Multimodal Transportation Planning Needs Survey

By

Steven L. Jones, Jr., Ph.D. Muhammad Aslam Charles Robinson Naveen Cheekoti

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Alabama at Birmingham

Birmingham, Alabama

Prepared by

UTCA

University Transportation Center for Alabama The University of Alabama, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, and

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

UTCA Report Number 01225 February 2003

ii

Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No FHWA/CA/OR-

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient Catalog No.

5. Report Date February 2003

4. Title and Subtitle Multimodal Transportation Planning Needs Survey

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Authors Steven L. Jones, Jr., Ph.D. , Muhammad Aslam, Charles Robinson, and Naveen Cheekoti

8. Performing Organization Report No. UTCA Report 01225

10. Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering The University of Alabama at Birmingham 1075 13th Street South Birmingham, AL 35294-4440

11. Contract or Grant No. DTRS98-G-0028 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report/ 09/01/02-10/10/02

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address University Transportation Center for Alabama The University of Alabama P.O. Box 870205 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0205

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The project presented herein represents an effort of the University Transportation Center of Alabama (UTCA) to foster and support research on multimodal transportation topics not traditionally associated with highway and traffic engineering. The current project had two primary objectives, research and education. The research objective was to survey the state-of-the-practice of intermodal transportation in Alabama and to identify future research needs. The project was not intended to duplicate the efforts reported in the 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update, but rather to complement them by identifying issues to address from a research standpoint. A review of relevant literature and other search activit ies identified important intermodal concepts of further research interest in Alabama and a list of proposed research themes are proposed. Under each theme, a list of example research projects was developed. The results of the project represent as key intermodal research needs to guide ALDOT, other planning officials and policy makers, and to further stimulate interest and support of the management component of the overall UTCA theme with a focus on intermodal transportation. The education goal of the project was to introduce students to the many aspects of multimodal transportation planning and operations. This objective was achieved by involving students in the project and by the development of an intermodal transportation course to be offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Ideally, the course will be offered to students at the University of Alabama and the University of Alabama in Huntsville via the Intercampus Interactive Telecommunications System.

17. Key Words multimodal, intermodal, transportation planning

18. Distribution Statement

19. Security Classif (of this report) Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified

21. No of Pages 100

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................iii List of Tables .........................................................................................................................iv List of Figures ........................................................................................................................iv Executive Summary...............................................................................................................v Section 1. Introduction..........................................................................................................1

1.1. Background & Problem Statement ....................................................................1 1.1.1. National Perspective ...........................................................................1 1.1.2. Alabama Perspective...........................................................................3

1.2. Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................5 1.3. Methodology.........................................................................................................6

Section 2. Literature Review.....................................................................................................7 2.1. Alabama-specific Literature...............................................................................7 2.2. General Literature ..............................................................................................10

Section 3. Research Needs Survey............................................................................................14 3.1. Survey of Other State Agencies.........................................................................14 3.2. Alabama Survey.................................................................................................20 3.3. Additional Information ......................................................................................24

Section 4. Research Needs........................................................................................................26 4.1. Theme 1 – Institutional Issues ............................................................................27 4.2. Theme 2 – Availability/accessibility of Intermodal Data ...................................27 4.3. Theme 3 – Incorporation of New Technologies .................................................28 4.4. Theme 4 – Development of Analytical Tools .....................................................28 4.5. Theme 5 –Intermodal Transportation Education Needs .....................................29 4.6. Theme 6 – Security ................................................................................................29

Section 5. Course Development ................................................................................................30 Section 6. Conclusions .............................................................................................................32 Section 7. References...............................................................................................................33 APPENDIX A – Annotated Bibliography .............................................................................36

Theme 1 – Institutional Issues ...................................................................................37 Theme 2 – Availability/Accessibility of Data ...........................................................52 Theme 3 – Incorporation of New Technologies ........................................................56 Theme 4 – Development of Analytical Tools ............................................................59 Theme 5 – Intermodal Transportation Education Needs ...........................................75 Theme 6 – Security....................................................................................................81

APPENDIX B – Out-of-State Agencies Survey....................................................................86 APPENDIX C – In-State Agencies Survey ...........................................................................94 APPENDIX D – Examples College Level Multimodal Transportation-related Courses ......100

iv

List of Tables 2-1. Transportation facilities in the Auburn-Opelika area ................................................... 7 2-2. Transportation facilities in the Birmingham area ......................................................... 7 2-3. Transportation facilities in the Calhoun (Anniston) area.............................................. 8 2-4. Transportation facilities in the Phenix City (Columbus, GA) area............................... 8 2-5. Transportation facilities in the Decatur area....................................................................... 8 2-6. Transportation facilities in the Gadsden/Etowah area ......................................................... 8 2-7. Transportation facilities in the Huntsville area................................................................... 8 2-8. Transportation facilities in the Mobile area .................................................................. 9 2-9. Transportation facilities in the Montgomery area......................................................... 9 2-10. Transportation facilities in the Shoals area......................................................................... 9 2-11. Transportation facilities in the Southeast Wiregrass area ............................................. 9 2-12. Transportation facilities in the Tuscaloosa area............................................................ 9 2-13. Intermodal transportation facilities in Alabama ...........................................................10 2-14. Insights from the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation.......................11 3-1. Results of question number three from the out-of-state survey....................................16 3-2. Results of question number four from the out-of-state survey .....................................16 3-3. Results of question number ten from the out-of-state survey.......................................21 3-4. Summary of results from the in-state survey................................................................22 3-5. Results of question number four from the in-state survey............................................23 3-6. Results of question number five from the in-state survey ............................................23 4-1. Proposed intermodal research themes and projects ……………………………….. 27 5-1. Multimodal transportation course syllabus ...................................................................31

List of Figures 3-1. Results of question number one from the out-of-state survey......................................15 3-2. Results of question number two from the out-of-state survey......................................15 3-3. Results of question number six from the out-of-state survey .......................................17 3-4. Results of question number seven from the out-of-state survey...................................18 3-5. Results of question number eight from the out-of-state survey....................................19 3-6. Results of question number nine from the out-of-state survey.....................................19 3-7. Detailed results of question number eight from the in-state survey .............................24 3-9. Intermodal research needs question posed on the TMIP list server..............................24 3-10. Responses to intermodal research needs question posed on the TMIP list server .......25

v

Executive Summary

The project presented herein represents an effort of the University Transportation Center of Alabama (UTCA) to foster and support research on multimodal transportation topics not traditionally associated with highway and traffic engineering. The current project had two primary objectives, research and education. The research objective was to survey the state-of-the-practice of intermodal transportation in Alabama and to identify future research needs. The project was not intended to duplicate the efforts reported in the 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update, but rather to complement them by identifying issues to address from a research standpoint. A review of relevant literature and other search activities identified important intermodal concepts of further research interest in Alabama and a list of proposed research themes are proposed. Under each theme, a list of example research projects was developed. The results of the project represent as key intermodal research needs to guide ALDOT, other planning officials and policy makers, and to further stimulate interest and support of the management component of the overall UTCA theme with a focus on intermodal transportation. The education goal of the project was to introduce students to the many aspects of multimodal transportation planning and operations. This objective was achieved by involving students in the project and by the development of an intermodal transportation course to be offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Ideally, the course will be offered to students at the University of Alabama and the University of Alabama in Huntsville via the Intercampus Interactive Telecommunications System. A detailed review of pertinent literature was conducted to identify multimodal/intermodal research activities and needs. The information reviewed consisted of journal articles, projects reports, the Alabama Statewide Transportation Plan and other multimodal planning documents from the state (e.g., Rail Plan Updates), and relevant federal regulations (e.g., ISTEA, TEA-21). Information gleaned from the literature review was then used to develop surveys for distribution to transportation planning organizations within Alabama as well as state transportation agencies throughout the nation. All of the project efforts were synthesized into the following proposed multimodal/intermodal research themes:

• Theme 1 – Institutional barriers to intermodalism; • Theme 2 – Availability/accessibility of intermodal data; • Theme 3 – Incorporation of new technologies; • Theme 5 – Development of analytical tools; • Theme 5 – Intermodal transportation education needs; and • Theme 6 – Secur ity.

Information from the literature review (along with additional information) was also used to develop a Multimodal Transportation course to be offered on the UTCA campuses.

1

Section 1 Introduction

1.1. Background & Problem Statement The term multimodal transportation refers to the presence of several modes of transportation. In general, multimodal transportation can be categorized as either passenger- or freight-oriented. To transport both goods and people, there are several modes of transportation available, namely:

• Roadway/highway – automobiles (including taxis), trucks, motorcycles, • Rail – passenger rail (e.g., AMTRAK) and traditional freight trains, • Transit – light rail vehicles, commuter rail, buses, etc., • Air – passenger service and airfreight (e.g., FedEx), • Water – ferries, barges, transatlantic vessels, cruise ships, etc., and • Non-motorized – walking, bicycling, etc.

Obviously, some modes (e.g., bicycling) provide largely recreational transportation in the U.S. Other modes such as passenger air service and railroad freight service are essential components of the transportation system, the economy, and our way of life. All modes of transportation must be planned and systematically provided, like any other form of modern infrastructure (e.g., buildings, sanitation). Not only do several modes exist, transportation professionals must also plan and provide for the safe and efficient transfer of goods and people among different modes. This transfer is generally referred to as an intermodal transfer. A recent research paper from a student at another University Transportation Center (UTC) defined intermodal transportation as:

“The shipment of cargo and movement of people involving more than one mode of transportation during a single, seamless journey (Jones et al., 2000).”

Just as research was necessary to develop a consensus definition of intermodal transportation, research is necessary to ensure the continued development of safe and efficient transportation modes and interactions among them. A recent roundtable discussion of freight transportation professionals cited the fact that, “Health care and transportation [are] about equal shares of the [Gross Domestic Product]” and that it was, “Time to make R&D effort commensurate with the problem (Casey, 2001).” 1.1.1. National Perspective In December of 1991, the United States Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. ISTEA was a landmark accomplishment and redefined the notion of the nation’s transportation facilities as an interconnected system facilitating the movements of people and goods over multiple modes of transportation (i.e., highway, rail, air,

2

water, transit, non-motorized). As implied by the inclusion of “efficiency” in the name of the act, a key goal of the legislation was to promote and provide a multimodal transportation system, where transfers between modes were “seamless.” ISTEA required states oversee the development of their own multimodal transportation systems with the intention of:

• “Lowering overall transportation costs by allowing each mode to be used for the portion of the trip to which it is best suited,

• Increasing economic productivity and efficiency, thereby enhancing the Nation's global competitiveness,

• Reducing congestion and the burden on overstressed infrastructure components, • Generating higher returns from public and private infrastructure investments, • Improving mobility for the elderly, disabled, isolated, and economically disadvantaged,

and • Reducing energy consumption and contributing to improved air quality and

environmental conditions (Brich, 1994; NCIT, 1994; USDOT, 1994).”

Inherent to the planning, development and maintenance of multimodal transportation systems is the need to accommodate transfers among the various modes, or intermodal transfers. Thus, ISTEA fostered awareness of a new concept in transportation, intermodalism. Section 1034 of ISTEA required that states work with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop and maintain an Intermodal Managements System (IMS). According to the legislation, the IMS "provide(s) for (the) improvement and integration of all of a state's transportation systems and shall include methods of achieving the optimum yield from such systems, methods of increasing productivity in the state, methods for increasing use of advanced technologies, and methods to encourage the use of innovative marketing techniques, such as just- in-time deliveries (ISTEA, 1991)." ISTEA also established the National Highway System (NHS), consisting of approximately 160,000 miles of roadways considered important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility. It is comprised of the following four subsystems:

• Interstates, • Other Principal Arterials, • Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)1, • Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors2, and • Intermodal Connectors.

Roadways included in the NHS were designated by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) in cooperation with the states, local officials, and MPOs (Slater, 1996).

1 A network of highways important to strategic defense policy because they provide access for military and defenses purposes as well as emergency response to military situations. Additional information on the STRAHNET is available from the US Army at: http://www.tea.army.mil/pubs_res/strahnet/strahnet.htm. Site requires username and password – can be obtained upon first visit. 2 Roadways that connect STRAHNET roadways to military facilities (e.g., bases).

3

Intermodalism was initiated by ITSTEA and was further reinforced and ingrained in the national transportation arena with the passing of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Several key intermodal points are explicitly addressed in TEA-21 and are summarized below:

• “Increases tax-free employer-paid transit benefits from $65 to $100 per month, promoting transit ridership;

• Expands provisions to make bicycling and walking safer and more viable ways of travel; • Provides incentive grants to make intercity buses accessible and enables Surface

Transportation Program funds to be used to make sidewalks accessible; • Streamlines the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes and

includes freight shippers and transit riders as stakeholders. • Strengthens the role of local officials and improves public involvement in the planning

processes; • Promotes balanced, integrated, and efficient transportation to advance America’s

economic competitiveness. Examples include funding for projects to connect highways with intermodal transportation facilities; and

• Ensures that freight shippers can participate in the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes, so that their interests will be properly considered (TEA-21, 1998).”

1.1.2. Alabama Perspective The movement of people and freight throughout Alabama is accomplished by several modes: rail, inland waterways, air, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, intermodal facilities, and roads and highways. The significance of Alabama’s multimodal transportation system is best displayed via a few facts:

• Alabama has 5,212 total miles of railroad lines. Five Class I railroads (Burlington Northern Santa Fe, CSX, Canadian National-Illinois Central Gulf RR, the Kansas City Southern Railway, and Norfolk Southern) and 18 Class III railroads move freight in and through the State. Alabama is also connected to cities such as New York City, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Atlanta via the two AMTRAK passenger rail lines serving the State, the Crescent and the Sunset Line.

• Alabama has 1,500 miles of navigable inland waterways (second largest inland waterway system in the U.S.). It connects Alabama to over 15,000 miles of inland waterways in 23 states;

• Alabama has 11 state-managed dock facilities. There are dock seven facilities owned and operated by local authorities or private companies;

• Alabama has one deep-water dock, the Port of Mobile, which is the 12th largest port in the U.S. It employs nearly 400 people and supports nearly 120,000 jobs throughout the State. It serves roughly 1,100 water vessel calls, and 66,000 truck and 120,000 rail freight movements each year. It connects Alabama businesses and industry with its top trading partners: Japan, Venezuela, Canada, United Kingdom and Mexico.

4

• Alabama has 99 public use airports, of which 12 are privately owned. Alabama is served by major passenger air carriers: American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United and U.S. Air. Airfreight carriers such as UPS and FedEx also operate from Alabama’s airports.

• Transit is available in 55 of Alabama’s 67 counties. The transit services offered range from regularly scheduled, fixed-route bus services in several urbanized areas to demand responsive and specialty paratransit services in rural areas.

• The importance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is increasing throughout the state as evidenced by the more then $10 million (M) now programmed for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the Birmingham area and for greenways in Baldwin County and other areas throughout the State.

• Alabama currently has several intermodal facilities to transfer both passengers and freight among transportation modes. Examples include: airports and AMTRAK stations for passenger transfer, and ports, rail/truck yards and pipeline/truck yards serving intermodal freight operations.

• Alabama has over 94,000 miles of roadway that serve daily commuter traffic, business and recreational travel, as well as over-the-road freight movements and local deliveries (ALDOT, 2000; ALDOT, 2002).

Clearly, the multimodal transportation system in Alabama is a complex and important component of life in Alabama. The agencies that oversee the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of these facilities are charged with a significant task. In addition to the day-to-day aspect of the system, future transportation and mobility needs must be met. As transportation technologies, environmental conditions, local and statewide economics, and population demographics change, the statewide transportation system must change to meet new short-term and long-term needs. The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) recently published a “needs assessment” as part of its 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update. Some of the key issues identified include:

• There is a lack of transit funding throughout the state. Unfortunately, there is also a lack

of reliable data to comprehensively quantify the funding shortfall and its effects. • The State must continue working to ensure that key railroad branches remain in operation

and identify railroad-related safety needs, particularly railroad grade crossing safety. • With the responsibilities of air transportation planning and administration recently shifted

to ALDOT, which needs assistance to support Alabama’s airports and integrate them into the overall transportation system.

• Although ALDOT currently has no funding or oversight responsibilities for the state’s ports and waterways, it is responsible for providing and maintaining adequate intermodal connections. With particular emphasis on ports the needs assessment cited the following items:

o “Resolution of waterway resource issues is fragmented between several state

agencies, which often work at cross purposes, o Poor intermodal linkages, especially in rural areas, limit economic development,

5

o Marginal design/operation of railroad and highway bridges negatively impacts the waterway system, and

o There is no regional and state mechanism for coordinating the planning and development of intermodal freight facilities (ALDOT, 2000).”

• Bicycle and pedestrian planning in Alabama is currently the responsibility of local

governments and there is not a statewide bicycle/pedestrian plan. ALDOT anticipates developing a plan in the near future and will need assistance in integrating the planning processes from the local agencies and coordinating all of the information into a comprehensive statewide plan.

• Finally, the 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update recommended that ALDOT “Establish a statewide intermodal systems working group which will provide critical input to ALDOT regarding intermodal issues. This group would provide a mechanism for sustained and cooperative coordination between ALDOT and its intermodal partners (ALDOT, 2000).”

1.2. Purpose & Scope The project presented herein represents an effort of the University Transportation Center of Alabama (UTCA) to foster and support research on multimodal transportation topics not traditionally associated with highway and traffic engineering. The current project had two primary objectives, research and education. The research objective was to survey the state-of-the-practice of intermodal transportation in Alabama and to identify future research needs. The project was not intended to duplicate the efforts reported in the 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update, but rather to complement them by identifying issues to address from a research standpoint. A review of relevant literature and other search activities identified important intermodal concepts of further research interest in Alabama and a list of proposed research themes are proposed. Under each theme, a list of example research projects was developed. The results of the project represent as key intermodal research needs to guide ALDOT, other planning officials and policy makers, and to further stimulate interest and support of the management component of the overall UTCA theme with a focus on intermodal transportation. The education goal of the project was to introduce students to the many aspects of multimodal transportation planning and operations. This objective was achieved by involving students in the project and by the development of an intermodal transportation course to be offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Ideally, the course will be offered to students at the University of Alabama and the University of Alabama in Huntsville via the Intercampus Interactive Telecommunications System.

6

1.3. Methodology A detailed review of pertinent literature was conducted to identify multimodal/intermodal research activities and needs. The review consisted of journal articles, project reports, the Alabama Statewide Transportation Plan and other state multimodal planning documents (e.g., Rail Plan Updates), and relevant federal regulations (e.g., ISTEA, TEA-21). Information gleaned from the literature review was then used to develop surveys for distribution to transportation planning organizations within Alabama, as well as state transportation agencies throughout the nation. All of the project efforts were synthesized into a list of multimodal/intermodal research themes and potential projects. The surveys identified critical multimodal/intermodal issues and their relevance to Alabama. Information from the literature review (along with additional information) was also used to develop an Intermodal Transportation course to be offered on the UTCA campuses.

7

Section 2 Literature Review

The purpose of the literature review was to ident ify general issues and trends that have been documented since the recognition of multimodal/intermodal transportation resulting from ISTEA. The results of the literature review presented herein are intended to showcase research needs being identified or addressed in other areas of the country that are relevant to intermodal transportation in Alabama. As such, the literature review is structured to provide a background on intermodal transportation in Alabama and a brief synthesis of the literature pertinent to research topics suitable for Alabama.

2.1. Alabama-specific Literature The review of Alabama-specific literature on intermodal transportation was primarily limited to the 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update and the 2000 Rail Plan Update Intermodal Management System. The most obvious resource gleaned from the 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update was an inventory of the various transportation modes in each of the twelve metropolitan areas in the state. The inventory of modal and intermodal facilities is presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-12 for each of the metropolitan areas.

Table 2-1. Transportation facilities in the Auburn-Opelika area Mode Facility

Highway I-85, U.S. 29, U.S. 280, U.S. 431 Transit Fixed bus, paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Bike lanes Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern Air General aviation

Table 2-2. Transportation facilities in the Birmingham area Mode Facility

Highway I-20, I-59, I-65, I-459, U.S. 280 Transit Fixed bus, paratransit - light-rail, express, & HOV under consideration Bike/Pedestrian Recreational, bicycle plan adopted Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern, Burlington Northern Rail (passenger) AMTRAK Air International municipal airport, general aviation Water Connected to Port of Mobile via Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway Intermodal freight CSX dock facility on Warrior River, BN & NS yards connected to truck

facilities

8

Table 2-3. Transportation Facilities in the Calhoun (Anniston) area Mode Facility

Highway I-20, U.S. 78, U.S. 431 Transit Fixed bus, paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Bicycle plan adopted, rails-to-trails Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern Rail (passenger) AMTRAK Air Regional airport, general aviation

Table 2-4. Transportation facilities in the Phenix City (Columbus, GA) area Mode Facility

Highway U.S. 80, U.S. 431 Transit Fixed bus, paratransit - light-rail, express, & HOV under

consideration Bike/Pedestrian Recreational (Riverwalk), rails-to-trails Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern Air Regional airport Water Connected to Gulf Coast Intercoastal Waterway via

Chattahoochee-Apalachicola Waterway Intermodal freight State Docks on Chatahoochee

Table 2-5. Transportation facilities in the Decatur area Mode Facility

Highway I-65, I-565, Memphis-Atlanta corridor under study Transit Paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Recreation bike/ped Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern Air Regional airport, general aviation Water Connected to Ohio and Mississippi River Waterways via

Tennessee River, 18 docks Intermodal freight Proximity to Huntsville International Intermodal Center

(rail/truck/air)

Table 2-6. Transportation facilities in the Gadsden/Etowah area Mode Facility

Highway I-59, I-759, S.R. 77 Transit Deviated fixed-route, paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Recreation bike/ped Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern Air Regional airport, general aviation

Table 2-7. Transportation facilities in the Huntsville area Mode Facility

Highway I-65, I-565, U.S. 72, U.S. 231, Memphis-Atlanta corridor under study

Transit Fixed-route, paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Recreation bike/ped, bicycle plan adopted Rail (freight) Southern Air International airport, general aviation Water Connected to Ohio and Mississippi River Waterways via

Tennessee River, port under study Intermodal freight Huntsville International Intermodal Center (rail/truck/air)

9

Table 2-8. Transportation facilities in the Mobile area Mode Facility

Highway I-10, I-65, I-165 Transit Fixed bus, paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Recreational, bicycle plan adopted Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern, Burlington Northern, Southern Rail (passenger) AMTRAK, AMTRAK bus connector to New Orleans Air Regional airport, general aviation Water Port of Mobile connected to Birmingham/ Tuscaloosa via Warrior-

Tombigbee Waterway, connected Gulf Coast Intercoastal Waterway

Intermodal freight Port of Mobile (water/truck/rail/air)

Table 2-9. Transportation facilities in the Montgomery area Mode Facility

Highway I-65, I-85, U.S. 31 Transit Fixed bus, paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Recreational, bicycle plan adopted Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern Rail (passenger) AMTRAK bus connector to Atlanta Air Regional airport, general aviation Water State Docks on Alabama River Port of Mobile connected to Port

of Mobile Intermodal freight State Docks (water/truck), Montgomery Inland Dock

Table 2-10. Transportation facilities in the Shoals area Mode Facility

Highway U.S. 43, U.S. 72, Memphis-Atlanta corridor under study Transit Paratransit Rail (freight) Norfolk Southern, Tennessee Southern Air Regional airport, general aviation Water Docks on Tennessee River connect area to Warrior-Tombigbee

Waterway and Ohio and Mississippi River Waterways Intermodal freight Facility in Colbert County (water/rail)

Table 2-11. Transportation facilities in the Southeast Wiregrass area Mode Facility

Highway U.S. 84, U.S. 231, U.S. 431, connection to I-10, I-65, I-85 under study

Transit Paratransit Bike/Pedestrian Recreational, bicycle plan adopted Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern Air Regional airport

Table 2-12. Transportation facilities in the Tuscaloosa area Mode Facility

Highway I-59, I-359, U.S. 43, U.S. 82 Transit Fixed bus, paratransit - light-rail, express, & HOV under

consideration Bike/Pedestrian Recreational, bicycle plan adopted Rail (freight) CSX, Norfolk Southern, Kansas City Southern Rail (passenger) AMTRAK Air International municipal airport, intermodal freight facility planned Water State Docks at Northport connected to Port of Mobile via Warrior-

Tombigbee Waterway Intermodal freight State Docks at Northport (water/rail/truck)

10

The majority of intermodal freight facilities in Alabama are associated with the Port of Mobile and the International Intermodal Center in Huntsville (ALDOT, 2002). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a database of NHS roadway considered to be intermodal connectors3 (FHWA, 2002). A summary of the NHS intermodal connectors in Alabama is presented in Table 2-13.

