced level of service on transit lines 5 7 7 5 4 3
N4 Increased traffic disruptions and congestion at transit stops and stations 2 13 7 6 2 1
N10Reduced freight service flexibility since FOT would be limited in terms of goods types and areas served
6 8 7 6 3 1
N9Reduced delivery schedule flexibility since FOT would be subject to transit schedules and maintenance activities
3 13 8 4 2 1
N6 Reduced maintenance time for public transit vehicles and infrastructure 7 10 7 6 0 1
N5 Increased damage to public transit vehicles and infrastructure 6 12 7 3 1 2
N11 Reduced security of goods 9 10 5 4 2 1
N13Reduced reliability of freight service since deliveries are sensitive to transit delays
9 11 7 3 1 0
N7 Reduced jobs in the trucking industry 12 10 4 5 0 0
N1 Decreased safety and security of transit users 10 14 5 0 2 0
Table 5-9 Round 2 FOT Negative Impacts Response Frequencies
85
of W was quite low at 0.12 again indicating the difficulty of reaching a consensus on rating these
items that could be interpreted in many different ways.
The top five negative impacts were re-rated in survey 3. Round 3 statistics are shown in
Table 5-10 with the changes between rounds 2 and 3 shown in Table 5-11. As in rating positive
impacts, few experts changed their minds. Of the 155 responses on question 3.2, only 35
changed their minds. 21 items were rated as more negative in round 3 and 14 were rated as less
negative. There were no large changes, and changes that occurred tended towards experts rating
items as more negative after having had more time to consider FOT. The only item that had a
reduction in mean rating was N12 regarding the need to subsidize FOT, based on three
participants rating it as less negative. Interestingly, 23 of the 31 experts assigned N12 a rating of
“2” which is why the IQR became zero. Finally the reduction in W can be explained for the
same reasons as in the discussion of positive impacts – that it is difficult to determine the most
negative impact among the top five.
Negative Impact (W = 0.03) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) Mode IQR
N8Increased delivery costs due to additional handling and transfers (costs = time, money, supply chain risk, etc.)
2.13 1.07 40% 33% 3% 3 2
N2Added conflicts between freight operators and transit users at stations and stops
2.07 0.91 23% 27% 0% 2 0.75
N12 Would require large subsidies for initial capital investment 1.96 0.79 18% 21% 4% 2 0
N4Increased traffic disruptions and congestion at transit stops and stations
1.90 0.98 26% 39% 3% 1 1.5
N3 Reduced level of service on transit lines 1.90 1.18 27% 40% 10% 2 1.75
Negative Impact (W = -.09) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) IQR Rank
N8Increased delivery costs due to additional handling and transfers (costs = time, money, supply chain risk, etc.) 0.099 -0.07 2% -5% -4% 0 +1
N2Added conflicts between freight operators and transit users at stations and stops 0.133 0.08 0% -7% 0% -0.25 +1
N12 Would require large subsidies for initial capital investment -0.1 -0.24 -13% -10% 0% -2 -2
N4Increased traffic disruptions and congestion at transit stops and stations 0.137 -0.09 -1% -11% -3% -0.25 +1
N3 Reduced level of service on transit lines 0.043 -0.14 -5% -3% -8% -0.25 -1
Table 5-10 Round 3 FOT Negative Impacts Statistical Summary
Table 5-11 FOT Negative Impacts Changes Between Rounds
86
In general the trends observed were consistent with the literature as the need for
subsidies, increased delivery costs due to double handling, increased congestion at transit
stations and reductions in public transit LOS were all rated by the expert panel as being
particularly negative impacts of integrating freight movements onto public transit networks. The
general comment from respondents in this section as well as in the exploration of positive
impacts was that it was difficult to rate potential impacts of FOT without a more detailed
description of the operations. This difficultly was explained statistically through high standard
deviations and low values of W.
The trend of experts rating positive impacts as less positive and negative impacts as more
negative from round 2 to round 3 indicates a reduced interest in FOT over time. Finally, experts
who were more interested in the FOT concept typically considered negative impacts to be
avoidable with proper care and design including as starting small, having ample communication
between all parties, and only implementing FOT on networks that could support the additional
movements. These types of suggestions were not explained by any statistical test showing the
value of including comment boxes alongside Delphi questions.
5.3.3 FOT Challenges
The final portion of FOT exploration involved determining the greatest challenges of
integrating freight movements onto public transit networks. Question 1.3 asked participants to
list and explain up to 7 challenges of FOT resulting in 123 total responses that were processed
into the list of 24 unique challenges shown in Table 5-12. Many of the most frequent responses
including “moving freight without disrupting transit”, “identifying suitable markets”,
“coordinating stakeholders” and dealing with resistance from different stakeholder groups were
consistent with challenges found in the literature. Beyond these organizational challenges, many
technical challenges were suggested including “redesign of stations and infrastructure”,
“designing vehicles”, “last mile logistics”, “developing the technology” and “making it
sustainable”. As panel members in support of FOT explained potential ways of mitigating
negative impacts, they also presented potential solutions to challenges. Regarding stakeholder
resistance, certain experts suggested that the uptake of FOT would be small enough so as not to
disrupt passenger service or threaten trucking companies making it less of an issue than if FOT
captured large portions of the market. In terms of technical challenges, it was suggested that the
87
challenge of coordinating last mile logistics might be minimized if FOT were used in tandem
with more flexible modes such as walking couriers or freight tricycles. Finally regarding vehicle
and station redesign, the suggestion was made to consider developing FOT for new transit
projects and designing vehicles and stations suitable for goods movement in the initial phases.
Some of the 24 items were combined and others were eliminated resulting in 16 of the most
compelling challenges of FOT implementation to be rated in the second round. A statistical
summary of these 16 challenges obtained on survey 2 is shown in Table 5-13.
Items were rated on an imbalanced five point scale ranging from 0 (not challenging) to 4
(extremely challenging) based on how big of a challenge each would pose to the implementation
of an FOT operation. Overall, FOT challenges received much higher overall ratings than those
in the lists of positive and negative impacts as eleven items on the list of challenges received
mean ratings of over 2 compared to two items on each of the other two lists. A higher value of
W (.21 vs. .14 and .12) indicated more agreement among experts in the ratings of these items as it
was more straightforward for them to imagine the difficulty of designing, implementing, and
operating an FOT service compared to estimating potential impacts of FOT in general.
Considering all three lists together, a general opinion of the group that might be extracted is that
an FOT operation would be extremely difficult to implement with only minor positive and
negative impacts which begins to explain why there are not more operations already. Of the top
Response Frequency Response Frequency
Redesign of stations and infrastructure 11 Identifying suitable markets 4
Moving freight without disrupting transit 8 Resistance from Unions 4
Designing/retrofitting vehicles 8 Reistance from politicians 3
Making it economically viable 7 Finding capacity on transit networks 3
Coordinating stakeholders 7 Lack of experience/examples 3
Resistance from Freight operators 6 Resistance from public 3
Resistance from Transit operators 6 Developing the technology 2
Convincing users/customers 5 Making it sustainable 2
Financing capital investment 5 Liability and insurance issues 2
Writing FOT Policy 5 Ensuring safety of passengers 2
Ensuring safety of goods 5 Weather Delays 1
Last mile logistitcs 4 Conveying change to users 1
Table 5-12 Round 1 FOT Challenges
88
six items, four were organizational or institutional challenges (C4, C2, C8, C5) and only two
were of the technical variety (C1, C11). It could be argued that even C1 is somewhat
organizational as there would be more capacity on transit networks if transit was better
organized. These results support claims in the literature and echo the experiences of failed FOT
operations in Amsterdam and Vienna that failed mainly due to organizational challenges,
disagreements among stakeholders and a lack of financing. The high percentage of experts
rating the challenge of ensuring transit user safety (C12) as “not challenging” indicates the
general opinion that FOT would not be implemented if it put transit users at risk and that
passengers would never share vehicle or network space with dangerous goods. Items C8 and C5
regarding resistance coming from freight carriers and transit agencies respectively received
almost identical mean ratings from the group as a whole as well as from the smaller groups of
freight professionals and transit professionals. This suggests that members of both sides see their
own colleagues as well as members of the other group as in need of convincing. As in the two
previous sections, values of standard deviations were generally high indicating a general lack of
consensus. Response distributions are shown in Table 5-14.
