kansas city cross town improvement project (c-tip) summary a public private partnership june 21,...
TRANSCRIPT
Kansas CityCross Town Improvement Project (C-TIP) Summary
A Public Private Partnership
June 21, 2006
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Contents• Background• Problem Statement• Community & Business Impacts• Solution• Public & Private Industry Benefits• Key Issues• Why Kansas City?• Partner Review• Next Steps• Summary
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Background• More than one ground mode is often involved in the transportation of intermodal
goods• Interchange of this traffic must occur, often in metropolitan areas
– Truck to rail (near ports)– Rail to truck to rail (rail interchanges)
• Truck-borne “rubber tire” interchanges are used:– When moving freight into and out of ports (where on-dock rail is not available)– When steel wheel rail-to-rail interchanges are not possible– To save time (steel wheel rail-to-rail interchanges often take 2-3 days) – When containers will have cargo added/removed– When service criteria for cutoff connection not met– When railroads have car shortages or don’t want to relinquish scarce assets– When trains are not block order loaded at the origin terminal
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Background
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Railroads provide critical freight links
• Long haul railroads rely heavily upon interchanges for cross-continent movements
• Intermodal rail traffic converges on a handful of Midwestern cities
• Interchanges also occur in significant numbers in and around sea ports
Rail-to-Rail Interchanges
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• There are five major East-West intermodal exchange points
• Chicago is the largest example– Intermodal crossroads
• 6 Class I railroads interchange• 20+ major rail yards
– 20,000 daily intermodal truck moves (Source: CREATE)
• Nearly 1/3 are cross-town• At least 10% are Bobtails
• Other hub cities experiencing same situation on a smaller scale:
– Kansas City– Memphis– St. Louis– New Orleans
Port-to-Rail Interchanges
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Problem applies to a number of cities with large ports• Few ports have on-dock rail • Reliance on rubber-tire interchanges with nearby rail terminals
Airport Interchanges
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Airport cargo contributes to cross-town moves between airports and distribution centers
Why Kansas City?• Smaller hub cities are also affected by these issues• Kansas City is the second largest rail hub in the US• Significant risks associated with a pilot study in Chicago
– Too large a scope – Significantly more expensive– Very visible to the public
• While not as significant a problem, benefits will be seen• Results will be directly transferable to other cities
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Example
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Problem Statement“The existence of cross-town rubber tire interchanges creates conditions that adversely impact the efficiency of the transportation network, the safety of the motoring public, and the security and quality of life of citizens in the communities through which they take place.”
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Interchange volume expected to increase proportionally to overall freight volumes• Inefficiencies in cross-town interchanges lead to added traffic congestion and
diminished air quality• Bobtail and empty moves do not create revenue• Bobtail tractors are inherently unsafe• Empty trucks are not subjected to comprehensive security standards • Lack of integration and communication results in fragmented operations
Volume Increases
U.S Container Port Traffic1980 - 2004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004
Mil
lio
ns
of
TE
Us
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Source: American Association of Port Authorities
• Intermodal volume is increasing • Port related traffic is increasing• Number of truck miles is growing• Distance between terminals is increasing
Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled in US Urban Areas1980-2004
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
VM
T (
mil
lio
ns
of
mil
es
)
Source: FHWA, Highway Statistics, Table VM-1, 1980-2004
Congestion Increases
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• FHWA Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) predicts significantly worsening congestion at interchange locations
• Congestion at key locations where cross-towns occur:– East coast (port-to-rail)– West coast (port-to-rail)– Along Mississippi (rail-to-rail)
Back to Problem Statement
Air Quality Degradation
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Congestion leads to idling which emits more pollutants • Low profitability of drayage providers contributes to an aging fleet which is less
environmentally friendly
Back to Problem Statement
Bobtail Efficiency
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Empty and bobtail moves create no revenue• Costs associated with moving bobtails must be absorbed by one or more carriers• Empty moves represent additional, potentially unnecessary truck trips
Back to Problem Statement
Trucking Co. Total moves 10% bobtails
Mid Cities 525 53
Greer 840 84
ITS 56 6
TOTAL 1421 143
Lack of Integration
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Operations are not integrated across modes– Modes operate independently– Backhaul opportunities are lost
• Accurate visibility information is not fully available, or shared
– Separate, isolated databases– Inconsistent data quality and quantity
• Communications between modes is sub-optimal– Heavy reliance on phone, fax, e-mail– High degree of human intervention
Bobtail Moves
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Source: The Michigan Heavy Truck Study, Executive Summary 1990
• Empty moves between terminals occur at a high frequency• Bobtail moves are inherently unsafe
“The bobtail configuration clearly has the most serious problem safely negotiating the highway system”- The Michigan Heavy Truck Study, Executive Summary, 1990
Crashes(number)
Rate (per million miles traveled)
Bobtail 314 30.3
Single 5,179 6.8
Double 509 5.7
Source: www.hankstruckpictures.com/joe_hyberg.htm
Back to Problem Statement
Security
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Some units (often coming in on railcars) do not have security bolts
• During cross-town movements there is limited ability to locate the truck
• Limited security (fencing, locked gates) at terminals that do not operate 24/7
• Bobtail moves often do not have to check in/out at facilities
• HazMat containers are mixed in with other cross-town containers at many terminals
Back to Problem Statement
Impact on Communities
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• Congestion is worsening• Service level degradation across all
modes• Deteriorating air quality• Reduction in safety
– Bobtails inherently unsafe– Large number of trucks on city streets
• Bobtail moves are eroding carrier profitability
• Owner-operator companies disappearing• Public outcry against truck traffic • Resistance to public acquisition of new
right-of-way
Introduction to Solution
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
In defining a technology-based solution, a number issues had to be addressed, namely:
• Intellectual Property – who will own the software, and will licensing (if any) fees be guaranteed reasonable?
