# Presentation: 306762

## Kansas CityCross Town Improvement Project (C-TIP) Summary

- A Public Private Partnership
- June 21, 2006

## 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 ](slide11.xml)__proportionally to overall freight volumes_
- Inefficiencies in cross-town interchanges lead to _[added traffic congestion](slide12.xml)__ and diminished air quality_
- Bobtail and empty moves _[do not create revenue](slide14.xml)_
- Bobtail tractors are _[inherently unsafe](slide16.xml)_
- Empty trucks are not subjected to comprehensive _[security](slide17.xml)__ standards_
- Lack of integration and communication results in _[fragmented operations](slide15.xml)_

## Volume Increases

- 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

- 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](slide10.xml)_

## 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

- Back to Problem Statement

## 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

- _[Back to Problem Statement](slide10.xml)_

| 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*

- _[Back to Problem Statement](slide10.xml)_

## 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

- _[Back to Problem Statement](slide10.xml)_

## 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 Updating**

**Chassis Utilization Tracking**

**Intermodal Move Exchange**

## Solution

- Major Components:
- _[Intermodal Exchange (IMEX) ](slide31.xml)__– _open architecture portal that allows for collaborative dispatch management model among rail lines, truckers and facility operators
- _[Wireless Drayage Updating (WDU) ](slide32.xml)__– _open architecture mechanism utilizing low cost wireless technology as an interface between drivers and dispatchers
- _[Chassis Utilization Tracking (CUT) ](slide33.xml)__– _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 3******rd****** 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**

**3****rd**** 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 and
- Improve Air quality
-         (KC Scout 1998 ITS Earmark)

- Address user needs
- Through Public/Private Partnership

- Enhance Productivity
- (Contribution of Data
- and 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

**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 Components**_

_**Next 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**

## Business Case Overview

| 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

| 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

| 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

| Location | Congestion 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

| Location | Congestion 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

| Location | Congestion 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

| Location | Congestion 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 Institute*
*2. Air Quality statistics taken from the EPA Green Book*
*3. Airport data reported as cargo tonnage moved*
*4. 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