27
1 Freight Performance Freight Performance Measurement Measurement Presented to Texas Border Partnership Group 14 June 2006
1
Freight Performance MeasurementFreight Performance Measurement
Presented to Texas Border Partnership Group
14 June 2006
2
Global ConnectivityGlobal Connectivity
Desired Outcome: Sustain the economic efficiency of goods movement on the surface transportation system.
Measure(s):Travel time in significant freight corridors (baseline to bedetermined in FY 2006).
Average SpeedBuffer Time Index (a measure of travel time
reliability)Delay time at NHS border crossings (baseline to bedetermined in FY 2006). (Measures TBD)
Examples: Total Crossing Time Average Wait Time
3
Goals of the FPM InitiativeGoals of the FPM Initiative
Short Term• Support Monitoring Progress in Global Connectivity
• Continuous and Accurate Data
• Mid Term• Develop a rich data source that can be used by stakeholders
in the transportation community and by academia• Output that is flexible and useful for a variety of audiences
• Long Term• Use (sound FPM) data to target investment in National
Highway System based where the greatest needs exist• Better truck travel data that could increase the strength and ranking of freight
projects against general transportation projects
4
Data Collection MethodData Collection Method
What? Methodology use Trucks as Probes
Automatic Vehicle Location(AVL)/Satellite TechnologyGPS Coordinates (Date and Time Stamped)Unique Carrier ID
How? Contractual partnership with American Transportation
Research Institute, a Satellite Technology Vendor and Carriers
Initial data based on voluntary participation by selected carriers subscribers
Data Cleansing techniques allowed research team to collect data from all/most of the vendor’s carrier subscribers (~250,000 vehicles)
5
AccomplishmentsAccomplishments
Collecting, Analyzing and Processing data for Five Freight Significant Corridors
(I5, I10, I45, I65, I70)1 Year of Data as of Jan 06
Collecting data for five US/Cda land border crossing areas 1 Year of Data as of Aug 06
As of 1 April 2006 we expanded data collection and analysis to 20 additional corridors (a more robust data set, greater “National Picture”)
Case studies scheduled with 8 States along the corridors Weather and Work Zone Case Studies New contract with technology vendor to include access to data for
up to 10, 000 miles of arterials Short Term and Long Term Data Sharing Strategies developed
6
7
8
CY 2005 ResultsCY 2005 ResultsMonthly Buffer Index for Five Corridors (CY05)
34.13
17.72
23.64
29.5631.20
44.87
25.96
30.85 31.63
41.02
24.45
34.37
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECMonth
Bu
ffer
Ind
exInterstate 5
Interstate 10
Interstate 45
Interstate 65
Interstate 70
9
Average Speeds Five Corridors (CY 2005)
44.00
46.00
48.00
50.00
52.00
54.00
56.00
58.00
60.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECMonth
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
Interstate 5Interstate 10Interstate 45Interstate 65Interstate 70
CY 2005 ResultsCY 2005 Results
10
11
12
Key Border Challenges – Key Border Challenges –
Some key border crossing points are seriously congested and transit times and the associated transportation costs are high.
Physical infrastructure (transportation and other) at some border crossings require upgrading
Clearance and Inspection procedures change and vary
Localized data collection systems differ dramatically
13
FPM Border ComponentFPM Border Component
Data Collection Began 7/01/05 for 5
Crossings
– Blaine (Pacific Highway): Blaine, WA– Pembina: Pembina, ND– Ambassador Bridge: Detroit, MI– Peace Bridge: Buffalo, NY
Effort looks at crossings as wellas transportation network that supports the crossings
14
Pacific Highway/Blaine
U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Washington State
Highway 5431) Interstate 5
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS
1) Blaine Border Area (Route ID ‘BC’):
2) British Columbia Provincial 99
3) BC Provincial 15
15
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS1) Michigan Route 3 2) Interstate 75 3) Interstate 944) Interstate 96 5) The Ambassador Bridge (AB):
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS1) ON Provincial 401 2) ON Provincial 3) E.C. Row EXPY
FEEDER ROADS4) ON Provincial 403
AMBASSADOR
16
PEMBINA
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Interstate 29
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Manitoba Provincial 75 FEEDER ROADS1) Trans Canada 100
(Winnipeg)2) Trans Canada 1 3) Trans Canada 17
(Ontario)
17
PEACE BRIDGE
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS
1) Peace Bridge Connector (US)
2) Interstate 190 FEEDER ROADS
1) Interstate 90 2) Interstate 79
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY
1) Queen Elizabeth Way
FEEDER ROADS4) ON Provincial 4035) ON Provincial 407
18
CHAMPLAIN
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY 1) Interstate 87 (I-87 Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Provincial 15 2) Provincial 30 3) Provincial 20
19
What WillWhat Willbe the Measures?be the Measures?