Challenge (W = 0.21) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) Mode IQR
C4 Financing the initial capital investment 2.77 1.14 61% 10% 6% 3 2
C1 Finding capacity on crowded public transit networks and vehicles 2.70 1.09 52% 10% 3% 2 2
C2 Coordinating multiple stakeholders 2.61 1.05 52% 16% 0% 2 1.5
C11 Coordinating last mile logistics from transit vehicle to end user and vice versa 2.55 0.93 48% 6% 3% 2 1
C8 Dealing with resistance from freight carriers and couriers 2.48 1.18 55% 16% 10% 3 1
C5 Dealing with resistance from transit agencies, workers, and unions 2.45 1.23 48% 23% 6% 2 1.5
C16 Designing a service with very few examples to build on 2.39 1.12 45% 23% 3% 2 1
C9Designing/retrofitting transit vehicles and stations to accommodate goods movement
2.35 1.20 45% 29% 3% 2 2
C10 Coordinating freight and passenger movements at stations and on vehicles 2.29 1.10 42% 26% 3% 2 1.5
C6 Dealing with resistance from politicians and decision makers 2.13 1.25 42% 29% 13% 3 2
C15Identifying suitable markets, goods types, routes, and clients to be served by FOT
2.10 1.09 32% 32% 3% 2 2
C14 Integrating public transit and goods delivery schedules 1.97 1.22 29% 39% 10% 2 2
C5 Dealing with resistance from transit users 1.81 1.11 29% 45% 10% 1 2
C7 Communicating operational changes to transit users 1.52 0.96 13% 61% 6% 1 1
C13 Ensuring safety and security of goods 1.48 0.96 10% 58% 10% 1 1
C12 Ensuring safety and security of transit users 1.00 0.97 3% 71% 35% 0 2
Table 5-13 Round 2 FOT Challenges Statistical Summary
89
Looking at the above table, it is clear that in the opinion of this group, the bottom three
items would not pose large challenges to FOT implementation. Beyond that, many of the items
have relatively flat distributions showing a lack of agreement. Unlike experts’ ratings of positive
impacts and negative impacts which were generally centered on 1 and 2, ratings of the top 6
challenges centered on 3 (very challenging). Breaking down the ratings on this list by
demographic group revealed a few trends. Freight professionals were much more concerned
about resistance from politicians (C6) than were transit professionals based on mean scores of
2.75 and 1.77 respectively. Freight professionals also seemed less concerned about the impacts
FOT would have on transit operations with considerably lower mean scores regarding the
redesign of stations and vehicles (C9 – 2.11 vs. 2.89) and coordinating freight and passenger
movements at transit stations (C10 – 1.77 vs. 2.77). This could mean one of two things – that
freight professionals do not understand the difficulty of operating a public transit service or that
they do not expect FOT to generate enough additional traffic to require large redesign of stations.
A comment from more than one expert in the transit professionals group was that transit was
already hard enough to coordinate without adding freight operations to the mix. A final
Challenge 0 1 2 3 4 IDK
C4 Financing the initial capital investment 2 1 8 10 9 1
C1 Finding capacity on crowded public transit networks and vehicles 1 2 11 7 9 1
C2 Coordinating multiple stakeholders 0 5 10 8 8 0
C11 Coordinating last mile logistics from transit vehicle to end user and vice versa 1 1 14 10 5 0
C8 Dealing with resistance from freight carriers and couriers 3 2 7 12 5 2
C5 Dealing with resistance from transit agencies, workers, and unions 2 5 9 7 8 0
C16 Designing a service with very few examples to build on 1 6 10 8 6 0
C9Designing/retrofitting transit vehicles and stations to accommodate goods movement
1 8 8 7 7 0
C10 Coordinating freight and passenger movements at stations and on vehicles 1 7 10 8 5 0
C6 Dealing with resistance from politicians and decision makers 4 5 8 9 4 1
C15Identifying suitable markets, goods types, routes, and clients to be served by FOT
1 9 10 6 4 1
C14 Integrating public transit and goods delivery schedules 3 9 10 4 5 0
C5 Dealing with resistance from transit users 3 11 8 7 2 0
C7 Communicating operational changes to transit users 2 17 8 2 2 0
C13 Ensuring safety and security of goods 3 15 10 1 2 0
C12 Ensuring safety and security of transit users 11 11 8 0 1 0
Table 5-14 Round 2 FOT Challenges Response Frequencies
90
interesting trend found by separating experts into demographic groups was that professionals
who identified themselves as members of the public sector were much more concerned with
resistance from transit users than were members of other sectors (C5 – 2.36 vs. 1.51). This is
likely because they deal much more closely with the public and have seen how citizens react to
changes much smaller than adding freight to public transit networks.
Five challenges continued to be re-rated in survey 3 with the third ranked item C2 –
“coordinating multiple stakeholders” replaced by the sixth ranked item C5 – “dealing with
resistance from transit agencies, workers, and unions” in order to directly compare perceived
resistance to FOT from both freight and transit professionals. Survey 3 statistics are shown in
Table 5-15 with the changes between rounds shown in Table 5-16. One expert’s responses
were removed from analysis as all items received equal ratings of 1. With these responses
removed, of the 150 remaining items, 28 responses changed with 13 items being rated as “more
challenging” and 15 as “less challenging” showing no real trends regarding changed opinions
Challenge (W = 0.02) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) Mode IQR
C4 Financing the initial capital investment 2.63 0.96 60% 10% 3% 3 1
C1Finding capacity on crowded public transit networks and vehicles
2.58 1.15 61% 23% 3% 3 1
C5Dealing with resistance from transit agencies, workers, and unions
2.58 1.23 48% 16% 6% 2 2
C8 Dealing with resistance from freight carriers and couriers 2.53 1.07 53% 17% 3% 3 1
C11Coordinating last mile logistics from transit vehicle to end user and vice versa
2.42 0.96 45% 13% 3% 2 1
Table 5-15 Round 3 FOT Challenges Statistical Summary
Challenge (W = -.19) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) IQR Rank
C4 Financing the initial capital investment -0.13 -0.17 -3% 0% -3% -1 n/a
C1Finding capacity on crowded public transit networks and vehicles -0.12 0.06 8% 13% 0% -1 n/a
C5Dealing with resistance from transit agencies, workers, and unions 0.129 0.00 0% -6% 0% 0.5 +2
C8 Dealing with resistance from freight carriers and couriers 0.051 -0.11 -5% -1% -7% 0 n/a
C11Coordinating last mile logistics from transit vehicle to end user and vice versa -0.13 0.03 -3% 6% 0% 0 -2
Table 5-16 FOT Challenges Changes Between Rounds
91
about the challenges of implementing FOT. Item C4 – “Financing the capital investment” had 7
changes in responses with 5 of the 31 panel members rating it as “less challenging” and 2 rating
it as “more challenging”. This caused a decrease in the mean, but did not change its relative
ranking against others. The relatively similar round 3 ratings of C5 and C8 demonstrate that, in
the opinions of this group, both freight and transit stakeholders would be roughly equally
resistant to the thought of integrating operations. Finally, it is interesting to note that the
technical challenges of finding capacity on transit networks and coordinating last mile logistics
(C1,C11) both received overall decreases in mean and mean ratings of challenges regarding
stakeholder resistance increased (C5,C8). These changes were minimal though, and not a whole
lot can be taken from the results of round 3 that were not made clear in the previous round.
Again, the decrease in W showed a lack of agreement as to which of the top five challenges was
the most challenging.
5.3.4 Summary of Findings
The results of Delphi questions related to the first research objective – the exploration of
FOT issues – revealed a few interesting trends about FOT and about the Delphi expert panel.
First of all, generally low values of standard deviation and W and high values of IQR showed
that experts had a difficult time agreeing on the relative impact and importance of items on all
three lists. It was intended for experts to think about FOT without being influenced by the
facilitator, leading to a range of results based on different interpretations of the scale and types of
FOT operations, reflected in the values of standard deviation, IQR, and W. Based on the
relatively low ratings of the lists of positive and negative impacts, it was a general opinion of the
group that FOT would not have a major impact on transit operations or the freight industry, and
would likely only ever capture a small share of each market. The high ratings of FOT challenges
compared to low ratings of positive and negative impacts give an idea of why there are not more
FOT operations already when considering the technical, financial, and organizational barriers
that must be overcome to receive what are perceived as minimal overall benefits at best. Finally
having experts re-rate items in round 3 did little to change ratings with the majority of members
sticking to their original responses and a small few reconsidering overly optimistic views of the
benefits of integrating freight and transit movements.
92
5.4 FOT Strategy Building and Evaluation
Questions on the second half of the three Delphi surveys focussed on the second research
objective: to build and evaluate potential FOT operating strategies in the GTHA. The following
section presents the FOT strategy building process, a description of five potential operating
strategies built using the expert group opinion, and the expert panel’s final evaluation of each of
these strategies and the overall potential for FOT in the GTHA.
5.4.1 Strategy Building
FOT strategy building began with questions 1.4 and 1.5. Question 1.4 asked participants
to list up to 7 stakeholders that should be involved in the design, implementation and operation
of an FOT service resulting in 138 total responses. In general, the responses were dominated by
freight stakeholders (39), government stakeholders (33), and transit stakeholders (34). The
remaining 32 responses included engineers, legal experts, construction companies, and others
that would be more involved in design and construction phases.
