1

Freight Performance MeasurementFreight Performance Measurement

Presented to Transportation Border Working Group on 7 June 2006

2

Goals of the FPM InitiativeGoals of the FPM Initiative

Short Term• Support Monitoring Progress in Global Connectivity

• Continuous and Accurate Data

• Mid Term• Develop a rich data source that can be used by stakeholders

in the transportation community and by academia• Output that is flexible and useful for a variety of audiences

• Long Term• Use (sound FPM) data to target investment in National

Highway System based where the greatest needs exist• Better truck travel data that could increase the strength and ranking of freight

projects against general transportation projects

3

Global ConnectivityGlobal Connectivity

Desired Outcome: Sustain the economic efficiency of goods movement on the surface transportation system.

Measure(s):Travel time in significant freight corridors (baseline to bedetermined in FY 2006).

Average SpeedBuffer Time Index (a measure of travel time

reliability)Delay time at NHS border crossings (baseline to bedetermined in FY 2006). (Measures TBD)

Examples: Total Crossing Time Average Wait Time

4

Data Collection MethodData Collection Method

What? Methodology use Trucks as Probes

Automatic Vehicle Location(AVL)/Satellite TechnologyGPS Coordinates (Date and Time Stamped)Unique Carrier ID

How? Contractual partnership with American Transportation

Research Institute, a Satellite Technology Vendor and Carriers

Initial data based on voluntary participation by selected carriers subscribers

Data Cleansing techniques allowed research team to collect data from all/most of the vendor’s carrier subscribers (~250,000 vehicles)

5

AccomplishmentsAccomplishments

Collecting, Analyzing and Processing data for Five Freight Significant Corridors

(I5, I10, I45, I65, I70)1 Year of Data as of Jan 06

Collecting data for five US/Cda land border crossing areas 1 Year of Data as of Aug 06

As of 1 April 2006 we expanded data collection and analysis to 20 additional corridors (a more robust data set, greater “National Picture”)

Case studies scheduled with 8 States along the corridors Weather and Work Zone Case Studies New contract with technology vendor to include access to data for

up to 10, 000 miles of arterials Short Term and Long Term Data Sharing Strategies developed

6

7

8

CY 2005 ResultsCY 2005 ResultsMonthly Buffer Index for Five Corridors (CY05)

34.13

17.72

23.64

29.5631.20

44.87

25.96

30.85 31.63

41.02

24.45

34.37

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECMonth

Bu

ffer

Ind

exInterstate 5

Interstate 10

Interstate 45

Interstate 65

Interstate 70

9

Average Speeds Five Corridors (CY 2005)

44.00

46.00

48.00

50.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

58.00

60.00

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DECMonth

Sp

eed

(M

PH

)

Interstate 5Interstate 10Interstate 45Interstate 65Interstate 70

CY 2005 ResultsCY 2005 Results

10

Key Border Challenges – Key Border Challenges –

Some key border crossing points are seriously congested and transit times and the associated transportation costs are high.

Physical infrastructure (transportation and other) at some border crossings require upgrading

Clearance and Inspection procedures change and vary

Localized data collection systems differ dramatically

11

FPM Border ComponentFPM Border Component

Data Collection Began 7/01/05 for 5 Crossings

– Blaine (Pacific Highway): Blaine, WA– Pembina: Pembina, ND– Ambassador Bridge: Detroit, MI– Peace Bridge: Buffalo, NY– Champlain: Champlain, NY

Continue to coordinate w/ Transport Canadaon their Border Wait Time Study

Effort looks at crossings as wellas transportation network that supports the crossings

12

Pacific Highway/Blaine

U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Washington State

Highway 5431) Interstate 5  

Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS

1) Blaine Border Area (Route ID ‘BC’):

2) British Columbia Provincial 99

3) BC Provincial 15

13

U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS1) Michigan Route 3 2) Interstate 75 3) Interstate 944) Interstate 96 5) The Ambassador Bridge (AB):

 Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS1) ON Provincial 401 2) ON Provincial 3) E.C. Row EXPY

FEEDER ROADS4) ON Provincial 403

AMBASSADOR

14

PEMBINA

U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Interstate 29

Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Manitoba Provincial 75 FEEDER ROADS1) Trans Canada 100

(Winnipeg)2) Trans Canada 1 3) Trans Canada 17

(Ontario)  

15

PEACE BRIDGE

U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAYS

1) Peace Bridge Connector (US)

2) Interstate 190  FEEDER ROADS

1) Interstate 90 2) Interstate 79

 Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY

1) Queen Elizabeth Way

FEEDER ROADS4) ON Provincial 4035) ON Provincial 407  

16

CHAMPLAIN

U.S. RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY 1) Interstate 87 (I-87 Canadian RoadwaysPRIMARY HIGHWAY1) Provincial 15 2) Provincial 30 3) Provincial 20  

17

What WillWhat Willbe the Measures?be the Measures?

Average delay per Truck Trip (in Minutes or Hours)

Average Travel Time

Total Delay Average annual

cost of delay Buffer Time Buffer Index

18

Crossing Name Location Annual Inbound Trucks 2003[1]

Average Annual

Delay /CV (mins)

Average Annual Delay

(hours)

Annual Cost @ $125/hr

Blaine Pacific Highway

Blaine, WA/ Surrey, BC

652,205 7.5 81525 $10.1 M

Pembina Pembina, ND/ Emerson, MB

201,761 8.5 28582 $3.6M

Ambassador Bridge

Detroit, MI/ Windsor, ON

*1,634,319 4.5 122574 $15.3M

Peace Bridge Buffalo, NY/ Ft. Erie, ON

*1,162,961 6.5 125987 $15.8M

Champlain Chaplain, NY/ Lacolle, QC

387,962 6.5 42029 $5.3M

[1] Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Border Crossing Entry Data, U.S./Canada; 2003

APPLYING THE RESULTSAPPLYING THE RESULTSNOTIONAL

19

Frequently Asked QuestionsFrequently Asked Questions Q: What is the primary focus of the initiative

A: Historical data for monitoring performance. Not probable this will evolve to a “real-time” product

Q: What is the sample size A: Technology vendor, has approximately 250,000 in USA,

Canadian subsidiary adds additional vehicles Q: How did you select the five crossings? A: Five Border Crossings account for over 55% of inbound CV to US Q: Who Owns the data?

A: The carriers who subscribe to the vendor’s service Q: Can we share the data

A: Aggregated/summarized data can be shared with little limitations, currently able to share raw data with public transportation agencies (primarily for assessment of utility)

Q: What are the next steps

20

Key Next StepsKey Next Steps Analyzing the US/Cda border data and developing appropriate

measures of delay and wait time– Initiate effort to collect US/MX border data

Synchronizing/Collaborating with Transport Canada Border Wait Time Project

Assessing utility beyond FHWA PM needs– Case Studies under way

• State Case Studies ((includes Washington)

• Weather Case Study• Work Zone Case Study

Developing Tools to Disseminate the Data Operationalizing the Data (Near-Real time processing) Transitioning data to a performance measurement framework

– Targets– Strategies and tactics to produce positive change

21

Future ResearchFuture Research

Arterial Data Collection and Analysis Incidents (Network Effects) Congestion Pricing at the Border Linked Journeys Directional Data Analysis Data to support Planning

– Demand Modeling– Forecasting Models– Economic Analysis– Project Analysis (Before, After, During)

22

More InformationMore Information

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/documents/travel_time_flyer.pdf

Crystal JonesFHWA, Office of Freight Management and Operations202-366-2976

Crystal.Jones@dot.gov