DR1 NCHRP 8-36 Cover color - AASHTO - Standing Committee on

50 Pages·2003·1.75 MB·English

Intermodal Freight Connectors:
Strategies for Improvement
NCHRP Project 8-36, Task 30

final

report
prepared for
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

August 2003 www.camsys.com
final report
Intermodal Freight Connectors:
Strategies for Improvement
NCHRP Project 8-36, Task 30

prepared for
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
August 2003
Intermodal Freight Connectors
Strategies for Improvement NCHRP 8-36(30)
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
Background............................................................................................................................. 1
Review of Literature.............................................................................................................. 3
Case Study Review................................................................................................................ 8
Potential Improvement Strategies by Issue Area............................................................. 11
Intake Sessions....................................................................................................................... 13
Results...................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 19
Appendix A
Intermodal Freight Connectors PowerPoint Presentation........................................ A-1
Appendix B
Sample Intermodal Connector Survey........................................................................ B-1
Appendix C
Intermodal Connector Survey Rankings by Stakeholder......................................... C-1
Appendix D
Intermodal Connector Survey Selected Comments................................................... D-1
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i
6880.030
Intermodal Freight Connectors
Strategies for Improvement NCHRP 8-36(30)
List of Tables
1. Cost to Eliminate Backlog Deficiencies for Freight Connectors............................... 8
2. Intermodal Connector Survey Cumulative Rankings............................................... 14
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii
Intermodal Freight Connectors::
Strategies for Improvement
Intermodal Freight Connectors
Strategies for Improvement
(cid:132) Introduction
The intermodal connectors of the National Highway System (NHS) are the first and last
miles of roadway used by truckers to travel between the major highways of the NHS and
the nation’s ports, rail terminals, and air cargo hubs. They are usually local roads and
often weave their way through older industrial and residential neighborhoods. Nation-
ally, there are 1,222 miles of NHS intermodal connectors, less than one percent of total
NHS mileage. The connectors serve 616 terminals: 253 ocean and river ports, 203 truck-
rail terminals, 99 air cargo (and passenger) terminals, and 61 pipeline truck terminals.
They are critical but increasingly weak links in the freight transportation network. Pot-
holes, narrow roadways, and tight turns increase wear and tear on trucks while slowing
traffic and aggravating congestion.
Although the Federal transportation reauthorization process is likely to call attention to
the needs of freight and may result in more flexibility for intermodal connector funding,
many institutional and other obstacles are likely to remain. The purpose of this NCHRP
project is to scan the literature, survey existing project experience to identify potential
actions and strategies, assess their viability during several intake sessions, and provide
practical guidance to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) and others for advancing the state of practice in implementing freight
intermodal connector improvements.
(cid:132) Background
The physical condition of many intermodal connectors is cause for concern. In its
December 2000 report to Congress, “NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors,” the United
States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) warned that intermodal connectors were
in relatively poor physical shape compared to the NHS as a whole. Looking at pavement
condition and roadway configuration (e.g., turning radii, lane widths, overhead clear-
ances, etc.), the U.S. DOT found that 12 percent of intermodal-connector mileage was in
poor or very poor condition in 1999. By comparison, only eight percent of all NHS mile-
age was in poor or very poor condition. Port connectors fared the worst; 15 percent of
intermodal-connector mileage to ports was rated poor or very poor. About 12 percent of
intermodal-connector mileage to truck-rail terminals and seven percent of the mileage to
pipeline truck terminals and airports were in poor or very poor condition. The report
found that current investment levels in intermodal connectors in most states were not suf-
ficient to correct the identified deficiencies.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1
Intermodal Freight Connectors:
Strategies for Improvement
The U.S. DOT report to Congress echoed the conclusions of an earlier report by
Cambridge Systematics, “Challenges and Opportunities for an ITS/Intermodal Freight
Program” (February 1999). Cambridge Systematics conducted six listening sessions on
intermodal connectors – in Seattle, Norfolk, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and New
York – for the U.S. DOT Office of the Secretary. The sessions revealed increasing conges-
tion, deteriorating reliability, uncoordinated work-zone management, and lack of cover-
age by traffic management and information systems. Carriers, shippers, terminal
managers, state DOT engineers, and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) officials
said repeatedly that capacity and congestion problems would not shut down the nation’s
freight systems, but would have devastating and disproportionate operational impacts by
degrading the predictability and reliability of freight service for shippers and receivers. A
one- or two-hour delay in a drayage movement can mean a missed train and a 24-hour
holdup in a domestic shipment. A missed connection on an international move can mean
a delay of one week. For an intermodal freight system trying to serve just-in-time manu-
facturing and retailing businesses, reliability is critical. Poor reliability means lost busi-
ness, lost jobs, and lost tax revenue.
Intermodal connectors are potential risks to economic security and military mobilization.
The designated NHS connectors often are the only viable truck routes between military
bases and ports. The routes are difficult to monitor and police, but relatively easy to dis-
rupt or block. When connectors are blocked, considerable effort is needed to safely
reroute trucks. Many trucking companies operate trucks with sophisticated geographic
positioning systems (GPS) and communications equipment, which allows drivers and
dispatchers to monitor traffic conditions and reroute trucks quickly. However, the major-
ity of drayage trucks serving the nation’s ports and terminals are driven by owner-
operators, who are paid on a piece-work basis and equipped with little more than a cell
phone.
Intermodal connectors often are “orphans” in the transportation planning and program-
ming processes. Connectors fall awkwardly between the jurisdictions and responsibilities
of Federal and state DOTs, port authorities, MPOs, private sector terminal operators and
carriers, and other agencies and organizations. Although critically important, they are
usually lower volume industrial roads with less vocal constituents than major commuter
routes and transit lines. The intermodal industry is by its nature fragmented, complex,
and highly competitive. Public sector transportation is almost as complex. Also, the pub-
lic and private sectors operate on different time scales. The private sector focuses on
quarterly operations and one- to two-year capital investment cycles; the public sector,
dealing with complex community and environmental issues, often needs three to 10 years
to deliver major capital projects.
Economic growth will further strain intermodal connectors. Between 1998 and 2020, total
freight tonnage is expected to grow by about 69 percent. Domestic freight tonnage will
increase by 65 percent; and import-export tonnage is anticipated to nearly double.1 Major
hub ports such as the Ports of New York and New Jersey anticipate that the volume of