Question 5 asked participants to list up to 5 markets, goods types, or goods movement
corridors that showed potential for an FOT service resulting in 94 different responses. These
were processed and grouped into “Goods Types”, “Transit Routes” and “Goods Movement
Corridors” as shown in Table 5-17. To note, almost every expert suggested using FOT to deliver
mail and non-perishable food was the other most frequent response. Typically items listed were
small and non time-sensitive. Of the specific transit routes suggested, 11 of the 17 were located
in the GTHA which motivated the decision to locate eventual strategies on this network.
Suggestions for specific transit routes (Yonge Street Corridor, GO Network) and goods
movement corridors (malls, airports, convert subway stations to intermodal transfer points) were
used as inputs to final strategy designs.
The 13 most frequent and compelling goods types were presented to participants on the
second survey to be evaluated on similar five point imbalanced Likert scales used to rate FOT
issues. A statistical summary is shown in Table 5-18. There was much more and agreement
regarding the types of goods most suitable for FOT delivery as seen by the large spread between
the highest rated and lowest rated items as well as the large W value of 0.39. The top three
items: mail, office supplies, and print, all share some of the same characteristics as they are
93
Goods Types Count Transit Routes Count Goods Movement Corridors Count
Mail/packages/courier deliveries 25 Toronto - Yonge Street Corridor 3 Major activity nodes - airports, malls, etc.
2Non-perishable food / restaurant supplies 10 Intercity on passenger rail 2
Construction material 3 Toronto - GO Network 2 Shopping districts near stations 2
Newspapers and magazines 3San Francisco - inland to bay area
1 Small businesses 1
Garbage and recycling 3 Connections to ports 1
Urban retail 3 Interurban in Toronto 1 Suburban deliveries to local collection centres
1Hospital supplies 3 Fixed rail transit routes 1
Office supplies 3 Toronto - Eglinton corridor 1 Convert outlying subway stations to intermodal transfer points
1Containers 2 Toronto to Windsor 1
Air freight/security screened goods 2 Toronto to Barrie 1
Nothing time sensitve 2 Toronto to Montreal 1
Electronics 2 Toronto - Air Rail Link 1
Drinks/kegs 2 Montreal to Quebec City 1
Flowers 1
Furniture 1
Manufacturing 1
Car parts 1
Tools 1
Agricultural products 1
Goods Types (W = 0.39) Mean SD %(>2) %(<2) %(NOT) Mode IQR
G1 Parcels/mail/courier packages 2.87 1.02 68% 13% 0% 3 2
G9 Office supplies 2.81 1.01 68% 10% 3% 3 1.5
G5 Print (magazines/newspapers, etc.) 2.73 1.05 65% 13% 3% 3 1
G10 Non perishable foods 2.55 1.29 61% 23% 10% 3 1.5
G6 Retail products 2.29 1.16 42% 19% 10% 2 1
G8 Tools 2.11 1.26 35% 26% 13% 2 2
G4 Medical supplies 2.00 1.25 48% 35% 16% 3 2
G12 Beverages (kegs/wine/soft drinks, etc.) 1.97 1.33 39% 39% 16% 3 2
G7 Car parts 1.58 1.34 29% 55% 26% 1 2.5
G2 Waste/garbage/recycling 1.42 1.41 23% 58% 35% 0 2
G13 High turnover groceries (bread/milk/produce, etc.) 1.32 1.40 29% 61% 42% 0 3
G11 Agricultural products 0.71 0.86 3% 81% 52% 0 1
G3 Bulk construction material 0.43 1.07 6% 87% 77% 0 0
Table 5-17 Round 1 FOT Goods Types
Table 5-18 Round 2 FOT Goods Types Statistical Summary
94
typically small and non-perishable. As well, there would be large demand for these items in
urban areas where transit coverage is highest. Based on the experts’ opinions, the five items that
received the lowest ratings: construction material, waste, agricultural products, high turnover
groceries, and car parts, were not suitable for FOT for different reasons. Agricultural products
and time sensitive groceries were seen as not being suitable for the reason of being time
sensitive; waste and construction material were seen as items that would have a detrimental
effect on transit LOS; and car parts were considered to be too large and bulky. Items G1, G5,
G6, and G12 were used as inputs for final FOT operating strategies. Though items G9 and G10
received high ratings, they were not included in the hopes that one or more of the experts would
suggest them as an extension of one or more of the proposed strategies.
The remaining inputs for building FOT strategies were obtained on survey 2 questions
2.5-2.9 where participants rated FOT strategy design decisions on five point scales on their
feasibility and desirability. Experts rated items that they considered to be feasible/desirable as 1
or 2; items that they considered to be infeasible/undesirable as -1 or -2; and items that they were
neutral or unsure as 0. A summary of the results of feasibility ratings is shown in Table 5-19 and
desirability ratings in Table 5-20. The tables show mean, median, standard deviation (SD),
percentage of experts rating items as feasible or desirable (%FEAS/%DES), the percentage of
experts rating items as infeasible or undesirable (%NOT), the mode and the IQR.
Looking at the feasibility ratings, the first thing to note is that all items received a mean
or median rating of 0 or higher indicating that group opinion is that all are potentially feasible.
Freight only vehicles (D1) were rated as the most feasible vehicle type but 50% or more experts
believed cargo trailers (D2) or mixed mode operations (D3) would also be feasible. Point to
point deliveries (D4) were rated as much more feasible than collective ones (D5), and
participants were generally split on whether it would be more feasible to implement FOT on new
or existing routes. FOT during system downtime was much more feasible for obvious reasons
and the most feasible operating agreement, as judged by the group was a public private
partnership between freight and transit operators. The comment was that having both groups
involved would be the best way to ensure that everyone’s needs were met. As well, transit
agencies have no experience coordinating logistics, nor would freight operators want them taking
any of their market share.
95
Mean Median SD %FEAS %NOT Mode IQR
Cargo Location
D1 Freight only vehicle 1.03 1.5 1.16 67% 10% 2 2
D2 Freight/cargo trailer 0.47 1 1.14 53% 23% 1 1
D3 With passengers on public transit vehicles 0.40 0.5 1.00 50% 23% 1 1
Delivery Strategy
D4 Point to point deliveries 1.30 1 0.70 87% 0% 2 1
D5 Collective deliveries 0.07 0 1.05 40% 37% -1 2
Integration Strategy
D6 Integrate freight onto existing routes 0.60 1 1.16 57% 20% 1 1.75
D7 Design new routes to accommodate FOT 0.50 1 1.31 57% 23% 1 1.75
Delivery Schedule
D8 During system downtime 0.83 1 1.02 70% 10% 1 1.75
D9 All day FOT service 0.13 0 0.97 33% 30% 0 2
Operating Authority
D10 Public private partnership - transit agency and logistics providers 0.93 1 0.74 77% 3% 1 0
D11 Logistics providers lease capacity from transit authority 0.60 1 0.93 67% 13% 1 1
D12 Transit authority runs all aspects of FOT service 0.30 0.5 1.06 50% 27% 1 1.75
Mean Median SD %DES %NOT Mode IQR
Cargo Location
D1 Freight only vehicle 0.77 1 1.25 70% 20% 1 2
D2 Freight/cargo trailer -0.03 0 1.33 47% 43% 1 2
D3 With passengers on public transit vehicles -0.50 -1 1.11 27% 57% -1 1.75
Delivery Strategy
D4 Point to point deliveries 0.87 1 0.90 80% 13% 1 0
D5 Collective deliveries 0.10 1 1.45 53% 40% 1 2
Integration Strategy
D6 Integrate freight onto existing routes 0.57 1 1.07 63% 20% 1 1
D7 Design new routes to accommodate FOT 0.03 0 1.35 37% 40% -1 2
Delivery Schedule
D8 During system downtime 0.33 1 1.30 53% 30% 1 2
D9 All day FOT service 0.17 0.5 1.32 50% 40% 1 2
Operating Authority
D10 Public private partnership - transit agency and logistics providers 1.07 1 1.08 77% 10% 2 1
D11 Logistics providers lease capacity from transit authority 0.53 1 1.20 67% 20% 1 1
D12 Transit authority runs all aspects of FOT service -0.53 -1 1.22 20% 53% -2 1.75
Table 5-19 Survey 2 FOT Design Decisions - Feasibility
Table 5-20 Survey 2 FOT Design Decisions - Desirability
96
Desirability ratings tended to be much lower than those for feasibility. The use of cargo
trailers (D2), mixed mode deliveries (D3), and having transit authorities run the FOT service
(D12) were all rated as undesirable based on mean ratings. As well, though designing new
routes to accommodate FOT was rated as feasible by 57% of experts, it was only rated as
desirable by 37% of participants. Rankings, based on mean scores, within the different design
decision categories were the same for both feasibility and desirability which was not unexpected.
