Freight Performance Measurement
description
Transcript of Freight Performance Measurement
1
Freight Performance MeasurementFreight Performance Measurement
Presented to Transportation Border Working Group on 7 June 2006
2
Goals of the FPM InitiativeGoals of the FPM Initiative
Short Term• Support Monitoring Progress in Global Connectivity
• Continuous and Accurate Data
• Mid Term• Develop a rich data source that can be used by stakeholders
in the transportation community and by academia• Output that is flexible and useful for a variety of audiences
• Long Term• Use (sound FPM) data to target investment in National
Highway System based where the greatest needs exist• Better truck travel data that could increase the strength and ranking of freight
projects against general transportation projects
3
Global ConnectivityGlobal Connectivity
Desired Outcome: Sustain the economic efficiency of goods movement on the surface transportation system.
Measure(s):Travel time in significant freight corridors (baseline to bedetermined in FY 2006).
Average SpeedBuffer Time Index (a measure of travel time
reliability)Delay time at NHS border crossings (baseline to bedetermined in FY 2006). (Measures TBD)
Examples: Total Crossing Time Average Wait Time
4
Data Collection MethodData Collection Method
What? Methodology use Trucks as Probes
Automatic Vehicle Location(AVL)/Satellite TechnologyGPS Coordinates (Date and Time Stamped)Unique Carrier ID
How? Contractual partnership with American Transportation
Research Institute, a Satellite Technology Vendor and Carriers
Initial data based on voluntary participation by selected carriers subscribers
Data Cleansing techniques allowed research team to collect data from all/most of the vendor’s carrier subscribers (~250,000 vehicles)
5
AccomplishmentsAccomplishments
Collecting, Analyzing and Processing data for Five Freight Significant Corridors
(I5, I10, I45, I65, I70)1 Year of Data as of Jan 06
Collecting data for five US/Cda land border crossing areas 1 Year of Data as of Aug 06
As of 1 April 2006 we expanded data collection and analysis to 20 additional corridors (a more robust data set, greater “National Picture”)
Case studies scheduled with 8 States along the corridors Weather and Work Zone Case Studies New contract with technology vendor to include access to data for
up to 10, 000 miles of arterials Short Term and Long Term Data Sharing Strategies developed
6
7
8
CY 2005 ResultsCY 2005 ResultsMonthly Buffer Index for Five Corridors (CY05)
34.13
17.72
23.64
29.5631.20
44.87
25.96
30.85 31.63
41.02
24.45
34.37
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECMonth
Bu
ffer
Ind
exInterstate 5
Interstate 10
Interstate 45
Interstate 65
Interstate 70
9
Average Speeds Five Corridors (CY 2005)
44.00
46.00
48.00
50.00
52.00
54.00
56.00
58.00
60.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECMonth
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
Interstate 5Interstate 10Interstate 45Interstate 65Interstate 70
CY 2005 ResultsCY 2005 Results
10
Key Border Challenges – Key Border Challenges –
Some key border crossing points are seriously congested and transit times and the associated transportation costs are high.
Physical infrastructure (transportation and other) at some border crossings require upgrading
Clearance and Inspection procedures change and vary
Localized data collection systems differ dramatically
11
FPM Border ComponentFPM Border Component
Data Collection Began 7/01/05 for 5 Crossings
– Blaine (Pacific Highway): Blaine, WA– Pembina: Pembina, ND– Ambassador Bridge: Detroit, MI– Peace Bridge: Buffalo, NY– Champlain: Champlain, NY
Continue to coordinate w/ Transport Canadaon their Border Wait Time Study
Effort looks at crossings as wellas transportation network that supports the crossings
12
Pacific Highway/Blaine
U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Washington State
Highway 5431) Interstate 5
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS
1) Blaine Border Area (Route ID ‘BC’):
2) British Columbia Provincial 99
3) BC Provincial 15
13
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS1) Michigan Route 3 2) Interstate 75 3) Interstate 944) Interstate 96 5) The Ambassador Bridge (AB):
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS1) ON Provincial 401 2) ON Provincial 3) E.C. Row EXPY
FEEDER ROADS4) ON Provincial 403
AMBASSADOR
14
PEMBINA
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Interstate 29
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Manitoba Provincial 75 FEEDER ROADS1) Trans Canada 100
(Winnipeg)2) Trans Canada 1 3) Trans Canada 17
(Ontario)
15
PEACE BRIDGE
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS
1) Peace Bridge Connector (US)
2) Interstate 190 FEEDER ROADS
1) Interstate 90 2) Interstate 79
Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY
1) Queen Elizabeth Way
FEEDER ROADS4) ON Provincial 4035) ON Provincial 407
16
CHAMPLAIN
U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY 1) Interstate 87 (I-87 Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Provincial 15 2) Provincial 30 3) Provincial 20
17
What WillWhat Willbe the Measures?be the Measures?
Average delay per Truck Trip (in Minutes or Hours)
Average Travel Time
Total Delay Average annual
cost of delay Buffer Time Buffer Index
18
Crossing Name Location Annual Inbound Trucks 2003[1]
Average Annual
Delay /CV (mins)
Average Annual Delay
(hours)
Annual Cost @ $125/hr
Blaine Pacific Highway
Blaine, WA/ Surrey, BC
652,205 7.5 81525 $10.1 M
Pembina Pembina, ND/ Emerson, MB
201,761 8.5 28582 $3.6M
Ambassador Bridge
Detroit, MI/ Windsor, ON
*1,634,319 4.5 122574 $15.3M
Peace Bridge Buffalo, NY/ Ft. Erie, ON
*1,162,961 6.5 125987 $15.8M
Champlain Chaplain, NY/ Lacolle, QC
387,962 6.5 42029 $5.3M
[1] Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Border Crossing Entry Data, U.S./Canada; 2003
APPLYING THE RESULTSAPPLYING THE RESULTSNOTIONAL
19
Frequently Asked QuestionsFrequently Asked Questions Q: What is the primary focus of the initiative
A: Historical data for monitoring performance. Not probable this will evolve to a “real-time” product
Q: What is the sample size A: Technology vendor, has approximately 250,000 in USA,
Canadian subsidiary adds additional vehicles Q: How did you select the five crossings? A: Five Border Crossings account for over 55% of inbound CV to US Q: Who Owns the data?
A: The carriers who subscribe to the vendor’s service Q: Can we share the data
A: Aggregated/summarized data can be shared with little limitations, currently able to share raw data with public transportation agencies (primarily for assessment of utility)
Q: What are the next steps
20
Key Next StepsKey Next Steps Analyzing the US/Cda border data and developing appropriate
measures of delay and wait time– Initiate effort to collect US/MX border data
Synchronizing/Collaborating with Transport Canada Border Wait Time Project
Assessing utility beyond FHWA PM needs– Case Studies under way
• State Case Studies ((includes Washington)
• Weather Case Study• Work Zone Case Study
Developing Tools to Disseminate the Data Operationalizing the Data (Near-Real time processing) Transitioning data to a performance measurement framework
– Targets– Strategies and tactics to produce positive change
21
Future ResearchFuture Research
Arterial Data Collection and Analysis Incidents (Network Effects) Congestion Pricing at the Border Linked Journeys Directional Data Analysis Data to support Planning
– Demand Modeling– Forecasting Models– Economic Analysis– Project Analysis (Before, After, During)
22
More InformationMore Information
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/documents/travel_time_flyer.pdf
Crystal JonesFHWA, Office of Freight Management and Operations202-366-2976