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.
74 Conclusions and Future Research This research project had two major objectives. The first was to provide decision makers (at all levels and across all stakeholders) with a critical and comprehensive analysis of the driving forces and uncertainties that may affect the U.S. freight transportation system over the next 30 to 50 years. It is important to point out that this objective was not to develop the official version of the future for the U.S. freight transportation system to be used by all of the decision makers. The second, and most important, was to create and disseminate a customized scenario planning methodology for these decision makers (primarily at the state DOT level) to use in creating a more flexible, adaptive, and responsive transportation management strategy on an ongoing basis. As a side benefit, this methodology was hoped to engender more productive interaction between the diverse stakeholders of the U.S. freight transportation system. As the project progressed, a third (unofficial and out of scope) objective of the project arose. The need for integrating the scenario planning workshops into the established transportation planning process became apparent as we met and talked with different government planners at the MPO, state, and federal levels. The remainder of this section is organized as follows. The first section recaps the analysis of future driving forces. The second section summarizes the scenario planning workshop method- ology that was developed and presents some overall insights that were gathered. The third and final section briefly summarizes a potential method of integrating the scenario planning into the traditional existing planning process. 7.1 Future Driving Forces The research team found a number of driving forces and critical uncertainties that we feel could influence future freight flows and thus freight infrastructure investment decisions. The conclusions were reached through a series of interactive exercises, surveys, and interviews with industry experts and practitioners. The forces were further classified and analyzed based on the probability of occurrence and the level of impact. The following conclusions were reached. ⢠The forces that appeared to both have the most impact and the most uncertainty were the level of global trade, potential re-domestication of manufacturing, and resource availability. These are all related in that they could signal a retreat from the global trading trends of the past half-century. These factors have tremendous impact on infrastructure investments and therefore were critical in the design of the four future scenarios. ⢠A number of important driving forces were seen to be present now and will continue to be important in the future with limited uncertainty. While importantâthe lack of uncertainty S e c t i o n 7
conclusions and Future Research 75 limited their influence in infrastructure planning. Planners should assume that these trends will only increase. These included high and volatile fuel prices, increased use of battery vehicles, widespread use of âsenseableâ networks, and increased use of virtual working and online retailing. ⢠Several driving forces had very high levels of uncertaintyâas measured across the industry surveys. The driving forces with the most variability in the probability of occurring are average age of 100, zero immigration, green customer demand, and reduction in global trade. The high variability indicates a lot of disagreement over the potential outcome and while these forces might not define the different scenarios, they were included. Out of the analysis, several key elements arose. These helped to determine which forces and uncertainties should be used to define the scenarios, which to feather in, and which to ignore. A number of the forces (aging population and increasing urbanization) were found to be so exceptionally certain to occur that they were classified as predetermined. This means that the trends are in effect and are exceptionally unlikely to deviate. These forces were deemed to be included in all of the scenarios. The only exception to this is that the specific geographies for the increased urbanization to occur were allowed to vary between mega-cities (New York City, Chicago, etc.) and second-tier cities (Madison, Burlington, Boise). Another group of forces had high levels of uncertainty with two (or more) potential end points. These included the level of trade (ranging from global to blocs to regions to local only); resource availability (ranging from restricted and allocated to available); and manufacturing structure (ranging from highly centralized to decentralized). These structural forces became prime candidates for defining the four potential scenarios. Juxtaposing the two or three different forces can create a matrix of potential options. So, for example, using trade and resource availability would create a 2 à 2 matrix with the cells: Global Trade & Restricted Resources, Global Trade & Available Resources, Local Trade & Restricted Resources, and Local Trade & Available Resources. These are sometimes called âframingâ forces since they form the framework or backbone of the set of scenarios. 7.2 Scenario Planning Workshops The research team developed four scenarios to be used by government planning agencies to assist in long-term freight transportation infrastructure investment decisions. Rather than being developed for a single entity or location, the scenarios were designed to be usable at any level of government across any geography, and for a wide range of potential strategic questions. The scenarios were tested in six workshops held at different levels of government (national, state, MPO, local) and different locations. The workshop design was tested and improved throughout the six workshops. Based on its experience through running these six workshops, the team created a Scenario Planning Toolkit for use by any planning organization. The toolkit includes guidebooks to assist in the planning and facilitation of the workshops as well as brochures, supporting videos, presentation slides, and spreadsheet templates to be used in the workshop itself. The complete Scenario Planning Toolkit can be found on the accompanying DVD package or online at www. trb.org (search for âScenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investmentâ). Because each workshop was held in a different geography, under a different governmental organization, and evaluated different infrastructure investments, it was difficult to find any universal results. However, if we generalize to the type of infrastructure rather than a specific investment, we can glean a few insights. Specifically, any freight infrastructure (regardless of mode) can be classified into being a gateway (airport, sea port, etc.), a connector (intermodal connection, short-line rail, secondary road, etc.), or a corridor (highway, Class I rail line, etc.). We found some commonalities in the investment strategy for each of these infrastructure types.
