Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 1: Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investment (2013)

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.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 750 Strategic Issues Facing Transportation Volume 1: Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investment Chris Caplice Shardul Phadnis Massachusetts InstItute of technology Cambridge, MA Subscriber Categories Freight Transportation • Planning and Forecasting • Terminals and Facilities TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2013 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 750 Project 20-83(1) ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-25892-0 Library of Congress Control Number 2013932452 © 2013 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 750, Volume 1 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs William C. Rogers, Senior Program Officer Charlotte Thomas, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Scott E. Hitchcock, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-83(1) PANEL Area of Special Projects Barbara A. Ivanov, Washington State DOT, Olympia, WA (Chair) Steven A. Brown, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY Robert Costello, American Trucking Associations, Arlington, VA John T. Gray, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC Jeffrey D. Holt, BMO Capital Markets, Inc., Huntsville, UT John Isbell, Starboard Alliance, LLC, Manzanita, OR H. Thomas Kornegay, Consultant, Houston, TX Bruce E. Seely, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI Keith M. Sherman, Consultant, Petersburg, IL Kenneth R. Wykle, National Defense Transportation Association, Alexandria, VA Tony Furst, FHWA Liaison Leo Penne, AASHTO Liaison Joseph R. Morris, TRB Liaison Thomas Palmerlee, TRB Liaison Ann R. Purdue, TRB Liaison

Major trends affecting the future of the United States and the world will dramatically reshape transportation priorities and needs. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials established the NCHRP Project 20-83 research series to exam- ine global and domestic long-range strategic issues and their implications for departments of transportation (DOTs) to help prepare the DOTs for the challenges and benefits created by these trends. NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 1: Sce- nario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investment is the first report in this series. NCHRP Report 750, Volume 1 provides decision makers with a critical analysis of the driving forces behind high-impact economic and social changes as well as sourcing patterns that may affect the U.S. freight transportation system. A detailed discussion of the driving forces is contained in NCHRP Web-Only Document 195: Driving Forces Influencing Future Freight Flows. NCHRP Report 750, Volume 1 also introduces scenario planning as a tool that can be used in conjunction with other planning methods to improve the quality of long- range transportation infrastructure planning. The U.S. freight transportation system is a key underpinning of American economic activity. Understanding the driving forces that could most significantly affect the transpor- tation system over the next 50 years will allow local, regional, and national transportation decision makers to anticipate and invest in transportation system improvements that enable the system to continue to provide key structural support to the U.S. economy. Foreseeing changes over the longer term future and the consequences of such changes is difficult but not entirely impossible. Management strategies that recognize emerging trends and are flexible, adaptive, and able to respond effectively will help ensure that the transportation system continues to support the growth of the economy and the delivery of an increas- ingly high quality of life for the nation. By identifying the most significant trends and other forces between now and 2050, considering plausible trend lines (scenarios) for these forces, examining how they might interact with each other, identifying what indicators should be monitored and what the potential tipping points are that would indicate a systematic shift, and determining how the indicators can be monitored, decision makers will be enabled to make better infrastructure investments. Under NCHRP Project 20-83(01), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was asked to provide decision makers with a critical analysis of the driving forces behind high-impact economic changes and business sourcing patterns that may affect the U.S. freight trans- portation system. To accomplish the research objective, the research team catalogued and assessed driving forces, points where systemic changes occur, leading indicators, and critical F O R E W O R D By William C. Rogers Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

dependencies, as well as the relative importance of these factors to future freight patterns. The research team then identified plausible representative scenarios of driving forces and their impacts on future levels and patterns of freight movement, fully articulated to enable “what-if” discussions of consequences, opportunities, and threats posed. The team also identified the means for realizing, accommodating, or managing policy strategies under the various scenarios. Four future scenarios were developed as part of the research project, as well as a detailed methodology for planners to follow to conduct their own scenario planning workshops, and are included herein on this report’s companion DVD package and are available for download as an ISO image on the TRB website (search for “Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investment”).