• Business Model – is there a money-making opportunity here for industry?
• Mode Expandability – at how many other sites and modes will the solution work with little or no modification?
• Operator – who will operate the solution during the pilot? After it’s adopted?
• State & Local Involvement – What role will state and local governments play? MPOs?
Solution
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Real-Time Traffic Monitoring
Wireless Drayage UpdatingChassis Utilization Tracking
Intermodal Move Exchange
Solution
Major Components:• Intermodal Exchange (IMEX) – open architecture portal that allows for collaborative
dispatch management model among rail lines, truckers and facility operators• Wireless Drayage Updating (WDU) – open architecture mechanism utilizing low
cost wireless technology as an interface between drivers and dispatchers• Chassis Utilization Tracking (CUT) – open architecture portal that allows for
commonly managed chassis fleet and/or options for collectively managing current assets
• Real Time Traffic Monitoring (RTTM) – real time monitoring and distribution of route-specific and location specific travel time and congestion information
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
“C-TIP is a four-part pilot demonstration that seeks to provide a sustainable solution to cross-town intermodal exchange problems. It will be delivered through a public-private partnership that includes the participation of city governments, MPOs, State DOTs and the US DOT, in addition to railroad and trucking companies, steamship lines and 3rd party providers”
Public Benefits• Improved Efficiency
– Fewer overall moves leads to congestion mitigation• Improved Safety
– Fewer overall moves leads to less accidents– Reduction/elimination of unsafe bob-tail moves
• Reduction in negative Environmental factors– Fewer overall moves leads to less pollution – Improved air quality
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Private Industry Benefits• Improved Efficiency
– Reduced costs and higher utilization rates for drayage providers
– Increased driver results and retention• Increased reliability and availability of key data• Reduced growth rate of capital investment in
assets and real estate• Higher rate of terminal capacity recovery• Reduced dwell time of loads prior to departure• Reduced chassis inventory and repositioning
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Key Issues
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
ID* Issue Answer
OO Owner/Operator • User fees will cover actual and anticipated O&M costs • IANA (not-for-profit) will own and operate IMEX and CUT• ITIS/Delcan/NET will provide traffic data through RTTM
IP Intellectual Property • Intellectual property ownership needs to be negotiated with developer(s), but should be reusable without additional licensing
BM Business Model • Individual application providers can develop and sell customized interface applications and detailed data
• Wireless companies receive revenue from airtime• Fee-for-service (premium) add-ons provided by 3rd parties
ME Mode Expandability • Easily applied to other cities with rail-to-rail and port-to-rail cross-town movements
SL State and Local Gov’t Role • Will fund provision of traffic data• Will use traffic data to augment operations to facilitate freight flow
*Issue ID is referenced in later slides
Potential Partners
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Partner Contribution
PUBLIC SECTOR• MoDOT• Mid-America Regional Council• Kansas City• Kansas City SmartPort• US DOT• DHS/TSA
• Coordination w/State initiatives; funding; oversight• Coordination w/regional transp. mgmt. & planning• Coordination w/local traffic mgmt functions• Technical & operational support/advice• Oversight; national coordination; funding; evaluation• Oversight; national coordination; funding; evaluation
PRIVATE SECTOR• Railroads: UP, BNSF, NS, KCS• Truckers: Greer, ITS, Midcities• IANA• Transportation Experts (TBD)• USDOT-Contractors (TBD)• System Developer(s) (TBD)
• Assets; access to data; technical support; evaluation• Assets; access to data; technical support; evaluation• Stakeholder relations & recruitment; system mgmt.• Technical support; development support, traffic data• Program management; technical support• System development; integration; testing, etc.
