Freight Demand Modeling: Tools for Public-Sector Decision Making (2008)

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.

C O N F E R E N C E P R O C E E D I N G S 4 0 Freight Demand Modeling Tools for Public-Sector Decision Making Summary of a Conference KATHLEEN L. HANCOCK, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Rapporteur September 25–27, 2006 Keck Center of the National Academies Washington, D.C. Sponsored by Transportation Research Board Federal Highway Administration U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Innovative Technology Administration Federal Railroad Administration Washington, D.C. 2008 www.TRB.org

Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 40 ISSN 1073-1652 ISBN 978-0-309-11307-6 Subscriber Categories IA planning and administration VIII freight transportation (multimodal) Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national-academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334- 2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Printed in the United States of America. NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsi- ble for the project were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This project was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration. Committee on Freight Demand Modeling: A Conference on Tools for Public-Sector Decision Making J. Susie Lahsene, Port of Portland, Chair William R. Black, Indiana University David Cipra, Wisconsin Department of Transportation James R. Gosnell, Southern California Association of Governments John T. Gray, Union Pacific Railroad J. Douglas Hunt, University of Calgary Arnim H. Meyburg, Cornell University Mark L. Schlappi, Maricopa Association of Governments Huiwei Shen, Florida Department of Transportation Lorant A. Tavasszy, TNO John E. Tyworth, Pennsylvania State University Liaison Representatives Christina S. Casgar, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Ronald J. Duych, Research and Innovative Technology Administration Scott Greene, Federal Railroad Administration Bruce Lambert, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rolf Schmitt, Federal Highway Administration Tianjia Tang, Federal Highway Administration Rapporteur Kathleen L. Hancock, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Transportation Research Board Staff Mark Norman, Director, Technical Activities Elaine King, Rail Transport Specialist David Floyd, Senior Program Associate TRB Publications Office Norman Solomon, Senior Editor Jennifer J. Weeks, Editorial Services Specialist Mary McLaughlin, Proofreader Juanita Green, Production Manager Cover design by Beth Schlenoff, Beth Schlenoff Design. Typesetting by Carol Levie, Grammarians.

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 per- taining 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 asso- ciate 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 the 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 Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innova- tion 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 individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

Contents Preface.....................................................................................................................................................vii Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................ix PLENARY SESSION Introduction, Policy Direction, and Megatrends........................................................................................3 J. Susie Lahsene, Tony Furst, and Paul Bingham Characteristics of Effective Freight Models* ...........................................................................................11 Mark A. Turnquist The Importance of Understanding Freight ..............................................................................................17 J. Richard Capka CURRENT PRACTICE Freight Modeling: State of the Practice ...................................................................................................21 Bruce Spear, Greg Giaimo, T. Randall Curlee, and Kevin Neels Evaluation of Practice Today ..................................................................................................................27 Rick Donnelly, Arnim H. Meyburg, Huiwei Shen, and Rob Leachman Town Hall Discussion: Gaps and Shortcomings in Current Practice .......................................................36 John T. Gray State of the Practice: Breakout Session....................................................................................................38 J. Douglas Hunt EMERGING DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE NEEDS Defining Future Needs ............................................................................................................................41 Frank Southworth, Michael D. Meyer, and Michael Bronzini

Freight Modeling: An Overview of International Experiences*...............................................................47 Lorant Tavasszy Discussion, Inge Vierth......................................................................................................................54 Oregon Generation 1 Land Use–Transport Economic Model Treatment of Commercial Movements: Case Example* ...............................................................................................56 J. Douglas Hunt and B. J. Gregor Tour-Based Microsimulation of Urban Commercial Vehicle Movements in Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Case Example*..............................................................................................61 J. Douglas Hunt Discussion, Scott Drumm ..................................................................................................................70 Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey: Use of Geographic Information Systems for Data Collection, Processing, Analysis, and Dissemination* ...............................................................................................72 Selva Sureshan State of the Art—What’s Needed? Breakout Session ...............................................................................75 Michael D. Meyer WHERE ARE WE GOING? Industry Perspectives ...............................................................................................................................81 Jim McClellan, Bob Costello, and Bob James Next Steps in the Public Sector ...............................................................................................................88 Rolf Schmitt, Jane Bachner, and Bruce Lambert CLOSING COMMENTS Key Observations and Suggested Areas for Research ..............................................................................97 Michael D. Meyer APPENDIX: FREIGHT MODEL USE MATRIX .................................................................................101 Participants ...........................................................................................................................................104 * Peer-reviewed paper.