Table 2-13. Intermodal transportation facilities in Alabama

Facility Type Intermodal Connector Miles on NHS Birmingham International Airport Airport 1.3 Mobile Regional Airport Airport - Birmingham Greyhound Bus Terminal Intercity Bus 1.10 Burlington Northern RR Dixie Hub Center Truck/Rail Facility 1.80 Huntsville International Intermodal Center Port 2.60 Huntsville International Airport Airport 1.20 Alabama State Docks (Freight Docks) Port 0.50 Alabama State Docks (CSX and BN Rail/Truck) Truck/Rail Facility - Brookley Industrial Complex Truck/Rail Facility 0.50 Brookley Airport Airport - Port Birmingham – North Terminal Port 18.70 Port Birmingham – Central Terminal Port 0.00 Port Birmingham – South Terminal Port 0.00 Colonial Pipeline Truck/ Pipeline 4.40 Ernest Norris RR Yards Truck/ Rail Facility 3.00 Alabama

Total Intermodal Facilities = 15

Total Intermodal Connector Miles = 35.10

2.2. General Literature In addition to the regulatory impact of ISTEA and TEA-21, other forces have resulted in an increased emphasis on multimodal/intermodal transportation, including:

• Globalization/increased competition; • An aging society in need of mobility; • Environmental impact associated with roadway congestion; and • An increasing awareness of the relationship between transportation and land use (Brich,

1994; NCIT, 1994; USODT, 1994; ITI, 1997; Lipsman & Walter, 1998). In 1994, the United States Congress formed the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation to identify the benefits and challenges associated with intermodal transportation in preparation for the reauthorization of ISTEA that led to TEA-21. The Commission produced a report in 1994 detailing its findings. In general, the Commission cited that transportation planning and funding is generally modally focused (i.e., devoted to developing individual modes, rather than developing multiple modes in a systemic approach). Other general themes addressed by the commission include:

3 FHWA defines an intermodal connector as a highway that provides access between major intermodal facilities and the other subsystems of the NHS.

11

• The need to explore and develop innovative funding practices, and • Allow regulatory flexibility at the federal level and administrative flexibility at the

state/local level to increase innovative financing and encourage private sector participation to increase resources available for transportation improvements.

Finally, the commission directly addressed the need for “Research, Education, and Technology Development” that is intermodal in nature, rather than restricted by the “traditional modal funding system” for transportation research. With respect to education, the Commission’s report quotes Professor Michael Meyer of the Georgia Institute of Technology as saying, “there is a need to encourage transportation educators to incorporate intermodal considerations into the classroom. Without doing so, we perpetuate the old paradigms instead of training transportation professionals for the 21st century (NCIT, 1994).” Indeed, Professor Meyer followed through on his own advice when preparing the 2nd Edition of his (with Eric Miller of the University of Toronto) transportation planning textbook, Urban Transportation Planning. The second edition, which came out in 2001 (seven years after the NCIT report), included new sections on multimodal/intermodal transportation and incorporated discussion of freight transportation and intermodal throughout the text (Meyer & Miller, 2001). In addition to the general themes addressed by the NCIT, the commission also identified specific issues that serve as challenges and opportunities to a fully developed intermodal system. A summary of some of the challenges/opportunities is presented in Table 2-14.

Table 2-14. Insights from the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation

Issue Passenger transportation organized by mode – Intermodalism is currently more geared towards the movement of freight than passengers. The flow of federal funding for passenger transportation is generally mode-specific (FHWA, FTA, FRA, FAA, etc.) As such, it is often difficult to coordinate development and improvement projects that span across modes of passenger transportation. Better coordination of funding at the federal level and implementation at the local level are needed to realize passenger intermodalism. Lack of Intermodal Terminals – Downtown passenger rail terminals abandoned as dependency on automobile increased. Intermodal terminals require extensive public/private coordination, funding, etc. Congested Airport Access – Airports in urban areas are significant traffic generators Rural Isolation – Rural transportation is often dependent on private automobile, with the exception of limited paratransit services for special groups (e.g., elderly, disabled). Paratransit services are generally regional. Many rural areas are isolated from urban areas. Parking Availability – The lack of adequate parking, especially at commuter rail facilities, was sighted as an obstacle to developing intermodal passenger transportation in urban areas. Insufficient funding for and local opposition to such parking facilities were identified as barriers. Joint Use of Infrastructure – The commission sighted the need to share transportation infrastructure when available and appropriate. Grade Crossings – At-grade railroad crossings pose hazard, affecting safety and efficiency, to both the highway and rail modes.

Terminal Access and Urban Congestion – Ports, rail yards, and other intermodal freight facilities are connected to the highway freight mode and, ultimately, commerce congested city streets shared with residents and commuters. The dual use of the highway mode (passengers and freight) often frustrates the potential operation efficiencies sought through of significant by port authorities, railroads, trucking companies and terminal operators to develop modern terminals. The metropolitan planning process must address the needs for freight mobility as well as that of passengers and must ensure a fair allocation of resources to freight- vs. passenger-oriented transportation improvements.

Source: (NCIT, 1994)

12

In 1997, the Intermodal Transportation Institute (ITI) at the University of Denver hosted a summit on intermodal transportation that included key transportation representatives from both the public and private sectors within the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In addition to these attendees, the Secretaries of Transportation were present from each of the North American countries. The North American Intermodal Transportation Summit addressed the opportunities and challenges of developing a truly intermodal transportation system throughout North America. Among the many issues addressed, the following barriers to an intermodal system were identified:

• “Nature of planning processes in governmental and private-sector organizations; • Lack of financial resources for infrastructure; • Limited cooperation among the modes; • Unequal resource allocation to the modes; • The need for governments and their agencies to think in intermodal rather than modal

terms; • Labor and management relations; • The need to develop private-public partnerships; • The need to improve the integration of transportation planning with environmental,

energy, and other relevant agencies within each country; • The lack of cooperative mechanisms among the countries to facilitate the achievement of

a regional intermodal system; and • The need to deal with urban congestion issues and to emphasize passenger intermodalism

within and between cities (ITI, 1997).” The National Center for Intermodal Transportation (NCIT)4, a University Transportation Center (UTC) housed at the University of Denver and Mississippi State University, has been active in intermodal research since 1998. Indeed, the widely accepted definition of intermodal transportation cited in Section 1 of the report was developed as a result of a NCIT project (Jones, 1999). Several key intermodal transportation issues were recently addressed in the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Transportation in the New Millennium series5. Citing a growing emphasis on intermodalism within the transportation profession, the TRB committee on Transportation Education and Training (A1A04) explicitly pointed out the need to incorporate intermodal concepts into traditional transportation engineering curricula (Manning, 2000). The TRB Intermodal Freight Transport (A1B05) committee addressed the need to educate transportation professiona ls in the broader context of intermodal transportation, especially with regards to management of and technological innovations of freight transportation (DeWitt & Clinger, 2000). The need for multimodal/intermodal transportation education was also addressed by the TRB Transportation and Economic Development committee (A1A06) as crucial to helping practitioners fully understand the role of transportation in the economic vitality of 4 The NCIT is currently completing a project entitled, “Assessing Intermodal Transportation Planning at State Departments of Transportation,” in which researchers are will be presenting a current assessment of the processes currently in place in Alabama. The report is scheduled to be published in January 2003. 5 White papers put forth by individual TRB committees to address critical issues and needs for the 21st century.

13

communities and entire regions (Eberts, 2000). The TRB Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning committee (A1D01) stressed the need to develop multimodal-based transportation performance measures to orient the planning process. The same committee clearly stated the need to develop and advance multimodal and intermodal analytical tools for planning as well as the need to account for environmental and land use impacts of transportation decisions in defining the roles of various modes at the statewide planning level. Again, the need for multimodal/intermodal savvy transportation professionals was addressed (Pedersen, 2000). The TRB Freight Transportation Data committee (A1B09) addressed the need to make data from all modes more available and to standardize data and increase integrated statistical products to allow the analysis of data from multiple modes (Hancock, 2000). The TRB committee on Intergovernmental Relations and Policy Processes addressed institutional barriers to intermodalism. Particular emphasis was placed on the role of the MPO in the planning process and its duties to consider what the committee defined as a “Highways Plus” approach to urban transportation (Hynes-Cherin, 2000). Finally, in December of 2001, TRB published its “Critical Issues in Transportation 2002” edition of its official newsletter, TR News. Among the fourteen issues identified, the following two are directly related to the goals of the project presented herein:

• “Current institutional arrangements constrain the orderly development, operation, and coordination of the U.S. transportation system, including facilities, modes, and services.

• “Transportation organizations are having difficulty attracting and retaining the technically diverse personnel needed in the 21st century (TRB, 2002).”

Both critical issues echo concerns disclosed in 1994 by the NCIT as well as those brought forth during the 1997 North American Intermodal Transportation Summit. Several of the remaining 12 critical issues focus on topics such as urban congestion and mobility, environmental and energy impacts of automobile dependency, and the barriers to private financing of public transportation projects and facilities. As the cited edition of TR News was published after September 11th, 2001, the first critical issue listed was security (TRB, 2001). Although an obviously critical issue, transportation security is often viewed from a modal perspective (i.e., airline security, transit security, security of bridges and infrastructure). In the interest of brevity, the preceding review attempted to illuminate only intermodal research issues. The literature review revealed a great deal of readily available information on intermodal transportation, much of which is easily accessible on the Internet. An annotated bibliography is presented as a resource in Appendix A6. In keeping with the current project objective of serving as a technical resource, in addition to the research and educational recommendations presented herein, the references listed in Appendix A have been organized into six categories reflecting the research themes suggested in Section 4 of this report. It is intended that the references provided in Appendix A be seminal to any subsequent projects undertaken as a results of the current effort. 6 The bibliography presented in Appendix A is annotated and categorized under the six research themes identified under the current project. All bibliographic information (including abstracts) were obtained and reproduced from the National Transportation Library via TRIS Online.

14

Section 3 Research Needs Survey

3.1. Survey of Other State Agencies Multimodal and intermodal transportation issues are by no means confined to Alabama. In fact, several state transportation agencies have relatively mature multimodal/intermodal components (e.g., bureaus, departments). In order to incorporate some of the experience and insight from other states, a survey instrument was developed and administered to seventy state- level transportation organizations throughout the country. Transportation departments from each state were surveyed, along with other state- level, mode-specific departments where they existed. In a few cases, where distinctions among departments overseeing different modes were clear, different departments were surveyed within the same state agency. A copy of the survey and attending cover letter is presented in Appendix B. A list of agencies surveyed is also provided in Appendix B. The survey was intended to explore the nature and extent of how multimodal/intermodal transportation issues are addressed in other states. The first part of the survey was designed to gather information about the responding agency to provide a context for their responses to later questions regarding multimodal/intermodal transportation education and research needs. A total of 31 responses were received from the out-of-state survey. A summary of the results and the responses to the various survey questions are summarized in the following paragraphs. The first question was intended to determine whether or not the responding agency was responsible for multimodal or intermodal transportation planning. The results are summarized in Figure 3-1. It is worth noting that, although two of the responding agencies reported that that they did not possess these responsibilities, they did provide meaningful responses to other parts of the survey.

15

Figure 3-1. Results of question number one from the out-of-state survey As previously discussed, ISTEA required states to develop an IMS. Question number two ascertained whether the responding agency had performed or overseen an IMS study, and it allowed respondents to indicate when they had last updated their IMS. Eight of the 29 respondents to this question provided update years. Of the seven IMS updates reported, one was performed in 1994, two in 1995, one in 1997, one in 2000, one in 2001, one in 2002, and one is currently underway. The results of question number two are summarized in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2. Results of question number two from the out-of-state survey

Questions number three and number four were designed to ascertain what types of intermodal transfer facilities were included in the jurisdiction of each of the responding agencies. All 31

Has your agency performed/overseen an Intermodal Management System (IMS) study?

No 71%

Yes 29%

Does your agency perform or otherwise oversee multimodal or intermodal transportation planning?

No 6%

Yes 94%

16

agencies responded to Questions number three and number four. The results are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 for passenger and freight facilities, respectively. Each of the tables shows the percentage of respondents responsible for transfer facilities from the row mode to the column mode.

Table 3-1. Results of question number three from the out-of-state survey Indicate intermodal passenger transfer facilities under your planning jurisdiction

To Private Rental Shuttle Tour Transit Intercity

From Auto Auto Taxi Bus Bus Bus Train Air Bicycle Ped

Private Auto 7% 7% 20% 17% 60% 43% 40% 37% 37%

Rental Auto 3% 7% 7% 10% 10% 17% 3% 3%

Taxi 7% 3% 3% 7% 13% 13% 3% 3%

Shuttle Bus 20% 3% 3% 7% 10% 17% 3% 7%

Tour Bus 13% 3% 3% 7% 7% 3% 3%

Transit Bus 60% 7% 10% 13% 7% 43% 40% 33% 30%

Intercity Train 47% 10% 23% 20% 10% 53% 17% 30% 33%

Air 37% 20% 17% 13% 10% 37% 17% 13% 10%

Bicycle 43% 3% 7% 50% 27% 13% 20%

Ped 40% 3% 7% 10% 47% 27% 13% 13%

Most agencies oversee the planning for transfers between highway mode (private automobiles) and transit buses. Not surprisingly, most of the intermodal pedestrian transfer facilities involved transfers “to” or “from” the highway mode.

Table 3-2. Results of question number four from the out-of-state survey Indicate intermodal freight transfer facilities under your planning jurisdiction

To From Water Truck Air Pipeline Rail

Water 23% 43% 3% 10% 30%

Truck 37% 40% 30% 17% 40%

Air 7% 33% 17% 7% 10%

Pipeline 10% 13% 7% 7% 10%

Rail 27% 47% 13% 7% 27%

As with the pedestrian transfer facilities, the majority of respondents indicated responsibility for facilities that transfer freight either to or from the highway (truck) mode. Question number five: “What percentage (roughly) of the projects in your current Statewide Transportation Plan are non-highway oriented or multimodal in scope (e.g., transit, rail)?,” attempted to gauge the level of multimodal/intermodal activity overseen by the responding agency. In other words, the proportion of multimodal/intermodal projects in the Statewide

17

Transportation Plan (STP) was considered to be an indicator of the extent to which the agency was involved in multimodal/intermodal planning. Eighteen of the 31 survey respondents provided a numerical answer to Question number five. The percentages of projects in the STP’s of the responding agencies ranged from 2% to 50%. The majority of agencies not providing numerical responses indicated that their plans were policy-oriented rather than project specific. Question number six explored whether or not agencies collected freight movement data and their perception of the difficulty in doing so. The results from Question number six are presented in Figure 3-3. All 31 responding agencies provided answers to the first parts of Question number six. Of the 16 that indicated YES, most stated that freight data was either readily or somewhat available. One of the sixteen agencies responding to Question number six indicated that freight data was readily available on the national level, but difficult to obtain at the state and local level.

Figure 3-3. Results of question number six from the out-of-state survey

As a follow-up to number six, Question number seven asked whether agencies had a formal procedure for obtaining freight data. Twenty-one agencies responded to Question number seven and the results are presented in Figure 3-4.

Does your agency collect freight movement data?

YES 52%

NO 48%

How would you rate the availability of freight data?

Readily available

22%

Somewhat difficult 17%

Very difficult 22%

Somewhat available

39%

18

Figure 3-4. Results of question number seven from the out-of-state survey Interestingly, the majority of agencies did not have formal procedures for recording and reporting freight data. Also, the majority of responding agencies indicated that they request freight data rather than relying on any regular reporting from freight entities. Question number eight solicited the responding agency’s opinion on where, if at all, transportation professionals learned about or were exposed to multimodal/intermodal transportation. All 30 responding agencies provided input on Question number eight and the results are summarized in Figure 3-5.

Do shippers regularly report data or does your agency have to make specific requests for data?

Shippers report 23%

Requires agency request 77%

Do you have a formal procedure to obtain freight data?

YES 24%

NO 76%

19

Figure 3-5. Results of question #8 from the out-of-state survey

Clearly, the majority of responding agencies indicated that multimodal/intermodal transportation education occurs in a non-academic setting. Only about 20% of the respondents indicated that universities (whether undergraduate or graduate) played a role in teaching engineers about such issues. The comments provided with these responses suggested that it is up to individual transportation engineers to acquire multimodal/intermodal knowledge via research and trade journals as well as the Internet. Question number nine was aimed at identifying critical issues related multimodal/intermodal transportation planning and was answered by all 31 responding agencies. The results are presented in Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-6. Results of question #9 from the out-of-state survey

What do you think are the most critical issues in multimodal/intermodal transportation planning in your State?

Capacity analysis

18%

Corridor definition

7%

Data 19%

Training/ education

10%

Public/ Private 26%

Economic/ land use

20%

Where do transportation engineers and planners learn about multimodal/intermodal transportation issues?

On-the-job 45%

No real opportunities

1%

Other 7%

College 10% Graduate

education 10%

Professional training 27%

20

Of the other issues provided as choices, institutional issues arose because many intermodal facilities (certainly from the freight standpoint) are privately owned and those responsible for planning and providing statewide and regional transportation are public agencies. The next two issues considered most critical were associated economic development and land use impacts, and the difficulty in obtaining data for multimodal/intermodal planning. Following from Question number eight, 10% of the agencies responding to Question number nine indicated training/education was a critical issue. As a supplement to number nine, Question number ten allowed an open-ended response to the issues considered critical among the choices to Question number none. Twenty-three agencies identified additional issues. In some cases, the response constituted a clarification or a more-detailed response to one of the provided choices. All of the comments7 received for Question number ten are provided in Table 3-38. Question number eleven allowed additional space for suggested issues or comments. Several of the responding agencies used the space to provide contact information. It is worth noting that 24 of the 31 respondents answered YES to Question number twelve indicating that they were interested in the results of the current project. 3.2. Alabama Survey In addition to the out-of-state survey, an attempt was made to solicit input on intermodal transportation research needs from MPO’s around Alabama. A total of 11 surveys were mailed to MPO’s and planning commissions throughout the state. Four agencies responded to the survey. A list of the agencies surveyed as well as the survey and cover letter is provided in Appendix C.

7 Responses have been edited for clarity (e.g., language and grammar) and are presented in no particular order. 8 Responses have been edited for clarity (e.g., language and grammar) and are presented in no particular order.

21

Table 3-3. Results of question number 10 from the out-of-state survey

Additional Issues

Promoting connectivity among modes Identification of methods to reduce shipper captivity by a single freight mode or single line service Economic impact of multimodal/intermodal transportation on State highway construction program and economy Improvement of the imbalance of inbound/outbound truck and rail freight shipments Ability to perform system-wide planning Data availability/reliability Induced demand of transportation facilities as a result of capacity increasing Role of transportation relative to cargo and economic vitality

Definition of multimodal (vs. intermodal) Economics of truck/rail intermodal facilities Ability to assess freight-oriented capacity of highway facilities Cost/benefit analyses for each mode for passenger and freight movement for comparisons among modes More effective planning methodologies, models, etc. that support integrated intermodal planning Statewide multimodal commodity flow study Commodity flows at individual corridor level Feasibility and development of pilot projects for container-on-barge movements of freight

Environmental streamlining alternatives for intermodal connectors Opportunities for intermodal facilities Methods for freight demand forecasting and freight network identification Reduce truck demands on highways Transit friendly development and local land use Standardized freight data reporting, formal procedures Value of short line freight to state Ability to conduct direct comparisons of rail freight movement vs. truck freight movement at the corridor level Comparative costs of moving freight by truck, rail, and utilizing intermodal transfers Improved methodologies for assessing benefit-cost of modal shift for freight transport Truck data is needed nationwide for all commodities including waste and primary material (e.g., farming, fishing etc.) Improved modeling techniques for cost comparisons of various existing and proposed projects and facilities

22

As the response to the in-state survey was considerably smaller than the out-of-state survey, a summary of the results is presented in the Table 3-5 rather than separate figures for individual questions. Figure 3-7 displays the answers to Question number eight from the in-state survey.

Table 3-4. Summary of results from the in-state survey

Question

Response Summary 1. Does your agency perform or otherwise oversee any multimodal or intermodal transportation planning?

2 – YES, 2 – NO

2. Has your agency performed an Intermodal Management System (IMS) study?

4 – NO

3. What types of modal facilities exist within your region? 4 –Bus (fixed-route) Transit System 4 – Paratransit 3 –Intercity Passenger Bus 2 – Major Trucking Facilities 3 – Freight Rail Facilities 2 – Passenger Rail Stations 1 – Port Facilities 4 –Airport Facilities

4. Please fill in the appropriate cell of the table below to indicate intermodal passenger transfer facilities in your region. Place an “E” for existing, “P” for planned, or leave blank if not applicable

See Table 3-5

5. Please fill in the appropriate cell of the table below to indicate intermodal freight transfer facilities in your region. Place an “E” for existing, “P” for planned, or leave blank if not applicable

See Table 3-6

6. What percentage (roughly) of the projects in your current Transportation Improvement Program are non-highway oriented or multimodal in scope (e.g., transit, rail)?

2 responses: • 1.28% • 9%

7. What percentage (roughly) of the projects in your current Long-Range Transportation Plan are non-highway oriented or multimodal in scope (e.g., transit, rail)?

3 responses: • None • 14% • 26% non-highway •

8. What do you think are the most critical issues in multimodal transportation planning in your region? Please feel free to elaborate.

See Figure 3-9. Additional comments: • Corridor definition – need to press forward with

Memphis to Atlanta corridor

9. What do you think are the most critical issues related to statewide multimodal transportation planning in Alabama?

• Lack of state funding and support for multimodal transportation. No state funding for bike, transit, etc.

• Too little emphasis on small multimodal projects that improve quality of life (i.e., bikes, transit, ped/sidewalk improvements, bike/ped trails, bikes on Amtrak)

• Lack of state support • Lack of rural transit

10. In your opinion, where do transportation engineers and planners learn about multimodal/intermodal transportation issues?

4 – on the job 1 – graduate education

11. Would you be interested in multimodal/intermodal education opportunities in Alabama?

3 – YES 1 – NO

23

Table 3-5. Detailed results of question number four from the in-state survey Indicate intermodal passenger transfer facilities under your planning jurisdiction. Place an “E” for existing, “P”

for planned, or leave blank if not applicable

To Private Rental Shuttle Tour Transit Intercity From Auto Auto Taxi Bus Bus Bus Train Air Bicycle Ped

Private Auto E E E E E E E

Rental Auto E P/E E P, E P E E E

Taxi E, E P, E, E P, E P E E E

Shuttle Bus E E E

Tour Bus E E

Transit Bus E P P, E E P E, E E, E, E

Intercity Train P P P

Air E E E

Bicycle E E E E, E

Ped E E E E E, E

Table 3-6. Detailed results of question number five from the in-state survey Indicate intermodal freight transfer facilities under your planning jurisdiction.

Place an “E” for existing, “P” for planned, or leave blank if not applicable To

From Water Truck Air Pipeline Rail

Water E, E E

Truck E, E P, E P, E E

Air P, E P E

Pipeline P, P, E P P

Rail E E, E E E

As evidenced by the responses of only four planning regions, there is clearly a considerable amount of intermodal activity in the state. It is interesting to note the emphasis on planning to incorporate pipelines into the freight transportation network in Alabama.

24

What do you think are the most critical issues in multimodal/intermodal transportation planning in your

region?

Economic/land use

29%

Public/ Private29%

Training/ education

14%

Corridor definition

14%

Capacity analysis

14%

Figure 3-7. Detailed results of question number eight from the in-state survey

3.3 Additional Information It is worth noting that towards the end of the project period, a research needs question was sent to transportation planning professionals worldwide via the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) e-mail list server sponsored by the FHWA and maintained by Texas A&M University. Five responses to the list server question were received. The e-mail posing the question and the responses are presented in Figures 3-9 and 3-10, respectively.

Figure 3-9. Intermodal research needs question posed on the TMIP list server

Colleagues: I am wrapping up a report to document Multimodal/Intermodal Transportation Planning research needs for the State of Alabama. As a supplement to what I have compiled so far, it would be interesting to get some input from this group. So,... If you had to name the three most critical research needs related to Multimodal/Intermodal Transportation Planning, what would they be? 1) 2) 3) Thanks in advance for any input.