Partner Priorities & Objectives
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
US DOT
DHS/TSA
State and Local Gov’t
Carriers
3rd Parties
Deploy technology to:
Enhance Freight Security($672,998 approved 2005
Supporting C-TIP)
Enhance freight Efficiency and Safety
(Request ITS funding to address these issues)
Reduce Congestion andImprove Air quality (KC Scout 1998 ITS Earmark)
Address user needsThrough Public/Private Partnership
Enhance Productivity(Contribution of Dataand Operation Processes)
Statements of Support
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
• State of Missouri– KC SmartPort – promotes inland port operations in KC – KC Scout – ITS traffic incident management program
• Railroad Companies– Union Pacific Railroad (2 terminals in KC area)– BNSF Railway (2 terminals in KC area)– Kansas City Southern Railway (1 terminal in KC area)– Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad (1 terminal in KC area)
• Trucking Companies– In-Terminal Services – Mid-Cities Motor Freight, Inc.– Greer Transportation
• Intermodal Association of North America (IANA)– Provides coordinative, educational, and technical support services to the intermodal
freight industry
Next Steps
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Institutional & Business Framework
Technical Connectivity
User Apps
OPS
• Business Process Mapping
• Performance Measures• User Driven Cost/Benefit
Assessment• Concept of Operations• Policy/Funding Decisions
• User Needs Assessment• IMEX, WDU, CUT, RTTM
Development• Technical/Operational
Evaluation
• Development of Value-Added Applications
• ITS Deployment Test
• C-TIP Pilot Operations• Partner Evaluation• Systems/Process
Refinement
C-TIP Project ComponentsC-TIP Project Components Next StepsNext Steps
• Concept of Operations• Funding Decisions• Completion of Preliminary Analysis (CBM, Process Modeling)
• User Needs Assessment• Teaming Agreements• Detailed Project Planning• Evaluation Planning
Summary• “Cross-town” interchanges occur frequently, and are expected to grow in
number• Interchanges are currently deficient
– Efficiency– Safety/Security– Environment
• Coordinated intermodal solution is required• Need to leverage technology
– Multi-part deployment– Public/private partnership– Repeatable, expandable, scalable solution
• Next steps…secure funding and begin detailed planning
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Appendix:Business Case Details
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
Business Case Overview
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
INTERMODAL EXCHANGE (IMEX) Issues Addressed
Characteristics OO IP BM ME SL
Description• An open-architecture portal that allows for connection between the databases
resident at partner locations• Open interfaces will allow user applications to be layered on the portal to
address specific user needs
Ownership Model• Public Private Partnership model with open interfaces and reusable code• Operated under long-term lease agreement by IANA
Revenue Opportunities• IANA will collect user fees • Individual application providers can develop and sell information analysis,
reporting, and redistribution applications
Comments • User fees must cover actual and anticipated O&M costs• Intellectual property ownership to be negotiated• Scalable and expandable to other locations and/or modes
Back to Solution
Issues
Business Case Overview
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
WIRELESS DRAYAGE UPDATING (WDU) Issues Addressed
Characteristics OO IP BM ME SL
Description• An open-architecture mechanism utilizing common messaging tools• Applicable for all mainstream wireless communications methods and devices
Ownership Model• Standards and protocols would be public domain• Wireless devices owned and operated by dispatchers, truckers, etc• Communications infrastructure owned and operated by wireless telecoms• Individual portals and interfaces owned and operated by the dispatch agents
Revenue Opportunities• Individual application providers can develop and sell customized redistribution
interface applications• Wireless companies receive revenue from airtime• Additional data from 3rd party providers would be a fee-for-service add-on
Comments • Need to be an IMEX participant to interact using WDU
Back to Solution
Issues
Business Case Overview
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
CHASSIS UTILIZATION TRACKING (CUT) Issues Addressed
Characteristics OO IP BM ME SL
Description• An open-architecture portal that allows for connection between the databases
resident at partner locations• Open interfaces will allow user applications to be layered on the portal to
address specific user needs
Ownership Model• Public Private Partnership model with open interfaces and reusable code• Operated under long-term lease agreement by IANA
Revenue Opportunities• IANA will collect user fees • Individual application providers can develop and sell information analysis,
reporting, and redistribution applications
Comments • User fees must cover actual and anticipated O&M costs• Intellectual property ownership to be negotiated• Scalable and expandable to other locations and/or modes
Back to Solution
Issues
Business Case Overview
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
REAL-TIME TRAFFIC MONITORING (RTTM) Issues Addressed
Characteristics OO IP BM ME SL
Description• Real-time monitoring and distribution of route-specific and location specific travel
