Development of Tools for Assessing Wider Economic Benefits of Transportation (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

39 Technical Guide Introduction and Purpose This chapter provides an overview of the methodology used by the tool for assessing the value of intermodal connectivity and also providing instructions for its use. The tool can be used in conjunction with other tools developed through the C11 project to estimate the economic development benefits of a highway improvement. The value of an intermodal ter- minal is that it connects different modes of transportation, enabling passengers and freight to reach a greater number of destinations by accessing transpor tation modes with more preferable service and cost characteristics. The connectivity value provided by a terminal is related to the type of service that it connects to, the location of the terminal, the overall level of activity at the terminal, and the number of other locations that can be reached through the terminal. The tool methodology proposed here provides data and requests user inputs to evaluate each of these aspects of connectivity. The tool also requests data on the proposed highway improvement, and these data are used to estimate how this investment will affect the facility and connectivity. Specification of Inputs There are three different types of terminal data required by the tool. Some of these data are included within the tool, while the user is required to enter other data. The data included in the tool are drawn primarily from public data sources. Data pre-loaded in the tool cover three categories: the level of activity of a terminal, the value of goods moved (for freight), and the number of locations served by the facil- ity. The level of activity includes tonnage or containers for freight or trips for passenger modes. The value of goods is measured in value per ton or value per container. The num- ber of locations served measures how many other unique geographic areas (domestic and international) this terminal connects to. User Inputs In the intermodal connectivity tool, on the Intermodal Facil- ity Inputs page, the user selects the state where they want to evaluate a facility and the type of facility (airport freight, air- port passenger, rail freight, rail passenger, marine freight). From a drop-down menu the user then selects the specific intermodal terminal that will be affected by the proposed improvement. In the Improvement Inputs section, the user specifies the distance of the improvement from the facility, the number of trucks or passenger vehicles on the segment improved, the hours saved per truck or passenger vehicle, the value per vehicle hour saved, and the fraction of vehicles on the segment associ- ated with the intermodal terminal being evaluated. Default values for a truck hour or passenger vehicle hour are included: The system uses a value of $18 per passenger vehicle hour saved, which is based on average vehicle occupancy of 1.59 and average value of personal time of $11.24 per hour. For freight, the system uses a value of $86 per hour for a truck hour (includ- ing crew cost and freight logistics cost) (Schrank et al. 2012). An exponential distance decay function provides a default value for the percentage of passenger or freight vehicles operat- ing on a segment associated with an intermodal facility. This value assumes that the benefit of a roadway improvement to an intermodal facility decreases as the distance from the facility affected increases. The further from the intermodal facility the roadway improvement is, the fewer vehicles there are that are traveling to or from the intermodal facility. It is recommended that the user provide an actual estimate of the percentage of vehicles accessing the intermodal facility from the improved roadway segment, but the default values can be used to make some rough comparisons of the relative value of different road- way improvements and affected facilities in a region. C h a p T e r 4 Connectivity

40 Output and Calculations Connectivity Index The tool combines the data inputs into an index that will measure the connectivity value provided by the terminal and can be used to compare connectivity at different terminals. This can help prioritize and select highway improvements with access to terminals offering higher levels of connectivity. The research team’s approach involves developing an index for each mode separately. The general form of the calcula- tions for the freight connectivity index and the passenger connectivity index is shown in Equations 4.1 through 4.3. = ∗ ∗ Freight connectivity index Tons of freight Average value per ton Number of distinct locations served (4.1) = ∗ ∗ Freight connectivity index Containers of freight Average value per container Number of distinct locations served (4.2) Passenger connectivity index Number of passengers Number of distinct locations served (4.3) = ∗ Because of data limitations, the approach above varies some- what by mode. • Marine Port—Freight. For marine freight, total containers and tons arriving and leaving from the port are multiplied by an average value per ton and average value per container estimated from Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) data. This number is then multiplied by the number of origin and destination ports served. The number of distinct port locations served is estimated based on the vessel entrances and clearances data. This data shows the previous and next port for all the vessels entering specific ports. One limita- tion of this approach is that these data do not show infor- mation on multi-stop container ship routes that may occur before the previous port clearance or after the next planned port arrival. • Air Passenger. For airport passenger facilities, the informa- tion to determine the number of passengers arriving at or leaving from the airport is drawn from U.S. Department of Transportation’s T-100 Domestic and International Air Carrier Data, available from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The research team measured connectivity by the number of distinct locations that are served by direct flights. • Air Cargo. For air cargo, to estimate the index, total freight tons is multiplied by the number of origins and destina- tions and an average value per ton. The average value per ton is derived from FAF data estimated at the state level. These are multiplied together to calculate a connectivity index. • Freight Rail. For freight rail intermodal terminals, the research team estimated activity using the annual container lift capacity of the terminal. An average value per container, based on FAF data, is used to estimate value. Connectivity is estimated using the number of origin–destination multi- modal markets served, from the Federal Highway Admin- istration’s FAF (Freight Analysis Framework, 2007). These include city pairs, but also larger geographical areas for smaller markets. The tool currently focuses the rail calcula- tion on rail intermodal container facilities. • Passenger Rail. For passenger rail, the research team focused on Amtrak intercity rail terminals. Total tickets and number of locations served are used to estimate an index for these facilities. Table 4.1 shows the data that are be used to perform the calculations for each mode. Weighted Connectivity The output of the calculations described is a relative facility connectivity index for each intermodal terminal. This score is then multiplied by the savings associated with the highway improvement estimated from the IMPROVEMENT INPUTS entered by the user (described previously). The number of vehicles associated with the facility multiplied by the hours saved per vehicle and the value of time are used to estimate the value of the highway segment improvement to the vehi- cles accessing the intermodal facility. This value is then multi- plied by the relative connectivity index for a facility to estimate a weighted connectivity value. Value for Benefit Assessment The freight and passenger weighted connectivity scores can be used to rank different investments on their relative value for improving intermodal connectivity. Updating the Tool Most of the data sources used in the tool are updated on an annual basis, and therefore the tool could be updated on a periodic basis with publicly available data. Some processing would be required for most of the databases used. In addition,