Average delay per Truck Trip (in Minutes or Hours)
Average Travel Time
Total Delay Average annual
cost of delay Buffer Time Buffer Index
20
Frequently Asked QuestionsFrequently Asked Questions Q: What is the primary focus of the initiative
A: Historical data for monitoring performance. Not probable this will evolve to a “real-time” product
Q: What is the sample size A: Technology vendor, has approximately 250,000 in USA, Canadian
subsidiary adds additional vehicles Q: How did you select the five crossings? A: Five Border Crossings account for over 55% of inbound CV to US. Q: Who Owns the data?
A: The carriers who subscribe to the vendor’s service Q: Can we share the data
A: Aggregated/summarized data can be shared with little limitations, currently able to share raw data with public transportation agencies (primarily for assessment of utility)
Q: What are the next steps
21
Key Next StepsKey Next Steps
Analyzing the US/Cda border data and developing appropriate measures of delay and wait time– Initiate effort to collect US/MX border data
• Small Grants in 2005 and 2006 for exploratory research• US/MX Crossings / Corridors likely to be aligned with corridor
work done by US/MX JWC Assessing utility beyond FHWA PM needs
– Case Studies under way • State Case Studies ((includes Washington)
• Weather Case Study• Work Zone Case Study
Transitioning data to a performance measurement framework– Targets– Strategies and tactics to produce positive change
22
Future ResearchFuture Research
Arterial Data Collection and Analysis Incidents (Network Effects) Congestion Pricing at the Border Linked Journeys Directional Data Analysis Data to support Planning
– Demand Modeling– Forecasting Models– Economic Analysis– Project Analysis (Before, After, During)
23
More InformationMore Information
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/documents/travel_time_flyer.pdf
Crystal JonesFHWA, Office of Freight Management and Operations202-366-2976
24
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 1302,Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 1302,
National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement ProgramNational Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program
Secretary to establish a program for receiving grant applications and establish criteria for selection. For States only.
For projects in corridors of national significance to promote economic growth and international or interregional trade.– connect existing highway system segments, facilitate
regional mobility, serve increasing freight volume, serve international freight volume, reduce congestion and travel time, serve high-value cargo, and use innovative financing
$1.948 billion over 5 years (2005-2009) for 33 designated projects
25
National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program
Under SAFTEA-LU (TX)Under SAFTEA-LU (TX) Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana,
[Louisiana]– Total Projects: 1 – Total Funding*: $50M – Project List: Planning, Design and Construction of I-69 (TX, LA, AR,
MS, TN, KY, IN) Annual Funding Levels
– 2005: $5.0M – 2006: $10.0M – 2007: $12.5M – 2008: $12.5M – 2009: $10.0M
*The funding levels in this column equal the totals authorized in SAFETEA-LU section 1302, however, the funding is subject to obligation limitation set in annual Appropriations Acts.
26
National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program
Under SAFTEA-LU (Neighboring States)Under SAFTEA-LU (Neighboring States) Louisiana
– Total Projects: 5 – Total Funding*: $230M – Project List: Improvements to LA Highway 1 between
Caminada Bridge and the LA1-US90 interchange [20]; Construction of 36 mi. segment of I-49 between AR state line and I-220 in Shreveport [150]; LA1 Replacement [5]; Construction of I-49 North from I-220 in Shreveport to AR state line [27.5]; Transportation improvements to I-49 South [27.5]
Oklahoma– Total Projects: 2 – Total Funding*: $145M – Project List: Ports-to-Plains Corridor [35]; OK I-44 from
Riverside to Yale Ave. in Tulsa [110]
27
For More InformationFor More Information
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/safetea_lu/1302_nciip_funding.htm
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy.htm
FHWA Staff Contacts
Ed Strocko202-366-2997
Rolf Schmitt202-366-9258