A few trends were observed after breaking experts into the different demographic groups.
As a group freight professionals rated every design decision as more desirable than transit
professionals and most as more feasible. The only item rated as significantly more feasible by
transit professionals was D7: “design new routes to accommodate FOT”. This is partially related
to the fact that it is easier for them to envision moving freight on a route that is not yet built than
on one that has difficulties moving passengers already. Similarly, members of the private sector
rated all items as more feasible and more desirable than those working for the public sector.
Participants from Europe saw all items as being more desirable than those from Ontario and the
USA in every category, but saw collective deliveries (D5) and FOT operations run by transit
agencies (D12) as being infeasible.
As all design decisions were rated as feasible all were possible inputs for final FOT
strategies presented on survey 3. A summary of the round 2 inputs used to build the final five
FOT operating strategies is shown in Table 5-21. The five strategies, Air Rail Mail, Paper Train,
Mall Haul, Liquor Line, and Commuter Rail Mail will be described in the following section after
a brief description of the GTHA and public transit in the region.
97
5.4.1.1 The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
The map of the GTHA shown in Figure 5-5 is the same one that was shown to
participants on the third survey, giving a simplified view of public transit in the region by
showing only networks used for proposed FOT strategies. The GTHA is a mega-region
composed of Toronto, Hamilton, and the surrounding municipalities with typical central business
district (CBD) commuting patterns with the majority of trips moving into the downtown core in
the morning and back to the suburbs in the late afternoon or evening (Metrolinx 2008). The
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) operates public transit in downtown Toronto in the form of
buses, streetcars and subways, while GO Transit, a division of Metrolinx, operates a commuter
rail and bus service linking Toronto with the surrounding regions. Metrolinx, created in 2006, is
the regional transportation authority for the GTHA and in addition to the role it plays in GO
Transit operations is in charge of many future public transit projects in the region including the
Air Rail Link (ARL), set to be completed in 2015. This line is currently in the design and
construction phase and will soon provide high quality express rail service between Pearson
Airport and Toronto Union Station (Metrolinx 2008).
Air Rail Mail Paper Train Mall Haul Liquor Line Commuter Rail Mail
Goods Moved
Air mail, air parcels, etc.
Daily newspapers and retail products
Urban retail productsAlcoholic beverages
(kegs, wine, etc.)Low priority mail and
parcels
G1 G5 G6 G12 G1
Cargo Location
Freight only vehicle Freight only vehicle Freight only vehicleTrailer attached to
streetcarCompartment in train
D1 D1 D1 D2 D3
Delivery strategy
Point to point Collective Point to Point Collective Collective
D4 D5 D4 D5 D5
Integration Strategy
New transit line Existing transit line Existing transit line Existing transit line Existing transit line
D7 D6 D6 D6 D6
Delivery Schedule
All DaySystem downtime
(early morning)System downtime
(late night)All day All day
D9 D8 D8 D9 D9
Operating Authority
Courier companyPPP - Transit operator
/ 3PL companyLogistics firm Alcohol distributor
PPP - Rail operator / courier company
D11 D10 D11 D11 D10
Table 5-21 FOT Operating Strategies and Links to Round 2 Inputs
98
One strategy was proposed for the ARL while others were proposed for the other transit
networks shown. Two strategies were proposed using Toronto’s subways, the Bloor-Danforth
line running east/west and the Yonge-University-Spadina line running north/south in a Horse-
shoe shape. These are operated by the TTC and typically run from 6 AM to 1:30 AM on
weekdays. The fourth proposed strategy used the Queen Streetcar, also operated by the TTC,
which runs the length of the city in mixed traffic. Finally, the fifth proposed FOT strategy used
the GO Rail network, which operates a commuter service with trains heading into the CBD in the
morning and back into the suburbs in the afternoon. While currently only two of the GO Rail
lines operate two way all day service, implementing two way service on the remaining five lines
is a part of their latest strategic plan (Go Transit 2008). FOT strategies were only proposed using
rail or subways as none of the experts suggested using the TTC or GO bus networks.
5.4.2 Proposed FOT Strategies
The following section will first describe each operating strategy including experts’ open
ended comments on each and conclude with a statistical analysis of final strategy rankings across
different performance criteria. Table 5-22 gives a summary of all operations with a detailed
description and visualization of each to follow.
Figure 5-5 The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area
99
Air Rail Mail
Air Rail Mail, shown in Figure 5-6 was the only strategy proposed for a future public
transit network. The design of Air Rail Mail was suggested by one of the members of the expert
panel and was similar to the operation proposed by Sivakumaran et al. (2010) that used BART to
deliver express mail in San Francisco. As well, it integrated comments received in round 1
suggesting that FOT link to airports.
The concept of Air Rail Mail was that an express mail carrier wanted to lease line
capacity on the ARL to move packages between Toronto’s Pearson airport and Union Station,
located in the CBD. This FOT-NEW operation would use dedicated trains operating on the
ARL and link to a network of foot and cycling couriers to deliver and pickup packages in the
downtown core. It required infrastructure upgrades on both ends including loading facilities at
the airport to move packages between planes and trains and a dedicated freight platform to
receive parcels at Union Station. Air Rail Mail trains were to run all day between passenger
trains operating point-to-point deliveries between the airport and Union Station at times when the
roads were heavily congested. The operation integrated well with walking couriers that currently
operate in Toronto’s downtown core (Haider 2009).
Air Rail Mail Paper Train Mall Haul Liquor Line Commuter Rail MailFOT-EX or FOT-NEW?
FOT-NEW FOT-NEW FOT-NEW FOT-EX FOT-EX
Goods MovedAir mail, air parcels, etc.
Daily newspapers and retail products
Urban retail products
Alcoholic beverages (kegs,
wine, etc.)
Low priority mail and parcels
Transit lines used Air Rail Link Subway Subway Streetcar Commuter Rail
Cargo LocationFreight only
vehicleFreight only
vehicleFreight only
vehicleTrailer attached to
streetcarCompartment in
train
Delivery strategy Point to point Collective Point to Point Collective Collective
Integration Strategy
New transit line Existing transit line Existing transit line Existing transit line Existing transit line
Delivery Schedule All DaySystem downtime (early morning)
System downtime (late night)
All day All day
Operating Authority
Courier companyPPP - Transit operator / 3PL
companyLogistics firm Alcohol distributor
PPP - Rail operator / courier company
Table 5-22 Summary of Proposed FOT Operations
100
Expert comments on Air Rail Mail were generally favourable and it was by far the most
popular strategy. The major benefit mentioned by experts familiar with the area was the
improvements it would have on delivery reliability as highways serving Pearson Airport are
particularly congested. One major concern from stakeholders familiar with the design of the
ARL was that the line would not have sufficient capacity to lease any of it out. Others were
concerned with potentially generating additional truck trips into the downtown core as well as
double handling of packages. Others suggested that it seemed needlessly expensive to use
separate trains but that the operation would still work if a trailer was attached to passenger trains
with “roll-on roll-off” containers. With a consistent headway, it was argued, this would still
provide reliable and regular deliveries between the two nodes. Finally, there were concerns that
building this operation could lead to a monopoly as Federal Express (FedEx) is currently the
only express carrier operating out of Pearson Airport with others serving Toronto out of
Hamilton Airport.
The examination of Air Rail Mail revealed two key trends that would appear in many
comments on the five strategies. First, that Union Station is simply too full to accommodate any
additional capacity, and second, that if transit lines have spare capacity, they should be used to
move people and not goods. A good suggestion to resolve the problem with the bottleneck at
Union Station involved the construction of a spur track to a sorting facility west of the station
and the second item could be somewhat addressed by using freight trailers instead of self
Figure 5-6 Air Rail Mail
101
propelled vehicles. Many experts believed Air Rail Mail was worth further analysis even but the
concept was in need of further refinement.
Paper Train
Paper Train, shown in Figure 5-7 was the first of two FOT operating strategies to use
Toronto’s subway network. The concept was that a third party logistics company (3PL) wanted
to run an FOT-NEW operation delivering newspapers and retail products to subway stations on
dedicated trains during night-time system downtime, completing deliveries before stations open
in the morning. There would be no significant upgrades at the stations themselves but would
require the construction of a truck to subway transfer point to move goods from trucks onto
subway trains. Freight operators would leave bundles of newspapers and retail products on
subway platforms and through a public private partnership (PPP), station operators would move
products to their proper locations before the station was opened. Deliveries would be done in a
collective manner and Paper Train had the potential of serving up to 60 subway stations. Design
was related to that fact that print materials were one of the highest rated goods in round 2 and in
round 1, one participant suggested converting outlying subway stations to intermodal transfer
points.