76 Scenario Planning for Freight transportation infrastructure investment 7.2.1 Gateway Investments Gateways were found to be useful investments in all workshops in the Global Marketplace scenario. Interestingly, of the four scenarios, Global Marketplace most closely resembles the global world we live in today. Because this is the only scenario in which gateway segments were found to be useful, it suggests that it makes sense to make investments into gateway segments only if we believe that the future will be similar to todayâi.e., marked by global trade, which provides access to resources to anybody at any place in the world. Given that the official projections about the future often consider the continuation of the existing trends, there is a real danger that infrastructure planning agencies will continue to invest in gateway segments (because they are useful segment types to invest in Global Marketplace), and these investments will turn out to be futile if the official projections of the future are wrong. Therefore, investments in gateways must be done judiciously. The consensus of the other scenarios seems to be that there is sufficient gateway capacity for trade and further investment might not be needed. 7.2.2 Corridor Investments Corridors were the most common segment type offered across the six workshops. They were found to be useful investments in three scenarios (Naftástique!, One World Order, and Millions of Markets) and only slightly useful in the Global Marketplace scenario. In no scenario were corridor investments considered detrimental. One way to interpret these results is that the participants across all workshops felt that corridor segments were useful, but did not require additional investments at this time to prepare for a future similar to today. Overall, corridors stand out as fairly robust investments. However, these investments will be a lot more valuable if the future were to be significantly different from the world dominated by global trade. One way to invest in corridors today would be to prioritize investments in those corridor segments that urgently need to be invested in even to meet todayâs demands. Those investments will not only help us meet the present day needs, but also prepare us for a future quite different from todayâs fairly resourceful world of global trade. 7.2.3 Connector Investments Connector segments emerged as highly useful investments within three scenarios (Naftástique!, One World Order, and Millions of Markets) with mixed evaluations in the Global Marketplace scenario (depending on location). This suggests that connectors only in some specific regions or connectors only of specific types are useful investments to prepare for a business-as-usual future. Connectors emerged as useful investments in those futures for which the world looks different from todayâs Global Marketplace. Connectors were also found to be useful in some specific regions. Thus, one broad investment strategy for connectors would be to invest in those connector segments that urgently need to be invested in to meet todayâs demands. Those investments will help meet the present needs, and help prepare for a future quite different from todayâs Global Marketplace world. 7.2.4 Common Initiatives Across Workshops The workshops also collected qualitative suggestions and recommendations on potential initiatives. By far, the most common group of initiatives was to âdevelop or improve inter- modal connections.â The initiatives in this category included increasing capacity of intermodal
conclusions and Future Research 77 exchanges, improving interoperability among different modes at the intermodal facilities, and development of regional logistics hubs. These initiatives are related to the âconnectorâ type segments discussed in the previous section. The next two most common initiatives were âcreating freight-only lanesâ and âmaking regulations and standards to facilitate freight.â The initiatives in the âfreight-only lanesâ category suggested creation of dedicated truck lanes on highways, separating freight transportation from passenger transportation, and even taking the passenger traffic off the highways completely through improved transit! The motivating idea behind this initiative is to create âfreight-only corridorsâ to facilitate goods flow in the country. The âregulatory initiativesâ are also motivated by the need to improve the existing freight flows by eliminating regulations that hinder them. The common themes in this group of initiatives were having a national freight policy and funding to take freight plan- ning out of regional provincial policies, developing policies to improve flow of goods across the U.S.