25

Figure 3-10. Responses to the intermodal research needs question posed on the TMIP list server

Response #1 “Generally transportation planning accepted equitable assessment evaluation procedures to compare and contrast benefits and disadvantages across modes, including the most important secondary impacts, and the -inasmuch as possible -fully allocated costs of project, is perhaps the greatest need. There is considerable debate about a series of alternatives -by even non-transportation professionals -about the ultimate benefits of two specific approaches to providing transportation facilities, possible increases in capacity, and managing congestion in built-up Downtown Miami. Guidelines, and better yet, real capabilities in this area of comparative evaluation would be a meaningful achievement, and it remains a need to be fulfilled.” Response #2 “1) Cause and effect relationships underlying suburban transit behaviors. Urban ones are fairly well documented but in our state the biggest market for growth in transit is "elective" ridership. 2) Toll elasticities/trip path diversion. We have several new toll plazas on major freeways and our current toll model is a "time penalty surrogate", which is a pretty basic method. 3) Effects of telecommuting on daily trip generation. While peak hour "home based work" trips are reduced by this our guess is that other trip purposes increase, but we're not sure by how much.” Response #3 “Intermodal transfer penalties associated with intermodal network Physical coordination of intermodal networks necessity for redundancy and backup systems vs. competitive modes of same corridor.” Response#4 For urban transport models, peak spreading is an extremely important issue. This can result in major differences in the estimated demand for future infrastructure. Response #5 “1: A rigorous data base system featuring the scope and detail to support intermodal planning. We used statewide plus important BEA's and census divisions, plus Mexican states, and detail roughly equivalent to census block groups , ending up with around1500 zones. 2: Tools and manuals for data collection, analysis, normalization, and reconciliation. The problem with intermodal planning is that the various modes have different data sources, boundaries, definitions, time frames, etc. Gathering the data together, and manipulating it so that it is roughly consistent, has been problematic. We also found that the state of the practice for data collection in some sectors of the industry were somewhat less advanced than we were used to on the highway side. Some data is just not trustworthy. 3: The development of immediately useful products from the planning process. As we seek data from sources that have not typically participated in planning, we need to have something to give them in return to encourage their cooperation and show them the worth of planning.”

26

Section 4 Research Needs

The survey of transportation agencies both within and outside Alabama supported the findings of the literature review. Synthesis of the literature review and the surveys resulted in the development of the following proposed multimodal/intermodal research themes:

• Theme 1 – Institutional barriers to intermodalism; • Theme 2 – Availability/accessibility of intermodal data; • Theme 3 – Incorporation of new technologies; • Theme 4 – Development of analytical; • Theme 5 – Intermodal transportation education needs; and • Theme 6 – Security.

The out-of-state survey indicated that institutional barriers (Theme 1) were considered to be the most critical issue facing the continued development of intermodal transportation. More specific response to the in-state survey echoed the concern. Although many of the surveyed agencies indicated some degree of satisfaction with their ability to obtain intermodal data, the lack of a standardized data and difficulties associated with collecting operational data from the private sector were clearly identified in the literature review. The need to improve the availability/accessibility of intermodal data is addressed under Theme Two. Theme Three was not directly addressed in any of the survey questions, but was evident from the literature and was included as a research theme for reasons of encouraging the transportation research community in Alabama to stay abreast of technologies shaping intermodal transportation. Analytical concerns such as capacity analysis and corridor definition both ranked high in the surveys. These items can be grouped under research Theme Four, Development of analytical tools for intermodal transportation planning. The need to enhance intermodal education opportunities (Theme Five) was underscored by the survey results. Clearly, the events of September 11th have reshaped much of life in the U.S. Many engineering (and other) disciplines are initiating programs and otherwise supporting research aimed at addressing issues of security. Indeed, the UTCA included transportation security as one of its highest priorities in its 2002 Request for Proposals for research projects. Thus, Theme Six was included as a potential research theme. As a result of the project efforts described herein, potential projects are proposed within each of the intermodal research themes identified above. Table 4-1 presents the six themes and several potential projects within each. A brief description of several key projects is provided in the following sections. As previously alluded to, references relevant to each of the proposed research themes are provided in the annotated bibliography in Appendix A.

27

Table 4-1. Proposed intermodal research themes and projects Theme Projects

1 – Institutional Issues • Define goals and objectives of intermodal transportation in Alabama • Identifying partnerships for statewide multimodal transportation planning • Identification of ADA compliance challenges for intermodal transportation • Identify innovative funding opportunities to promote and enhance intermodalism

(public/private partnerships, flexibility of federal funds, etc.)

2 – Availability/accessibility of Intermodal Data

• Perform a statewide commodity flow study • Develop methodology for Alabama-specific multimodal freight forecasting • Assess freight data needs and availability in Alabama for statewide and metropolitan

planning • Standardization of freight data reporting and analysis • Correlation of origin-destination (O-D) with location of intermodal facilities

3 – Incorporation of New Technologies

• ITS applications in multimodal/intermodal transportation operations • Identify recent advances in freight transportation management and assess applicability

across multiple modes

4 – Development of Analytical Tools for Intermodal Transportation Planning

• Investigate incorporating freight planning into existing metropolitan planning practices • GIS applications to multimodal/intermodal transportation planning • Identification of multimodal/intermodal -oriented Land Use(s) • Environmental impacts of intermodalism (air quality, environmental justice, etc.)

5 – Intermodal Transportation Education Needs

• Develop university course • Develop short course for transportation professionals

6 – Security • Assess impact of Security concerns on mode choice for passenger transportation

• Assess impact of Security concerns on mode choice for passenger transportation • Inventory existing transportation systems and identify strategies to increase security

4.1. Theme 1 – Institutional Issues Due to the amount of intermodal activity and facilities in Alabama, there exists considerable potential to create an efficient intermodal system statewide. The initial step towards increasing intermodalism in Alabama lies in identifying and engaging stakeholders in the private sector, as well as in all levels of the public sector (local, state, and federal). The process can be initiated by activating the statewide intermodal systems working group called for in the 2000 Alabama Statewide Transportation Plan Update (ALDOT, 2000). The working group (or subsets thereof) could serve as advisory or steering committees to future intermodal research efforts. A key issue raised during discussions with one planning professional in Alabama indicated the need to explore ways to match federal transportation funds with other federal funds (e.g., Housing and Urban Development) to enhance transit services in rural portions of the state where localities are unable to secure the required local match. 4.2. Theme 2 – Availability/accessibility of Intermodal Data Passenger transportation data (for all modes) is readily available at the state and local levels. The primary obstacle to developing truly intermodal planning in Alabama is the need to collect and integrate freight transportation data into the process. It is recommended that Alabama follow the lead of other states and perform statewide commodity flow studies develop a statewide IMS (Birmingham is the only region in the state to currently have an IMS in place) (BRPC, 1996).

28

4.3. Theme 3 – Incorporation of New Technologies Alabama is currently developing an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. The ITS program was previously geared towards congestion and incident management and devoted to the highway mode only. It is recommended that a project be conducted to look for opportunities to deploy ITS technologies that increase the efficiency and attractiveness of non-highway modes. In particular, more attention should be directed towards, Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS) and Advanced Traveler Information Systems technologies and their potential for encouraging and accommodating transit ridership. The literature suggests that these technologies do increase transit efficiencies and may result in increased ridership (Peng, 1999; FTA, 2000). There are numerous commercially available information systems used for the management of freight transportation (e.g., route planning and dispatch, asset location, gate/checkpoint clearance). These technologies are generally employed to increase the efficiency of freight movements. Although most are currently used within a single mode, there exist substantial opportunities to bridge the application of these technologies across modes (Hatcher et al., 1998; Erickson et al., 1999). It is recommended that a project be undertaken to assess the current state-of-the-practice of freight-oriented ITS in Alabama and look for opportunities to develop and deploy systems across modes. Attention would need to be paid to incorporating such deployments into the ITS architecture developed for the state and key regions within it, and the potential for public/private partnerships necessary to fund such ventures. 4.4. Theme 4 – Development of Analytical Tools Much of the transportation planning in Alabama is conducted using the TRANPLAN software. TRANPLAN is a widely used software package that uses the Four-Step Urban Transportation Planning Process (UTPP) – trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment. While it is often used to model both auto trips and person trips by transit, it does not explicitly handle freight traffic. In general, the land use (trip generator) components of a TRANPLAN analysis are households and commercial land uses that are associated with the movement of people from one place to another (UAG, 1998). It is recommended that an evaluation of the potential for modeling freight traffic using off-the-shelf planning software (e.g., TRANPLAN) be conducted. To develop a methodology for modeling the overall function of transportation systems (passengers and freight), an investigation should be undertaken of available intermodal planning methodologies and their applicability to Alabama. Other states have developed freight planning models (FDOT, 1997; Eatough et al., 1998; CALTRANS, 2002). In particular, it is recommended that a project be initiated to develop a comprehensive (passengers and freight), intermodal planning tool similar to Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), the one recently developed by CALTRANS and the FHWA, or the Transportation Decision Analysis Software (TransDec) developed by the Texas Transportation Institute (FDOT, 1997; NCHRP, 2001; CALTRANS, 2002).

29

4.5. Theme 5 – Intermodal Transportation Education Needs Theme Five was largely addressed by the course development undertaken as part of the current project. A description of the course and its development is presented in Section Five. The possibility of developing and offering short courses and seminars on multimodal transportation topics to transportation professionals throughout the state should be explored. 4.6. Theme 6 – Security From the perspective of intermodalism (planning, promoting, implementing etc.), security must be addressed in the context of its effects on mode choice both for passengers and freight. Research is needed to identify current and potential shifts in mode choice due to security concerns and to develop strategies to address such shifts. A means to increase and ensure security to prevent mode shifts is needed. A means to quantify and incorporate mode shifts into an intermodal planning process is necessary for cases where they are unavoidable due to security concerns. It is recommended that research be performed to ascertain the effects of increased security concerns on transportation in Alabama. Surveys of individuals can be conducted to determine how much, if any, inner city and intercity travelers in Alabama incorporate security (beyond notions of basic traffic safety) into their mode choice decisions. Such knowledge will aid intercity travel demand forecasting as well as be essential to understanding potential attitudinal obstacles to increasing the role of transit in Alabama’s cities (i.e., the Alternatives Analysis currently underway in Birmingham).

30

Section 5 Course Development

As noted in the out-of-state survey, little opportunity exists for transportation professionals to learn about multimodal/intermodal transportation issues. A significant component of the current effort was devoted to the organization and development of a Multimodal Transportation course. It was intended that the course serve as an introduction to multimodal/intermodal transportation issues for graduate and advanced undergraduate students. Also, it is intended that the course be made available to all three UTCA campuses via the IITS. As such, the course will help prepare graduates for employment and research in Alabama involving transportation modes beyond the highway-oriented topics traditionally offered. To establish goals and objectives for the Multimodal Transportation course developed herein, information was collected on multimodal/intermodal courses at several other universities. A list of universities from which courses were reviewed is provided in Appendix D. Courses from other universities and information derived from the literature review were synthesized to develop a course for UTCA. A general syllabus for the proposed course is provided in Table 5-1. No actual textbook was identified for the course, but it appears beneficial to require Report 399: Multimodal Corridor and Capacity Analysis for the course (NCHRP, 1998). The students would be directed to other reference materials available both in print and on the Internet. As indicated in Table 5-1, the course will consist of conceptual (introductory) material and quantitative exercises regarding capacity and level-of-service determination for various modes and intermodal facilities. Overall, the course materials represent 22 distinct lectures. As the course is largely intended for graduate students, three class lectures will consist of a student research paper to allow students to conduct in-depth exploration of topics of particular interest. As such, class time has been allotted for student presentations. Exams will account for two class periods, and two class meetings will be reserved for outside speakers. This provides a total of 30 class periods over the course of a semester.

31

Table 5-1. Multimodal transportation course syllabus Lecture Topic Lecture Topic

1 Introduction to Multimodal Transportation • Development • Modes of Transportation • Driving Forces

12 Intermodal and Auxiliary Carriers • Advantages • Types of Movement • Intermodal Relationship

2 Role and Importance of Transportation • Historical Significance • Economic Significance

13 Transportation and Environment • Environmental Externalities • Transportation and Energy • Emissions from modes

3 Role and Importance of Transportation • Social Significance • Environmental Significance • Political Significance • Major Issues

14 Safety, Security and Technology

4 Transportation Regulation Development • Development of Regulation • Deregulation • Department of Transportation

15 Intermodal Freight Transportation • System Elements • System Architecture • Competition • Impediments • Future Perspective • Current and Emerging Technologies

5 Highways, Freight Transportation • Defining Elements • Classification • System • Service Structure • Cost Structure • Current Issues

16 Level of Service and Performance Measure • Service Perspectives • Steps in the Process • Role of Performance Measures • Capacity and Performance

6 Rail Mode: Freight Transportation • Overview • Significance of Railways • Market Structure • Operating Characteristics • Cost Structure • Issues

17 Level of Service and Capacity Analysis • Highways • Railroads • Waterways

7 Air Mode • Significance • Types of Carriers • Operating Characteristics

18 Capacity Analysis • Objectives • Description • Steps In the Process

8 Domestic Water Carriers • Overview • Major Defining Elements • Types of Carriers • Competition • Operating Characteristics • Cost Structure

19 Multimodal Corridor Capacity Analysis Examples: Highways • Person Capacity • Freight Capacity • Capacity of Segments • Multiple Commodities • Nodes

9 Pipelines • Outlines • Classification • Operating Characteristics • Cost Structure

20 Combined Person and Freight Capacity

10 Non-motorized Transportation • Pedestrians • Bicycles

21 Rail Freight Capacity • Freight Example • Transit Example

11 Passenger Transportation • Modes of Service • Vehicle Types • Service Structure • Significance • Recent Developments

22 Capacity Analysis Calculations • Air Transportation • Waterway Transportation • Pipeline Transportation

32

Section 6 Conclusions

The project presented herein represents an effort of the UTCA to initiate multimodal/intermodal research in Alabama. The project examined available literature and surveyed transportation professionals in Alabama and nationwide to identify critical issues related to intermodal transportation. After synthesizing the collected information, six potential intermodal research themes were identified for future pursuit in Alabama. The project also developed a set of course notes for graduate/advanced undergraduate level course on intermodal transportation. The course is intended to introduce transportation engineering students to non-highway transportation modes, intermodal concepts, as well as, provide an analytical background to assess the capacity and level of service of various modes an a multimodal system. It is intended that the research themes and educational resources developed during the project serve as guidance for ALDOT, other planning officials, and policy makers. It will also stimulate interest and support of the management component of the overall UTCA theme with a focus on intermodal transportation.

33

Section 7 References

ALDOT (Alabama Department of Transportation). Rail Plan Update. Montgomery, AL, 2002. ALDOT (Alabama Department of Transportation). 2000 Statewide Transportation Plan Update.

Montgomery, AL, 2000. BRPC (Birmingham Regional Planning Commission). The Intermodal Management System for

Jefferson and Shelby Counties. Final Report. Birmingham, AL, 1996. Brich, S. and L. Hoel. Multimodal Transportation Planning in Virginia: Past Practices and New

Opportunities. Final Report. Report No. VTRC 95-TAR1, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Virginia Department of Transportation, Charlottesville, VA, September 1994.

CALTRANS (California Department of Transportation). California Intermodal Transportation

Management System Planning Tool. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, June 2002.

Casey, J., E. Emmett, T. Rhein, S. Branscum, G. Stefflre, and J. Hertwig. “Intermodal Freight

Transportation Report Card: Private Sector Perspective.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 29 – 39.

DeWitt, W. and J. Clinger. “Intermodal Freight Transportation.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., January 2000.

Eatough, C., S. Brich, and M. Demetsky. A Methodology for Statewide Intermodal Freight Transportation Planning. Final Report. Report No. VTRC 99-R12, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Virginia Department of Transportation, Charlottesville, VA, December 1998.

Eberts, R. “Understanding the Impact of Transportation on Economic Development.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., January 2000.

Erickson, C., L. Grenzeback, and J. Schrieber. Challenger and Opportunities for an ITS/Intermodal Freight Program. Report No. 6560.630, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., February 1999.

FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). Documentation and Procedural Updates to the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS). Final Technical Report No. 1. Central Office, Systems Planning, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, September 1997.

34

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). Official NHS Intermodal Connector Listing. USDOT, Washington, D.C., 2002. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/intermodalconnectors/

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). Benefits Assessment of Advanced Public Transportation System Technologies Update 2000. Federal Transit Administration, USDOT, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Hancock, K. “Freight Data Transportation.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., January 2000.

Hynes-Cherin, B. “Institutions in Flux.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., January 2000.

ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), U.S. Public Law 102-240, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., 1991.

ITI (Intermodal Transportation Institute). Proceedings of the North American Intermodal

Transportation Summit. Denver, CO, October 1997.

Jones, W., C. Cassidy, and R. Bowden. “Developing a Standard Definition of Intermodal Transportation.” Unpublished student research paper from the National Center for Intermodal Transportation at Mississippi State University. Starkville, MS, 1999.

Lipsman., M.A. and C. Walter. “Response of State Transportation Planning Programs To The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.” Transportation Conference Proceedings 1998. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 1998

Manning, P. “Transportation Education.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, January 2000.

Meyer, M. and E. Miller. Urban Transportation Planning. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 2001.

NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program). Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process. NCHRP Web Document 26 (Project B8-32(2)A), National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, December 1999.

NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program). Multimodal Corridor and Capacity Analysis. NCHRP Report 399, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, December 1998.

35

NCIT (National Commission on Intermodal Transportation). Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System, Final Report, Washington, D.C., September 1994.

Pedersen, N. “Multimodal Transportation Planning at the State Level, State of the Practice and Future Issues.” Transportation in the New Millennium. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, January 2000.

Peng, Z., and J. Oliver. Assessing Means of Transit Information Delivery for Advanced Public Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Record No. 1666. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1999.

Slater, R. “Architects of Change: Creating America's 21st Century Intermodal Transportation System.”Public Roads, Winter 1997 -- Volume 60, No. 3, 1996.

TEA-21 (The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century). U.S. Public Law 105-178, U.S.

Congress, Washington, D.C., 1998.

TRB (Transportation Research Board). Critical Issues in Transportation 2002. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., December 2001.

UAG (Urban Analysis Group). Tranplan User’s Manual, URBAN/SYS, Version 9.0. Urban Analysis Group, Inc., Danville, CA, 1998.

USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). Intermodal Technical Assistance for Transportation Planners and Policymakers. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Intermodalism, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, December 1994.

36

APPENDIX A – Annotated Bibliography Theme 1 – Institutional Issues Theme 2 – Availability/Accessibility of Data Theme 3 – Incorporation of New Technologies Theme 4 – Development of Analytical Tools for Intermodal Transportation Planning Theme 5 – Intermodal Transportation Education Needs Theme 6 – Security

37

Theme 1 – Institutional Issues Alt, R., P.W. Forster, and J.L. King. “The Great Reversal: Information And Transportation

Infrastructure In The Intermodal Vision”. Presented at the National Conference on Developing A Research Framework For Intermodal Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 4 - March 5, 1996. pp. 31 – 53. Office Of Intermodalism, U.S. Department Of Transportation, And Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, U.S. Department Of Defense.

Abstract: The intermodal vision sees the value-added future of transport in terms of the ability to leverage the huge existing investment in modal transport infrastructure in the service of more efficient and effective logistics management in passenger, freight, and military domains. Intermodalism is not a substitute for modal transport and does not displace the longstanding focus on modal research, development, and infrastructure deployment. It is a complement to modal transport, providing vital leverage to obtain greater use from existing assets and provide useful transport services not previously available. Economic and security forces make greater intermodalism inevitable. The question facing transportation leaders is when and how intermodalism should be developed. Much of the needed research in the intermodal domain extends to prior work in the modal domain, but it is especially important that research focus on the changes emerging and necessary in the broader technological and institutional areas of transport. In particular, research is required to apprehend and exploit the potential of sophisticated information infrastructure that is bringing about a " great reversal", in which the ancient dependence of communication and information on the transport infrastructure is being reversed, leading to a time in the near future when most transport will be dependent on the information infrastructure. Barton, J.E., C.L. Selness, R.J. Anderson, D.L. Lindberg, and N.S.J. Foster. “Developing A

Proposal For A Multi-User Intermodal Freight Terminal As A Public-Private Partnership: Lessons Learned About Public And Private Perspectives, Timing, And Roles.” Transportation Research Record no. 1659, pp. 145 – 151. 1999.

Abstract: Intermodal rail terminals are an important part of an integrated freight transportation system. The location of intermodal terminals often has depended on where railroads had spare land adjacent to freight-rail lines. But many of these locations are less than ideal in terms of surrounding land uses and offer little scope for expansion as intermodal traffic grows. A study undertaken in Minnesota to evaluate the need for new or expanded intermodal terminal facilities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area is described. The process was funded by the metropolitan planning organization for the Twin Cities region, the state department of transportation, and three private railroad carriers. It involved a series of studies to determine the market for an intermodal facility, to locate a site and develop a proposal for a multi-user terminal, and to assess the terminal's economic benefits for the region. Several lessons learned during this public-private partnership process are useful for other metropolitan areas considering freight needs. The public and private sectors bring different perspectives to the development process, and coordinating their decision-making is a challenge. It is crucial to obtain and to maintain appropriate and timely access to decision makers. The competitive positions of carriers must be assessed and the project's impact on the relative market share among them will be critical. Given the lack of

38

support by the railroads to develop a joint-use intermodal facility, as recommended in the study, neither the railroads nor the development community was willing to implement the project. Bishop, E.R., C. Wornum, and M. Weiss. “Experience Of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

With Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Financial Planning Requirements: Interviews And Analysis.” Transportation Research Record no. 1606, pp. 1 – 8. 1997

Abstract: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop financially constrained metropolitan transportation plans and programs. FHWA officials believed that independent studies were needed if problems with the requirement were to be understood. A summary of findings of those studies along with an analysis by an FHWA official are presented. Financial planning requirements were found to be generally well received. Fiscal constraint requirements can be traumatic, but there is agreement that realistic programs are worth having. Reconciling costs with revenues was found to present MPOs with the most severe difficulties. Allowing contingency projects and revenue sources and smoothing the transportation improvement program amendment process can retain fiscal realism while diminishing the trauma of cost-revenue reconciliation. Underestimation of capital and operating and maintenance costs to balance a plan were found to be probable. Dissemination of "best practice" examples by FHWA and FTA and MPO self-policing appear to be the most likely corrective actions. It was found that few MPOs considered technologies to reduce operations and maintenance costs. Placement of such technologies will be slow. MPO personnel were found to have encountered more constraints than expected in using the modal flexibility provisions of ISTEA. More MPO regional coalition building will be needed to meet flexibility expectations. Despite availability, it was found that FHWA and FTA information, reports, and software concerning nonfederal sources of revenue were not obtained by officials desiring them. MPOs are encouraged to rely more on expert assistance to implement local funding sources. Canby, A., H.T. Kornegay, F.G. Rawling, and G.Yarema. “Progress Since The 1994

Commission Report: Nonfederal Public Agency Assessments.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century, Long Beach, California, February 23, - February 26, 2000. pp 199-202.

Abstract: The conference closed with a town hall panel, with each speaker representing a particular stakeholder perspective on freight intermodalism. Presented here are the nonfederal public agency assessments. A. Canby presents the perspective of the state department of transportation. H.T. Kornegay presents the port perspective. F.G. Rawling presents the perspective of the metropolitan planning organization. Casey, J., E. Emmett, T. Rhein, S. Branscum, G. Stefflre, and J. Hertwig. “Intermodal Freight

Transportation Report Card: Private Sector Perspective.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 29 – 39.

39

Abstract: The private sector perspective on the intermodal freight transportation report card is examined in these presentations. Progress and challenges are addressed from the perspectives of the shipper, the ocean carrier, railroads, motor carriers, and intermodal system planning. Dahms, L.D. “MPOS Reengineering For Intermodalism. Issue Overview. Session4:” Presented

at the National Conference on Intermodalism: Making the Case, Making It Happen. New Orleans, Louisiana, Dec. 7 - Dec. 9, 1994. pp. 98 – 99.

Abstract: This issue overview of the conference session entitled MPOs Reengineering for Intermodalism discusses how the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) progressed from a project to a systems approach, which produced the Metropolitan Transportation System. The progress the MTC is making in addressing freight and intermodal issues examines the unresolved problems that threaten to mask this progress and that of similar efforts and offers reasons why the conventional wisdom, which says that the local orientation of MPOs may stand in the way of intermodal investments, is misdirected. Emmett, E., B. Avery, T. Burrack, L. Wetsel, and D. Cameron. “Service Reliability And

Operations.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 161-169.

Abstract: This conference panel session focuses on the importance of intermodal service reliability. E. Emmett served as moderator. B. Avery notes that getting trains out on time is the key and that not leaving on time has a ripple effect on the other components of the intermodal move. T. Burrack discusses modal service reliability from the perspective of bulk shipping and dependence on the river system for efficient and cost-effective transportation service. L. Wetsel discusses the challenges facing the nation's rail industry, specifically the need to increase service performance, which will be achieved only with massive reinvestments in plant and equipment. D. Cameron offers remarks from the perspective of a logistics manager, whose very survival depends on on-time delivery and service reliability. He reiterates the point that transportation infrastructure affects competitiveness.

Field, M. “Freight Transportation Policy: Going The Distance--The Challenge Of Moving Highway Freight From Origin To Destination In The 21st Century.” Public Works Management & Policy. Vol. 6, no. 4,pp. 276 – 292. April 2002.

Abstract: Coordinated transportation system planning, investment and management is essential for freight to move efficiently in the future. This paper identifies significant issues and opportunities confronting the U.S. highway system authorities in developing an efficient and effective intermodal transportation system. Identification of deficiencies and implementations of strategies to improve the highway component of the system are essential to avoid gridlock as the number of vehicles using the system continues to grow. This article identifies some significant freight generators and the many initiatives underway to address the highway side of freight transport. The paper focuses on the increasing demand for capacity resulting from domestic and international commerce in a global economy. A national best practices inventory is suggested to assist agencies and policy makers in transportation planning.

