1. 1 Freight Performance Measurement Presented to Transportation Border Working Group on 7 June 2006

2. 2 Goals 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. 3 Global 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 be determined in FY 2006). Average Speed Buffer Time Index (a measure of travel time reliability) Delay time at NHS border crossings (baseline to be determined in FY 2006). (Measures TBD) Examples: Total Crossing Time Average Wait Time

4. 4 Data Collection Method  What?  Methodology use Trucks as Probes  Automatic Vehicle Location(AVL)/Satellite Technology  GPS 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. 5 Accomplishments  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. 6

7. 7

8. 8 CY 2005 Results Monthly Buffer Index for Five Corridors (CY05) 34.13 17.72 23.64 29.56 31.20 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 JANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPTOCTNOVDEC Month Buffer Index Interstate 5 Interstate 10 Interstate 45 Interstate 65 Interstate 70

9. 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 JANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPTOCTNOVDEC Month Speed (MPH) Interstate 5 Interstate 10 Interstate 45 Interstate 65 Interstate 70 CY 2005 Results

10. 10 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. 11 FPM 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 Canada on their Border Wait Time Study Effort looks at crossings as well as transportation network that supports the crossings

12. 12 Pacific Highway/Blaine U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Washington State Highway 543 1) Interstate 5 Canadian Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAYS 1) Blaine Border Area (Route ID ‘BC’): 2) British Columbia Provincial 99 3) BC Provincial 15

13. 13 U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAYS 1)Michigan Route 3 2)Interstate 75 3)Interstate 94 4)Interstate 96 5)The Ambassador Bridge (AB): Canadian Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAYS 1)ON Provincial 401 2)ON Provincial 3)E.C. Row EXPY FEEDER ROADS 4) ON Provincial 403 AMBASSADOR

14. 14 PEMBINA U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Interstate 29 Canadian Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Manitoba Provincial 75 FEEDER ROADS 1)Trans Canada 100 (Winnipeg) 2) Trans Canada 1 3) Trans Canada 17 (Ontario)

15. 15 PEACE BRIDGE U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAYS 1)Peace Bridge Connector (US) 2) Interstate 190 FEEDER ROADS 1) Interstate 90 2) Interstate 79 Canadian Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Queen Elizabeth Way FEEDER ROADS 4) ON Provincial 403 5) ON Provincial 407

16. 16 CHAMPLAIN U.S. Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Interstate 87 (I-87 Canadian Roadways PRIMARY HIGHWAY 1)Provincial 15 2)Provincial 30 3)Provincial 20

17. 17 What Will 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. 18 Crossing NameLocationAnnual Inbound Trucks 2003 [1] [1] Average Annual Delay /CV (mins) Average Annual Delay (hours) Annual Cost @ $125/hr Blaine Pacific Highway Blaine, WA/ Surrey, BC 652,2057.581525$10.1 M PembinaPembina, ND/ Emerson, MB 201,7618.528582$3.6M Ambassador Bridge Detroit, MI/ Windsor, ON *1,634,3194.5122574$15.3M Peace BridgeBuffalo, NY/ Ft. Erie, ON *1,162,9616.5125987$15.8M ChamplainChaplain, NY/ Lacolle, QC 387,9626.542029$5.3M [1][1] Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Border Crossing Entry Data, U.S./Canada; 2003 APPLYING THE RESULTS NOTIONAL

19. 19 Frequently 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. 20 Key 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. 21 Future 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. 22 More Information http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/documents/travel_time_flyer.pdf Crystal Jones FHWA, Office of Freight Management and Operations 202-366-2976 Crystal.Jones@dot.gov