vii Preface On September 25–27, 2006, the TransportationResearch Board (TRB) convened the conferenceon Freight Demand Modeling: Tools for Public- Sector Decision Making in Washington, D.C. The conference—sponsored jointly by TRB, the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and the Federal Railroad Admini- stration—brought together approximately 120 individ- uals from across the freight transportation communities, at national, state, regional, and local lev- els and from the public and private sectors and acade- mia. The conference benefited from the contributions of international speakers and participants from Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Australia, and Chile. The conference was designed to complement the Fed- eral Highway Administration’s work on the Freight Model Improvement Program and focused on modeling methodologies, applications of existing models at the national and local levels (including international exam- ples), and related data needed to support modeling efforts. The objectives were to engage members of the freight transportation community in examining current modeling practice and identifying areas where improve- ment may be needed. To plan the conference and orga- nize and develop the conference program, TRB assembled a committee, appointed by the National Research Council. The conference committee was chaired by J. Susie Lahsene, Manager, Transportation and Land Use Policy, Port of Portland, Oregon. The pro- gram was designed to maximize the exchange of infor- mation and perspectives among participants. In planning the program and conducting the confer- ence, the committee developed a matrix laying out important questions related to the types of public-sector decisions that would (or already) benefit from an under- standing of freight demand and thus from the use of some type of freight modeling. The purpose of the matrix was to organize discussion about evaluation of currently used models and identification of needed improvements for these models. The committee used the matrix to focus the program content and provided it to the breakout groups to help guide their discussions. The conference program covered the importance of under- standing freight, a summary of the state of the practice, an evaluation of the practice today, a definition of future needs, emerging techniques in development and in the state of the art, and perspectives on future trends in freight demand and on where the discipline is going. The matrix, as it evolved throughout the conference, is provided in the Appendix. This conference summary report is based on the con- ference agenda and was prepared by Kathleen Hancock of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The presentations made in each session are summarized in the respective sections and summaries of the breakout sessions are provided. The following five papers pre- pared in connection with the conference that were peer reviewed by the committee are included: • Characteristics of Effective Freight Models, by Mark A. Turnquist; • Freight Modeling: An Overview of International Experiences, by Lorant Tavasszy;

• Oregon Generation 1 Land Use–Transport Eco- nomic Model Treatment of Commercial Movements: Case Example, by J. Douglas Hunt and B. J. Gregor; • Tour-Based Microsimulation of Urban Commer- cial Vehicle Movements in Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Case Example, by J. Douglas Hunt; and • Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey: Use of Geo- graphic Information Systems for Data Collection, Pro- cessing, Analysis, and Dissemination, by Selva Sureshan. A list of conference attendees is also provided. This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi- viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and techni- cal expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purposes of this independent review are to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the project charge. The review com- ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to pro- tect the integrity of the deliberative process. TRB thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Michael S. Bronzini, George Mason University; John T. Gray, Union Pacific Railroad Company; Lorant A. Tavasszy, TNO, the Netherlands; and Richard E. Walker, Portland Metro, Oregon. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they did not see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by C. Michael Walton, Uni- versity of Texas at Austin. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making cer- tain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Note: Many of the photographs and figures in this pub- lication have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic file, posted on the web at onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP40.pdf, retains the color versions of photographs and figures. FREIGHT DEMAND MODELING: TOOLS FOR PUBLIC-SECTOR DECISION MAKINGviii

ix Acronyms ATRI American Transportation Research Institute CBA cost–benefit analysis CFS Commodity Flow Survey CVS Ontario Commercial Vehicle Survey DfT Department for Transport, United Kingdom FAF Freight Analysis Framework FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMIP Freight Model Improvement Program GDP gross domestic product GVW gross vehicle weight HarborSym deep draft harbor simulation HERS Highway Economic Requirements System HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HS Harmonized System ITS intelligent transportation system LGV light goods vehicle LRM Lock Risk Module (ORNIM) LUTI land use–transport interaction models MTO Ministry of Transportation, Ontario NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NAPCS North American Product Classification System NaSS Navigation System Simulation NETS Navigation Economic Technologies NHPN National Highway Planning Network NIMBY not in my backyard NRS National Roadside Study (Transport Canada) OMIP Oregon Modeling Improvement Program Optimization Optimal Investment Module (ORNIM) ORNIM Ohio River Navigation Investment Model PCE passenger car equivalent PIERS Port Import–Export Reporting Service PMA Pacific Maritime Association PUMS Public-Use Microdata Samples PWC production–wholesalers–consumption (matrices) QRFM Quick Response Freight Manual RP revealed preference survey RTM Regional Travel Model (Calgary) SAMGODS Swedish national freight model system SIC Standard Industrial Classification SCENES European Union–level transport model SCGE spatial computable general equilibrium models SCTG Standard Classification of Transported Goods (Netherlands) SLAM Spatial Logistics Appended Module (Netherlands) SMILE Strategic Model for Integrated Logistics and Evaluations SP stated preference survey

STCC Standard Transportation Commodity Codes STAN interactive graphic planning tool used for strategic planning of national and regional freight transportation STEMM Strategic European Multimodal Modeling TENs Trans-European Networks TEU twenty-foot equivalent unit (shipping container measurement) TLUMIP Transportation and Land Use Model Integration Program (Oregon) TMIP Travel Model Improvement Program TRANUS integrated land use and transport modeling system USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture VIUS Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey WTA World Trade Atlas WSDM Waterway Supply and Demand Module (ORNIM) x FREIGHT DEMAND MODELING: TOOLS FOR PUBLIC-SECTOR DECISION MAKING