Kansas City Cross Town Improvement Project CTIP Summary

1
Kansas CityCross Town Improvement Project
(C-TIP) Summary

• A Public Private Partnership
• June 21, 2006

2
Contents

• Background
• Problem Statement
• Community Business Impacts
• Solution
• Public Private Industry Benefits
• Key Issues
• Why Kansas City?
• Partner Review
• Next Steps
• Summary

3
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 dont want
  to relinquish scarce assets
• When trains are not block order loaded at the
  origin terminal

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
Airport Interchanges

• Airport cargo contributes to cross-town moves
  between airports and distribution centers

8
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

9
Example
10
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

11
Volume Increases

• Intermodal volume is increasing
• Port related traffic is increasing
• Number of truck miles is growing
• Distance between terminals is increasing

Source American Association of Port Authorities
Source FHWA, Highway Statistics, Table VM-1,
1980-2004
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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

16
Bobtail Moves

• Empty moves between terminals occur at a high
  frequency
• Bobtail moves are inherently unsafe

Source The Michigan Heavy Truck Study, Executive
Summary 1990
Source www.hankstruckpictures.com/joe_hyberg.htm
The bobtail configuration clearly has the most
serious problem safely negotiating the highway
system - The Michigan Heavy Truck Study,
Executive Summary, 1990
Back to Problem Statement
17
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
18
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

19
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 its adopted?
• State Local Involvement What role will state
  and local governments play? MPOs?

20
Solution
Real-Time Traffic Monitoring
Wireless Drayage Updating
Chassis Utilization Tracking
Intermodal Move Exchange
21
Solution
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

• 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

22
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

23
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

24
Key Issues
Issue ID is referenced in later slides
25
Potential Partners
26
Partner Priorities Objectives
Deploy technology to
State and Local Govt
Reduce Congestion and Improve Air quality
(KC Scout 1998 ITS Earmark)
DHS/TSA
Enhance Freight Security (672,998 approved
2005 Supporting C-TIP)
Carriers
Enhance Productivity (Contribution of Data and
Operation Processes)
US DOT
Enhance freight Efficiency and Safety (Request
ITS funding to address these issues)
3rd Parties
Address user needs Through Public/Private
Partnership
27
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

28
Next Steps
Next Steps
C-TIP Project Components

• C-TIP Pilot Operations
• Partner Evaluation
• Systems/Process Refinement

• Development of Value-Added Applications
• ITS Deployment Test

• User Needs Assessment
• IMEX, WDU, CUT, RTTM Development
• Technical/Operational Evaluation

• User Needs Assessment
• Teaming Agreements
• Detailed Project Planning
• Evaluation Planning

• Business Process Mapping
• Performance Measures
• User Driven Cost/Benefit Assessment
• Concept of Operations
• Policy/Funding Decisions

• Concept of Operations
• Funding Decisions
• Completion of Preliminary Analysis (CBM, Process
  Modeling)

29
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 stepssecure funding and begin detailed
  planning

30
AppendixBusiness Case Details
31
Business Case Overview
Issues
Back to Solution
32
Business Case Overview
Issues
Back to Solution
33
Business Case Overview
Issues
Back to Solution
34
Business Case Overview
Issues
Back to Solution
35
Potential Impacts
P-T Port Truck A-T Air
Truck R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
36
Potential Impacts
P-T Port Truck A-T Air
Truck R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
37
Potential Impacts
P-T Port Truck A-T Air
Truck R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
38
Potential Impacts
P-T Port Truck A-T Air
Truck R-T-R Rail-Truck-Rail
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
39
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