40

Green, B., B. Holliday, J. High, C. White Jr., and C. Johnson. “ Infrastructure Capacity And

Connectivity: Federal Perspectives.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 94 - 104.

Abstract: This conference panel session focuses on infrastructure capacity and connectivity from the federal perspective. B. Green provides an overview. B. Holliday discusses the current status of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) navigation program; how the USACE links with the Marine Transportation System (MTS); and future challenges. J. High discusses the MTS, focusing on capacity, information technology, financing, and infrastructure. C. White, Jr., focuses on rail capacity and infrastructure, with comments on the significance of the recent merger of Canadian National and Burlington Northern railroads. C. Johnson focuses on intermodal connectors and border infrastructure. Hauser, E., Breese, A.R. “Partnerships For Multimodal Transportation Planning.” Transportation

Research Record no. 1552, pp.57 – 62. 1996. Abstract: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO), in cooperation with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), has initiated a series of research studies dealing with the issue of multimodal transportation planning. This paper comments on some of the findings from the one project in this series that focuses on the dynamics of partnerships formed to carry out the planning, design, and implementation of multimodal and intermodal projects. An intensive industry scan has been completed, resulting in an interactive database of approximately 60 multimodal projects throughout the country. From these 60 candidate projects, 12 were selected for more intensive study through a case study approach. The results of the case studies revealed a number of common, underlying themes. Included among those themes is the finding that local governments and private sector partners must be included in earlier stages of multimodal transportation planning than is currently being practiced. One of the key hypotheses tested with the data available on these partnerships was the impact of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) as a catalyst to stimulate multimodal projects and to improve the multimodal planning process. In this regard, one finding of this study is that before the 1990s, it appears that a major emphasis of partnership formation was simply to secure funding from a variety of sources for such projects. Since ISTEA was passed objectives more frequently cited by partners relate to meeting societal values and traveler needs. Huerta, M.P. “National Conference On Intermodalism: Making The Case, Making It Happen,

New Orleans, Louisiana, December 7-9, 1994. Closing Remarks.” Presented at the National Conference on Intermodalism: Making the Case, Making It Happen. New Orleans, Louisiana, Dec. 7 - Dec. 9, 1994. pp 187-188.

Abstract: These closing remarks comment on deregulation as the initiator of intermodalism, on how we must not lose sight of the fact that intermodalism is providing transportation service for

41

the benefit of its customers, on the need to celebrate accomplishments and seize opportunities, and on the theme of continuous improvement. Krebs, R. “Intermodalism: The Next Level. ” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State

of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 186-193.

Abstract: In this conference address, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway recalls the work of the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation, which he chaired, and comments on the proposed Burlington Northern Santa Fe/Canadian National merger. He notes that intermodalism, by its nature, is complex. On the freight side, market mechanisms best drive intermodalism by heading users of transportation in the directions of the mode that would be most efficient for that particular part of the transportation move. He also notes there is a strong bias in the freight sector to let those market mechanisms work and not have the public policy or public regulations interfere with the market. There is a need to promote intermodalism, to educate and inform the public sector, and to showcase private sector development of intermodal freight systems. He acknowledges there will always be intense and often heated discussions about how various modes will be funded and about the safety of the various modes and the role that safety plays in intermodalism. He also notes the various institutional barriers that get in the way of a true intermodal product that provides the highest and best service for the most efficient cost. Lindquist, E. “Unintended Consequences Of Policy Decisions: Whatever Happened With The

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Management Systems?” Transportation Research Record. no. 1617, pp. 112-117. 1998.

Abstract: The concept of "unintended consequences of policy decisions" is introduced as one potential outcome of the implementation of transportation policy. An unintended consequence is one that diverges from an authorized or directed policy action. This concept is illustrated by an assessment of the short- lived transportation management systems mandate in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Policy implementation theory suggests four propositions as an assessment framework: intergovernmental linkages, communication between linkages, organizational capacity of the implementing agency, and interpretation of the policy message. Problems in all four elements contributed to unintended consequences of the management system mandate and its eventual reversal in 1995. Implementing transportation policies and mandates has become increasingly complex; a more informed understanding of the policy- making process, and the conditions under which unintended consequences can occur during the implementation stage, will influence better policy design and implementation efforts. Lontz, M. “The Balance Of Decision Support: MDOT's Intermodal Management System.” Presented at the Sixth TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Dearborn, Michigan. May 19 - May 23, 1997. 15 pp. Abstract: Prior to passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) dealt with intermodal decision

42

making using mode specific tools defined by appropriate federal or state agencies. ISTEA mandates, now recommendations, provided the impetus to find a means by which these varied methods could be, if not standardized, made common enough to allow comparison of the needs of one mode with those of another. The Intermodal Management System (IMS) allows planners and managers to balance issues required to efficiently make effective decisions leading to seamless connections for non-motorized, rail, road and waterborne people and goods. This paper discusses balances struck in the development, user acceptance and operation of the IMS. It includes discussion of the impacts of database design, common interfaces, data accessibility, training, performance measures and geographic indexing on the ability of personnel to use the tool in their tactical decision making, while still assuring that managers have the ability to take a step back from such decisions to make strategic assessments. Mann, C.R., K.A. Johnson, and J. Tumidanski. “The Development Of Financial Plans For

Regional Transportation Plans - Methods, Data And Issues.” Presented at the Sixth TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Dearborn, Michigan. May 19 - May 23, 1997. 12pp.

Abstract: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires that projects identified in a region's long range plan be financially constrained. As a metropolitan planning organization, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) developed a plan that not only met the ISTEA requirements and served the needs of its member communities, but that also was consistent and comparable with forecasts developed by the state's other urban areas and with the state plan developed by the Michigan Department of Transportation. This paper describes the method, development of assumptions and databases and the validation of the forecast with local and state transportation agencies. SEMCOG focused on identifying and matching resources to meet the region's capital needs, which involved roadway, transit, non-motorized and intermodal projects. Future revenues were used to constrain the projects, with unmet needs being defined as the shortfall of financial resources necessary to meet all needs identified in the deficiency analysis stage. In a survey that identified revenue resources, revenues were anticipated as being "available" from federal, state and local sources. Morehouse, J. “Vision For The Future” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of

Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 40 – 47.

Abstract: In this conference presentation, the author shares his views of why the 21st century is going to be dramatically different and presents a significant challenge to the conference participants: "I challenge the intermodal industry to quit saying they are out of capacity and need more infrastructure. Maybe you do--but I think [that view] is based on 20th century thinking, not 21st century thinking. Take the 21st century, look forward, and then tell what infrastructure you really need. Think about breaking down the barriers between the modes and then tell me what infrastructure you really need. Think about 24/7 operations everyplace, everywhere, all the time, and then tell me what infrastructure you need. If you have a problem with the unions, face the problem head-on."

43

Nievez, J., P. Nowicki, D. Cameron, and T. Prince. “Progress Since The 1994 Commission Report: Private Sector Assessments.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp 194 -198.

Abstract: The conference closed with a town hall panel, with each speaker representing a particular stakeholder perspective on freight intermodalism. Presented here are the private sector assessments. J. Nievez presents the trucking perspective. P. Nowicki presents the railroad perspective. D. Cameron presents the shipper perspective. T. Prince presents the information technology perspective. Oakley, J., M. Huerta , J. Ellis, B. Ritchey, and R. James. “Institutional Relationships: Case

Studies.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 57 – 69.

Abstract: This conference panel session focuses on institutional relationships in intermodal transportation. The panelists present their stories of successful collaboration between the public and private sectors and share their experiences in overcoming institutional logjams and leveraging public and private energy and resources to identify and eliminate bottlenecks in an effort to gain greater capacity from the existing transportation system. J. Oakley provides an overview. M. Huerta discusses the federal government role. J. Ellis discusses transportation economic partnerships. B. Ritchey describes the Greater Columbus Inland Port, what it is and its mission. R. James elaborates on New Jersey's Portway Project. Petersen, J.E. “Public-Sector Financing In Intermodal Freight Transportation.”Transportation

Research Board Special Report 252. pp. 258-313. 1998. Abstract: Since no national public financing program has ever been designed specifically for intermodal freight transportation, much less institutionalized, it suffers from a lack of "organizing principles". There is no standardization of financing types and techniques, as is usually found in the analysis of an individual mode of transportation. At the same time, because the concept of intermodalism deals with making several components integrate to accomplish a purpose, it offers one of the better examples of blending abutting, but diverse, interests and the interplay of a variety of economic motivations. That same mixing will be found in the financing packages put together to date. The approach taken in this paper is to examine first the rationale for public financial involvement in intermodal freight projects and then to examine what it takes to make such an intermodal project "financable", offering a number of examples and analogies. It is assumed that there is a large degree of public interest in making the freight flow better through a particular facility, but it is not assumed that public money will necessarily be forthcoming. Rather, the practical difficulties of rounding up sufficient money to make intermodal improvements are described, and how the public sector might help in the process is discussed. Since no specific aid programs have been targeted to intermodal freight projects, the descriptive parts of this paper necessarily illustrate the financing problems and solutions with examples taken both from generic infrastructure projects and the patchwork of specific solutions that are

44

now being devised to fit the occasional intermodal project. Much of the emphasis is on how leveraging limited amounts of public money can entice primarily private- sector investments. Porter, M.M. “The Challenge Of Managing An Intermodal System.” Presented at the National

Conference on Intermodalism: Making the Case, Making It Happen. New Orleans, Louisiana, Dec. 7 - Dec. 9, 1994. pp 27 - 30.

Abstract: This conference presentation addresses the past, present, and future of intermodal transportation in the United States, and discusses the role of CSX Intermodal in the intermodal transportation arena. In conclusion, it is stated that private industry and the government have to be innovative in meeting the nation's freight and transportation needs for the future, and all must have the determination, persistence, and will to make intermodal transportation in this country successful. Puccia, P., B.Groseclose, J. Mayer, P. Beaulieu, and J. Holt. “Financing Intermodal

Development: Domestic.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp 194 -198.

Abstract: This conference panel session focuses on financing domestic intermodal development projects. P. Puccia served as moderator. B. Groseclose discusses the financing of a new port terminal in Charleston, South Carolina. J. Mayer discusses the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), which provides loans, lines of credit, and loan guarantees to enable mega-projects. P. Beaulieu talks about a " family of partnerships" that have developed in the Puget Sound region, bringing together all the relevant players to do what is needed to improve freight movement. J. Holt focuses on the multiple funding challenges faced by intermodal projects. Scales, R.C. “Advancing Public Sector Priorities For Goods Movement Projects: A California

Case Study.” Transportation Research Record no.1602, pp. 1 – 3 . 1997. Abstract: Passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and subsequent federal, state, and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) efforts have provided leadership for advancing public sector priorities for goods movement projects. Nevertheless, progress has been slow. Lack of knowledge about freight transportation needs lies at the heart of the problem. The California Trade and Goods Movement Study set out to provide staff at all levels of government with information they could use to explain and document goods movement needs. The study also produced an executive report, targeted at elected officials, that emphasized the importance of efficient, uncongested transportation to the economic competitiveness of the state's industries. The greatest challenge for the study was convincing MPOs, the state of California, and private industry that they needed one another to make things happen and that more energy was required to move faster. Reaching agreements required substantial dialogue because needed actions tended to change the balance of power among public agencies or affected individuals and causes. These concerns were overcome by the common goal of the study's sponsors and participants, that is, to support the efficient and rapid movement of goods deemed vital to the state's expanding domestic and international trade.

45

Shapiro, P.S., and M. Katzman. “Relationships Between Airport Activity And Ground

Transportation Needs.” Transportation Research Record , no.1622, pp. 8 - 12. 1998. Abstract: Shortly after the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration recognized that there was very little guidance available for airport operators and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to use for planning intermodal access to airports in the United States. As a result, the "Intermodal Ground Access to Airports: A Planning Guide" was developed. This Guide is designed to provide guidance to states, MPOs, and airport operators on the types of analyses that should be performed when airport access is being planned. It describes the airport access planning process and procedures for performing analyses. During the development of the Guide, relationships were developed between the level of originating passengers at American airports and the characteristics of airport access and landside facilities. The types of characteristics that were related to originating passengers included public parking, vehicle trips, terminal curbside design, and mode of access. Some of the relationships that were developed, how they were derived, and their importance to airport access planning are now presented. In addition, some additional relationships that should be developed are suggested.

Stagl, J., “Modal Conviction: Their Approaches Vary But Short Lines Rely On Determination, Faith In 'Fourth Mode' To Nurture Intermodal Traffic.” Progressive Railroading. Vol. 45, no.1, pp.18 – 19. January 2002.

Abstract: Short lines are using their niche roles to push for a "fourth mode" in rail transport. Going intermodal, though, depends on being able to operate outside the scope of a Class I railroad while still having sufficient track and a strategic location. Emons Transportation Group in Maine acted as the gateway for a Class I wanting access to northern New England. The Arkansas and Missouri Railroad (A&M) is creating a barge-to-rail terminal on the Arkansas River. CG Railway is moving some containers via ships that can hold 60 rail cars to ports in Mexico and Alabama. About 50% of the traffic of the Pacific Harbor Line, which serves the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, is intermodal.

Stagl, J. “Intermodal Alliances: Class 1S Have Adopted A Partnership-Promotion Philosophy To Expand Market Reach, Improve Transit Times And Provide Truck-Competitive Service.” Progressive Railroading. Vol. 45, no. 4, pp 27-33. April 2002.

Abstract: Now that mergers have lost their allure, Class I's are using co- promotions and alliances to link up with broader markets and compete more effectively for trucking dollars. Better communication and blocking have improved on-time rates, which are showing up in statistics kept by large intermodal customers like UPS. CSX focus groups support seamless service across the Canadian border and more opportunities for linkups into Mexico. UP is trying to develop a service brand with its Blue Streak, which offers three tiers of container service between Los Angeles and Atlanta, including a guaranteed on-time delivery option. While service times and efficiencies are improving, the soft economy isn't generating the demand rail carriers need to support all the initiatives, but they're hoping for an upturn.

46

Sussman, J.M., and C. Conklin. “Regional Strategies For The Sustainable Intermodal Transportation Enterprise: Five Years Of Research.” Transportation Research Record no.1747, pp. 53 – 59. 2001.

Abstract: For the past 5 years the Regional Strategies for the Sustainable Intermodal Transportation Enterprise (ReS/SITE) project has worked on the development of new regional transportation planning frameworks that recognize the realities of modern-day regional economic development. The project began with the identification of a number of weaknesses in conventional regional transportation planning and set about the development of an expanded framework that would remedy these shortcomings ( including intermodalism, technology scanning, freight, private-sector involvement, economic integration, national information infrastructure- telecommunications-transportation relationships, master plan perspective, and human resource development). A new framework emerged, based on the idea of scenarios, as advanced by Royal Dutch Shell in the 1970s, and on an expanded notion of regional architectures reflecting the new organizational interactions required to plan and manage transportation systems at a regional scale. This framework has been applied in case studies in Houston, Texas, and Mexico City, Mexico, over the past several years, and the methodology has been greatly refined as a result of those applications. How the new ReS/SITE structure addresses the shortcomings in the planning process is indicated, and some further steps in framework expansion and refinement are suggested. TCRP Research Report 14. Institutional Barriers to Intermodal Transportation Policies and Planning in Metropolitan Areas.” 1996. Abstract: This paper suggests opportunities for improving intermodal planning among states. The objective of these opportunities is developing the most effective strategies based on goals get within ISTEA. This paper advocates reasoning suggesting that all levels of planning and development addressing issues such as the context of how transportation and land use problems are defined, options are presented, and how the solutions are selected. There are also plans that suggest how to allocate federal funding on transportation projects.

TCRP Research Results Digest 50. “ Legal Aspects Of Transit And Intermodal Transportation Programs.” August 2002.

Abstract: This digest describes the progress and status of Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project J-5, "Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs." Three tables are included which list, respectively, the TCRP Project Panel J-5 members, TCRP Legal Research Studies In Progress as of July 2002, and Published TCRP Legal Research Digests.

TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 42. “Use Of Flexible Funds For Transit Under ISTEA And TEA-21.” 2002.

Abstract: This synthesis will be of interest to transit agency professionals and the consultants who work with them in dealing with flexible funding opportunities. The purpose is to provide greater familiarity with emerging techniques in the use of flexible funding, and to point out

47

issues that may need further attention. It is intended to provide a review of how current flexible funding provisions are being used to support transit investment and to examine, through a limited number of specific experiences, lessons that may have the broadest relevance throughout the transit industry. The scope of the synthesis includes references to summary Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data from FY 1992-2000, spanning the entire life of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation and the first 3 years of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This document integrates information from a literature and database review with survey responses and telephone interview responses of key staff at the U. S. Department of Transportation, and a limited sample of state departments of transportation, regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and transit authorities. The survey and telephone responses are intended to provide qualitative information about the process, experience, and barriers encountered in exercising flexible funding provisions that is not obvious in other available data.

TCRP Research Results Digest 14. “Coordinated Intermodal Transportation Pricing And Funding Strategies.” pg. 30. October 1997.

Abstract: This digest will be of interest to transportation officials and planners considering coordinated pricing issues. It provides a summary of Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project H-6, "Transit Fare Pricing Strategy in Regional Intermodal Transportation Systems." This project was designed to (1) examine factors that influence the ability to coordinate transportation pricing and funding strategies in a regional intermodal context and (2) develop a conceptual approach for pursuing such coordination. Included in the digest are (1) a summary of the key issues and study findings, and (2) several technical appendices providing key background information. TCRP Legal Research Digest 8. “Transportation Service Agreements: A Preparation And

Reference Guide For Transit Attorneys.” pg. 39. August 1997. Abstract: This digest contains a report prepared under TCRP Project J-5, "Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs." The Transportation Research Board is the agency coordinating the research. The report, which has the same title as this digest and is authored by Barbara A. Adams and Clifford L. Weaver, provides an up-to- date reference and guide on the essentials of contracting for service agreements and should be useful to attorneys and contract administrators. The report is organized as follows: Introduction and Overview; (I) Basic Provisions; (II) Definitions; (III) Services to Be Purchased; (IV) Vehicles and Equipment for Transportation Services and Other Services; (V) Real Property and Facilities; (VI) Employees; (VII) Nondiscrimination, Equal Employment, and Business Opportunity; (VIII) Reports, Records, and Inspections; (IX) Purchasing; (X) Insurance, Risk Management, and Bonds; (XI) Indemnification; (XII) Payment; (XIII) Term, Termination, and Remedies; (XIV) Contractor Covenants and Representations; (XV) General Provisions; Endnotes; and Appendix A - Outline of Model Agreement.

48

TCRP Legal Research Digest 5. “Legal Issues Associated With Intermodalism.” 21 pg. April 1996. Abstract: This digest contains a report prepared under TCRP Project J-5, "Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs", for which the Transportation Research Board is the agency coordinating the research. The report, which has the same title as this digest and is authored by Russell Leibson and William Penner, is organized as follows: (A) Background and Purpose of the Study; (B) How the Study Was Conducted; (C) Survey Results (1-Survey Respondents' Definition of Intermodalism, 2-Survey Respondents' Ratings of Some Problems Associated with Intermodalism, and 3-Conclusions Based on Survey Responses); (D) Legal Issues Associated with Intermodalism (1-Funding Issues, 2-Regulations Regarding Freight Carriers, 3-Environmental Restrictions, 4-Zoning, Land Use, and Noise Restrictions, and 5-Labor Laws and Standards); (E) Conclusion; Appendix A--Bibliography; Appendix B--Intermodalism Survey Form; and Appendix C--Selected Survey Respondents' Definitions of "Intermodalism". TR News 200. “Criteria For Government Involvement Intermodal Freight Projects: New TRB

Report.” pg. 29. January 1999. Abstract: This article reviews a new report from the Transportation Research Board, "Policy Options for Intermodal Freight Transportation" (Special Report 252). It provides guidelines designed to help governments evaluate proposals for public investment in freight facility projects and select financing arrangements. The report also examines government policies beyond infrastructure investment that affect freight efficiency, including regulations and operating practices for public roads, ports, and waterways. TR News 199. “Making Sense of TEA-21.” pp. 31-33. November 1998. Abstract: A strong case can be made that choice - in particular, individual rather than institutional choice - is a metaphor that can unify the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) additions to core Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) principles into a coherent whole. In the pre-ISTEA years, choice was not valued in the federal program. Every dollar that left Washington had a label on it. Under ISTEA, state and local governments were given a choice. They could control their own destiny to a much greater extent than previously, and this made the federal program both more flexible and more popular. Now TEA-21 is pointing the way to the next big step: choices for ordinary people. If those who implement the new bill take this challenge seriously, TEA-21 will be honored not just as a continuation of ISTEA, but also as the first big stride in a new direction. TR News 192. “Intermodal Freight Requirements.” pp. 13 – 17. September 1997. Abstract: This article explores the institutional implications of recent developments in logistics and the intermodal movement of freight. It begins with a look at shipper expectations for the 21st century, followed by a case study of the inland port, Columbus, Ohio. This case study illustrates the possibility of building a coalition of shippers, carriers, the metropolitan planning

49

organization, and public-sector representatives. The conclus ions drawn are that (1) new public-private coalitions will be required to address the challenges of the 21st century, (2) continuous and creative (nonpartisan) shipper input will be required to drive process change effectively, and (3) the bottom line is community, regional, and national economic vitality and global competitiveness. TRB (Transportation Research Board). Global Intermodal Freight: State Of Readiness For The

21st Century. Report of a Conference, February 23-26, 2000, Long Beach, California. Abstract: Following the model of previous Transportation Research Board (TRB) intermodal conferences, this conference provided a forum for discussion and information-sharing on the issues and developments affecting intermodal freight transportation planning and operations. The conference brought together more than 200 leaders and experts in intermodal freight transportation from the private sector, all levels of government, and the military. The goal was to take a collective look at how far the nation has come and what remains to be done toward realizing the vision set forth in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ( ISTEA). The discussions and findings from this conference provide useful input to the framers of the next surface transportation reauthorization scheduled for 2004. Included in the proceedings are conference presentations and the following appendices: (A) Intermodal Freight Transportation Report Card; (B) Summary of U.S. Department of Transportation Actions on Recommendations of the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation; (C) Conference Exhibits and Posters; and (D) List of Conference Participants. TRB (Transportation Research Board). Policy Options For Intermodal Freight Transportation.

Transportation Research Board Special Report 252. 1998. Abstract: the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Executive Committee initiated this study of policy options for intermodal freight in 1995. The Executive Committee recognized that freight transportation is of critical importance to the United States and that intermodal freight transportation is one of the major technological and organizational trends affecting the performance of the sector. The Executive Committee also recognized that the federal government and many state and local governments are working to accommodate public transportation facilities and programs to the needs of intermodal freight. Intermodal freight transportation is any movement of goods that involves two or more modes of transport, for example, shipments of goods in containers that are transferred between truck and rail, and shipment of bulk commodities that involves transfer between rail and water. The total of all such movements accounts for a minority of U.S. freight activity, measured in physical volume of freight or in the cost of services. However, intermodal freight is critical in international trade, in transport of many high-value products, and in military supply; it has been a source of trucking industry cost savings and rail industry revenue growth; and intermodal transfers, which often require coordination of government entities and multiple private-sector firms, can be physical and organizational bottlenecks affecting the performance of the entire freight system. To conduct this study, TRB formed a committee, following National Research Council procedures to ensure a balance of points of view, which included members with expertise in intermodal freight transportation, state and local government transportation administration, and public policy. The

50

committee's conclusions and recommendations are presented in this special report and cover four areas: Principles for government involvement; Federal surface transportation programs affecting freight; Regulatory and operations issues; and Public finance of intermodal freight projects. Also included are the five papers on special topics commissioned by the committee. Van Beek, S., K.Wykle ,and W. Lucas. “Intermodal Freight Transportation Report Card: Public

Agency Perspective.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 22-28.

Abstract: An intermodal freight transportation report card provides a very valuable tool for examining how well we have done. These conference presentations address this subject from the perspectives of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Department of Defense. Van Beek, S. “ Innovation And Collaboration.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight:

State of Readiness for the 21st Century. Long Beach, California, February 23 - February 26, 2000. pp. 17 - 21.

Abstract: In this keynote address, the Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation and Director of the Office of Intermodalism addresses the following questions: What was the promise of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) when it was passed? How well have we done since the passage of ISTEA? How has the intermodal world changed? What do those changes mean for the future of both intermodalism and transportation in general?

Williams, C. “The Airport-Rail Connection: Realizing The Multi-Modal Vision.” Airport Magazine. Vol. 14, no. 3. May 2002.