1 Section 1 Introduction and Background 2 1.1 Challenges Specific to Transportation Planning 3 1.2 Research Project Objectives 4 1.3 Background on the Scenario Planning Methodology 5 1.4 Organization of the Report 6 Section 2 Scenario Development 6 2.1 Traditional Scenario Planning Process 7 2.2 Criteria of Good Scenarios 8 2.3 Examples of Scenario Planning Initiatives 8 2.3.1 United Parcel Service 1997—Centennial Scenarios of 2007 8 2.3.2 United Parcel Service 2004—Horizon 2017 Scenarios 9 2.3.3 Cisco 2010—Evolving Internet of 2025 Scenarios 9 2.3.4 Shell Oil 2005—Global 2025 Scenarios 9 2.3.5 U.S. Pharmaceutical Supply Chain 2011–2016 10 2.3.6 Chemical Industry Supply Chains in South America—2020 10 2.3.7 Other Scenario Studies 11 2.4 FFF versus Traditional Scenario Development 12 2.5 Generation of Driving Forces and Critical Uncertainties 12 2.5.1 Future Freight Flow Symposium 16 2.5.2 Stakeholders Survey 19 2.6 Analysis of Driving Forces 20 2.6.1 Snapshot Scenarios 21 2.6.2 Impact Matrices / Influence Curves 21 2.6.3 Analysis of Snapshot Scenarios 23 2.6.4 Stakeholder Survey 27 2.7 Selection of the Scenario Logic 28 2.7.1 Classification of Driving Forces 31 2.7.2 Other Forces 33 2.7.3 Summary of Scenario Logic 34 Section 3 Future Freight Flow Scenarios 34 3.1 Scenario Overviews 34 3.2 Individual Scenario Narratives 35 3.2.1 Global Marketplace Narrative 36 3.2.2 One World Order Narrative 37 3.2.3 Naftástique! Narrative 38 3.2.4 Millions of Markets Narrative 40 Section 4 Scenario Planning Workshop Design 41 4.1 Workshop Design 42 4.1.1 Engagement with the Planning Organization 42 4.1.2 Workshop Design Components C O N T E N T S

50 4.1.3 Workshop Facilitation 50 4.1.4 Summary 50 4.2 Future Freight Flows Workshops: Process 51 4.2.1 Resources Used in the Workshop 53 4.2.2 Pre-Workshop Activities 53 4.2.3 Workshop-Day Activities 56 4.2.4 Post-Workshop Activities 56 4.2.5 Summary 57 Section 5 Future Freight Flows Workshops: Results 57 5.1 Method for Comparing Results Across Workshops 58 5.2 Comparison of Results from Evaluation Sessions 60 5.2.1 Observations from Comparison of Evaluations Across Workshops 62 5.3 Comparison of Results from Visioning Sessions 62 5.3.1 Observations from Comparison of Initiatives Across Workshops 64 5.4 Summary 65 Section 6 Integration into Established Planning Process 65 6.1 The Generic Transportation Planning Process 67 6.1.1 Key Documents for Transportation Planning 68 6.1.2 Transportation Planning Framework 70 6.2 Incorporating Scenario Planning into Transportation Planning 70 6.2.1 When to Use Future Freight Flows Scenarios? 71 6.2.2 How to Use Future Freight Flows Scenarios for Visioning? 71 6.2.3 Three Approaches for Using FFF Scenarios for Evaluation 74 Section 7 Conclusions and Future Research 74 7.1 Future Driving Forces 75 7.2 Scenario Planning Workshops 76 7.2.1 Gateway Investments 76 7.2.2 Corridor Investments 76 7.2.3 Connector Investments 76 7.2.4 Common Initiatives Across Workshops 77 7.3 Integration of Workshops into Existing Planning 79 Section 8 References 80 Section 9 Appendices 81 Appendix A. Future Freight Flows Symposium 85 Appendix B. Summaries of Thought Leader Presentations 121 Appendix C. Snapshot Scenario Output 126 Appendix D. Description of an Interactive Workshop Session 129 Appendix E. Six Workshops: Agendas, Facilitators’ Scripts, Voting Results