1 From the Federal Highway Administration’s Freight Analysis Framework project.
2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Intermodal Freight Connectors::
Strategies for Improvement
containers may triple. Major air cargo hubs such as Los Angeles expect air cargo volumes
to quadruple. Unless the problems of NHS intermodal connectors are addressed and cor-
rected, these links will weaken and some will fail. The cost of these failed connectors in
lost business and security could be high.
AASHTO has recognized the problem and taken a proactive position with a policy state-
ment that “Existing and proposed innovative financing techniques should be tailored to
make increasing investment in intermodal connectors possible in combination with
increases in core TEA-21 programs.” The Freight Stakeholders Coalition, representing
twelve major industry associations, has recommended that Congress “dedicate funds for
NHS highway connectors to intermodal facilities.” Stakeholders participating in Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) outreach sessions leading up to reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) called for increased and/or dedi-
cated funding for the NHS connectors; intermodal freight funding within the Surface
Transportation Program (STP); expansion of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Improvement Program to benefit freight; greater consideration of intermodal
connectors in state and local transportation planning; development of performance stan-
dards for connectors; introduction of an international gateway program; and expansion of
the Corridors and Borders programs.
The U.S. DOT considered this input and has made several recommendations to improve
connector and other freight project implementation in its TEA-21 reauthorization proposal
submitted to Congress in May 2003. Recommendations include:
• Set-aside at least two percent of NHS funds for intermodal freight connectors;
• Increase the Federal match to 90 percent for intermodal freight connectors;
• Expand intermodal freight eligibility in the STP program;
• Expand intermodal eligibility and reduce the project threshold in the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA); and
• Designate a freight transportation coordinator in each state.
(cid:132) Review of Literature
A literature review identified the following key documents: (a) the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) draft final report 8-39, Financing and Improving Land
Access to Cargo Hubs; (b) the Federal Highway Administration report to Congress, NHS
Intermodal Freight Connectors; (c) the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) report,
Intermodal Access to U.S. Ports; (d) the FHWA report, The Role of the National Highway
System Connectors: Industry Context and Issues; and (e) the FHWA report, 2002 Status of the
Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance. These five documents
are briefly summarized below:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3
Intermodal Freight Connectors:
Strategies for Improvement
NCHRP Draft Final Report 8-39, Financing and Improving Land Access to Cargo
Hubs, February 2003
This draft final report provides a comprehensive review of cargo hub access issues,
although its findings are subject to change. The key issues identified in the study as
needing attention are:
• Lack of dedicated funds and competition with commuter needs for limited highway
funds;
• Limited applicability and suitability of user funds and pure project finance
approaches;
• Obstacles to obtaining public funding for railroad access to private facilities; and
• Inability by public sector agencies to promptly respond to expanding freight volumes
and new private or port/airport needs.
The team concluded that special attention to the “cargo hub access problem” at the
national level is needed. Given the large number of cargo hub projects being considered
around the nation, the team recommended that national and regional initiatives to address
cargo hub access should be formulated so as to:
• Formally recognize and measure progress to address the “cargo hub access problem”;
• Establish guidelines that assure consideration of cargo hub access needs in the state-
wide and metropolitan transportation planning processes;
• Encourage multi-jurisdictional and public-private collaboration in evaluating and
implementing solutions;
• Encourage states and MPOs with cargo hubs of national or regional significance to
regularly prepare a plan and program to address cargo hub access needs, and to
ensure that such needs, plans, and programs be incorporated in the long range and
transportation improvement plans;
• Provide appropriate financing support, incentives, or other mechanisms to facilitate
structuring of practical funding programs for such projects; and
• Develop additional funding sources and/or financing mechanisms such as
1) dedicated funds for cargo hubs, 2) discretionary programs that make funds avail-
able to the most important projects nationally, 3) legal authorization for additional
optional sources that state or local agencies can tap, and 4) flexibility to make all types
of cargo hub projects eligible.
4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Intermodal Freight Connectors::
Strategies for Improvement
Finally, the research team recommended consideration of several specific mechanisms and
initiatives to address cargo hub needs:
• Require states and metropolitan areas with cargo hubs of national and/or regional sig-
nificance to develop cargo hub access programs;
• Authorize an optional cargo access fee nationally, to be collected regionally directly
from users;
• Clarify laws and regulations so that all types of cargo hub access projects be specifi-
cally defined as eligible for tax exempt financing; and
• Make private contributions by carriers and others private entities eligible for invest-
