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 to approximate the TTTR for roads in the Peoria area. Truck cost data for the case study was obtained from Chainalytics. For the barge segment, travel time and reliability were calculated with data from the USACE NAIS data. The barge travel cost was calculated with data from the USDA and other industry data such as nominal rates for tariffs. The tariffs permitted an estimate of travel costs. Discount estimates were used to approximate shipment discounts for bulk shippers. Table 10 summarizes the results of the freight fluidity measured in the I-95 study. The results show that the travel time for soybeans by truck and barge between Illinois and New Orleans is on average 8.23 days, and with the variability in shipments and travel time, the 95th percentile of shipments is delivered in 14.6 days. This means that shipments can take on average 8 days but can also take upwards of 15 days. The costs of delivery come out to be $26 per ton. Table 10: Soybean Export Supply Chain Performance, Agriculture Case Study Truck from El Paso, IL to Peoria, IL Barge from Peoria, IL to New Orleans, LA Total Sources (Truck; Barge) Travel Time (Days, Hours) 0.8 hours 8.2 days 8.23 days NPMRDS, Google Maps; NAIS Travel Reliability (95% Travel Time) 1.7 hours 14.5 days 14.6 days NPMRDS, Google Maps; NAIS Travel Cost (2013$) $11 per ton ($205 per trip, assuming 17 to 20 tons per trip) $15 per ton (1,580 tons per trip) $26 per ton Chainalytics; USDA and industry sources Source: I-95 Corridor Coalition FREIGHT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Measuring the Performance of Supply Chains across Multistate Jurisdictions White Paper, March 2016 5.6 CONCLUSION A literature review of freight supply chain modeling for public planning purposes revealed that such models have been developed for only a few U.S. transportation planning agencies. This chapter has demonstrated how the use of two of these modeling systems, CMAP and FreightSIM, can be used to simulate and assess the impacts of transportation network disruptions by identifying alterative modal supply chain options. In the case of the CMAP modeling of grain flows from Illinois to New Orleans, the model results matched the expected outcome---when waterways are not available, railways would be needed to continue the transportation from farm to export. In the modeling of pharmaceutical shipments from Miami to Houston, the FreightSIM was manipulated to reflect the changes in mode split due to a hypothetical terrorist attack on air travel. Again, as expected the model moves the freight in this corridor from the air to the truck mode. As one of five types of risk associated with product supply chains, disruption risk can be usefully assessed using freight fluidity measures. To this end supply chain models can be used to simulate commodity and O-D-specific performance, including inter-modal freight fluidity-based measures associated with travel times and monetary costs, and how these are impacted by major transportation system disruptions. To demonstrate this, a recent I-95 case study was examined in terms of its inter-modal freight fluidity, as measured in terms of travel time, travel cost, and travel time reliability. Before and after measures of fluidity such as these can shed useful light on the freight transportation systemâs resiliency to major disruption events. tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2012.pdf
75 CHAPTER 6: GUIDANCE FOR STAKEHOLDER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION OF SUPPLY CHAINS TO DISRUPTION Based on the results of the case studies and interviews, a guidance document was developed on mitigating and adapting supply chains to disruptions. The guidance document is intended for the varied stakeholders in the supply chain, for different types of supply chains, and for various types of disruptions. The guidance is also based on the key components of a response to a disruption, who is involved and what are the characteristics of the disruption that might be of most concern to the user of the guidance document. Although there are many characteristics of a disruption that can affect the nature of a response (and indeed who responds), the guidance is based on the view that the primary factor in determining mitigation strategies is how long the disruption and associated consequences will last. A short-term incident (such as an hour- or day-long closure of a key facility) will most likely involve the emergency response units of the involved organizations. A disruption and related consequences that last much longer could require a more involved response, such as implementing business continuity plans or recovery plans for public agencies. The guidance is provided as a stand-alone document and is thus not repeated here. However, some of the key characteristics of this guidance are provided below to better understand how the guidance contributes to our understanding of supply chain resilience. The purpose of this guidance is to recommend actions to key public and private stakeholders in the supply chain to mitigate and adapt to logistical disruptions with the overall aim of enhancing freight transportation system resilience. The target audiences include freight carriers and shippers, state transportation agencies, MPOs, freight advisory councils and other organizations interested in a resilient, sustainable and robust multimodal freight transportation system. An important characteristic of the supply chain and one explicitly considered in the guidance is the distinction between public agency and private company roles. These can be distinguished between incident-level responsibilities and planning-level efforts. The guidance is based on the seven steps shown in Figure 5. Step 1: Organize for Success â Identify responsibilities for improving supply chain resilience or the components of the transportation system for which your agency/firm is responsible. Establish organizational mechanisms and institutional relationships that will serve as the foundational partnerships as you move forward with the process. If necessary, institutionalize these partnerships with formal agreements, protocols or understandings (these most often emphasize who is responsible for what). Ensure that those responsible are supported by leadership and have enough resources to succeed. Step 2: Develop a Communications/Information Exchange Strategy â Think about the information channels that need to be established for this effort to be successful. Who are the key participants? How best to reach out and engage them in the process? Develop or enhance current communication strategies both during the resilience planning process and during emergency response efforts. Understand what types of information support and types of data will be necessary to support and maintain the resilience planning process. Step 3: Assess Current Practice â Focus on what you and your partners are currently doing with respect to infrastructure provision and system operations. Are you designing key infrastructure with resilience in mind? Has your continuity of operations plan been updated recently? Does your staff have the knowledge, expertise and resources to promote resilience in supply chains?