Abstract: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 was intended to connect different transportation systems. This article looks at airport/rail connections that have been developed over the past decade in order to describe the potential benefits and pitfalls that other airports should consider when light-rail proposals are being discussed. A rail transit system that also provides an integrated transportation link can help stimulate regional economic development. There are more than 13 airports in the United States with direct airport rail links, with another 23 under construction or development. Many other airports offer shuttle or bus service to local rail. Airports are enthusiastic about airport/rail connections because it expands their ground transportation options and reduces curbside congestion. Although several airport/rail connections are discussed, the link between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Washington Metro system is highlighted as one of the most successful. It is estimated that 14 percent of the airport's passengers and employees take advantage of the service each day. Planning an airport/rail link offers some challenges, since many different laws and transportation agencies and organizations must be consulted. Airports also represent a unique travel environment that may actually work against the use of public transportation since passenger trips are infrequent, many passengers are not area residents, and there usually is a variety of shared-ride alternatives already in place.

51

Yarema, G. “Innovative Finance Beyond The Transportation Equity Act For The 21st Century: Private Sector Perspectives.” Presented at the Second National Conference on Transportation Finance, Scottsdale, Arizona, August 20 - August 23, 2000. pp. 119-120.

Abstract: As the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) approaches, many stakeholders are already starting to forge an agenda for discussion. G. Yarema presents the private-sector perspectives on seven key elements of that agenda. First, he points to reauthorization and expansion of the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program so that all 50 states can capitalize their banks with a portion of their federal transportation funding. Second, certain refinements of tax law could permit more private investment and private risk-taking to take place in combination with the use of tax-exempt debt. Third, continued support for design/build contracts could be helpful, given that this method of procurement is a critical component of many innovative financing efforts. Fourth, value pricing, previously known as congestion pricing, offers an opportunity to encourage financing approaches under which the beneficiary pays for an enhanced level of service; ongoing federal leadership will be critical to greater use of value pricing not only for toll roads but also for transit systems and intermodal facilities. Fifth, the TIFIA federal credit program has had some early successes and is a prime candidate for reauthorization, although some of the lessons learned during the early rounds of implementation should be factored in. Sixth, one of the biggest barriers to successful implementation of projects using innovative financing and project delivery techniques is the delay inherent in environmental reviews. TEA-21's streamlining language holds promise, but more work can be done. For example, the enactment of a statute of limitations on the challenges made under the National Environmental Policy Act is suggested. Finally, another tool that has received a lot of attention, and justly so, is the GARVEE bond. Some technical amendments will likely be appropriate during reauthorization. Zavattero, D.A., F.G. Rawling, and D.F. Rice. “Mainstreaming Intermodal Freight Into The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process.” Transportation Research Record . no.1613, pp. 1 – 11 . 1998. Abstract: The Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS), as a metropolitan planning organization, developed an approach to integrate intermodal freight transportation into regional plans and programs. This process began with the establishment of the Intermodal Advisory Task Force ( IATF) in 1994 and led to a series of freight-oriented activities and products, including the identification of regionally significant facilities, analysis of improvement needs, and the intermodal component of the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for northeastern Illinois. Task Force membership includes public- and private-sector representatives working cooperatively to develop and direct a work plan to address goods movement and intermodal freight issues and needs. The intermodal planning process involved significant preparatory work. The IATF established four working groups that directed specific tasks, including development of a geographic information system-based intermodal facilities inventory, an outreach for industry needs, a review of proposed intermodal improvements, identification and analysis of intermodal connections to the national highway system, and analysis to estimate the economic value of the industry to the region. Ultimately, six policy statements were developed and incorporated as system-level intermodal recommendations in the RTP. The process developed by CATS through

52

the IATF has "mainstreamed" intermodal freight issues, analysis, and policies into the transportation plans and programs of northeastern Illinois. Although the scale of the intermodal and freight industry in Chicago is enormous, the lessons learned and the technical and institutional approaches developed through the IATF offer valuable insight and direction to other regions seeking to support their intermodal freight industry through the transportation planning process. Theme 2 – Availability/Accessibility of Data Apffel, C., J. Jayawardana, A. Ashar, K. Horn, R. McLaughlin, and A. Hochstein. “Freight

Components In Louisiana's Statewide Intermodal Transportation Plan.” Transportation Research Record. no.1552, pp 32-41. 1996.

Abstract: Planning procedures used in addressing freight components for Louisiana' s statewide intermodal transportation plan are described. The effort was unprecedented in Louisiana, and the experience can be applied in other states. User and provider involvement, demand analysis, network analysis, and recommended policies and programs for the water, rail, and intermodal freight components are described. Although an assessment of system capacity remained at the core of the effort, low cost improvements in system performance were also addressed. Analysis of future demand for facility capacity was performed in three steps. First, baseline historical flow patterns, including volume and modal orientation of inbound, outbound, intrastate, and transhipped movements, were established through extensive processing of data obtained. Second, volume forecasts for 11 major commodity groups were made for each of three possible growth scenarios. Third, a strategic outlook was developed for selected commodity types to examine market structure, productivity trends, and the competitive position of transportation providers in the state. Network capacity analysis identified few weak links or bottlenecks in the state's main line waterway and railroad networks. A stock and flow approach was taken to measure the capacity of various types of cargo transfer terminals. A comparative analysis of maritime terminal productivity and cost was performed to assess the competitiveness of ports in Louisiana. An extensive survey of the physical, operating, and institutional characteristics of terminal roadway and railroad access links was made.

ASHTD (Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department), FHWA(Federal Highway Administration). Freight Component: Arkansas' Statewide Long-Range Intermodal Transportation Plan. Little Rock, AR, May 2002.

Abstract: This report, an assessment of Arkansas' freight transportation system, is divided into four sections: (I) Arkansas' Existing Freight Transportation System; (II) Major Freight Corridors and Intermodal Freight Facilities; (III) Market Areas and Shipping Patterns; and (IV) Freight Transportation Issues, Funding Options, and Development Strategies. The two primary objectives of the study were to identify key factors for developing Arkansas' freight transportation modes and intermodal services, and to determine the most pressing issues facing the freight system.

53

BTS (Bureau Of Transportation Statistics). National Transportation Atlas Databases 2002 (NTAD2002): A Collection Of Spatial Data For Use In GIS-Based Applications (CD-Rom). BTS-02-05, Washington, D.C., 2002

Abstract: This CD-ROM contains the data for the National Transportation Atlas Databases 2002 (NTAD2002), a set of nationwide geographic databases of transportation facilities, transportation networks, and associated infrastructure. These datasets include spatial information for transportation modal networks and intermodal terminals, as well as the related attribute information for these features. Metadata documentation, as prescribed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee, is also provided for each database. The data on this twin set of compact disks support research, analysis, and decision making across all transportation modes. They are most useful at the national level, but have major applications at regional, state, and local scales throughout the transportation community. As NTAD2002 contains data only, the user requires a geographic information system to take full advantage of the information on this CD-ROM.

Brander, J.R.G., and F.R. Wilson. “Regional Intermodal Freight Transport Flows And Projections.” Transportation Research Record. no.1763, pp. 20 – 26. 2001.

Abstract: This study examined intermodal transport in the Province of New Brunswick in Canada's Maritime Provinces. In 1998, the Policy Branch of the New Brunswick Department of Transportation commissioned the University of New Brunswick's Transportation Group to conduct a study of intermodal freight transport in New Brunswick. The objective was to evaluate intermodal movements and provide the first provincial database on intermodal traffic, consisting of (a) traffic flowing through the province without an intermediate stop, (b) movements entirely within the province, and (c) movements with either a destination or an origin in the province. Data were collected from rail, truck, air, and marine centers. Transborder (between the United States and Canada) traffic was monitored, and a survey was conducted of shippers using either intermodal transport or potential users of the service. Issues that carriers and shippers had with existing intermodal services were solicited and evaluated. Growth trends for intermodal transport in the study area were developed using a most likely scenario. In developing the growth trends, the potential effects of recent and current events on growth were evaluated.

Castain, R.. “Forecasting Intermodal Markets From A Manufacturer's Perspective”. Presented at the National Conference On Developing A Research Framework For Intermodal Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 4 - March 5, 1996. pp. 88 - 90. Office Of Intermodalism, U.S. Department Of Transportation And Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, U.S. Department Of Defense.

Abstract: The problems encountered in developing an intermodal system are discussed from the perspective of a manufacturer trying to supply products that will be needed to make the intermodal movement of freight actually work. Major problems discussed include the lack of standards, product liability, and the lack of an adequate intermodal system definition. The development of the intermodal system is not primarily a technological problem. It is the lack of an adequate system definition that is constraining the growth of the system.

54

Golob, T.F., and A.C. Regan. “The Perceived Usefulness Of Different Sources Of Traffic Information To Trucking Operations.” Transportation Research. Part E: Logistics & Transportation Review. Vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 97 - 116. April 2002.

Abstract: This paper investigates the views of operations and logistics managers from trucking companies concerning how useful various sources of traffic information are to their dispatchers and drivers. Managers in charge of the California operations of almost 1200 trucking companies were surveyed regarding the usefulness of existing and proposed sources of traffic information. Nonlinear multivariate statistical models were used to explain how perceptions of the value of specific information sources are related to the operating characteristics of the trucking companies. Results showed that the evaluation of sources such as Internet traffic information, in-vehicle navigation systems and area-wide dedicated highway advisory radio are primarily related to where the trucking operation is based, whether the operation is private or for-hire, the average length of the company's load moves, and the provision of intermodal services. Preferences of specific industry segments were also identified through relationships between evaluation of information sources and whether or not a company provides specialized types of trucking operations. From these results, it can be determined which segments of the trucking industry are more likely to be early users of advanced traveler information systems.

Guyton, J.W. “Presentation Of Comparative Data For Transportation Planning Studies.” Transportation Research Record. No.1617, pp. 44 - 49. 1998.

Abstract: Clear, yet detailed, presentations of transportation planning data to lay groups as well as to technical groups is becoming more and more of a necessity in the planning process. The transportation professional is faced with the challenge of presenting technical analyses in a manner permitting others to make their own, sound, choices. Increasingly, the choice of a preferred alternative involves both technical aspects and seemingly intangibles or quality aspects. Technical analyses often appear to press in one direction, whereas other considerations give a different perspective on the preferred solution. Peer groups as well as administrators of programs are faced with the need to quickly understand complex planning relationships. Presentation of technical information in understandable terms has become increasingly critical to the decision-making process. Professionals develop significant quantitative data to compare and contrast alternatives under investigation, and there is a need to render the results comprehensible for those making recommendations and those making decisions. The application of simple but effective comparison techniques designed to provide high flexibility to individuals in comparing alternatives is addressed. The screening techniques used in recent studies for ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) high-priority corridors and feasibility studies are explored and how a matrix analysis technique has applications in many studies is illustrated.

Hayduk, B.W., “Multimodal Transportation Planning Data: Compendium Of Data Collection Practices And Sources”. NCHRP Web Document 4. NCHRP Project 8-32(5) FY '95 JACKFAU-97-522. March 1997.

Abstract: The aim of this Compendium is to organize an inventory of transportation data sources that can be utilized to supply the data identified through a strategic data needs

55

assessment. For the purposes of clarity and efficiency of use, the report has been divided into four sections: Data Collection Methods, Secondary Data Sources, Internet Resources, and Technical Support Resources. The Data Collection Methods section has been divided into two primary sections which detail methods and technologies related to (1) sample surveys and (2) travel monitoring. These methodologies should assist state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations in gathering both conventional planning data and new data dictated by multimodal planning and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Discussions of implementation techniques (e.g., phone, mail, video, etc.), although not addressed directly, are interwoven into many of the descriptions of primary data collection methods. The Secondary Data Sources identified include those available from Federal agencies, state agencies, and private institutions currently involved in data collection and dissemination. The Internet Resources provide addresses and descriptions of multiple transportation related sites in the Internet, in addition to e-mail account addresses. The Technical Support Resources describe some organizations that could assist planners in filtering through and understanding large amounts of data and sources, as well as, possibly recommend analytical techniques or software, which can be used to manipulate transportation data.

Lyons, W.M., J. Collura, S. Libberton, and P. Branch. “Applications of FTA National Transit Data Base For The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Management System Requirements.” Transportation Research Record. no.1521, pp. 45 – 48. 1996.

Abstract: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires states in conjunction with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop, establish, and implement several systems to better manage and improve the efficiency of transportation infrastructure. Among other things, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 allows states not to implement one or more of the ISTEA management systems. Although the management systems are now optional, FHWA and FTA continue to believe that the management and monitoring of the performance and condition of the multimodal transportation system should remain an important element of statewide and metropolitan planning. How FTA's National Transit Data Base (NTD) can provide an important source of information as agencies develop the ISTEA management systems or similar mechanisms for managing and monitoring transit facilities and equipment is analyzed. NTD, which contains information on the financial and nonfinancial operations, system performance, and equipment of national public transit systems, is used primarily by transit operators and others in the transit industry. How NTD can contribute to development and operations of the Public Transportation Management System as well as, the Congestion and other management systems is discussed. Development of applications for ISTEA management systems, or for similar planning tools, broadens applications of NTD beyond its transit customer base to aid states and MPOs. By contributing comprehensive transit data to systems for managing and monitoring condition and performance of multimodal transportation, NTD can improve representation of transit needs and performance in the ISTEA planning process. Strate, H.E., E. Humstone, S. Mcmahon, L. Gibson, And B.D. Bender, “Functional Classification

For Multimodal Planning.” Transportation Research Record. no.1606, pp. 51 – 62. 1997.

56

Abstract: Recent trends in federal laws and regulations have indicated the need to develop tools for multimodal transportation planning to replace " highway-only" techniques. The Vermont Agency of Transportation, as part of its Long Range Transportation Plan, initiated a study to develop Multimodal System Classification (MSC). The MSC approach considers both highway- and nonhighway-based modes of transportation, intermodal connectivity, and transportation and land use relationships. As a basis for this approach, broad-band corridors are defined that include all modes, including pedestrian and bicycle transport. In addition to corridors, urban, town, village, and other growth centers are defined as high-accessibility subareas where transit- and pedestrian-oriented development may be given priority. Five classes have been defined that reflect corridor and subarea needs: Class 1, major multimodal corridors and transport centers; Class 2, other major routes and facilities; Class 3, minor routes and collectors; Class 4, local ways; and Class 5, town, village, and urban centers. Early consideration of social, environmental, and economic factors is achieved through definition of a series of land use overlays--scenic and aesthetic resources, historical and cultural resources, natural resources, and air- and noise-sensitive areas. As part of the development effort, the MSC concept was applied in two planning regions in Vermont. Not only did the concept of MSC prove useful, but the process was invaluable as a basis for public outreach and consensus building. Regional professional staff found MSC to be useful in development of regional transportation and land use plans. Theme 3 – Incorporation of New Technologies

Boile, M.P., J.G. Gaspard II. “Ideas In Motion: A Combined Passenger/Freight Intermodal Transportation System.” Transportation Quarterly. Vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 7 –13. January 2002.

Abstract: This article addresses some critical issues facing the public and the freight transportation industry in the U.S. and presents a solution -- a high-speed integrated passenger/freight intermodal transportation system, which has the potential to make better use of transportation infrastructure, as well as, improve productivity and service quality for certain passenger and freight services. The combined system differs from traditional models in that it proposes intermodal movement of containerized cargo and passengers using a sequence of interconnected, coordinated transportation services. A new vehicle called an intermodal coach that could carry both passengers and two standard 10-foot containers is a central piece in the proposed system since it can provide connections between central cities, airports, rail terminals or remote areas.

Golob, T.F., A.C. Regan. “Trucking Industry Adoption Of Information Technology: A Multivariate Discrete Choice Model.” Transportation Research. Part C: Emerging Technologies. Vol. 10, no. 3, pp 205-228. June 2002.

Abstract: This paper presents a multivariate discrete choice model of adoption of information technologies in trucking operations. The model uses data from a large-scale 1998 survey of trucking companies operating in California. The model is designed to identify the influences of each of 20 operational characteristics on the propensity to adopt each of seven different information technologies: satellite or radio-based communication, automatic vehicle location

57

technologies, automatic vehicle identification systems, electronic data interchange, vehicle maintenance software, routing and scheduling software, and citizen band radio. The model simultaneously allows the seven error terms to be freely correlated and predicts which set of information technology alternatives will be selected by companies with various characteristics. Results show significant differences between for-hire and private fleets. Adoption of information technology is also strongly related to fleet size and provision of intermodal services. Findings indicate that the methodology presented here can be applied to many problems involving the choice of any combinations from a fairly large set of non-exclusion alternatives.

Holguin-Veras, J., C. M. Walton. “Implementation Of Priority Systems For Containers At Marine Intermodal Terminals.” Transportation Research Record. no. 1602, pp. 57 – 64. 1997.

Abstract: Research on the implementation of priority systems for containers is summarized. The results correspond to the areas of information technology and performance analysis. The analysis of information technology comprises several parts. First, idealized import and export processes are characterized in terms of activity networks. Then these characterizations are used to estimate the effect that implementing priority systems has on the information flow and to identify the desirable characteristics of the corresponding information system. Performance analysis focused on a selected group of possible priority systems that differ in the extent to which service differentiation by priority is implemented. The systems analyzed are (a) base case (i.e., no service differentiation); (b) "hot hatch" programs; (c) service differentiation at the storage yard; (d) service differentiation at the yard gate; and (e) combinations of systems b, c, and d. The analysis was conducted by a simulation system specially designed to simulate priority systems. The performance of these systems was assessed for different combinations of the relevant experimental factors, namely, operational scheme, proportion of high priority containers, and number of incoming containers. By using the resulting performance measures, the impacts on the different segments of users were assessed for each of the systems. Finally, the policy implications were analyzed and conclusions drawn. McTague, J.P. “Future Technologies: Implications For U.S. Transportation.” Presented at the

Forum on Future Directions in Transportation R&D, Washington, D.C. March 6 - 7, 1995. pp 150-154.

Abstract: This forum resource paper reviews the development of transportation in the United States to provide some perspective on how we might look at the future. During the 1800s when urban travel was primarily by horse- drawn carriages and wagons, a vision of future transportation would have predicted massive gridlock of these carriages accompanied by a major "emissions" problem. However, distinct transitions in transportation occurred, which prevented unacceptable outcomes and yielded a system more efficient from an economic standpoint and more acceptable from a personal standpoint. The railroad system spanned the nation, and all economic and personal predictions about the future of transportation were now based also on railroad use. And then, of course, came Henry Ford's invention of the production line. Similarly, Fulton's invention of the steamship led to a quantum improvement in the intercontinental movement of commercial products. Another quantum leap occurred later with the introduction of containerization. The American public's love affair with the automobile led to its becoming the

58

preferred mode of personal transportation. The preference for the automobile is dominant, even in the face of many daunting obstacles, and some defend its use as a God-given right. In looking at technologies of the future, it is important to consider the extraordinary significance of independent transportation. The evolution of the aircraft mirrors the evolution of the automobile. The next section of this paper discusses briefly one of the major problems generated by transportation - automobile gridlock. We are reminded again that the right choices in solving this problem will be market driven--they will let people do what they want to do. Further, we are reminded that as problems increase in seriousness in a free-market culture, they tend to inspire solutions. The final section of the paper provides "A Look Ahead" to "virtual collocation" and telecommuting, to intermodal solutions, and to intelligent transportation systems. Nault, B.R. “Information Technology For Freight Transportation Coordination.” Transportation

Research Board Special Report 252. pp. 234 – 257. 1998. Abstract: In intermodal transport, an information transfer between carriers and possibly a terminal or port must occur before the physical transfer can be done. That is, the receiving carrier, and possibly the operator of the transfer point, must be able to view information about the shipment before it is able to move the shipment onward. The ability to share information between these parties and to view information about the shipment while the shipment is in transit is critical to improving the coordination of freight transportation. Visibility is also the key to effective customer service. The objective of this paper is to determine what types of communications and information technology (IT) applications are needed to enhance the service and reliability of freight transportation. The focus is on how IT applications can be used by different actors involved in freight transportation to fulfill their coordination roles. The basic principle followed is that, in addition to supporting the operational aspects, each actor has expertise in one or more essential roles, and IT can be used to provide incentives for the performance of those roles. Thus, IT is not only valuable for support, but also for coordination. Examples of successful use of IT in freight transportation are presented first. Next, estimates of the potential savings that straightforward applications of IT to transportation can have on freight transportation expenditures are discussed, and the microeconomic basis for these benefits is explained. How IT contributes to the future is likely to come from the coordination of transportation and the supply chain is examined, and the information components needed for this coordination are described. The type of organization and network arrangements needed to support transport for the supply chain is studied, and the state of the most extensive IT initiative, electronic data interchange (EDI), is discussed. Finally, ways in which government policy can be modified to increase efficiency in the transportation sector are suggested. Stephens, B. “What To Do With Roadrailer? : C&O Introduced It In The 1950's, But Its Potential

Has Never Been Realized.” Vol . 62, no. 5, pp. 32 – 39. May 2002. Abstract: Though it seems like a logical fit, RoadRailer, whose trailers can run on highways or freight cars, has never become as popular as its supporters think it should. After fading out in the 50s and resurrected in the 80s, RoadRailer is being used by Norfolk Southern because of its inexpensive and low-cost terminal requirements, low operating costs and smooth ride. It is making inroads among other carriers, and a push to permit RoadRailers to ride at the end of

59

conventional trains, as they do on Amtrak passenger trains, might result in more growth. The Norfolk Southern subsidiary, Triple Crown Trucking is trying to push RoadRailer into more markets, by competing more directly with trucking, especially in markets that railroads have difficulty serving. Regulatory streamlining by the FRA could also help speed growth. TR News 221. “Integrating Inland Waterways Into Intermodal Systems: Initiatives Promote

Technologies, Cooperative Efforts.” 30 pg. July 2002. Abstract: This article briefly describes the activities under way to integrate the inland waterways transportation system (IWTS) into an intermodal system. Through these activities, the inland waterways are gaining consideration as vital parts of the nation's transportation system. Transportation Research Circular 459. “ Intermodal Freight Terminal Of The Future.” 278 pg.

June 1996. Abstract: This Circular contains the papers presented at the third national conference on the Intermodal Freight Terminal of the Future. The papers describe the state-of-the-practice in management issues and technology issues as perceived by leaders in North American and European terminal planning. The papers are organized according to the following topics: Global Economics and Forecasting for Tomorrow's Terminal; The Terminal's Operating Environment; Landside and Shoreside Partnerships; Intermodal Terminal Design; European Perspectives; Terminal Planning and Operations in Transition, Part A and Part B; Information Technologies; and New Directions. Theme 4 – Development of Analytical Tools for Intermodal Transportation Planning

Abdelghany, K.F., and H.S. Mahmassani. “Dynamic Trip Assignment-Simulation Model For Intermodal Transportation Networks.” Transportation Research Record. no.1771, pp. 52 – 60. 2001.

Abstract: A dynamic trip assignment-simulation model for urban intermodal transportation networks is presented. The model considers different travel modes, such as private cars, buses, metro-subway, and high- occupancy vehicles. The model captures the interaction between mode choice and traffic assignment under different information provision strategies. It implements a multi-objective assignment procedure in which travelers choose their modes and routes based on a range of evaluation criteria. The model assumes a stochastically diverse set of travelers in terms of their relevant choice criteria and access and response to the supplied information. The model overcomes many of the known limitations of static tools used in current practice. These limitations relate to the types of alternative measures that may be presented and evaluated and to the policy questions that planning agencies are increasingly asked to address.

Aultman-Hall, L., M.L Hill, and K. Agent. “Methodology For Evaluating Large Truck Access To Intermodal And Other Facilities.” Transportation Research Record no.1653, pp. 61 – 68 . 1999.

60

Abstract: In a recent project for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), researchers were tasked with developing a method to evaluate objectively the access for large trucks between intermodal or other truck-traffic-generating sites and the National Highway System (NHS). The routes evaluated were the actual roadway segments used by trucks traveling between intermodal or other facilities and the NHS. The choice to evaluate specific heavily used roadway segments, as opposed to evaluating an entire highway or roadway corridor, was based on the recommendation of Kentucky's Intermodal Advisory Panel, which advises the KYTC on intermodal issues. This allowed researchers to identify the actual problems being experienced, even when the routes included segments of many different highways and jurisdictions. Part of this study included the development of objective measures that could be used for comparing and prioritizing sections. The methodology that was developed and is currently being used to evaluate routes to 50 truck- trip generators throughout Kentucky is documented. The procedure begins with a telephone survey of site operators/managers to identify route problems. Each route is evaluated with respect to three types of features: subjective, point, and continuous. The ranking of each point and continuous element as "preferred", "adequate", or "less than adequate" is converted to a relative urgency rating by assigning relative weights for truck volume and section length. Point and subjective features are identified for spot improvements when appropriate. Finally, the overall route is graded on a subjective scale of 1 to 10.

Barber, Daniel, Grobar, And Lisa. “Implementing A Statewide Goods Movement Strategy And Performance Measurement Of Goods Movement In California”. MTCR (Metrans Transportation Center Research), California State University Long Beach, California Dept. of Transportation. Office of New Technology and University Transportation Centers Program (U.S.). 2001.