The comments on Paper Train varied considerably. Some saw it as wholly feasible,
saying that it provided a direct delivery with low capital investment especially if the transit
Figure 5-7 Paper Train
102
operator leased out trains as well as tracks, thereby reducing capital investment. Again, “roll-on,
roll-off” transfers were suggested between truck and train, as well as extending into other
markets by supplying shopping districts located near subway stations.
Unfortunately, according to participants more familiar with TTC operations, Paper Train,
or any FOT service adding extra trips to Toronto’s subway lines would be unacceptable,
unworkable, and a non-starter. The reason stated was that the windows when passenger trains do
not run are critical for track maintenance, and that if line capacity did exist, it would be used to
extend passenger services. One participant mentioned that workers are so busy during
maintenance times that they are actually lobbying to extend passenger shutdown.
From these comments it is clear that Paper Train is unworkable in Toronto, and others did
not seem to believe it was worth studying elsewhere either. One participant stated that it is not
worth spending too much time on an operation to optimize newspaper delivery as paper products
are being phased out. As well, since the service involves night-time deliveries, it might be
difficult to convince shippers to switch. The night-time operations also result in little congestion
relief, and truck travel times during this window are likely to be comparable to travel times on
trains. Also regarding travel time, one expert noted that the trip up from the subway platform to
the station usually requires twice as many stairs as the trip down to the subway station from the
street, and that transit operators would likely be resistant to performing this duty. While Paper
Train did not pass the opinions of the majority of this expert panel, there still may be markets to
be served using subways to deliver smaller retail products. A similar operation might better
serve a different city moving a product that is less time sensitive so as not to be so susceptible to
disruptions caused by necessary maintenance activities.
Mall Haul
Mall Haul, shown in Figure 5-8 was the second operation on Toronto’s subway system.
The concept was that a logistics firm would operate an FOT-NEW service at night to supply
retailers in a large shopping centre in downtown Toronto during night-time system downtime. It
required infrastructure upgrades at the transfer point as well as at the station adjacent to the
shopping centre and took into account the round 1 suggestions to use the Yonge Street corridor
103
for FOT, to use FOT to serve malls and to have connections via intermodal transfers at outlying
stations.
Like Paper Train, Mall Haul was seen as unacceptable by experts familiar with the
operations of the TTC so this discussion will be limited to issues external to those mentioned in
the discussion of Paper Train. Most believed that the infrastructure upgrades involved would be
far too expensive, and that any fuel savings would be offset by increased labour costs. As well,
like Paper Train, this FOT service would only operate at night making congestion and travel time
savings minimal and operations inconvenient to customers. A recurring suggestion for
improvement was to scrap the FOT-NEW operation in favour of FOT-EX by attaching a trailer
to the subway train and running deliveries throughout the day. In this way, upgrades would be
less expensive and freight could be delivered during times when there truly would be travel time
savings while potentially providing retailers with just-in-time deliveries. One expert suggested
that the operation might be able to deliver office supplies to neighbouring office buildings to
increase usage and profitability. In the end, there was little enthusiasm about making Mall Haul
economically viable due to the high prices logistics operators would have to pay transit agencies
to use their lines, the additional staff needed to move goods, and convincing retailers to sign for
deliveries at night. Mall Haul was a bit too unfocused and ambitious but perhaps not a
Figure 5-8 Mall Haul
104
throwaway. The biggest necessary fixes would be switching from FOT-NEW to FOT-EX and
focussing on more specialized commodities like office supplies.
Liquor Line
Liquor Line, shown in Figure 5-9 was the final FOT strategy to use TTC infrastructure,
this time the Queen Streetcar which operates in mixed traffic in downtown Toronto. This FOT-
EX operation was a PPP between the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) and the TTC.
The concept of Liquor Line was to load trailers full of kegs, cases of wine, cases of liquor, etc. at
either of the terminus stations and attach the trailers to the Queen Streetcar to make deliveries
during the 10AM-4PM off peak period. Restaurant proprietors would place their orders and be
notified via text message when their delivery was five minutes away so they could meet an FOT
operator riding the train to make the transfer. It was expected that experts would not rate Liquor
Line as high as other operations, but it was hoped that some might have ideas of how to make it
or a similar FOT operation using Toronto’s streetcar system viable without disrupting passenger
traffic.
As expected, comments were negative, many stating that the operation would be
unattractive for the transit operator as it would certainly disrupt passenger service and
unattractive for retailers as it would be difficult to confirm orders in the short time windows
allotted for loading and unloading. As well, some mentioned that streetcars are already quite
Figure 5-9 Liquor Line
105
long and the added length of the trailer could disrupt traffic and block intersections. Security
was another major concern regarding stolen items as was the safety of restaurant staff meeting
the streetcar to accept deliveries.
Despite the flaws, many experts did provide reasonable suggestions for improvements.
The first was the suggestion to switch operations from mid-day to night-time as bars are already
open at night, congestion would be less, as would passenger demand for the streetcar. Another
thought was to use retired streetcars to make the deliveries rather than attaching a trailer which
would provide more space for cargo and limit disruptions to passenger service. While this is
true, there would still be all the associated challenges of operating a freight streetcar in mixed
traffic. Many experts were concerned that the proposed items (kegs, boxes of wine, etc.) were
too heavy and valuable to be suitable for FOT operations but that a modified version of the
Liquor Line might be suitable for moving empty kegs and/or recyclables. This same expert also
mentioned that Toronto had recently invested in new garbage trucks limiting the possibility of
justifying investment in another waste disposal operation at this time.
The main flaw of Liquor Line was its unavoidable impacts on passenger travel. The fact
that nearly every expert, even those most in favour of FOT, noted this in their responses
solidified the idea that FOT is not worth exploring unless it can be integrated seamlessly without
disrupting personal travel. An FOT operation is not suitable on a mixed traffic streetcar and
Liquor Line does not warrant further exploration.
Commuter Rail Mail
Commuter Rail Mail, shown in Figure 5-10, was the final FOT operating strategy and the
only one to use the GO Rail network. The concept was to use the network to deliver low priority
mail and packages throughout the GTHA in a hub and spoke fashion. This proposed FOT-EX
operation was a PPP between the commuter rail operator and a courier company. Packages
would be deposited by users at commuter rail stations into automated mailboxes called
“packstations”. The contents of “packstations” would be taken by station attendants and placed
into special compartments on trains travelling to the downtown core. Courier staff would meet
trains at Union Station and take packages to a sorting hub where they would be sorted and placed
into a container headed to the appropriate commuter rail station. Containers would be loaded
106
back onto the mail compartments on trains before making the return trip outside of the city. A
station attendant would meet the train at the suburban end, retrieve the appropriate container and
place it in a holding area until a courier arrived to deliver packages to final suburban destinations
on trucks the following morning. Commuter Rail Mail had the potential to serve locations at 38
GO Rail stations on 7 different lines.
Expert comments on this strategy were mixed, but the major concerns were that it was
overly complex and that it had the potential to reduce customer service. As in Air Rail Mail,
many were concerned with a lack of space at Union Station and others worried that there would
not be a high enough demand for this service to justify investing in additional staff and
“packstations”. Unlike Paper Train, Mall Haul, and Liquor Line, many thought that Commuter
Rail Mail, while flawed, was still salvageable. One comment was to reduce the number of drop-
off and pickup points which would reduce complexity as well as the need for large flows of mail
to support investment. Others suggested that adding compartments to trains seemed needlessly
expensive and that cost could be reduced by sectioning off areas on trains or using mail bags.
One expert commented that last mile logistics might be better served by freight tricycles or other
low emissions modes rather than trucks as they would have greater flexibility, better
accessibility, and higher environmental savings.
Figure 5-10 Commuter Rail Mail
107
Overall, comments were not particularly positive, especially from those familiar or
involved with GO operations who said the whole thing seemed like too large a risk for a
relatively minimal payoff. One expert provided a telling comment about the general attitude
regarding transit in the GTHA citing that transit in the region is already a very tough sell and
transit operators must do everything they can to encourage its use. GO Rail lines are already
extremely crowded and have extremely low dwell times, and while there may be savings
involved or money to be made, modifying operations would likely not be worth the lost
passengers.
Commuter Rail Mail, while imperfect, did elicit many positive remarks. The best
suggestions for improvements were to scale back the operation by limiting implementation to a
select few stations on a single line, using mail bags instead of compartments, and using flexible,
clean vehicles for last mile trips.