ment tax credits when part of a governmental cargo hub access project.
Federal Highway Administration, NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report
to Congress, December 2000
Section 1106(d) of TEA-21 directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a review of
NHS freight connectors that serve seaports, airports, and other major intermodal termi-
nals. The objectives were to: 1) evaluate the condition of NHS connector highway infra-
structure linking major intermodal freight terminals; 2) review improvements and
investments made or programmed for these connectors; and 3) identify impediments and
options to making improvements to the intermodal freight connectors.
The Federal Highway Administration undertook a field inventory of the connectors in the
fall of 1998. Some 616 intermodal freight terminals (253 ocean and river ports, 99 airports,
203 truck/rail terminals, and 61 pipeline/truck terminals) were surveyed. In its report to
Congress, FHWA concluded: 1) Intermodal connectors that primarily serve freight termi-
nals have significant mileage with pavement deficiencies and generally exhibit inferior
physical and operational performance than other similar NHS facilities. 2) Based on an
analysis of investment practices, there is a general lack of awareness and coordination for
freight improvements within the MPO planning and programming process. 3) Given the
pressing needs for passenger-related projects, there is little incentive for investing in
freight projects that appear to primarily benefit only a small freight constituency.
FHWA’s report to Congress also identifies options for improving the connectors and
freight flow efficiency in four areas:
• Awareness and Coordination – The report suggests that the biggest problem in imple-
menting intermodal connector projects is the lack of priority accorded to freight
movements in the planning and programming process. This is mainly because freight
projects must compete for limited funding against “high-priority” passenger projects.
Consequently, very little is invested in freight transportation improvements. Possible
actions to consider in raising the visibility and priority of freight projects in state and
MPO planning and programming processes are:
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5
Intermodal Freight Connectors:
Strategies for Improvement
- Provide incentives for intermodal connector planning and coordination – Such incentives
would improve the planning and implementation of freight projects and spur
freight project development. Additional funding for planning and coordination
could be used to financially support states and MPOs that are identifying, con-
ceptualizing, and planning freight projects.
- Identify an intermodal network – Many public planning agencies are not fully aware
of the importance of freight to the economy of their region and to the nation as a
whole. Participants in outreach meetings highlighted the need to think of the
intermodal connectors within the context of the full freight system. One means of
raising the visibility of freight might be to identify an intermodal freight network.
In the early 1980s, the National Truck Network (NTN) was designated. A National
Truck and Intermodal Network could be an extension of NTN to major ports, air-
ports, rail yards, and pipeline terminals that generate high volumes of intermodal
freight by truck. For example, the State of Florida has recently identified a critical
state intermodal network that includes connectors as important components.
- Consider intermodal connectors in any federally funded port, aviation, or roadway study or
project – The efficient operation of the intermodal facility is contingent upon the
efficient operation of the intermodal connectors. Accordingly, federally funded
studies or capital projects on federally funded intermodal terminals should include
an evaluation of the adequacy of the highway connectors to identify needed infra-
structure and operations improvements. Such an assessment would encourage a
closer linkage between transportation planning, land use planning, zoning, and
site development.
• Information Technologies – As a complement to connector infrastructure improve-
ments, build an intermodal “infostructure” to achieve intermodal system optimization.
Information technologies that better connect the modes, such as port information sys-
tems, could relieve congestion on the connectors.
• Funding – The report presents a full range of possible funding mechanisms. These
include: 1) creating a new Federal credit program, similar to TIFIA, targeting at
smaller intermodal connector projects; 2) expanding the eligibility of the Railroad
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) credit program to include intermo-
dal connector projects; 3) expanding or strengthening the State Infrastructure Banks
(SIB) program, to allow for the capitalization of an intermodal freight connectors
account with Federal-aid; 4) encouraging the creation of state-level credit programs or
infrastructure funds for intermodal freight connector projects; 5) providing connector
incentive grants to overcome some of the problems encountered by the states and local
areas in funding freight improvements; 6) reducing the match required for Federal
funds where connectors under local ownership do not have adequate resources; and
7) creating a set-aside of NHS funds for intermodal connector projects. Many of these
actions would require legislative action during TEA-21 reauthorization.
• Community and Environmental Responsiveness – The report discusses possible
actions to minimize the impact of freight operations and make improvements to the
adjacent communities. These include: 1) exploring mechanisms for leveraging trans-
portation investment into local economic development opportunities; 2) taking into
6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.