Analysis of Intermodal Transport Hubs Best Suited for Increased

Federal Infrastructure Spending

Analysis of Intermodal Transport Hubs Best Suited for Increased

Federal Infrastructure Spending

Marco A. FalconiGIS 200 E86L

Fall 2009

Project ProposalProject Proposal

Perform a high level analysis of which facilities in the nation’s freight rail

network could best make use of American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009 funds to have the greatest impact on the overall energy

efficiency of the nation’s freight fleet and thus yield the greatest social,

economic and environmental benefits.

Rail Primer

• Fuel Efficiency: 436 ton-miles/gallon of diesel• Highway Safety: Removes trucks from roads• Centrally Manageable• Maximize utility of past expenditures• Reduce highway maintenance costs• Throughput dependent on yard efficiency

CO2 Emissions by Mode

Objectives

• Find the volume of truck freight originating from different regions in U.S.

• Determine areas with highest amount of outgoing freight

• Catalogue intermodal facilities in study area• Define suitable sites for increased

infrastructure spending

Sample of FAF Commodity DatabaseDomestic 08

Origin O Destination D Commodity Mode Mdol Kton

VA Virgi VA MI Detro MI Chemical prods. Truck 0.830222574958635 0.215314541062031

MA rem MA TX rem TX Textiles/leather Air & Truck 0.830234060626129 3.16998459511795E-02

OR Portl OR MT MT Basic chemicals Truck 0.830241442901975 24.6375538053975

ND ND MI Detro MI Cereal grains Truck 0.83027766431505 14.7188048195552

CT rem CT TX Dalla TX Paper articles Truck 0.830287575877158 0.567660672986829

VA rem VA NC rem NC Building stone Truck 0.830294330652075 7.82399555046327

PA Phila PA RI RI Tobacco prods. Truck 0.830298304076233 6.5874880357497E-03

NC Green NC NC Charl NC Transport equip. Other Intermodal 0.830320552960404 1.74889004230499E-02

NC Green NC IN India IN Transport equip. Other Intermodal 0.830320552960404 0.403119154751301

IN Chica IN IN India IN Precision instruments Truck 0.830397547647117 0.128123379706235

CA San J CA FL Miami FL Furniture Other Intermodal 0.830399110021491 3.32289108037949E-02

TN Memph TN ID ID Machinery Other Intermodal 0.830444551255483 1.21110635429621

WA rem WA UT rem UT Pharmaceuticals Pipeline & Unknown 0.830482038851016 1.20491437911987E-02

324, 177 Origin-Destination Pairs

Top Exporting Regions29 - IL Chicago8- CA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside101- Remainder of Texas12- Remainder of California23- Remainder of Florida24- Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA99- Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX100- Iowa101- Remainder of Illinois34- Remainder of Indiana88- Remainder of Pennsylvania89- Minneapolis-St Paul-St Cloud, MN-WI80- Remainder of Ohio81- Remainder of Kansas113 - Remainder o f Wisconsin96- Remainder of Tennessee•- Nebraska11 - San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA•- Dallas-Fort Worth, TX12- Remainder of Alabama23- Remainder of North Carolina25 - Remainder of Georgia

Responsible for 46% of all outgoing truck freight volume

Analysis for Secondary Selection Criteria

• Other factors being equal, spending should be brought to economically depressed areas

• Vacant housing units are correlated to the economic situation

• Census data available at county level• The rail freight bottleneck• “Bang for the buck”

Making the Final Selection

• Inspection Method• Pertinent Data Visible• Spatial Distribution• Road Connectivity• Economics of region• 101 Final Candidates

Conclusions

• 101 Intermodal Facilities• 41 Truck & Rail• 60 Truck, Rail and Port• Accessibility – Ring Buffers• Potential to affect 31% of all domestic freight• Environmental Benefits• Economic Benefits – Lower prices and/or price

volatility

Suggestions for Further Research

• Finer resolution O-D pair data• Would make routing possible• Generate exact times, distances, costs• Compare to routes on National Highway and State

Truck Route Network• May change rationale to impacting kton-miles• Develop quantified throughputs for facilities• Parcel cost data for areas surrounding facilities

Sources• Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Atlas

Database http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2009/

• U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Freight Management and Operation, Freight Analysis Framework

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/index.htm

• CarbonFund.org http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/category/Assumptions

• U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/