Abstract: This project focused on creating structural and non-structural solutions to improving capacity utilization of Intermodal Corridors of Economic Significance (ICES) in the combined Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It also tested and validated Transportation System Performance Measurement for Commercial Goods Movement and International Trade as a method for monitoring and determining the cost-effectiveness of productivity improvement measures. The report examines good movement performance measures, mobility/accessibility indicators, reliability indicators, sustainability, and environmental quality. The principal findings of the study documented for the first time the temporal and spatial congestion of truck waiting and turnaround times at the fourteen terminals at the combined ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Center For Transportation And The Environment, Research And Special Programs Administration, Florida Department Of Transportation. Neighborhood Intermodal Training Facilities. NCTR-302-16, October 2001.

Abstract: Intermodalism is a topic that is fostered by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and Florida's Growth Management Act, however, it can be used to further the hope of diminishing continued problems associated with America's love of the automobile and its superior convenience. Through its National Center for Transit Research, and under contract with the Florida Department of Transportation, the Center for Urban Transportation Research was

61

tasked with reviewing selected small-scale transfer facilities, focusing on the interaction of transportation modes. The purpose of the review was to determine the minimum characteristics required for establishing intermodal transfer facilities and implementation of such facilities.

Chang, S.K.J., and C-L Hsu. “Modeling Passenger Waiting Time For Intermodal Transit Stations.” Transportation Research Record. no.1753, pp. 69 – 75. 2001.

Abstract: A mathematical model is developed to analyze the passenger waiting time of an intercity transit station with feeder bus services. The intercity transit system is characterized by its comparatively long headway and fixed schedules. Thus, the behavior of passengers of the intercity transit system is significantly different from the behavior of passengers of urban bus systems. If the urban bus system is always considered as a major feeder system for the intercity transit, passenger waiting time and related behaviors of the intercity transit station should be influenced by the reliability of the feeder bus services. The results provide planners with an analytic model for accurately quantifying the relations between passenger waiting time of an intercity transit system (e.g., high-speed rail) and the reliability of feeder bus services.

Codd, N., and C.M. Walton. “Performance Measures And Framework For Decision Making Under The National Transportation System.” Transportation Research Record no.1518, pp. 70 – 77 . 1996.

Abstract: In December 1993 Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena called for the creation of a National Transportation System (NTS). The goal of the NTS is to support national transportation planning and policy that maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's transportation network, in accordance with the mission of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). It is proposed that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) pursue this goal by designing an NTS that can monitor the performance of the nation's transportation network; detect national and regional problems with the transportation system; facilitate the setting of performance goals and measure progress over time; and aid states and metropolitan areas in performance-based planning. To do this, the NTS must evaluate the transportation network's performance in terms of moving passengers and goods and of achieving the goals of the system's users. Therefore, the NTS must have as its basis, a set of performance measures that apply to different modes and that reflect the varied goals of ISTEA, in the areas of system output as well as the environmental, social, and economic outcomes of system usage. Such performance measures are proposed, as is a general decision-making framework for using them. The ISTEA legislation, the NTS initiative, and potential data sources for supporting these performance measures are also examined.

DeCorla-Souza, P., and J. Hunt. “Evaluation Of Alternatives Using The Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (Steam).” Presented at the Sixth National Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities, Spokane, Washington D.C., September16 - September 18, 1998.

Abstract: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and its successor, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), both emphasize assessment of

62

multimodal alternatives and demand management strategie s. This emphasis has increased the need for planners to provide good comparative information to decision makers. Benefit-cost analysis is a useful tool to compare the economic worth of alternatives and evaluate trade-offs between economic benefits and non- economic social and environmental impacts. FHWA has developed a new tool for benefit-cost analysis called the Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM), available at: www.ota.fhwa/dot.gov/ steam. The software allows development of impact estimates for a wide range of transportation investments and policies, including major capital projects, pricing and travel demand management (TDM). Impact measures are monetized to the extent feasible, but quantitative estimates of natural resource usage (i.e., energy consumption) and environmental impact (e.g., emissions) are also provided. Net monetary benefits (or costs) of alternatives can then be used to evaluate trade- offs against non-economic benefits. This paper demonstrates a case study application of the software for a hypothetical medium-sized urban area in the U.S., called Any City.

DeCorla-Souza, P., M. Culp, J. Hunt, H. Cohen, D. Haling. “A New Tool For Benefit-Cost Analysis In Evaluating Transportation Alternatives.” Presented at the Sixth TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Dearborn, Michigan, May 19, 1997-May 23, 1997. 11pp. Abstract: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act emphasizes assessment of multimodal alternatives and demand management strategies. This emphasis has increased the need for planners to provide good comparative information to decision-makers. Benefit-cost analysis is a useful tool to compare the economic worth of alternatives and evaluate trade offs between economic benefits and non-economic social and environmental impacts. In 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a sketch planning tool called the Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model (SPASM) to assist planners in developing the type of economic efficiency and other evaluative information needed to compare across modes and demand management strategies, at a sketch planning level of analysis for corridor studies. When more detailed analysis is required; however, SPASM cannot be used directly, owing to several simplifying assumptions. Also, it is difficult to use SPASM for systemwide analysis. To allow more detailed analysis at both the system and corridor levels, FHWA has developed an enhanced version of SPASM. There are several significant improvements. First, the software accepts input directly from the four step travel demand modeling process or from off-model software such as FHWA's TDM software. Second, it post-processes outputs from conventional four-step planning models, in order to get more accurate highway travel speeds, especially under congested conditions. Third, it performs risk analysis to clearly describe the level of uncertainty in the results of the analysis, so that the debate can shift from unproductive technical controversy to compromise and action. The software is based on the principles of economic analysis, and allows development of monetized impact estimates for a wide range of transportation investments and policies, including major capital projects, pricing and travel demand management (TDM). This paper provides a case study application of the enhanced software in evaluation of corridor alternatives and system plan alternatives for Toledo, Ohio. The case study demonstrates that the new software can be a useful tool in providing information of interest to decision-makers.

63

Frazier, C., A. Aeppli, C.D. Martland, and B. Norris. “Analysis Of Intermodal Terminal Highway Access To Economic Activity Centers.” Transportation Research Circular 459. pp.43 – 52. June 1996 .

Abstract: An area of increasing concern to policy makers is the relationship among intermodal service, terminal location, and the surrounding highway network. Closely tied to these is the need for a better understanding of their impact on the relative costs of intermodal versus single-mode freight movements. To gain insight into this, the authors undertook a series of structured interviews with providers of intermodal services and incorporated the information provided into a simple cost model. The model allows the analyst to examine the boundary conditions between intermodal and highway shipments and to explore how costs affect factors such as terminal location, access difficulty, and shipper distribution about the terminal. Using the model, three cases were evaluated: (A) variations in customer location, (B) variations in the type of customer pickup and delivery, and (C) changes in terminal efficiency. Cost data were obtained through the shipper surveys; information on catchment areas gathered through a study of the I-95 corridor along the eastern seaboard between the mid-Atlantic states, Jacksonville, Florida, and Atlanta, Georgia; and other sources. In all cases, it became apparent that the drayage and terminal inefficiencies that can be readily absorbed in long-haul moves--1500 to 2000 km (900 to 1200 mi)--cannot be absorbed in the short-haul markets that were studied. Results also identified the importance of the proximity of an intermodal terminal to a shipper. Terminal congestion was found to be a factor in short-haul markets, in which lengthy delays can eliminate the cost benefits of intermodal movement of freight.

Gosling, G.D. “Airport Ground Access And Intermodal Interface.” Transportation Research Record no. 1600 , pp. 10 – 17. 1997.

Abstract: The airport ground transportation system is receiving increasing attention from airport authorities and regional transportation planning agencies. The need to plan for facilities at the airport and concern about the impact of traffic on streets and highways surrounding the airport, and about emissions generated by this traffic are forcing airports to consider strategies to reduce or mitigate ground access traffic. The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act has caused transportation agencies at all levels to address the integration of different transportation modes, including coordination between the air and surface components of the transportation system. The range of ground access planning issues is reviewed, and three alternative strategies to improve intermodal connections at airports are discussed: new or upgraded rail links, off-airport terminals, and ground transportation centers at the airport. The planning and design issues that arise with each type of facility are addressed, as well as the analytical tools and data needed to evaluate the wide range of airport ground access projects and to plan the implementation of those selected. These include air passenger surveys, development of operational data on the ground access system, and use of access mode choice and traffic flow models. Research needs in the area of airport ground access are also discussed.

Hamilton, G.L. “Rural Inland Waterways Economic Impact Kit: A Synopsis.” Transportation Research Record. no.1747, pp. 114 - 119. 2001.

64

Abstract: The results of a project whose primary objective was the development of a PC-based kit that gives users the ability to perform an assessment of the economic impacts of existing rural inland waterway ports and terminals are reported. The kit's design follows a step-by-step procedure that focuses on the economic impacts of cargo flows, port users' industries, and capital expenditures through the port or terminal linkages to regional industrial structures and transportation systems. The kit is interactive, guiding users through the impact analysis, and allows the users to input data and modify the model's data while maintaining a consistent approach throughout the analysis. The major elements of the kit are summarized, and in particular the derivation of the kit's input-output model and major issues that had to be resolved in constructing the kit are focused on.

Horowitz, A.J., and N.A. Thompson. “Generic Objectives For Evaluation Of Intermodal Passenger Transfer Facilities.” Transportation Research Record no.1503, pp. 104 – 110 . 1995.

Abstract: A list of generic objectives is a tool for initiating the evaluation process for project alternatives for an intermodal passenger transfer facility. Such a list should contain all objectives that might be important to any project. This paper presents a list of 70 objectives developed through a literature review and through interviews with users. Each objective on the list was rated by a panel of experts on transportation planning and station design. An analysis of the ratings revealed that most important were objectives for ensuring safety and security and objectives for improving transfers and transfer opportunities. Less important were objectives relating to the environment and to finance. Architectural, building, and site considerations were rated as least important.

Howard, L., and W. Keller. “Aviation System Planning: Addressing Airport Infrastructure Needs.” Transportation in the New Millennium, Transportation Research Board. 8 pg. 2000.

Abstract: Demand for air transportation continues to grow, but many larger airports are already constrained in their ability to expand, and communities often strongly resist construction of additional runways. More metropolitan areas, therefore, will need to use secondary airports or even construc t new airports. Trends in general aviation (GA) will pose new challenges to maintaining a viable system of GA airports, and the continuing shift toward making transportation investment decisions from an intermodal perspective will require increased attention to the broader context of airport development. Current coordination of airport development leaves much to be desired. The aviation system planning process must be strengthened, and coordination of system planning and development decisions at individual airports must be improved. This paper discusses further the current issues and directions in aviation system planning.

Kish, S.J., and M.D. Meyer. “Developing Management Systems For Statewide Transportation Planning: Early Lessons.” Transportation Research Record no.1552, pp. 66 – 70. 1996.

Abstract: The implementation of two management systems, the intermodal and public transportation management systems, in the Georgia Department of Transportation is examined.

65

Early experience with this implementation suggests that key elements of an implementation strategy are characteristic of success in such an organizational environment. These include establishing organizational responsibilities, establishing guidance principles, assessing the environmental context for the management system, establishing an implementation strategy that has tangible intermediate results, and identifying an agency "champion" for implementation. The challenge of implementing management systems within any organization is understanding the decision-making process and the information needs of the agency decision makers.

Liu, R., R.M. Pendyala, S. Polzin. “Simulation Of The Effects Of Intermodal Transfer Penalties On Transit Use.” Transportation Research Record no. 1623, pp. 88 – 95 . 1998.

Abstract: In recent times, the planning, analysis, and design of intermodal transfer facilities have been receiving increasing attention as planners attempt to overhaul public transportation systems that are losing ground to the ubiquitous automobile. However, recent research indicates that modeling tools currently used in practice do not adequately account for the effects of transfer penalties on transit ridership and network performance. In an attempt to fill this research need, transit system performance is simulated under different scenarios of intermodal and intramodal transfers. Using a controlled experimental design, transit ridership and system performance are simulated within a traditional four-step travel modeling framework assuming a variety of network configurations characterized by different transfer scenarios. Results show that the presence of a transfer on a transit line can substantially reduce transit ridership and that the extent of this reduction is highly dependent on the type of transfer encountered, that is, whether the transfer is intermodal (across different modes) or intramodal (within the same mode). The implications of the study results on the planning of intermodal transit systems are discussed in detail. Loureiro, C.F.G., And B. Ralston. “Investment Selection Model For Multicommodity

Multimodal Transportation Networks.” Transportation Research Record no.1522, pp. 38 – 46. 1996.

Abstract: A Multicommodity Multimodal Network Design (MCMND) model is presented. The model is to be used as a planning tool for determining investment priorities for freight intercity networks. The MCMND model is designed to select the best set of investment options for a multimodal ( highways, railways, and inland waterways) regional network, given a limited investment budget. The main component of the model comprises the solution of a nonlinear bilevel network design problem formulated to choose investments that minimize both the transportation costs incurred by users and the environmental impacts of less efficient modes of transportation. Investment options to be considered by the model involve the addition of new physical links to the network, the improvement of existing links, and the location of intermodal transfer facilities at specified nodes of the network. The representation of the multimodal network is at a level of detail appropriate for strategic planning for a large region. The demand for transportation services is fixed and exogenous to the model. Mode choice in shipping freight is modeled in combination with flow assignment, assuming that goods are shipped at minimum total generalized costs. A new path-based stochastic user equilibrium assignment algorithm is proposed to distribute trips over the multimodal network according to a logit-type model. The

66

Tiete-Parana Valley in Brazil was selected for the development of a pilot application of the MCMND model to assess its efficiency when dealing with large networks. This application also served to emphasize the importance of an interface between the MCMND model and a geographic information system in solving real- life problems.

Merkhofer, M., M. Schwartz, and E. Rothstein. “A Priority System For Multimodal And Intermodal Transportation Planning.” Presented at the Sixth TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Dearborn, Michigan. May 19 - May 23, 1997. 7pp.

Abstract: This paper describes an innovative application of formal prioritization principles to intermodal planning. A priority system was constructed as part of the development of Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Intermodal Management System. It is designed to help identify transportation system needs based on quantitative, facility type-specific performance measures, to rank the needs, and to prioritize projects for meeting the needs. In addition, the system provides an opportunity for sensitivity analysis to distinguish which assumptions or uncertainties significantly affect priorities from those that do not. This information can point the way to data collection efforts that are most effective in improving the allocation of investment resources. This work produced a practical and logically defensible system for supporting the ODOT planning process, and generated concepts and models of potential use for other aspects of transportation planning and programming. The priority system was tested through an application to 25 actual intermodal system needs and proposed projects. For example, the application compared projects to improve truck access to a railway yard, widen a roadway segment, build a railroad overcrossing, and add information kiosks at a passenger terminal. Following the system logic, needs were ranked based on the benefit that would result from eliminating those needs, and projects were ranked based on benefit-to-cost ratio. Topics addressed in the paper include principles of prioritization, methods of quantifying benefit, models for estimating performance for ten types of intermodal transportation facilities (connector and mainline roadways, bus stations, rail passenger stations, air passenger terminals, marine terminals, rail truck facilities, grain reload facilities, petroleum terminals, truck terminals, and air cargo facilities), ranking methodologies, and software implementation.

Nam, K.C., K.S. Kwak, and M.S. Yu. “Simulation Study Of Container Terminal Performance.” Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal & Ocean Eng. Vol. 128, no. 3 , pp.126 – 132. May 2002.

Abstract: This paper examines the optimal size for the Gamman Container Terminal in Pusan, Korea, in terms of berths and quay cranes. Computer simulation analyses were performed with four scenarios, representing different operational patterns. Results reveal that sharing quay cranes with adjacent berths increases productivity, and that the more berths /operator, the higher the productivity achieved. Based on these results, container terminal development and operation policy implications are considered.

NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Board). Multimodal Aspects Of Statewide Transportation Planning. Synthesis Of Highway Practice No. 286, 64 pp. Transportation Research Board ,Washington .D.C., 2000.

67

Abstract: This synthesis report will be of interest to department of transportation (DOT) administrators, planning supervisors, managers, and staffs, as well as to planning consultants that work with them. It provides information for practitioners interested in the results of attempts to apply multimodal considerations at the statewide level and identifies key research findings. It covers post-ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) processes and projects and both passenger and freight activities. The report examines the application of three multimodal aspects: alternatives, modal mix, and integration into three statewide planning functions, which include state planning, corridor studies, and financing, budgeting, and programming. The emphasis is on implementation. This report of the Transportation Research Board documents processes and research currently under development, using three approaches: a literature review, results of a survey of state DOTs, and five case studies. It cites the following states with exemplary practices in multimodal/intermodal transportation based on a 1998 report by the policy research project at the University of Texas on Multimodal/ Intermodal Transportation: Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Board). Performance Measurement In State Departments Of Transportation. Synthesis Of Highway Practice No. 286, 75 pp. Transportation Research Board ,Washington .D.C., 1997 .

Abstract: This synthesis will be of interest to state transportation agency administrators, division and functional area managers, program managers, financial and human resources personnel, and others, including state legislators, who are concerned with implementing innovative programs in state departments of transportation (DOTs). It presents information on the degree to which state DOTs have developed and implemented performance measures in all transport modes for which they are responsible. With the advent of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), as well as pressure from state governments for greater accountability of state funds, DOTs are increasingly endeavoring to develop performance measures to improve their productivity, and to respond to outside demands from state government and the public. This report of the Transportation Research Board describes how performance measures have evolved in state DOTs, the types of initiatives that have been developed, and the effectiveness of such measures in assessing performance and improving productivity, as perceived by the DOTs.

NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Board). Freight Transportation Planning Practices In The Public Sector. Synthesis Of Highway Practice No. 286, Transportation Research Board ,Washington .D.C., 1996. pp. 53.

Abstract: This synthesis describes the process by which state departments of transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) integrate freight planning into the surface transportation planning process. It will be of interest to state and MPO planners, port planners; traffic engineers; and to the trucking, rail, and shipping interests in both the public and private sectors. This report of the Transportation Research Board discusses the requirements for freight planning resulting from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA) with particular emphasis on the development of an intermodal management system (IMS). In addition, that act narrowed the application of the congestion management system (CMS), which is also

68

discussed in the synthesis. Since enactment of that legislation, another act, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 was passed and makes the IMS optional rather than mandatory. This has not changed the philosophy or the intent of these planning applications, but it has changed the implementation aspects. Many agencies, however, are continuing with the IMS and CMS planning process. This report describes the methods used by selected agencies for forecasting freight flows, data collection practices, and the techniques for integrating freight planning into the established surface transportation planning processes at the state and regional levels.

Neumann, L.A. “Integration Of Intermodal And Multimodal Considerations Into The Planning Process.” Presented At The Refocusing Transportation Planning For The 21st Century, Washington, D.C., February 7 - February 10, 1999. pp. 72 – 85. Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.

Abstract: Over the years, numerous conferences and research agendas have focused on creating a truly multimodal transportation system planning and decision- making process. The issue is once again being examined at a time when it might be argued that more progress has been made toward achieving the objective in the past five years than in the previous 20 years. However, it is also believed that we are moving into an era in which the imperative for continued progress has never been stronger and that the risk of business as usual has never been greater. Although the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) significantly increased the funding that is available for surface transportation, needs still outstrip resources. Moreover, global economic trends and the need to respond to a range of economic, social, and environmental objectives create strong incentives to find the right balance and mix of modes to serve a wide variety of market segments. However, a range of institutional, financial, policy, and regulatory barriers remain. Gaps in data and limitations of analytic methods constrain our ability to define and evaluate system choices. The challenge is to define a research agenda that can reduce these constraints and that can accelerate the progress that has been observed over the past several years.

Palmer, J.G. Jr., M. McLeod, and M.C. Leue. “Simulation Modeling Of Traffic Access For Port Planning.” Presented at the National Conference on the Intermodal Freight Terminal of the Future, New Orleans, Louisiana, Dec. 7 - Dec. 9, 1994. pp. 180-186.

Abstract: Landside access to cargo terminals is one of the most challenging issues facing today's port planners. Ports must improve intermodal surface transportation efficiency to accommodate cargo growth and coexist with increasing urbanization. Planning a port's access system involves analysis of roadway networks, cargo activity, and mixed-use traffic. Managing all this information and performing the analyses requires a significant effort. The simulation model TRUCKSIM provides a tool to efficiently evaluate the access system and to determine the impact of and benefits of changes in harbor usage and roadway design. TRUCKSIM is a hybrid of travel demand and traffic operation models. This PC-based, discrete event simulation model allows comparative evaluations of policy, operations, and capital development decisions aimed at improving transportation efficiency. The model has been applied at the Port of Long Beach and in the state of Hawaii to evaluate the impact of mixed-use traffic, imposed truck-operating

69

policies, and impact of and benefits from on-dock rail facilities, grade separation projects, and roadway design improvements.

Pendyala, R.M.,V.N. Shankar,and R.G. McCullough. “Freight Travel Demand Modeling: Synthesis Of Approaches And Development Of A Framework.” Transportation Research Record. no. 1725, pp 9 – 16. 2000.

Abstract: It is increasingly being recognized at all levels of decision making that freight transportation and economic development are inextricably linked. As a result, many urban entities and states are embarking upon comprehensive freight transportation planning efforts aimed at ensuring safe, efficient, and smooth movement of freight along multimodal and intermodal networks. Over the past few decades there has been considerable published research on (1) freight transportation factors, (2) freight travel demand modeling methods, (3) freight transportation planning issues, and (4) freight data needs, deficiencies, and collection methods. A synthesis of the body of knowledge in these four areas is provided with a view to developing a comprehensive statewide freight transportation planning framework. The proposed framework consists of two interrelated components that facilitate demand estimation and decision making in the freight transportation sector.

Richardson, B.C. “Freight Trucking In A Sustainable Transportation System: Framework For Analysis.” Transportation Research Record. no.1763, pp. 57-64. 2001

Abstract: A framework is presented for analysis of the long-term sustainability of freight trucking in the context of the intermodal freight transportation system. The role of the trucking industry among other transportation modes is described, including an explanation of transportation system sustainability. Topics include the present view of issues surrounding the trucking industry in a sustainable transportation system; views of students, academia, and industry on freight trucking in a sustainable transportation system; and a framework to use in analyzing the role of government and industry in moving toward sustainability. This framework brings into perspective the conditions of transportation system sustainability and freight trucking factors affecting it. The findings are based on data collected through a literature search, a set of focused discussions, and a survey of freight trucking company executives.

Shapiro, P.S. “ Intermodal Ground Access To Airports: A Planning Guide - A Good Start.” Presented at the Sixth TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Dearborn, Michigan. May 19 - May 23, 1997. 8pp.

Abstract: This guide is designed to provide policy guidance, rules of thumb, data, and analytical techniques related to airport access. It has been prepared to help airport operators, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, consultants and others identify the nature of airport access problems, identify alternative solutions and evaluate their effectiveness. It primarily compiles information from other sources, however, it does summarize and present this information so that it can be used to systematically analyze airport access problems and alternative solutions. The guide primarily focuses on providing passengers access to commercial airports from primary origins or destinations. It deals with off-airport roads and high occupancy

70

vehicle (HOV) facilities up to the airport boundary and on-airport roads, parking circulation elements and curb facilities up to the terminal entrance. Suen, S.L., and C.G.B Mitchell. “Accessible Transportation And Mobility.” Transportation in

the New Millennium, Transportation Research Board. 8 pg. 2000. Abstract: This paper addresses the subject of accessible transportation and mobility. The discussion begins by pointing out what accessible transportation encompasses public transport services; intercity, regional, national, and international transport by motor coaches, railway, marine vessels, and aircraft; intermodal linkages; personal vehicles; and pedestrian infrastructure. Also pointed out are the concepts that have taken 30 years to develop and are generally accepted throughout the developed world: Impairments only become barriers when the environment in general, and the transportation system in particular, creates demands that the individual cannot meet; Accessibility should be achieved through thoughtful design and system planning for the whole population; Mobility achieved by uncomfortable, dangerous, or undignified means is not acceptable; and Independence and the mobility required for independent living are rights.

Tsamboulas, D.A., And S. Kapros. “Decision-Making Process In Intermodal Transportation.” Transportation Research Record. no. 1707, pp. 86-93. 2000.

Abstract: A methodological framework with models is provided, which correlates behavioral and perceptual issues related to the use of intermodal transportation with the commonly used physical and economic criteria in modal choice approaches. With factor analysis, key variables and common decision patterns related to the choice of intermodal transportation are identified. Factor analysis is applied to capture the actors' (i.e., forwarders, shippers, and shipping lines) perception of the importance of variables affecting the decision-making process. With multiple regression analysis, models simulating the decision-making process are developed for actor groups, utilizing actual quantitative data of cost and performance of intermodal transportation services. Three decision patterns and the respective actor groups' profiles are identified. The first group consists of actors who decide almost exclusively according to the cost criterion. These actors are intensive users of intermodal transportation. The second group has actors who decide according to both quality and cost criteria; using intermodal transportation by this actor group constitutes a minor portion of its total transport volumes. The third group consists of actors who are influenced in their decisions by specific logistics needs, beyond the physical transportation activity itself. The offer of third-party end-haul operations or refrigerated storage areas is an example of such services, necessitating specific logistic support. For each actor group, a model is developed, which associates values of the quantitative variables affecting the decision-making process with the share of intermodal transportation in the total volume of transport handled by the group. The application of the model defines the extent to which changes in the values of relevant variables may shift a decision toward the use of intermodal transportation.

