Performance Measures for Freight Transportation

1. Performance Measures for Freight Transportation National Cooperative Freight Research Program Project 03 Gordon Proctor

2. Project Objectives • Unpublished • To develop measures to gauge the performance of the freight transportation system • To support • Investment • Operations • Policy decisions • By public and private sectors NCFRP 03

3. Areas of Emphasis • Efficiency • Effectiveness • Capacity • Safety • Security • Infrastructure condition • Congestion • Energy • The Environment • At the local, regional national and global levels NCFRP 03

4. Broad Areas of Emphasis • Reflective of society’s diverse interests in freight • Reflective of foundational nature of the research project NCFRP 03

5. Literature Lessons • Forward looking, leading indicators are preferred • Juxtapose competing values into a Balanced Score Card • Use composite measures for ‘rolling up’ and ‘drilling down’ • Provide interpretation • Develop an architecture • Expect metrics to evolve NCFRP 03

6. What Does the Private Sector Want? • Although private logistics companies use performance measures intensely, they expressed little interest in a suite of government-provided metrics • Two-thirds said they never had sought publicly provided metrics • Trade associations were the exception NCFRP 03

7. Private Sector Measurement Needs • Their costs • Their timeliness • Their reliability • Their performance • This includes their vendors • Were very interested in costs of logistics • Also, performance of national transport networks NCFRP 03

8. Public, Private Interests Contrast • Rankings between public and private sector respondents were very different • Costs drove private sector • Network performance of public networks were of most interest to the public stakeholders • Public stakeholders were Balkanized – each was interested in its sphere of responsibility NCFRP 03

9. Little Cross-Sector Concurrence • When interviewed, private sector respondents voiced little commonality in which measures they use • While general areas of cost and performance were common, specific measures they said they used varied significantly • Public sector also highly variable • Military said it could not identify just one suite of measures • Ports were skeptical of comparative measurement NCFRP 03

10. Focus on Data • Examined data availability • Data quality • Date consistency • Data sustainability or presence of an ‘architecture’ NCFRP 03

11. Case Studies of TSI, FAF • FAF phase 1 and 2 cost about $1.6 million • TSI initially required a staff of 22 and now is sustained with a staff of five NCFRP 03

12. Major Constraints to Measurement • Ambiguous national goals • No single agency with the broad span and scope to compile and publish measures across all topic areas • No budget • No common data, definitional protocols across all agencies for reporting in a common format NCFRP 03

13. Need for Interpretation • For policy and investment decisions, metrics are not sufficient • Interpretation is required to understand trends and context • Also, ‘good’ performance is relative to the goal which is desired • To use metrics, context and an understanding of goals is important NCFRP 03

14. Cost of Logistics Example NCFRP 03

15. Opportunities for Measurement • Society has many ‘inferred’ performance metrics for freight • Air quality measurement • Safety measurement • Hazardous materials measurement • Customs and trade volume measurements NCFRP 03

16. Externality Measurement • Air quality effects are included in ‘conformity’ analyses • Rail injuries for vehicles and pedestrians are closely monitored • Truck safety is measured NCFRP 03

17. Private Sector Contributions • AAR publishes data • ATA publishes extensive metrics • Publicly traded RRs all produce SEC filings • CSCMP Cost of Logistics Report NCFRP 03

18. Cooperative Opportunities • AAR cooperates on a long-standing website of performance metrics • Austroads’ effort is well over a decade old • Corps of Engineers, EPA, Commerce, RITA, US DOT all produce important metrics and reports which are pertinent • ATA, CSCMP and others could contribute NCFRP 03

19. What is possible? • A first generation, cooperative Freight System Report Card • Modeled on AAR and Austroads sites • Could compile major metrics and reports into a dash board of • Efficiency • Effectiveness • Cost • Externalities • Forecasts NCFRP 03

20. Example NCFRP 03

21. Possible Format • 10 year past performance • Forecast of future performance • Brief thumbnail narrative • Link to summary • Further linkage to in-depth report NCFRP 03

22. Possible Tiers of Insight NCFRP 03

23. What Would Society Learn? • That freight volumes have grown dramatically • That freight system performance has been stressed and its future is uncertain • Progress has been made in safety • Progress has been in made in air quality • Greenhouse emissions have not seen progress • Infrastructure is aging • Investment is lacking • Future performance is uncertain NCFRP 03

24. Impediments • A needed consensus to begin with what we have • Some budget and staff to compile the information into a common portal and Report Card • A willingness of the contributing agencies to participate • A consensus to emulate AAR and Austroads to begin a cross-departmental reporting process NCFRP 03

25. Potential Rewards • A consistent, reliable source of information • Potential for significant expansion • Lowest cost option available • Most easily available format for producing metrics which cover the broad scope of freight performance envisioned by the project statement • Increased recognition of freight’s role in most areas of society NCFRP 03

26. Thank you! NCFRP 03