41 the tool contains formulas that search for specific ranges within each database. These formulas and ranges would need to be updated if the data are updated. The databases used by the tool can be accessed in the hidden data sheets contained in the tool. Connectivity Module User’s Guide and Instructions Introduction and Purpose The intermodal connectivity tool evaluates the impact of road- way improvement on intermodal connectivity. The tool esti- mates a connectivity value that can be used to compare the relative value of different roadway investments for connectivity at specific intermodal terminals. The intermodal connectivity tool requires two types of inputs and generates outputs in a separate tab. On the Inputs tab, the user first selects which intermodal facilities they want to evaluate for the impact of a proposed roadway improve- ment. The user then enters the characteristics of the roadway improvement they are considering. Then on the Results tab the user reviews the outputs provided by the tool, which show data on the relative connectivity value that a roadway improvement provides for the different intermodal facilities specified. The three tabs are described in more detail. Entering Inputs To enter inputs, click the tab labeled 1–START and review brief instructions on using the tool. Table 4.1. Types of Data by Intermodal Terminal Type and Source Intermodal Facility Type Input Data Source Marine Port—Freight Facility Top marine ports by state U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ports and Waterways Facilities Activity Level Total containers Total tons U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009 Waterborne Commerce of the United States Connectivity Number of unique port destinations and origins U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vessel Entrances and Clearances Data Value Value per ton Value per container FAF Airport—Passenger Facility Facility Passenger airports by state U.S. DOT T-100 Domestic and International Air Carrier Data Activity Level Total passengers U.S. DOT T-100 Domestic and International Air Carrier Data Connectivity Number of distinct locations served by direct flights U.S. DOT T-100 Domestic and International Air Carrier Data Airport—Cargo Facility Facility Cargo airports by state U.S. DOT T-100 Domestic and International Air Carrier Data Activity Level Freight tons U.S. DOT T-100 Domestic and International Air Carrier Data Connectivity Number of unique airport destinations and origins served U.S. DOT T-100 Domestic and International Air Carrier Data Value Average value per ton FAF Freight Rail Intermodal Terminal Facility Major intermodal container terminals FHWA Intermodal Connector Facility List Activity Level Annual lift capacity (user input) Average value per container Value per container estimated from FAF Connectivity Number of unique rail origins and destinations served by rail for region. FAF database Passenger Rail Terminal Facility Amtrak intercity rail terminals Amtrak website Activity Level Total tickets (departing and arriving) Amtrak National Fact Sheet Connectivity Number of origin and destination stations Amtrak website Note: FHWA = Federal Highway Administration; FAF = freight analysis framework.

42 Intermodal Facility To enter the facility inputs: 1. At the bottom of the workbook, click the tab labeled 2–INTERMODAL FACILITY INPUTS (see Figure 4.1). 2. In field 1a, select the state where you want to evaluate intermodal facilities. 3. In field 1b, select the type of intermodal facility you want to evaluate (airport freight, airport passenger, rail freight, passenger rail, or marine freight). In field 1c the tool pro- vides a drop-down list of facilities of that type covered by the tool. If available, the tool shows the county where the facility selected is located. 4. If you selected rail freight, in field 1d, provide the annual container lift capacity of the facility. If you do not have this information, use the web address listed in the text box next to the Unit Lift Capacity field to find the contact informa- tion for rail intermodal facilities. You can contact the facil- ity to obtain the container lift capacity information to enter into field 1d. You can select up to three different facilities to evaluate at once. In the case depicted in Figure 4.1, the user has selected the same facility, but will evaluate the impact of different improvements on the facility. Improvement Inputs To choose improvement inputs: 1. At the bottom of the workbook, click the tab labeled 3– IMPROVEMENT INPUTS (see Figure 4.2). The state, facility type, and facility names shown in blue shaded boxes are populated from the information previously entered (for a description of these inputs, see Table 4.2). 2. In field 1a, enter a name for the roadway improvement being considered (e.g., “Highway 94 Access Improvements”). 3. In field 1b, enter the distance of the transportation improve- ment from the intermodal facility being evaluated, in miles. Distance could be calculated using any appropriate mapping software (including free software such as Google Maps). 4. In field 1c, enter the number of trucks within the study area. This is the number of trucks (for freight facilities) or passenger vehicles (for passenger facilities) per year using the highway improvement segment in one year. You should enter the total number of trucks or passenger vehicles using the highway improvement segment, even though only a fraction of these may be associated with the facility. 5. In field 1d, for freight facilities enter the hours saved per truck; for passenger facilities enter the hours saved per passenger car. This value should be entered as the fraction of an hour (for example, 10 minutes should be entered as 0.1667 or =10/60). 6. In field 1e, for freight facilities enter the value per truck hour; for passenger facilities enter the value per passenger vehicle hour saved. For freight facilities, this value is a com- bination of crew cost and freight logistics costs, and these two cost components should be summed together before entering the value. Alternatively, you can use the default value for per truck hour value of time or per passenger vehicle hour of time that the system provides. If you do enter a value in field 1e, that value will be used rather than the default value. 7. In 1f, enter the fraction of trucks at the infrastructure investment location associated with the intermodal loca- tion, if the information is available. For instance, a user may have local survey information on the percent of vehi- cles accessing an intermodal facility from a specific road- way. Entries must be between 0 and 1 (for example, 30% of vehicles using the highway improvement segment and accessing the intermodal facility should be entered as 0.3). Alternatively, you can use the default value for the fraction Figure 4.1. Intermodal facility inputs—Tab 2.