5.4.3 Final Strategy Evaluations
The summary of the final rankings of the five FOT operating strategies over different
performance criteria is shown in Table 5-23. Mean refers to the average ranking, computed as
the sum of all rankings by each expert divided by the total number of respondents. A low value
of mean ranking means that experts ranked that particular scenario as being good. Overall
rankings compared to other scenarios are shown in the column labelled (R). 25 experts provided
rankings for each scenario, however, two experts requested that their rankings be removed as
they did not believe any of the scenarios, aside from Air Rail Mail, were at all feasible or
acceptable leaving 23 expert responses to analyze. It is possible that other experts may have
wanted to rate one or more of the strategies as “unacceptable” as well, but as the questions used
forced rankings, they were forced to assign each strategy a rank of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
108
Based on open ended comments, many experts found the rankings over different
performance criteria to be arbitrary and this was reflected in the results as each scenario
performed quite similarly in each. Air Rail Mail ranked first in all but one, Commuter Rail Mail
second in all but one, Mall Haul third in all but one, Liquor Line fourth in all but one and Paper
Train fifth across all categories. It might have been more suitable to have participants rank
strategies for feasibility and desirability but this was something that was realized after the fact.
Splitting the participants into different demographic groups did not reveal any particularly
striking trends in this data either. The main problem is that strategies were compared against
each other and not against baseline operations which may have been more revealing making this
data only truly useful if analyzed in combination with summaries of open ended responses.
5.4.4 Summary of Findings
Based on the results shown in Table 5-23 and opinions obtained through open ended
responses, it can be concluded that Mall Haul, Liquor Line, and Paper Train do not warrant
further study. Air Rail Mail has potential and is worth further analysis as may be a scaled back
version of Commuter Rail Mail, especially once GO Transit adds two way service on all of its
rail lines. Adding additional vehicles to TTC subway networks was a non-starter due to
restrictive maintenance activities so any FOT operation using the TTC subway network would
have to be of the FOT-EX variety and involve adding a trailer to the end of the subway or having
goods share space with passengers. Operating FOT on a mixed traffic streetcar was also a non-
CongestionReduction
ProfitabilityExpansion Potential
Expected Resistance
Overall
Mean (R) Mean (R) Mean (R) Mean (R) Mean (R)
Air Rail Mail 2 1 2.09 1 2.43 2 2.17 1 2.00 1
Commuter Rail Mail 2.65 2 2.65 2 2.39 1 2.74 2 2.70 2
Mall Haul 3 3 3.04 3 3.09 3 3.13 4 3.13 3
Liquor Line 3.39 4 3.57 4 3.52 4 2.74 2 3.39 4
Paper Train 3.96 5 3.65 5 3.57 5 4.22 5 3.78 5
Kendall’s W .22 .17 .13 .23 .19
Table 5-23 FOT Strategies Final Rankings
109
starter limiting the potential for FOT operations on streetcars in Toronto to the Spadina and Saint
Clair lines. Generally, the FOT operations proposed suffered the same problems as Amsterdam
City Cargo as they were too large scale and overly complex, with expert comments often
suggesting that operations should be scaled back in order to be viable.
Observing the experts’ ratings of proposed FOT operating strategies compared to
feasibility and desirability ratings shows one interesting trend. 40% of experts said it would be
undesirable to design new transit routes to accommodate freight compared to 20% of experts that
said it would be undesirable to integrate freight onto existing transit routes. Despite this, the
only operation that received generally positive feedback was the one designed for a new transit
route. The high ratings of Air Rail Mail show that even among this reasonably resistant group,
the thought of designing new transit routes to accommodate freight was not a non-starter.
110
Chapter 6: Conclusion
This thesis described the motivation, methods, process, and results of a three round
Policy Delphi study engaging 34 transportation experts from a variety of disciplines and sectors
to explore the potential for using public transit infrastructure to move things other than people.
The iterative survey process determined what this knowledgeable and experienced group
considered to be the greatest positive impacts, negative impacts, and challenges of freight and
transit integration and used their responses in combination with scenario building techniques, to
develop five potential FOT operating strategies for the GTHA. Building and evaluating these
strategies also generated the group’s opinion on the merits and shortcomings of each strategy as
well as the overall potential for FOT in this region.
6.1 The Delphi Method
The Delphi method proved to be a useful, albeit time consuming tool to explore FOT
issues and develop potential FOT applications using the opinions of a diverse group. What made
analysis particularly taxing was the length of open ended responses which often surpassed 500
words during experts’ evaluations of FOT operating strategies. However, it was these responses
more than the statistical group opinion that revealed the most interesting trends regarding FOT
and the differing views of transportation practitioners. Other researchers considering performing
a Delphi study would be wise to include comment boxes on all questions, and to select an
appropriate number of questions and experts in order to properly explore a topic without
overburdening themselves with data. 30 experts was a fairly ideal size for this study as it was
large enough to allow for a range of viewpoints to be expressed and described statistically, yet
small enough for the facilitator to adequately analyze all open ended responses.
In general, the study was a success as seen by high response and retention rates as well as
the variety, complexity, and thoughtfulness of the responses generated. Even those experts that
were completely against FOT throughout, continued with the survey process, perhaps in an effort
to learn more or to educate the facilitator or other panel members as to why transit agencies
would be wise to stick to moving people and not goods. The facilitator imagines that the greatest
contributors to high retention rates were the FOT recruitment video, the rigorous pretesting
process, and the study’s endorsement from Metrolinx. This combination gave the study a
111
professional edge from the beginning that was sustained throughout due to hard work from
experts and the facilitator alike.
Though the results presented in this study are not facts, but opinions of a particular group
of experts, they are still highly valuable and should carry a great amount of weight given the
diversity of the panel and their overall level of transportation experience. Regarding more
serious study limitations, the Likert scales used to evaluate FOT issues could have been
interpreted in a number of different ways and participants’ moods may have been altered by
external factors leading to altered survey responses. Mentioning these items is not done to sell
the study short but to repeat some of the drawbacks of the Delphi method. While it would be a
stretch to use the results of the study to draw decisive conclusions regarding FOT, it can be said
that the study thoroughly explored many aspects of the topic and reasonably gauged these
experts’ views on FOT implementation.
6.2 Freight on Transit In general, the experts’ opinions on FOT were consistent with those found in the
literature. In the exploration of positive impacts, societal benefits like environmental savings,
congestion reduction, and benefits to transit agencies tended to receive the highest ratings while
impacts on the logistics industry were generally seen as negative. Minor benefits not previously
identified included the potential for FOT to facilitate scheduling of transit workers as well as
potentially helping to deal with a reduced number of truckers in North America.
Negative impacts were also consistent with the literature as the need for double handling
freight, the need to subsidize FOT, and FOT’s potential to reduce LOS on transit lines were seen
as the greatest negative impacts. Exploring negative impacts with the Delphi was useful as
experts were able to provide suggestions for their mitigation. These included combining FOT
with flexible delivery modes to simplify last mile logistics as well as the thought that
governments might be justified in providing financial support for FOT as they already spend tax
dollars to build and maintain roads used by trucks. The overall low ratings of positive and
negative impacts showed that in general experts did not view FOT as something that would have
a major effect or capture a large share of freight markets or transit line capacity.
112
Regarding FOT challenges, experts viewed the organizational barriers of implementing
FOT as being much more difficult to overcome than technical ones which is consistent with the
literature and with failed FOT operations in Amsterdam and Vienna. Financing the capital
investment, coordinating multiple stakeholders, and dealing with resistance from different groups
were all seen as great challenges while most believed that technical challenges like developing
last mile logistics and coordinating freight and passenger movements at stations would be
resolved given proper research and design. Another challenge rated highly by the group was
finding spare transit capacity for moving freight. A recurring thought from many members was
that networks are already highly crowded and any spare capacity would be better served for
moving people rather than goods. The high ratings of FOT challenges as compared to FOT
positive and negative impacts indicate that in the eyes of this group, FOT is a large amount of
work with considerable risk for only a minimal amount of payoff, partially explaining why there
are not more FOT operations today.
The evaluation of FOT strategies revealed that, in the opinion of this particular group, the
GTHA is not a suitable region for large scale FOT implementation. This is most likely related to
the fact that public transit networks in the region are already crowded and sensitive to delays
without complicating their operations with goods movement. Operating FOT on TTC subway
networks proved to be a non-starter due to overnight maintenance activities, but operations like
Air Rail Mail and Commuter Rail Mail seemed to warrant future study in the eyes of the group,
both being in need of some refinements and modifications.
6.3 Future Work
As FOT is a reasonably new idea, there is much to be done to refine the concept and
move towards greater incidence of implementation. Those that are interested in investigating
potential FOT applications should design operations to meet a few minimum criteria. There must
be sufficient capacity on public transit networks to move goods and FOT must not diminish
transit LOS or create freight related traffic near transit stations or transit access points.
Operations must be profitable with or without subsidies and the transit agency should use
revenue generated by FOT to improve passenger services. FOT operations must have backing
from the private sector in terms of funding and liability and in order for this to be attained, must
provide comparable delivery times at comparable rates to other modes. Operations should start
113
small and focus on very specific commodities, and should involve all stakeholders early on in the
planning process to minimize unavoidable resistance.