TR News Number 210. “The Telus Story: Information Tool For Transportation Planning Makes Its Debut.” pp. 9-12, pg. 25. September 2000.

71

Abstract: TELUS - the Transportation, Economic, and Land Use System - is a data management and decision support system that enables transportation agencies, particularly metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), to meet the requirements of federal law efficiently and effectively. Because of the expanded planning and programming responsibilities that the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) placed on MPOs, the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) - the fourth largest MPO in the nation - sought to develop a system that would enhance its capacity to meet the legislative mandates. NJTPA joined with the Institute for Transportation at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT-IT), which served as the lead research institution for the project, and the Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) at Rutgers University to design and implement TELUS. This article, after providing background information on the need for and development of TELUS, describes TELUS National Version 1.0, which was shipped to approximately 340 MPOs and 50 state departments of transportation (DOTs) in June 2000. The article also examines the options to be included in future versions of TELUS. Concluding comments concern how TELUS is enabling MPOs and state DOTs to make project information more available and more timely, and to conduct comprehensive and rigorous impact assessments of the TIP (transportation improvement program) or STIP (state TIP) and individual projects.

TR News Number 221. “River Efficiency, Fuel Taxes, And Modal Shifts: Tennessee Valley Authority Model Assists Policy Makers.” Pp 18 – 22. July 2002.

Abstract: Studying ways to measure the economic and social costs of the intermodal traffic shifts that would result from closing a waterway lock for reconstruction, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) developed a model for estimating river efficiency and fuel tax collections. TVA's River Efficiency Model (REM) revealed that the Ohio River ranks first in efficiency, closely followed by the Lower Mississippi. It also shows that tributary navigation feeding mainstream traffic generates 50% of the total fuel tax collections.

Transportation Research Circular E-C015. “Statewide Transportation Planning.” pg. v. April 2000.

Abstract: The focus of this conference was on the state of the practice of statewide transportation planning and preparing to meet the challenges of the 21st century. More than 90 people attended the conference, with over 30 states represented. The conference brought together a mix of state planning officials, representatives from the federal transportation agencies, and members from the private sector, academia, national organizations, and local planning organizations in an interactive dialog on current and future issues in statewide transportation planning. The conference was organized to provide the opportunity to present papers on the state of the practice and to provide an opportunity for the participants to discuss each topic in a workshop setting. This Circular presents the conference proceedings in the format of eight chapters. Chapter 1 presents the purpose, structure, and format of the conference and contains an executive summary of the conference. Chapter 2 contains the presentations from the opening session. Chapter 3 includes a number of keynote presentations that occurred throughout the conference. The discussion issues raised by the attendees during these presentations are also

72

included. Chapter 4 contains the papers presented on land-use and environmental considerations, discussion topics, and the results of the workshops on this topic. Chapters 5 through 8 present information in the same format for (a) performance-based planning, asset management, and management systems; (b) statewide goods movement and intermodal planning issues; (c) current trends in transportation planning; and (d) the changing statewide transportation planning process, respectively.

Transportation Research Circular E-C011. “The Rhode Island Statewide Travel Demand Forecasting Model.” pp. 83 - 100. September 1999.

Abstract: The Rhode Island Statewide Travel Demand Forecasting Model (the RI State Model) was prepared by Louis Berger & Associates under contract to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. The RI State Model facilitates the State of Rhode Island's compliance with air quality and congestion management requirements set forth by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments ( CAAA) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ( ISTEA). The initial use of the RI State Model was to evaluate Rhode Island's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to determine project conformity to requirements of the CAAA. Later the model was used in different studies, such as, corridor planning, traffic management, strategic planning, high occupancy vehicle studies, testing of travel demand management/transportation system management strategies, project level modeling, and testing land use scenarios and other congestion management strategies. Transportation Research Circular E-C011. “The Evolution Of A Statewide Model For New

Jersey.” pp. 45 - 50. September 1999.

Abstract: The state of New Jersey has twenty-one counties, and is located between two major cities, Philadelphia and New York City. There are three Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the state: the North Jersey Transportation Planning Agency (NJTPA), the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC), and the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO). The NJTPA region consists of the 13 northern New Jersey counties, and is a bridge crossing away from New York City. It is heavily influenced by the City. The DVPRC region consists of four New Jersey counties and five Pennsylvania counties including the City of Philadelphia. The SJTPO region covers the remaining four counties and includes Atlantic City. This region includes most of the New Jersey shore/ beach area, casinos and summer recreational markets. The three uniquely different MPO regions are represented by three unique transportation demand models. There are three transportation demand models corresponding to each of the MPOs. These models were originally developed to be used for regional transportation planning by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and the MPOs. Later, with the passing of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the expectations and uses for these models changed significantly. They would now be used for macro-scale and micro-scale types of analyses. New uses included support of the Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), Plan Conformity, TIP/SIP Conformity, air quality budgets, and others items. These additional demands on the models would result in greater scrutiny of the models' results and assumptions.

73

Transportation Research Circular 471. “Statewide Transportation Planning.” 69 pp. May 1997. Abstract: In June 1996, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning sponsored a national conference on statewide transportation planning that was held in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The purpose of the conference was to examine the state experience with Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA)-mandated statewide planning, and to discuss changes to the planning requirements in the forthcoming ISTEA reauthorization. The meeting was held in conjunction with the mid-year meeting of the Standing Committee on Planning of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Over 100 individuals attended the conference with 40 states represented. This circular contains the conference proceedings.

Vandeveer, D. “Intermodal Rail Facility Design For The Next Century”. Transportation Research Circular 459. pp.88 – 98 .June 1996 .

Abstract: Intermodal rail-handling facilities must be designed for long-term effectiveness. In addition, the importance of planning and designing intermodal rail facilities cannot be overemphasized from a land-use and master planning perspective. The constraints of accommodating intermodal's large track radii and adequate numbers and lengths of access, storage, and working tracks for trains, which are often more than one mile long, must take on a primary significance in overall land planning and transportation systems design. This expensive infrastructure may be difficult or impossible to modify in the future. Therefore, in designing intermodal rail facilities, it is important to get it right the first time. This paper explores the key factors and design guidelines that should be considered to ensure that intermodal rail facilities designed today will remain effective well into the next century.

VTRC (Virginia Transportation Research Council). VDOT (Virginia Department of transportation.). (FTA) Federal Highway Administration. Application Of A Statewide Intermodal Freight Planning Methodology. FHWA/VTRC 02-R5. August 2001.

Abstract: Anticipating the need for Virginia to comply with the new freight planning requirements mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the Virginia Transportation Research Council in 1998 developed a Statewide Intermodal Freight Transportation Planning Methodology, which provided a standard framework for identifying problems and evaluating alternative improvements to Virginia's freight transportation infrastructure. The first step in the methodology was to inventory the system. This study completed that step. In this study, a freight advisory committee, consisting of public and private freight stakeholders, was formed. Next, county-level commodity flow data were commercially procured. Using these data, Virginia's "key" commodities were identified, and the flows of these commodities were assigned to county- level origin-destination (O-D) tables. A geographic information system (GIS) database was developed that showed freight flows, county- level population and employment information, and Virginia's freight transportation network. With the use of various statistical analysis techniques, freight generation and attraction relationships were defined, and predictive equations were developed for each of Virginia's key commodities. Future

74

freight flows were predicted, and various models with which to distribute these future flows were evaluated. The freight transportation GIS database, along with the analytical tools to predict and display future freight flows within Virginia, provides the Virginia Department of Transportation and its Freight Advisory Committee the means by which to identify problems, establish performance measures, and develop and evaluate alternatives to improve the flow of freight into, out of, and within Virginia.

Whitney, D.E., J.C. Brill. “Development Of An Intermodal Transit Simulation And Its Application To The Frankford Transportation Center” Transportation Research Record no.1623, pp. 71 – 79 . 1998.

Abstract: A summary is presented of the design and application of a discrete event simulation model and animation of the proposed Frankford Transportation Center (FTC), an intermodal transportation facility being developed by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Combining bus, trackless trolley, automobile, train, and pedestrian movements in an integrated model, the simulation provided designers and the client with a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed design on surface transit operations and traffic flow both in and around the facility. Distinguishing features of the model architecture are discussed in the context of its application to the FTC. Results of the study, and their applicability to intermodal facilities, are presented.

Zimmer, R.N. “Designing Intermodal Terminals For Efficiency.” Transportation Research Circular 459. pp.99 – 109. June 1996 .

Abstract: The introduction of the double-stack container train in the mid-1980s brought railroads back to the waterfront at a level of activity that had not been observed before. Since that time, the term "intermodal" has become synonymous with the ubiquitous "box". Much effort has gone into speeding the movement of these containers from point A to point B, whether by water, rail, highway, or air. Seaports, airports, and railroads have worked to make the interface among transportation modes an integral part of the shipping system. For some, the search was for the ideal terminal that could be built on any piece of land and that would solve all modal interface problems. Sadly, no such treasure was found. Instead we find that the ideal terminal is not a certain physical configuration of pavement and tracks, but an organization of services integrated with a physical plant that meets the business needs of a specific marketplace. These physical plants may take many forms, which are influenced by the characteristics of the landscape, their proximity to the marine terminal or major industrial complex, their location relative to the mainline railroads, and their distance from the country's highway network. This paper looks at the early development of the modern intermodal terminal and the improvements made during the periods of rapid growth. It evaluates some facilities that work well and some that do not and explores the reasons why. The paper addresses current developments in equipment and labor use, reviews marine intermodal terminals and inland terminals, looks at the requirements of both good rubber-tired and steel-wheeled access to the terminal, and sets forth some guidelines for future intermodal terminal development, including the development of an inland seaport.

75

Theme 5 – Intermodal Transportation Education Needs Coogan, M. “ Opportunities For Technology Transfer.” Presented at the National Conference on

Developing a Research Framework for Intermodal Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 4 - 5, 1996. pp. 91-93.

Abstract: This paper briefly discusses some possible spin-off implications from the logistics revolution for two subjects--passenger intermodalism and public management. The discussion centers on a project called the I-95 Corridor Coalition which is looking at the idea of an advanced passenger information, an intermodal passenger information system. Downey, M.L., B.M. Alberts, G.J. Jeff. “Intermodal Transportation Education And Training.

Welcoming Remarks.” Presented at the Intermodal Transportation Education and Training, Washington, D.C., November 2 - 5, 1997. pp. 9 -14.

Abstract: Welcoming remarks are made to conference participants. Mortimer L. Downey, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, reviewed the ongoing efforts of the Department of Transportation in support of transportation education and training and encouraged participants to give their help, ideas and leadership to make intermodal education programs a continuing reality throughout America. Bruce M. Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chairman of the National Research Council, pointed out how transportation offers tremendous opportunities for young people in terms of careers and a vision for their future. He discussed how this conference fits into a broader context of what the Academy is doing in the area of education, and expounded three bottom lines relevant to this conference: (1) Science and scientific thinking are for all students, not just for those who might be scientists or engineers; (2) Science today is not the science that most parents remember learning in school; science is learning how to solve problems and science is inquiry; and (3) We need to connect science to the real world. Gloria J. Jeff, Acting Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, discussed the characteristics of an intermodal transportation education and training initiative - it must be international, it must be intermodal, it must lead to the development of an intelligent system, and it must be inclusive. She encouraged conference participants to take these characteristics to heart, realizing that this conference is the beginning of an effort to create the future transportation professional. Gansler, J.S. “Realizing An Intermodal Future Through Research And Development.” Presented

at the National Conference on Developing a Research Framework for Intermodal Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 4 - 5, 1996. pp. 54 - 63.

Abstract: In recent years the field of transportation has changed rapidly. A large variety of significant causes can be listed: widespread deregulation, globalization of industry (and the associated interna tionalization of competition), the explosion of information-age technology, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rapid growth in commercial and public transportation demands. These are but a few of the more dramatic drivers. It is the compounding effect of these events that is causing the need for rapid changes in America's overall transportation system and in the required actions by its principal participants. Following a discussion of these events and

76

their impacts, this paper addresses the following: Advanced Technology for Twenty-First Century Leadership; Stepping Up to the Public Need; National Security and Twenty-First Century Transportation; Intermodalism as the Key Element; and Intermodal Research and Development (R&D). The paper concludes with four steps that should be taken immediately if the United States is to achieve the desired transportation leadership position at the beginning of the twenty-first century: (1) increased government intermodal R&D funding to industry; ( 2) centralized oversight and control of R&D for the Department of Transportation; (3) enhanced institutional capability for R&D contracting and systems engineering; and (4) a senior R&D advisory board for the Secretary of Transportation. Grimm, L.G., R.P Elliott. “Accreditation Of Programs In Transportation Engineering: The

University Of Arkansas Experience.” Transportation Research Record. No. 1659, pp.141-144. 1999.

Abstract: At its annual meeting on July 25, 1997, the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET), granted initial accreditation to an advanced- level program in transportation engineering at the University of Arkansas. Not only was this one of the first baccalaureate or advanced- level engineering programs accredited under EAC's new outcomes-based Criteria 2000 process, but it also represented the first accredited program in transportation engineering at any college or university in the United States. With the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the establishment of the Mack- Blackwell Transportation Center at the University of Arkansas, the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering saw an opportunity to create a unique educational program. The program would address the multidisciplinary requirements of the transportation engineering profession in a more comprehensive manner than traditional programs oriented to civil engineering. Bringing together a mix of civil- engineering-oriented transportation planning, traffic engineering, and facility design courses along with requirements for exposure to private- sector transportation and logistics issues through the school of business, the University of Arkansas has created a model for an accredited program in transportation engineering. The development of this program is discussed, along with the manner in which the EAC Criteria 2000 were applied, and what should be considered the basic elements of an advanced- level program in transportation engineering. Hicks, T. “Maryland Traffic Engineering Skills Training-Test.” Presented at the Improving

Transportation Systems Safety and Performance. 2001 Spring Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, California, March 25 – 28, 2001. pg. 8.

Abstract: The Maryland State Highway Administration is embarking on an ambitious educational and training program for traffic engineers, professionals, and technicians involved in the planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of traffic control strategies and devices. Through the changing highway transportation scene caused by the Governor's Smart Growth initiatives, greater emphasis has been placed on the operation and management of existing highway transportation facilities. It becomes evident that traffic engineering will play a greater role in the quest for safer roads and roads that will be capable of handling greater capacity. Along with providing streets and highways that are safer with minimized congestion,

77

the issues of aggressive driving, motor carrier transport, pedestrian movement, bicycles, and intermodal transfer points need to be included in the program. In order to adequately address changing and emerging transportation issues, a full range of training opportunities will be provided to all levels of employees of the Maryland State Highway Administration. These courses will include all facets of traffic engineering and control such as studies, planning, design, construction, operations, maintenance, electronic/electrical, shop work, field installations, human factors, and oral and written communication skills. The courses will be coordinated with the University of Maryland T2 Center and be taught by recognized professionals in their field and supported by University staff. Khisty, C.J. “ Education And Training Of Transportation Engineers And Planners Vis-A- Vis Public Involvement.” Transportation Research Record. no.1552, pp. 171-176. 1996. Abstract: Public involvement in transportation investment decision making is central to accomplishing the vision of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration are striving to promote this objective in the face of several problems, some of which stem from the biased education and training of engineers and planners. The predominant emphasis of the majority of planners has been and continues to be on technical issues to the exclusion of communicative action and emancipatory interest, resulting in planners not being able to cope with the demands of participatory democracy. The basic concepts of communicative action that need to be incorporated in the education and training of engineers and planners to equip them to deal effectively with citizen participation are introduced. It is recommended that in the changed context in which transportation engineers and planners will have to operate, it is essential that they gain competency beyond just technical areas and be competent to cope with the social, economic, and political dimensions of planning by gaining an understanding of the rudiments of communicative action. A blend of all three rationalities and interests (technical, communicative, and emancipatory) will have to form part of the day-to- day vocabulary and knowledge base of future planners in view of the importance of public participation in the transportation planning process. An appropriate graduate course on this topic is outlined. Krebs, R.D. “Intermodal Transportation Education And Training. Keynote Address.” Presented

at the Intermodal Transportation Education and Training, Washington, D.C., November 2 - 5, 1997. pp. 17-19.

Abstract: Pointing out that we need fundamental changes in the education of lay people and of professionals if we are to maximize the benefits of intermodalism, Robert D. Krebs, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, notes the following: (1) Many transportation officials do not come from transportation degree programs, which should be reflected in education and training programs for the profession; (2) Core business curricula should include logistics and intermodal transportation courses, as well as, those in marketing, accounting, and finance; (3) New applications for transportation and intermodalism do not come from a textbook; they come from real- life experiences - therefore, we need to educate the educator; (4) Private companies need to support transportation education by providing financial support, contributing teachers, and participating

78

in courses; and (5) More research is needed on intermodalism, and these research results need to be incorporated into education and training. Meyer, M.D. “Intermodal Transportation Education And Training. Charge To The Conference.”

Presented at the Intermodal Transportation Education and Training, Washington, D.C., November 2 - 5, 1997. pp. 15 -16.

Abstract: The conference was charged with examining the education and training needs related to all aspects of intermodal transportation - technology, advanced logis tics, information systems, planning, and management. The basic point of departure was to adopt a "total systems perspective" on transportation, to consider the bigger picture - customer orientation and an understanding of the movement of both people and goods from origin to destination. Meyer, M.D. “Educating And Training Tomorrow's Transportation Professionals.” Presented at

the National Conference on Developing a Research Framework for Intermodal Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 4 - 5, 1996. pp. 76 - 78.

Abstract: This paper discusses intermodalism from the perspective of transportation education and training. It points out that intermodal transportation is an area in which many trends and changing societal characteristics will greatly affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the intermodal movement of people and goods, and that these trends and characteristics also affect education and training, in that one of the major responsibilities of the educational system is to make sure that the education today will prepare transportation professionals for the world they will face tomorrow. Four basic categories of knowledge should be provided in an intermodal transportation education: (1) a clear understanding of the function of transportation systems; (2) a sensitivity to the relationships and linkages between transportation and its surroundings, whether they be the natural environment or communities; (3) analytical approaches to solving problems, which includes an understanding of what types of solution strategies are feasible, how they can be analyzed, and the analytical requirements of effective problem solving; and (4) how to implement the recommended strategy. Also, every research project that emanates from programs such as the National Cooperative Highway Research Program or Department of Transportation programs should be required to have an educational module that allows those involved in education and training to incorporate the material into courses. Simonetta, R., J. Crowe, R. Martinez, A. Gellman. “Intermodal Transportation Education And

Training. Response To Keynote Address.” Presented at the Intermodal Transportation Education and Training, Washington, D.C., November 2 - 5, 1997. pp. 20-26.

Abstract: A panel of four distinguished individuals representing different perspectives on transportation - education, operations and planning, passengers, and freight - responded to the keynote address. Richard Simonetta, Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transportation Authority, agreed with the keynote address that there has been a lack of real success in the passenger side of intermodalism and there is a need for a real vision for the future. Jeff Crowe, Landstar System, Inc., relates the comments from the keynote address to the truck-rail-truck system, truck-vessel-linehaul system, and truck-air-truck system, concluding that there are significant opportunities

79

for change if we can begin to educate people at a young age. Robert Martinez, Secretary of Transportation for the Commonwealth of Virginia, comments on the qualities we need to look for in future transportation professionals. Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University, comments on "education for intermodalism" and on the need to bring together the different schools or departments (industrial engineering, civil engineering, etc.) that have an interest in logistics matters, even though this is very difficult to do because of differences in salaries and different calendars for the different schools. Strauss-Wieder, A. “National Conference On Developing A Research Framework For

Intermodal Transportation. Executive Summary.” Presented at the National Conference on Developing a Research Framework for Intermodal Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 4 - 5, 1996. pp.1 - 12.

Abstract: In March 1996 the Transportation Research Board (TRB) convened 140 prominent professionals from industry, academia, government, and the military to discuss the possibility of developing a framework for intermodal transportation research--one that would respond to a nexus of intermodal interests among three sectors of intermodal activity: the private/commercial sector, the public sector, and the U.S. military. The conference and town hall meeting were designed to review current practices, as well as, the future vision of these three communities. The event brought together innovators from each of the three sectors to discuss the internal and external forces that are shaping their intermodal logistical activities. The objectives were to present a preliminary framework for intermodal research issues. The conference summary suggested that the intermodal future would be most efficiently addressed by a robust partnership involving the world-class U.S. commercial intermodal community, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and local, state, and international counterparts. It also presented a professional critique and input on the framework aimed at the removal of institutional barriers, strategic partnering, technology investment approaches, management of a transport "system", development of intermodal management tools, improving system capacities, and determining responsibilities for funding and carrying out a research agenda. The conference was designed to examine and test four basic hypotheses that suggest a rationale for a research framework to study the integrated use of multiple modes of transportation. The four hypotheses were: (1) Integration of Transportation Modes Is Crucial: Intermodalism Adds Value; (2) A Nexus of Interests Has Formed: An Enterprise-Level Response Addresses All Sectors; (3) Complex and Multiple Imperatives Drive the Need: Now Is the Time to Respond; and (4) Coordinated and Collaborative Research Highlight Complementarily: Benefits Are Multiplied. The conference included the presentation of commissioned papers, panel presentations, and open forum discussions. TR News 191. “Changing The Face Of Research: Partnering With Industry And Academia At WISDOT.” pg. 4. July 1997. Abstract: This article discusses changes in the research activities at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) as a result of the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA). Under the act, 25% of ISTEA-mandated federal State Planning and Research funds (formerly HPR funds) must be used to support research. Consequently, some

80

$1,300,000 is earmarked annually for this activity at WisDOT (formerly only 5% of HPR funds were allocated for research). Also, because State Planning and Research funds are designated for multimodal research, rather than just highway research, WisDOT has broadened its focus to include transit, rail, harbor, freight, and other modal investigations. And because the funds can be used to support "soft" research, the department is no longer concentrating only on "hard/applied" engineering research, but is also conducting management-related or cost-benefit research. Beyond expanding the focus and scope of the department's research, the broader use of federal funds has opened the door to the formal involvement of nonhighway organizations in the research. WisDOT has taken advantage of this opportunity, forming a partnership with the construction industry and academia that is helping the department's Council on Research pursue proactive, needs-based studies. Further details are provided in this article. TRB (Transportation Research Board). National Conference On Developing A Research

Framework For Intermodal Transportation. Proceedings Of A Conference On Setting An Intermodal Research Framework, Washington, D.C., March 4-5, 1996.

Abstract: The conference on Setting an Intermodal Research Framework brought together a distinguished assembly of public officials, academicians, commercial leaders, and military specialists. During the conference, each of these groups of professionals found noteworthy synergies in their intermodal interests. Papers contained in these proceedings reflect those synergies. The conference was another step toward a strengthened intermodal partnership. Turnbull, K.F. “Transportation Planning Education In Urban And Regional Planning Graduate

Programs.” Transportation Research Record. no. 1498, pp. 57-64. 1995.

Abstract: Recent federal legislation has resulted in significant changes in the transportation planning and decision-making process. The Clean Air Act Amendments, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other regulations establish new federal priorities for the surface transportation system and contain guidelines for planning, financing, and administering the different modes. Transportation planners with a wide variety of skills will be needed by public agencies and private businesses to adequately respond to these new responsibilities. Educational programs, especially those at the graduate level, must be attuned to these changes to help ensure that the current and future demands for transportation professionals are met. In this research the skills and areas of expertise needed in the transportation planning marketplace were examined and the responsiveness of current urban and regional graduate planning programs to meeting those demands was analyzed. This was accomplished through an analysis of recent federal legislation, national research problem statements, interviews with 46 transportation professionals, and a survey of 78 graduate planning programs in the United States. The research results indicate that while the current transportation planning curriculum addresses many of the existing and anticipated demands of the transportation marketplace, improvements are needed to adequately prepare graduate students for future jobs. The research identified 12 knowledge and nine skill areas as important for future transportation professionals. The evaluation of the current curriculum indicates that many, but

81

not all, of these areas are being addressed. Based on this analysis, knowledge and skill areas are identified for more extensive coverage in graduate courses.

Theme 6 – Security

Aultman-Hall, L., B. Johnson, and B. Aldridge. “Assessing Potential For Modal Substitution From Statewide Freight Commodity Flow Data.” Transportation Research Record. no. 1719, pp. 10 - 16. 2000.