43 Figure 4.2. Roadway improvement inputs page—Tab 3. Table 4.2. Roadway Improvement Inputs for Tab 3 Input Description 1b Distance of improvement from facility (miles) Calculate the distance in miles of the transportation improvement to the proposed facility using Google Maps or other appropriate mapping software. 1c Number of trucks within study area The number of trucks or passenger vehicles per year using the highway improvement segment. The total number of trucks or passenger vehicles should be entered, though only a fraction may be traveling to the facility. 1d Number of trucks within study area The hours saved per truck for freight facilities, or hours saved per passenger car for passenger facilities. This value should be entered as a fraction of an hour (e.g., enter 10 minutes as 0.1667). 1e Value per truck hour saved The assumed value per truck hour saved for freight facilities, or the value per passen- ger car hour saved for passenger facilities. Users can either use the calculated default value, or enter their own value based on available information. If a value is entered in 1e, that value will be used in the calculation, rather than the default. For freight facilities, this value is a combination of crew cost and freight logistics costs, and the two cost components should be summed together before entering the value, if the default is not used. 1f Fraction of trucks associated with intermodal facility This factor assumes that the farther away from the intermodal facility the improve- ment is the less impact it will have on the intermodal facility. A default exponential distance decay factor is calculated based on the distance. Users can either use the calculated default value, or enter their own value based on differences in local information. If a value is entered in 1f, that value will be used in the calculation, rather than the default value.

44 Figure 4.3. Screenshots of results pages—Tab 4.

45 of trucks at the infrastructure investment location access- ing the intermodal location, which is calculated using an exponential distance decay factor based on the distance. This factor assumes that the further away from the inter- modal facility that the roadway improvement occurs, the less impact it will have on the intermodal facility. If you do enter a value in field 1f, that value will be used in the cal- culation, rather than the default value. Obtaining Results To view your results: 1. At the bottom of the workbook, click the tab labeled 4–RESULTS. 2. View and print out estimated relative connectivity value. Depending on the type of facility selected, the tool will calcu- late different indices. By comparing the relative connectivity value produced by different roadway investments, you can determine which provides the greatest benefits to intermodal connectivity. This sheet shows the raw data for level of activity, value of shipment, and number of unique origins and destinations for the selected facility. It also provides the raw score of the connectivity index, before it is adjusted for the roadway improvement inputs. This sheet also provides • The relative level of activity of the selected facility as a per- centage of the highest level of activity from a facility of the same type; • The relative value of the facility’s shipments compared to the highest value of shipped goods from a facility of the same type; • The relative number of unique origins/destinations of the facility compared to the highest number of unique origins and destinations of a facility of the same type; and • The relative connectivity score of the facility compared to the highest connectivity score of a facility of the same type. For instance, a relative activity value of 33.8% for a freight airport indicates that the airport has an activity level (in tons) that is 33.8% of the largest air cargo facility in the country. There is no value associated with passenger modes, and thus there is no relative value associated for passenger modes either. Additionally, this sheet also provides a summary of the project improvements. The summary includes the number of trucks or passenger vehicles annually traveling through the highway improvement segment, the total hours saved due to the improvement for all trucks or passenger vehicles, and the total value of time saved for all trucks or passenger vehicles. Using information from the Improvement Inputs sheet, the Results sheet shows the number of trucks or passenger cars associated with the intermodal facility in a year, the time sav- ings for the facility over a year, and the annual value of time savings for the facility (see Figure 4.3). This value of time sav- ings for the facility is multiplied by the raw connectivity value to find a weighted connectivity. The weighted connectivity score can be used to rank how different types of roadway improve ments compare to each other in terms of improving intermodal connectivity.