The benefits of FOT are many and whether they outweigh the costs and challenges is yet
to be determined. FOT will not revolutionize the freight industry, nor will it have significant
impacts on congestion reduction but any operation that reduces the impacts of goods movement
while generating revenue for public transit agencies warrants further exploration. FOT is just a
small piece that might fit into a number of different puzzles, including how to fund public transit
projects, how to make better use of transit infrastructure, how to minimize the impact of goods
movement, and how to make freight a larger part of the transportation planning process.
Organizational barriers and conflicts between stakeholders exist in all fields and are not an
acceptable reason not to further explore FOT.
It is hoped that this work provides a foundation for future researchers interested in
exploring creative ways of using public transit infrastructure for goods movement. The next step
is to take the lessons learned here and use them to design and test the economics, logistics, and
network impacts of real FOT operations. Cities of the future will flourish only with well
developed public transit networks and at times when these are not being used to move people,
there should be an effort to maximize their utility by using them to move goods. Planning for
freight on transit networks in the design stage will provide funding for transit agencies and
reduce the cost of FOT investment while designing a transportation network that truly serves all
users.
114
References
Adler, M., and Ziglio, E., 1996. Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Alcaraz, B., 2012. Paris experiments Tramfret. Energy Cities, [online] January 26 Available at:
http://www.energy-cities.eu/Paris-experiments-TramFret [Accessed April 21, 2012] Amtrak, 2012. Amtrak Express. [online] Available at:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241267371736
Armstrong, K. 2012, Discussion on bus parcel express. (Personal communication, May 18,
2012). Arvidsson, N., 2010. New perspectives on urban freight distribution: a potential zero emission
concept using electric vehicles on trams. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Transportation Research. Lisbon, Portugal. July 11-15.
A-Way Express, 2012. A-way Express: Toronto's social purpose courier [online] Available at:
http://www.awaycourier.ca/ [Accessed May 4, 2012] Bateman, C., 2012. A brief history of the Tokyo Rose garbage train. BlogTO, [blog] May 5.
Available at: http://www.blogto.com/city/2012/05/a_brief_history_of_the_tokyo_rose_garbage_train [Accessed June 12, 2012]
Bjorner, T., 1999. Environmental benefits from better freight transport management: freight
traffic in a VAR model. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 4(1), 45-64.
Brennan Ramirez, L., Hoehner, C., Brownson, R., Cook, R., Orleans, C., Hollander, M., . . .
Wilkinson, W., 2006. Indicators of activity-friendly Ccmmunities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(6), 515-524.
Chiffi, C. 2007. Goods delivery by cargo tram in Amsterdam. ELTIS: The Urban Mobility Portal
[online] September. Available at: http://eltis.org/index.php?id=13&study_id=1547 [Accessed December 4, 2011]
Chisholm, G., 2002. TRB’s transit cooperative research program research results digest 47:
Germany's track-sharing experience: mixed use of rail corridors [pdf] Transporation Resarch Board. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_47.pdf [Accessed July 7, 2012]
115
Cox III, E. P., 1980. The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: a review. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 407-422.
Cox, W., and O’Toole, R., 2004. The contribution of highways and transit to congestion relief: a
realistic view. Backgrounder No. 1721, Heritage Foundation, Washigton, DC. Curran-Everett, D., and Benos, D. J., 2004. Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals
published by the American Physiological Society. Advances in Physiology Education, 28(3), 85-87.
Dalkey, N. C., 1969. The Delpih Method: An experimental study of group opinion. The RAND
Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., and Gustafson, D. H., 1975. Group techniques for program
planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Deutsche Post DHL, 2009. Delivering tomorrow; customer needs in 2020 and beyond; a global
Delphi study. Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Post AG. Dfouni, M., 2002. Knowledge leaders' critical issues: an international Delphi study. M.Sc.
Thesis. John Molson School of Business, Concordia University. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., and Christian, L. M., 2009. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys
: the tailored design method. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley and Sons. Domen, M. 2012. Discussion on San Diego Imperial Valley Railroad. (Personal communication,
July 21, 2012). Donohue, P., 2011. MTA refuse rigs collect 90 tons of garbage each day. New York Times Daily
News [online] March 28. Available at: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-28/local/29372668_1_freight-train-garbage-train-flatbed-cars [Accessed June 5, 2012]
DVB, 2012. CarGoTram Dresden [online] Available at: http://www.dvb.de/en/The-DVB-
AG/Facts-and-Figures/CarGoTram/ [Accessed June 21, 2011] Ehrilch, J., 2012. Güterbim: Vienna’s cargo tram attempt (AT). [online] Available at:
http://www.umwelt.nrw.de/umwelt/pdf/pronet/factsheets/41.pdf [Accessed April 4, 2012] Faugier, J., and Sargeant, M., 1997. Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 26, 790-797. Friedman, H. H., and Amoo, T. 1999. Rating the rating scales. Journal of Marketing
Management, 9(3), 114-123.
116
Go Transit, 2008. GO 2020: GO Transit strategic plan. [pdf] Toronto. Available at: http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/docs/publications/Strategic_Plan_GO_2020_lowres.pdf [Accessed September 20, 2012]
Good Foot Delivery, 2012. About us. [online] Available at:
http://www.goodfootdelivery.com/about/ [Accessed August 4, 2012] Goodman, C. M., 1987. The Delphi technique: a critique. Journal in Advanced Nursing, 12, 729-
724. Greenteam Courier, 2012. About us. [online] Available at: http://www.greenteamcourier.com/
[Accessed August 4, 2012] Greyhound, 2012. Success stories. [online] http://www.shipgreyhound.com/industry/ [Accessed
July 22, 2012] Haider, M., 2009. Challenges facing express delivery services in Canada's urban centres.
Toronto, ON: Institute of Housing and Mobility, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University.
Hanafin, S., 2004. Review of literature on the Delphi technique. Dublin, Ireland: Depatrment of
Children and Youth Affairs [online] Available at: http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/Delphi_Technique_A_Literature_Review.pdf [Accessed August 22, 2012]
Handy, S., Weston, L., Song, J., Lane, K. M., and Terry, J., 2002. The education of
transportation planning professionals. Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., and McKenna, H., 2000. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey
technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015. Higgins, L., Warner, J., and Morgan, C., 2011. Examining long-distance express buses as an
extension of and feeder to passenger rail systems. Final Report. UTCM 10-44-53. College Station, TX: University Transportation Center for Mobility, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University.
Hsu, C.-C., and Sandford, B. A., 2007a. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus.
Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(10). Hsu, C.-C., and Sandford, B. A., 2007b. Minimizing non-respone in the Delphi process: how to
respond to non-response. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(17).
117
Hsu, C.-C., and Sandford, B. A., 2012. The Delphi technique: use, considerations, and applications in the conventional, policy, and on-line environments. In C. N. Silva, Online research methods in urban and planning studies: design and outcomes. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Kim, C., 2003. Off-peak travel: opportunities for transit. Masters Thesis. University of New
Brunswick. Larsson, M., and Gotland, R. V., 2009. Major trends in modal split, passenger and freight
transport, EU and North Sea Regions. Copenhagen: North Sea Commission. Lindly, J., and Hill, S., 2002. Alabama Transit - intercity bus study for Alabama Department of
Transportation. Tuscaloosa, AL: University Transportation Center for Alabama. Linja-Autolitto, 2012. Get on the bus. [online] Available at: http://www.linja-
autoliitto.fi/lal_tiedostot/LAL-esite_UK_1311.pdf [Accessed July 22, 2012] Linstone, H., and Turoff, M., 1975. The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Litman, T., 2012. Evaluating public transit benefits and costs. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport
Policy Institutute. Logistics Manager, 2012. DHL introduces jogging couriers. Logistics Manager [online] May 23.
Available at: http://www.logisticsmanager.com/Articles/18481/DHL+introduces+jogging+couriers.html [Accessed June 4, 2012]
Loveridge, D., 2002. On Delphi questions. Ideas in Progress, Paper Number 31 PREST,
Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Lufthansa Cargo, 2012. ic:kurier – your urgent shipments by rail. [online] Available at:
http://www.time-matters.com/en/transport-solutions/ickurier [Accessed June 13, 2012] MacCarthy, B., and Atthirawong, W., 2003. Factors affecting location decisions in international
operations - a Delphi study. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(7), 794-818.
Martino, J. P., 1972. Tools for looking ahead. IEEE Spectrum, 9(10), 32-40. Matkahuolto, 2009. Parcel services for private customers. [online] Available at:
http://www.matkahuolto.fi/en/parcel_services_for_private_customers/frequently_asked_questions/ [Accessed March 12, 2012]
Metrolinx, 2008. The big move: transforming transportation in the Greater Toronto and
Hamilton Area. Toronto, ON: Greater Toronto Transportation Authority.
