Kansas City Cross Town Improvement Project (C-TIP) Summary A Public Private Partnership June 21, 2006 IFTWG Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group

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



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



Background



• 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



• 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



• 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



• 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



Example



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.”



• 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



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



• 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



• Congestion leads to idling which emits more pollutants • Low profitability of drayage providers contributes to an aging fleet which is less

environmentally friendly


Bobtail Efficiency



• 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


Trucking Co. Total moves 10% bobtails

Mid Cities 525 53

Greer 840 84

ITS 56 6

TOTAL 1421 143

Lack of Integration



• 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



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


Security



• 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


Impact on Communities



• 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



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



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



“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



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



Key Issues



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



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



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



• 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



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



Appendix:Business Case Details



Business Case Overview



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




WIRELESS DRAYAGE UPDATING (WDU) Issues Addressed


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




CHASSIS UTILIZATION TRACKING (CUT) Issues Addressed


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




REAL-TIME TRAFFIC MONITORING (RTTM) Issues Addressed


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



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


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


Orlando 9 Attainment A-T (580,000 short tons of cargo moved)

Miami 13 Non-attainment P-T


P-T Port Truck

A-T Air Truck

R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail

Potential Impacts






Moves3

30% Reduction in

Empty Moves

Boston 13 Non-attainment P-T


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



Phoenix 18 Non-attainment A-T (801,000 short tons of cargo moved)

Seattle 20 Attainment P-T 125,000 37,500


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


Potential Impacts






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


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


Potential Impacts






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


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


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



Documents

Kansas City Cross Town Improvement Project (C-TIP) Summary A Public Private Partnership June 21, 2006 IFTWG Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group