Abstract: Kentucky, despite its relatively small area, has an extensive multimodal freight transportation network. Presented are findings of the statewide freight commodity flow analysis that relate to one of the multimodal transportation planning issues currently facing Kentucky--the relative role of various modes in freight transport and the potential for modal substitution. Issues affecting the type of data required for statewide freight planning studies also are discussed. Statewide issues, such as modal substitution questions, require freight commodity data by origin, destination, and mode. The aggregation of data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or other publicly available data was considered unfeasible and the study team was referred to Reebie Associates for detailed freight commodity flow information. The Reebie freight commodity flow data were analyzed by mode, commodity, and spatial zone within Kentucky to determine where the potential for modal substitution was greatest. Three areas of the state were found in which improvements for intermodal facilities for water and rail transportation might be considered. The data confirmed the extent of Kentucky's multimodal reliance, that is, the majority of freight (by weight and volume) traveling to and from Kentucky moves by nonhighway modes. However, it was also noted that rail and water connections between Kentucky and certain areas of the United States may need further consideration because almost all freight to and from these areas moves by truck. Several other projects within the state are ongoing with these data.

Cook, B. “ The Air Cargo Industry: Will The Road To Recovery Be Plagued By Security Roadblocks?” Airport Magazine. Vol. 14, no. 2, 6 pg. March 2002.

Abstract: The air cargo industry experienced a difficult year in 2001, but the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts a slow recovery over the next few years. Combined domestic and international cargo in 2001 was down by almost 11 percent from 2000, according to Air Transport Association figures. This was due, in part, to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but the industry was also seeing a decline earlier in the year because of the general slump in the economy. A 3.5 increase in domestic freight/express revenue ton miles in calendar year 2002 is predicted by the FAA. A directive to strengthen security standards for transporting cargo on passenger flights had a significant impact on air cargo, including a shift from passenger carriers to all-cargo flights. This will significantly increase costs for air shippers. Intermodal links will become increasingly important in the new shipping environment. The air carrier industry's reaction to this new environment is discussed.

82

Waterways Journal Weekly. “Report Says 9/11 Attacks Reveal Needed Changes In Transport System.” 2 pg. February 11, 2002.

Abstract: A report from the National Center for Intermodal Transportation warns that the attacks of September 11 show that the U.S. transportation system need drastic reworking to make it safer from terrorist threats. The report recommended that al modes, rail, highway, water, transit and air, should be linked in such a way as to create a redundant system in the event one or more modes is disabled. It warned against excessive reliance on commercial airlines for passenger travel and recommended the US DOT be more aggressive about considering use of high-speed trains and encourage conventional trains to establish more frequent service on shorter routes to make up for air travel. It termed the current governmental approach to transportation planning "anachronistic" because of its separate consideration of different modes. It also called for streamlining freight handling at major airports and hubs. Weber, F., J.A. Kinghorn, J. Caponiti, J.M. Ledden, W. Lucas. “ National Security And

Defense.” Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century, Long Beach, California, February 23 - 26, 2000. pp. 105-116.

Abstract: This conference panel session focuses on national security and defense. It reviews lessons learned and demands on the intermodal system as military commercial partnering for intermodal freight movements increases. F. Weber provides an overview. J.A. Kinghorn discusses critical infrastructure protection and what our needs are in this area. J. Caponiti focuses on the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement program ( VISA program). J.M. Ledden discusses the history and future of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) of the U.S. Air Mobility Command. W. Lucas reviews Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) security programs. North, R., A. Spear, S. Flynn, J. McGowan, J. Black. “Cargo Clearance, Security, And Safety.”

Presented at the Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century, Long Beach, California, February 23 - 26, 2000. pp. 70 -83.

Abstract: This conference panel session focuses on issues such as, border and port of entry clearance, international equipment and safety standards, efficient transfer of goods, cargo theft and liability, cargo crime, and security issues. R. North provides an overview. A. Spear addresses the topic of cargo crimes investigation. S. Flynn discusses incorporating security into the global system for intermodal freight movements. J. McGowan describes the activities of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports. J. Black discusses the formation and guidelines of TAPA, the Technology Asset Protection Association, which is composed of the security directors of the top 60 high-tech companies in the United States. Compton, R. “The Role Of Intermodalism In Future Military Mobilizations” Presented at the

National Conference on the Intermodal Freight Terminal of the Future, New Orleans, Louisiana, December 7 - 9, 1994. pp. 7-11.

83

Abstract: This paper addresses the following questions as they relate to the role of intermodalism in future military mobilizations: How do we respond to future contingencies? How large a force must be mobilized? How do we get the divisions to the ports? Concerning the sealift, what types of vessels are required and how many are needed? What are the features of the ideal intermodal marine terminal? How can the intermodalism industry help? As the military transporters look to the future, they try to imagine what changes that future will bring. The commercial sealift industry is changing. The terminals of today are significantly different from those of yesterday, and tomorrow's terminals will change even more. The military must work with the industry to ensure these changes will offer solutions to the military deployment problem, not greater challenges. Environmental Knatz, G., A. Hendrix, C. Cutshall, T. Wakeman III. “Environmental Issues.” Presented at the

Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century, Long Beach, California, February 23 - 26, 2000. pp. 151-160.

Abstract: This conference panel session focuses on environmental issues, in particular what the transportation industry may face in the future. G. Knatz provides an overview. A. Hendrix highlights three major issues: air emissions from all modes and the impact on air quality; the need for technologies to reduce noise, particularly from trucks, rail, and at the localized level from airplanes; and water-quality controls. C. Cutshall focuses on what has become a hodgepodge of laws and regulations associated with the permitting process that confronts transportation projects. T. Wakeman discusses the challenges faced by the port community in getting approval for and undertaking dredging projects. Siwek, S.J. “Integrated Transportation Management Systems Environmental Considerations And

Issues.” Presented at the Second National Symposium on Integrated Transportation Management Systems, Seattle, Washington, May 5 - 10, 1995. pp. 76-81.

Abstract: There is an increased emphasis on Integrated Transportation Management Systems (ITMS), as well as, advanced technology applications such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to manage the Nation's transportation system more effectively and efficiently. While the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) directly authorized more than $660 million for ITS, with the likelihood of very substantial expenditures of funds through other program categories, the full potential of the more sophisticated of these systems will not be realized for many years. Moreover, many of the ITS applications depend heavily on the successful implementation of ITMS, including many first generation ITS applications, which are in place or being implemented in many locations throughout the United States. Integration of the various components of existing systems and modes through applications such as smart traffic signals, synchronized signal systems in major travel corridors, and traveler information systems providing real time information offers immediate and short term opportunities for ITMS to play a critical role in our ability to address congestion and environmental concerns in urban areas. The

84

potential of ITMS to fully integrate transit systems into traffic and highway systems is especially promising. Further discussion of this topic is provided in this resource paper. Sheppard, E.J. “Obstacles To Port Operation And Development: Dredging And Other

Environmental Constraints.” Presented at the National Conference on the Intermodal Freight Terminal of the Future, New Orleans, Louisiana, December 7 - 9, 1994. pp. 31 – 42.

Abstract: Steps must be taken to prevent environmental protection laws from choking U.S. ports and crippling the nation's capacity to engage in maritime commerce. It would be catastrophic if the United States were unable to capitalize on the liberalization of international trade because of well- intentioned environmental regulations that not only are allowing the nation's navigable channels to be filled with silt but also are draining limited development funds. Legislative action is urgently required to ensure a balanced administration of U.S. environmental laws. The severity of the crisis facing U.S. ports is familiar to anyone involved in any aspect of the industry, from port administrators and dock workers to shipping line managers. A poll conducted by the American Association of Port Authorities indicates that as port planners and administrators look to the next century, they are most concerned with "coming up with the money to pay for facility development, dealing with environmental regulations and getting timely dredging approvals". These concerns are interrelated with the costs of meeting environmental regulations that place increasing demands on port budgets. This paper examines a number of the most severe regulatory constraints in practice, discusses the status of recent reform proposals, and suggests some reforms in existing practice and law. Barth, M.J., R.R. Tadi. “Emissions Comparison Between Truck And Rail: Case Study Of California I-40.” Transportation Research Record. no. 1520, pp. 44 – 52. 1996. Abstract: A comprehensive goods movement study of the California Interstate 40 corridor (from Barstow to Needles) has recently been completed. This study attempted to characterize goods movement in the region, perform a corridor emissions analysis, and make recommendations in terms of capacity and improvements, as well as, economic feasibility of using rail in conjunction with trucks for goods movement. The emissions analysis of goods movement along the I-40 corridor is examined, specifically emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter associated with both truck and rail traffic. Heavy-duty diesel truck emissions are estimated using truck activity data recorded along the corridor. A unique methodology is used to calculate these truck emissions, incorporating road grade factors and determining engine load on a link-by- link basis. These emissions are then compared with the emissions associated with freight trains that travel along this I-40 corridor. On the basis of current ( 1994) truck and rail volumes, it was found that goods moved by rail produced lower emissions, except for NOx, which is slightly higher for rail. The factor decrease of other pollutants ranges from 2.49 to 8. 50, which is consistent with other recent studies. Given the amount of pollutants produced by trucks, shifting some of the freight from trucks to rail with a greater emphasis on intermodal business should reduce the total freight emissions along the I-40 corridor.

85

Bester, N.L. “Incorporating Energy Criteria In Intermodal Transportation Policy Decisions.” Transportation Research Record. no. 1522 , pp 83 – 86. 1996.

Abstract: Regional and local governments are collectively responsible for maintaining the economic health of their communities and managing traffic congestion, air quality, land use, and other related growth- management issues. Yet global climate change and air quality problems result from the consumption of energy in the production of goods and services that help sustain the economy. Public policy solutions to such problems are often difficult to design because of the interrelated nature of the environment, economic activities, and the infrastructure that links them together. A conceptual framework for thinking about the market behavior of consumers and producers as cost minimizers and offering a new way to design public policies using economic and energy efficiency goals is presented for the use of public-policy makers. Production theory can be used to explain how land, vehicles, infrastructure, and energy are combined to produce transportation goods and services. Heat and waste by-products from the production process act as the precursors of air pollution and other global climate-change problems. If public policies are designed to minimize such problems, policy analysis methods need to include those factors that help determine the cost and benefits of prospective policy alternatives, as well as information on how the net benefits of such policies are redistributed in society. A list of criteria to use in selecting analysis methods for this purpose is suggested.

86

APPENDIX B – List of Out-of-State Agencies Surveyed

Chief Statewide Planning Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive, Room 200 Juneau, AK 99801 Deputy State Engineer for the Development Program Intermodal Transportation Division 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Planning and Research Division Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Intermodal Transportation Management System Branch CALTRANS P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Office of Goods Movement CALTRANS P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Division of Transportation Development Intermodal Planning Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 E Arkansas Av Denver, CO 80222 Intermodal Programming and Policy Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06131-7546 Delaware Department of Transportation Headquarters - Administration Center 800 Bay Road, P.O. Box 778 Dover, DE 19903 Statewide Planning and Policy Analysis Manager FDOT Office of Policy Planning Florida Department of Transportation Mail Station 28 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Office of Intermodal Programs Georgia Department of Transportation 276 Memorial Drive, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Statewide Transportation Planning Office 869 Punchbowl Street, Suite 404 Honolulu, HI 96813 Rail Transportation Planning Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Systems Planning 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 Office of Public Transit 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 Office of Aviation Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 Intermodal Planning Manager Idaho Department of Transportation P.O. Box 7129 Boise, ID 83707-1129 Bureau Of Statewide Program Planning Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764 Multi-Modal Transportation Division Indiana Department of Transportation 100 N. Senate Ave. Room IGCN 755 Indianapolis, IN 46204 DOTD Aviation Program Manager Aviation Division P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 Bureau of Transportation Planning Kansas Department of Transportation 915 Harrison, Room 754 - Docking State Office Building Topeka, KS 66612-1568

87

Statewide Planning Bureau of Planning 16 State House Station Augusta, Maine, 04333-0016 Maryland Transportation Authority Engineering Division 300 Authority Drive Dundalk, Maryland 21222 Maryland Transit Administration William Donald Schaefer Tower 6 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1614 Maryland Port Administration World Trade Center 401 E. Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Chief, Regional and Intermodal Planning Division MSHA 707 North Calvert Mail Stop C502 Baltimore, MA 21202 Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development Massachusetts Highway Department 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3510 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Freight Services and Safety Division Michigan Department of Transportation 425 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, MI48909 Modal Operations Division Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, MN 55155 Intermodal Planning Mississippi Department of Transportation P.O. Box 1850 Jackson, MS 39215-1850 MoDOT Aviation Section P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, MO 65102

Transportation Planning Unit Missouri Department of Transportation P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Mo. 65102 Rail, Transit and Planning Division Montana Department of Transportation PO Box 201001 2701 Prospect Ave. Helena, MT 59620-1001 Rail and Public Transportation Nebraska Department of Roads P.O. Box 94759 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4759 Program Development Office Nevada Department of Transportation 1263 South Stewart Street Carson City, Nevada 89712 Rail & Public Transit New Hampshire Department of Transportation Room G25 JOM Building 1 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH Transportation Planning New Hampshire Department of Transportation Room G01 JOM Building 1 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH Director of Intermodal Coordination New Jersey Department of Roads P.O. Box 600 Trenton, NJ 08625-0600 Port Authority of NY & NJ 777 Jersey Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07310 Rail Bureau New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 1149 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1149 NYS Passenger Transportation Division Building 4-115 1220 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12232-0414

88

Deputy Secretary for Transit North Carolina Department of Transportation 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699-1501 Rail Division North Carolina Department of Transportation 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, 27699-1553 Division of Aviation North Carolina Department of Transportation 1560 Mail Service Center Raleigh 27699-1560 Ferry Division North Carolina Department of Transportation 113 Arendell Street, Room 120 Morehead City, NC 28557 Bicycle and Pedestrian Division North Carolina Department of Transportation 1552 Mail Service Center Raleigh, 27699-1552 Statewide Planning Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation 1554 Mail Service Center Raleigh, 27699-1554 Planning & Programming North Dakota Department of Transportation 608 East Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505-0700 Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Systems Analysis Planning 1980 West Broad Street, 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43223 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager Oregon Department of Transportation 355 Capitol St. NE Salem OR 97301-3871 State Rail Planner Oregon Department of Transportation 355 Capitol St. NE Salem OR 97301-3871 Public Transit Division Oregon Department of Transportation 355 Capitol St. NE Salem OR 97301-3871

Planning Division Oklahoma Department of Transportation 200 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 PENNDOT Central Office Keystone Building 400 North Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 Policy & Planning Division Rhode Island Department of Transportation Two Capitol Hill Providence, RI 02903 Long Range Plan, Statewide & RR Planning Specialist South Dakota Depart ment of Transportation 700 E. Broadway Ave., Becker-Hansen Building Pierre, SD 57501 Transportation Planning Office Suite 900, James K. Polk Building 505 Deaderick St. Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0344 Texas Department of Transportation Transportation Planning and Programming Division 125 E. 11th St. Austin, Texas 78701-2483 Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division 125 E. 11th St. Austin, Texas 78701-2483 Texas Department of Transportation Public Transportation Division 125 E. 11th St. Austin, Texas 78701-2483 Railroad Planner UDOT Program Development 4501 South 2700 West Box 143600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-3600 Bicycle & Pedestrian Planner UDOT Program Development 4501 South 2700 West Box 143600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-3600

89

Rail Industrial Development and Planning Manager Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation P. O. Box 590 Richmond, VA 23218-0590 Public Transportation Division Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation P. O. Box 590 Richmond, VA 23218-0590 Multi-Modal Planning Coordinator Vermont Agency of Transportation 1 National Life Drive Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633-0001 Inter-Modal Planning Coordinator Vermont Agency of Transportation 1 National Life Drive Drawer 33 Montpelier, VT 05633-000 Transportation Building Washington State Department of Transportation 310 Maple Park Avenue SE PO Box 47300 Olympia WA 98504-7300

West Virginia Department of Transportation State Rail Authority 1120 Water Plant Drive Moorefield, WV 26836 West Virginia Department of Transportation Division of Public Transit Building 5, Room A-830 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV West Virginia Department of Transportation Aeronautics Commission Building 5, Room A-512 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25305-0430 West Virginia Public Port Authority 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East Building 5, Room 512 Charleston, WV 25302 Bureau of Planning Wisconsin Department of Transportation Hill Farms State Office Building 4802 Sheboygan Ave. PO Box 7910 Madison, WI 53707-7910 Engineering & Planning Wyoming Department of Transportation. 5300 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne WY 82009-3340

90

Out-of-state Survey 1. Does your agency perform or otherwise oversee multimodal or intermodal transportation

planning?

� YES � NO

2. Has your agency performed/overseen an Intermodal Management System (IMS) study?

� YES � NO If so, when was it last updated? .

3. Please place an “X” in the appropriate cell of the table below to indicate intermodal passenger transfer facilities under your planning jurisdiction.

To From

Private Auto

Rental Auto

Taxi Shuttle Bus

Tour Bus

Transit Bus

Intercity Train

Air Bicycle Ped

Private Auto

Rental Auto

Taxi

Shuttle Bus

Tour Bus

Transit Bus

Intercity Train

Air

Bicycle

Ped

91

4. Please place an “X” in the appropriate cell of the table below to indicate intermodal freight

transfer facilities under your planning jurisdiction.

To From

Water Truck Air Pipeline Rail

Water

Truck

Air

Pipeline

Rail

5. What percentage (roughly) of the projects in your current Statewide Transportation Plan are non-highway oriented or multimodal in scope (e.g., transit, rail)?

6. Does your agency collect freight movement data?

� YES � NO (if no, please skip to question 8)

If so, how would you rate its availability? � Readily available � Somewhat available � No opinion � Somewhat difficult to obtain � Very difficult to obtain

7. Do you have a formal procedure to obtain freight data?

� YES � NO

If so, do shippers regularly report data or does your agency have to make specific requests for data?

� Shippers report � Agency request

Does any official procedure exist by which you obtain freight data (reporting forms, regular updates, etc.)?

� YES � NO

92

8. In your opinion, where do transportation engineers and planners learn about multimodal/intermodal transportation issues? Please check all that apply.

� College (undergraduate) � Graduate education � Professional training (e.g., short courses, seminars) � On-the-job � No real opportunities � Other .

9. What do you think are the most critical issues in multimodal/intermodal transportation planning

in your State? Please check all that apply and feel free to elaborate.

� Corridor definition � Capacity definition/analysis methods � Economic development/ land use impacts � Public funding/ private facilities � Lack of training/education in multimodal transportation

� Accessibility/availability of data

10. What multimodal/intermodal transportation-oriented research topics would you like to see addressed your State (or elsewhere)?

11. Any additional information or comments:

12. Would you be interested in the results of this study?

� YES � NO

93

Out-of-state Cover Letter Date Name Agency Address City, State ZIP Name: The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) under support from the University Transportation Center of Alabama (UTCA) is conducting a research project to identify multimodal/intermodal transportation planning research needs. We are particularly interested in assessing State-level interests and needs. You will find enclosed a brief survey and return envelope. The survey is intended to allow you, or someone on your staff, to provide input on research needs that might be relevant to multimodal/intermodal transportation planning in your State. There are also a few questions on the survey designed to allow us to understand your agencies involvement with multimodal/intermodal transportation issues. It is intended that the results of this survey will aid the UTCA and the Alabama Department of Transportation in defining a research program that addresses the unique aspects relevant to multimodal/intermodal transportation issues. Obviously, not all questions will be applicable to all States – we ask that you please give us as much information as you can on the applicable questions and simply leave blank the ones that do not apply. We appreciate you participation in the survey. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (see attached business card). Thank you very much for you participation. Regards, Steven L. Jones, Jr. Assistant Professor

94

APPENDIX C List of In-State Agencies Surveyed

Alabama-Tombigbee Regional Commission 107 Broad Street Camden, Alabama 36726 East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission P.O. Box 2186 Anniston, AL 36202 Lee-Russell Council of Governments 2207 Gateway Drive Opelika, Alabama 36801-6834 Montgomery Metropolitan Planning Organization 125 Washington Avenue, Third Floor Montgomery, Alabama 36104 North-central Alabama Regional Council of Governments P. O. Box C Decatur, Alabama 35602 Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham Magnolia Office Park, Suite 220 2112 11th Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 35256-4799 SEARP&DC Post Office Box 1406 Dothan, Alabama 36302 South Alabama Regional Planning Commission 651 Church Street P. O. Box 1665 Mobile, Alabama 36633 South Central Alabama Development Commission 5900 Carmichael Place Montgomery, Alabama 36117 TARCOG 115 Washington Street, S.E. Huntsville, Alabama 35801 West Alabama Planning and Development Council 4200 Highway 69 North, Suite 1 Northport, AL 35476

95

In-state Survey 1. Does your agency perform or otherwise oversee any multimodal or intermodal transportation

planning?

� YES � NO

2. Has your agency performed an Intermodal Management System (IMS) study?

� YES � NO If so, when was it last updated? . Would it be possible for us to get a copy of the document?

� YES � NO

3. What types of modal facilities exist within your region? Feel free to list any major facilities in

your region of which you think we should make special note.

� Bus (fixed-route) Transit System � Paratransit � Intercity Passenger Bus (e.g. Greyhound) � Major Trucking Facilities (e.g., UPS or FedEX transfer facilities) � Freight Rail Facilities (e.g., transfer yards) � Passenger Rail Stations � Port Facilities � Airport Facilities

96

4. Please fill in the appropriate cell of the table below to indicate intermodal passenger transfer facilities in your region. Place an “E” for existing, “P” for planned, or leave blank if not applicable.

To From

Private Auto

Rental Auto

Taxi Shuttle Bus

Tour Bus

Transit Bus

Intercity Train

Air Bicycle Ped

Private Auto

Rental Auto

Taxi

Shuttle Bus

Tour Bus

Transit Bus

Intercity Train

Air

Bicycle

Ped

5. Please fill in the appropriate cell of the table below to indicate intermodal freight transfer facilities in your region. Place an “E” for existing, “P” for planned, or leave blank if not applicable.

To From

Water Truck Air Pipeline Rail

Water

Truck

Air

Pipeline

Rail

97

6. What percentage (roughly) of the projects in your current Transportation Improvement Program

are non-highway oriented or multimodal in scope (e.g., transit, rail)?

Would it be possible for us to get a copy of most recent TIP?

� YES � NO

7. What percentage (roughly) of the projects in your current Long-Range Transportation Plan are non-highway oriented or multimodal in scope (e.g., transit, rail)?

Would it be possible for us to get a copy of most recent LRTP?

� YES � NO

8. What do you think are the most critical issues in multimodal transportation planning in your region? Please check all that apply and feel free to elaborate.

� Corridor definition � Capacity definition/analysis methods � Economic development/ land use impacts � Public funding/ private facilities � Lack of training/education in multimodal transportation

9. What do you think are the most critical issues related to statewide multimodal transportation

planning in Alabama?

98

10. In your opinion, where do transportation engineers and planners learn about multimodal/intermodal transportation issues? Please check all that apply.

� College (undergraduate) � Graduate education � Professional training (e.g., short courses, seminars) � On-the-job � No real opportunities � Other .

11. Would you be interested in multimodal/intermodal education opportunities in Alabama?

� YES � NO

12. Any additional information or comments:

13. Would you be interested in the results of this study?

� YES � NO

99

In-state Cover Letter Date Name Agency Address City, Alabama ZIP Name: The department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) is currently conducting a research project to identify multimodal/intermodal transportation planning research needs around the State. We are looking to transportation professionals throughout Alabama (private sector entities and public agencies at the local, regional, and State levels) to identify areas of interest and/or need with regard to multimodal/intermodal transportation planning research in Alabama. You will find enclosed a brief survey and return envelope. The survey is intended to allow you or someone on your staff to provide input on research needs that might be relevant to multimodal/intermodal transportation planning in your area. There are also a few questions on the survey designed to allow us to understand your agencies involvement with multimodal/intermodal transportation issues. Obviously, not all questions will be applicable to all the MPO’s around the State – we ask that you please give us as much information as you can on the applicable questions and simply leave blank the ones that do not apply. We appreciate you participation in the survey. It is intended that the results of this study will be used to develop a stronger focus on multimodal/intermodal issues in future transportation research projects in the State. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (see attached business card). Thank you very much for you participation. Regards, Steven L. Jones, Jr.

100

APPENDIX D – Example College Level Multimodal Transportation-related Courses

Name Of Institution Course Name University of Tennessee Intermodal Transportation and Safety

Arizona State University Strategic Multi-Modal Transportation Planning

Polytechnic University Manhattan Intermodal Facilities: Operations And Management

Florida International University Planning & Design of Intermodal Facilities

Georgia Institute of Technology Multimodal Planning, Design and Operations

Nassau Community College: State University of New York Systems of Intermodal Transportation College of Charleston • Intermodal Transportation Systems

• Intermodal Logistics Similarly • Intermodal Systems Management (Seminar) • Issues in Intermodalism (Interactive Course)

University of Texas At Austin Intermodal Transportation Systems

Massachusetts Maritime Academy International Intermodal Transportation

University of Virginia Intermodal Transportation

Wilmington College International Intermodal Transportation

University of Wisconsin-Superior International and Intermodal Transportation

University of Massachusetts-Amherst: Freight Transportation Operations and Planning

Dowling College Introduction to Intermodal Transportation

New Jersey Institute of Transportation Multimodal Freight Transportation Analysis