time and congestion information on roadway network• Supported by current funded deployment of cellular probe technology by MoDOT
Ownership Model• Data stream made available from MoDOT or from 3rd party information provider• MoDOT: feed is active as long as MoDOT continues subscription to data• 3rd Party: fees based on volume and quantity of data
Revenue Opportunities• Additional use of network data provides justification for continued MoDOT
purchase • Subsidized by revenue extracted from premium travel information services
Comments • Provided MoDOT continues in partnership with provider, some basic information
will be available at no cost• Tailored premium services would be developed based upon specific user needs
Back to Solution
Issues
Potential Impacts
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
LocationCongestion Ranking1
Air Quality Status2 Type of Move
Estimated Number of Empty
Moves3
30% Reduction in
Empty Moves
Los Angles/Long Beach 1 Non-attainment P-T 2.5 million 750,000
A-T (3.1 million short tons of cargo moved)
San Francisco 2 Non-attainment P-T
A-T (740,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Atlanta 4 Non-attainment A-T (1.2 million short tons of cargo moved)
Houston 5 Non-attainment P-T
A-T (698,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Dallas/Fort Worth 6 Non-attainment A-T (1.4 million short tons of cargo moved)
Chicago 7 Non-attainment R-T-R 400,000 120,000
A-T (2.4 million short tons of cargo moved)
Orlando 9 Attainment A-T (580,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Miami 13 Non-attainment P-T
A-T (3.4 million short tons of cargo moved)
P-T Port Truck
A-T Air Truck
R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
Potential Impacts
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
LocationCongestion Ranking1
Air Quality Status2 Type of Move
Estimated Number of Empty
Moves3
30% Reduction in
Empty Moves
Boston 13 Non-attainment P-T
A-T (586,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Denver 13 Non-attainment A-T (763,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Baltimore 17 Non-attainment P-T
New York/New Jersey JFK Newark
18 Non-attainment P-T
A-T (2.9 million short tons of cargo moved)
A-T (1.8 million short tons of cargo moved)
Phoenix 18 Non-attainment A-T (801,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Seattle 20 Attainment P-T 125,000 37,500
A-T (531,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Minneapolis 22 Attainment A-T (678,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Louisville 24 Non-attainment A-T (4.4 million short tons of cargo moved)
Portland 26 Attainment P-T
P-T Port Truck
A-T Air Truck
R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
Potential Impacts
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
LocationCongestion Ranking1
Air Quality Status2 Type of Move
Estimated Number of Empty
Moves3
30% Reduction in
Empty Moves
Portland 26 Attainment A-T (718,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Philadelphia 27 Non-attainment A-T (1.4 million short tons of cargo moved)
Indianapolis 27 Non-attainment A-T (2.3 million short tons of cargo moved)
St. Louis 31 Non-attainment R-T-R
Jacksonville 32 Attainment P-T
Memphis 33 Non-attainment R-T-R
A-T (8.9 million short tons of cargo moved)
Columbus 35 Non-attainment A-T (297,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Salt Lake City 38 Non-attainment A-T (621,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Cincinnati 39 Non-attainment A-T (1.1 million short tons of cargo moved)
Charleston 47 Attainment P-T
New Orleans 54 Attainment R-T-R
P-T
P-T Port Truck
A-T Air Truck
R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
Potential Impacts
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
LocationCongestion Ranking1
Air Quality Status2 Type of Move
Estimated Number of Empty
Moves3
30% Reduction in
Empty Moves
Norfolk/Newport News 46/574 Non-attainment P-T
Kansas City 57 Attainment R-T-R 7,500 2,250
A-T (472,000 short tons of cargo moved)
Savannah --- Attainment P-T
Rockville --- Attainment A-T (677,000 short tons of cargo moved)
1. Congestion Rankings taken from the 2005 Annual Urban Mobility Study done by the Texas Transportation Institute2. Air Quality statistics taken from the EPA Green Book3. Airport data reported as cargo tonnage moved4. Norfolk is not ranked, Virginia Beach (ranked 46) and Richmond (ranked 57) are in the immediate area
P-T Port Truck
A-T Air Truck
R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
References• Railroads
– Ben Shelton, Union Pacific• Ocean Carriers/Ports
– Ed McQuillan, Hanjin Shipping– South Carolina Port Authority
• Airports– David Wirsing, Former President, Air
Cargo Association– Aircargoworld.com
• Research Bodies– Eric Jessup, Washington State University– The Michigan Heavy Truck Study, 1990– Annual Urban Mobility Study, 2005, Texas
Transportation Institute– Green Book, US Environmental
Protection Agency
• MPOs– Gerald Rawlings, CATS– Pete Beaulieu, Puget Sound Regional
Council– Southern California Council of Governments
• 3rd Parties– Ted Prince, Optimization Alternatives, Inc.– Tom Malloy, Intermodal Association of
North America– Walter Locke, Railinc– Mike Winchester, OCEMA– K. Mark Sommerhauser, Kansas City Scout– Chris J.F. Gutierrez, Kansas City SmartPort – CREATE
• Trucking Companies– Phil Noury, Landstar
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group
IFTWGIFTWGIntermodal Freight Technology Working Group