118
Metrolinx, 2011. GTHA urban freight study, final draft. [online] Available at: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/goodsmovement/GTHA_UFS_Final_DRAFT.pdf [Accessed August 12, 2011]
Metrolinx and HDR, 2008. Costs of road congestion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area:
impact and cost benefit analysis of the regional transportatoin plan. Toronto ON: Greater Toronto Transportation Authority
Moore, K., 2011. The best way to innovation? - an important lesson from India. Forbe Magazine
[online] May 24. Availalble at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2011/05/24/the-best-way-to-innovation-an-important-lesson-from-india/ [Accessed July 24, 2012]
Neuhold, G., 2005. Cargotram Zurich – The environmental savings of using other modes.
Presented at 1st Best Urban Freight Solutions (BESTUFS) II Conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands. June 23-24.
Niemimukko, J., 2011. Interoperability in national long distance bus services. Presented at 13th
Annual Informnorden Conference. Malmo, Sweden. September 7-9. Novakowski, N., and Wellar, B., 2008. Using the Delphi technique in normative planning
research: methodological design considerations. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1485-1500.
OECD, 2003. Delivering the goods: 21st century challenges to urban goods transport. Paris,
France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devlopment. Okoli, C., and Pawlowski, S. D., 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
considerations and applications. Information and Management, 42, 15-29. Ontario Northland, 2012. Bus parcel express shipping. [online] Available at:
http://www.ontarionorthland.ca/index.php/en/bus-parcel-express-shipping [Accessed May 18, 2012]
Patel, N., and Vedula, N., 2006. Dabbawallas of Mumbai. Chapel Hill, NC: Kenan-Fleglar
Business School, University of North Carolina Piecyk, M. I., and McKinnon, A. C., 2010. Forecasting the carbon footprint of road freight
transport in 2020. International Journal of Production Economics, 128, 31-42. Powell, C., 2003. The Delphi technique: myths and realitites. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
41(4), 376-382. Pritchard, E., 2008. Shared use in the United States and the FRA's oversight program. Presented
at the 3rd Rail Corridor Safety Conference. Ventura, CA. May 12 – May 14.
119
QA Courier, 2012. Local rush courier: a comprehensive guide. [online] Available at: http://www.qacourier.com/pdfs/LocalRushCourier_AComprehensiveGuide.pdf [Accessed June 5, 2012]
RAND, 2011. History and mission. Santa Monica, CA: Research and Development Corporation.
[online] Available at: http://www.rand.org/about/history.html [Accessed July 22, 2012] Rauch, W., 1979. The decision Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 15(3),
159-169. Regue, R., and Bristow, A. L., 2012. Exploring scenarios for the introduction of freight trams in
Barcelona. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C. January 22-26
RFF, 2012. Le tram-fret à l'essai à Paris. Paris, France: Reseau Ferre de France [online]
February 16. Available at: http://www.rff.fr/fr/gestion-page-d-accueil/actualites/le-tram-fret-a-l-essai-a-paris [Accessed on March 20, 2012]
Resor, R. R., 2003. Catalog of "common-use”rail corridors. Washington, DC: Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Rohrmann, B., 2007. Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: sociolinguistic considerations and
psychometric data. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Rowe, G., and Wright, G., 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis.
International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353–375. Rowe, G., and Wright, G., 2001. Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi
technique. In J. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practicioners (pp. 125-144). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Rowinski, J., Ya, W., and Boile, M. P., 2001. A multi-commodity multi-class generalized cost
user equilibrium assignment model. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. January 7-11.
Sackman, H., 1974. A Delphi critique: expert opinion, forecasting, and group processes.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Saldanha, J., and Gray, R., 2002. The potential for British coastal shipping in a multimodal
supply chain. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(1), 77-92. Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M., and Schofer, J., 1975. Experiments in Delphi methodology. In H.
Linstone, and M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, London, UK: Addison-Wesley.
120
Schmidt, R. C., 1997a. Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763-774.
Schmidt, W. C., 1997b. World-wide web survey research: benefits, potential problems, and
solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 29(2), 274-279. Schrank, D., Lomax, T., and Eisele, B., 2011. TTI's 2011 urban mobility report. College Station,
TX: Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University. Shiftan, Y., Kaplan, S., and Hakkert, S., 2003. Scenario building as a tool for planning a
sustainable transportation system. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 8(5), 323-342.
Siegel, S., and Castellan, N. J., 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Sivakumaran, K., Lu, X.Y. & Hanson, M., 2010. Use of passenger rail infrastructure for goods movement. Transportation Research Record, 2162, 44-52. Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., and Krahn, J., 2007. The Delphi method for graduate research.
Jounal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21. Stitt-Gohdes, W. L., and Crews, T. B., 2004. The Delphi technique: a research strategy for career
and technical education. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20(2), 53-65. SurveyMonkey, 2012. About us. [online] Available at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/aboutus/ [Accessed on October 20, 2011] Taylor, B. D., Iseki, H. and Garrett, M. How much does a transit trip cost?, Presented at the
2000 Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Atlanta, GA. September.
Taylor, K., and Lindquist, K., 2009. Transit farebox recovery and US and international transit
subsidization: synthesis. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Transportation. Transport Canada, 2010. Heavy truck casualty collisions 2001-2005. Ottawa, ON: Road Safety
and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Transport Canada. Toronto Board of Trade, 2011. Reaching top speed, infrastructure: unleasing Ontario’s ability to
grow. Toronto, ON [pdf] Available at: http://bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/VoteOntario2011/Reaching_Top_Speed.pdf [Accessed on October 4, 2012]
Turoff, M., 1971. The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
2, 149-171.
121
Union Pacific, 2012. San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad Company SDIY #315, [online] Available at: http://www.uprr.com/customers/shortline/lines/sdiy.shtml, [Accessed on July 20, 2012]
Van Bennekom, F. (2012). Tips for selecting an online survey software tool. Great Brook
Consulting [online] Available at: http://www.greatbrook.com/online_survey_tools.htm [Accessed on August 5, 2011]
VIA Rail, 2012. VIAPAQ prices. [online] Available at:
http://www.viarail.ca/en/resources/viapaq-prices/ [Accessed on September 2, 2012] von der Gracht, H. A., 2008. Future of logistics: scenarios for 2025. Wiesbaden, Germany:
Gabler. von der Gracht, H. A., and Darkow, I.-L., 2010. Scenarios for the logistics services industry: a
Delphi-based analysis for 2025. International Journal of Production Economics, 127, 46-59.
Watson, T. R., 1989. Key issues in information systems management: an Australian perspective.
The Australian Computer Journal, 21(3), 118-129.
122
Appendix A: Survey 1
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Appendix B: Survey 2
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Appendix C: Survey 3
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
Appendix D: Invitation Email
164
Appendix E: FOT Delphi Video Script
URL: http://vimeo.com/33671055
Description
This is the script for a video made to serve two purposes: to recruit experts and also to prime
experts before answering the initial questionnaire. The video consisted of the following script
being read over a slideshow of relevant images and key words. The breaks in the writing
correspond to transitions between images.
OPEN - VOICEOVER
Cities are rapidly growing, and our transportation systems are having difficulty keeping up. A
striking gap exists in urban freight transportation.
------------
Cities cannot function without goods, and most goods are brought into cities on trucks, which
while flexible and cheap cause roughly four times the environmental cost of passenger cars in
terms of emissions, congestion, and noise pollution.
------------
The Big Move, The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s Regional Transportation plan,
suggests we improve passenger transportation through the use of cleaner and lower impact
modes such as walking, cycling, cleaner vehicles and public transit. Could these solutions be
applied to urban goods movement?
------------
165
In fact they already are. Couriers deliver packages by foot and on bike, and freight carriers are
slowly replacing their fleets with hybrid electric vehicles. Could freight and transit integration
be next?
------------
European cities are taking the lead. Dresden started the first successful freight on transit service
in 2001 with the CargoTram. This 5 car tram shares tracks with passenger trams, making hourly
trips delivering car parts between a Volkswagen factory and the manufacturing plant located in
the heart of the city.
------------
Seeing Dresden’s success, Zurich implemented their own CargoTram service by retrofitting old
trams to carry bulky refuse and electronic waste from 10 drop-off points to a recycling plant near
the city.
------------
Are Dresden and Zurich going to remain the exception? Or will they soon become the rule?
------------
Could freight on transit work in North America?
------------
The freight on transit Delphi study, conducted at the University of Toronto and sponsored by
Metrolinx looks to explore this question and others related to Freight and Transit Integration.
------------
Questions like…
------------
166
What positive impacts would a freight on transit service have?
------------
What would be the negative effects?
------------
How would the freight by moved?
------------
What would the vehicles look like?
------------
What kind of goods?
------------
None of these questions can be answered by one single person, but using the Delphi Method and
your collective brain power, we’ll certainly get a little bit closer.
------------
Thanks for being a part of the Freight on Transit Delphi Study and welcome to round 1.
END
167
Appendix F: Recruitment Postcard