âMexico border, and repealing or revision of the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920), which prohibits foreign shops from carrying cargo between U.S. ports. The next three most commonly cited initiatives were related to improving the capacity of corridorsâhighways, rail lines, and waterways/ports. The initiatives related to adding new capacity (such as adding highway lanes or rail lines) or making the existing infrastructure carry more cargo (enabling double-stack transportation by rail, dredging ports, etc.). These initiatives were often mentioned in context of specific segments of the freight infrastructure (such as highway I-5, the Alameda Corridor, the Port of Savannah, etc.). The other commonly identified initiatives included creating policies to reduce the environmental impact of freight transportation, policies related to land use, the setting aside of industrial land for creating long-haul distribution and multimodal facilities, and leveraging information technology to improve freight flows. 7.3 Integration of Workshops into Existing Planning The scenario planning workshops were well received as separate stand-alone events used to gather input and feedback from a wide set of stakeholders with different perspectives. The two challenges that state and MPO planners face are (1) the ability to run the workshops on their own and (2) the integration of the results into the established planning process. The Scenario Planning Toolkit was designed to address the first challenge by providing a com- plete methodology as well as training materials required to run a workshop. The complete Sce- nario Planning Toolkit can be found on the accompanying DVD package or online at www.trb.org (search for âScenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investmentâ). However, if a planning agency does not have sufficiently trained staff to facilitate or plan a workshop, it can always utilize a third party to assist. In fact, we found that there are many ben- efits to having a neutral third-party organization play an active role in facilitating the session. This third-party organization does not need to be the MIT research team. We recommend that the planning agency work with local university faculty and staff to identify qualified facilitators. It would also be worthwhile for the U.S.DOT to develop (or support) a training program to grow this strength across the various agencies and state DOTs. The second challenge of integrating the workshop into an established planning process is more daunting. Each agency uses slightly (though sometimes dramatically) different methods for long-range planning of infrastructure investments. At a generic level, however, the workshops can be incorporated into the existing evaluation structure either qualitatively or quantitatively. In the qualitative method, the suggestions and insights brought out by the workshop partici- pants would become the input to help shape the MTP or the LRSTP for an MPO or state DOT,
78 Scenario Planning for Freight transportation infrastructure investment respectively. The planning agency would note these insights during the discussion and then incorporate them into strategic planning and/or corridor planning subjectively by adjusting the valuations of different projects. A more quantitative method would be to generate a robustness metric based on the cross- scenario voting results for the proposed infrastructure investments. This could then be categorized and ranked. The robustness metric could then be considered as another criteria in the existing multi-attribute evaluation system. The weighting could be adjusted accordingly to reflect the importance compared to the other established factors (e.g., economic growth, freight mobility, environmental impact, economic feasibility, development impact, safety, etc.). Of course, by selecting investments one by one, we are ignoring system effects. Transportation investments are more effective if created as a âsystemâ of transportation elements forming a corridor. Therefore, the evaluation process somehow needs to consider the value of forming a corridor. Additionally, transportation investments are budget constrained. The planning agencyâs goal is to maximize the utility of its investments that satisfy this constraint. The process we use evaluates each investment on its own merit, and does not take cost into account. The costs would be considered in the fiscal planning stage where cost-benefit analyses are performed.
