Intermodal transportation in the United States N.C. Ho Transportation Division/Public Works Department, City and Co%M(y q/*dga2vga; 200 %W 74f/z Avenue, DcMvg% Co/ofWo ($0204-2700, L%4 Abstract History of transportation development has shown that when a new mode emerged, it was always utilized as a replacing or competing way rather than complementing other modes already in existence. Government policies and funding schemes have also been evolving by individual modes accordingly. Connecting and transferring problems arise as a result of lacking proper coordination between different modes. Intermodal transportation is an effective way of moving people and goods through more than one mode. Given the country's vast land area, increasing mobility, and concerns for a sustainable environment, intermodal is not only about moving people and goods, but also is an effective strategy in restructuring the existing transportation system in the United States. 1 Definition of Intermodal Transportation Intermodal transportation is described as an efficient way of moving people or goods through connection of more than one mode. It may be a more recently used term, but definitely not a new practice. Airports and harbors in reality have to be intermodal in order to connect to next destinations for both passengers and freight. A general definition of intermodal is a seamless transport by logistically linking two or more modes of transportation between origins and destinations. With emphasis on organization and synchronization, the definition according to the US Department of Transportation's Office of Intermodalism has its focus on choices, connections, and cooperation/coordination of the various components of a transportation system. The level of coordination and cooperation must be standard, not exception.
564 Urban Transport and the Environment There are other terms used with similar meaning include integrated transport, combined transport, coordinated transport, through transport, transload, comodal transport, etc. Intermodal, not intended to reduce trips but to increase choices enhancing mobility, is more an evolving dynamic practice than a static targeted concept. 2 Historical Perspectives of Transportation Development The history of human transportation development can be sequentially divided into several major modes overlapping with each other. These modes are water, rail, highway, and aviation. Each mode has its own characteristics in terms of speed, capacity, operational requirements, cost factors, spatial coverage, etc. (Krebs[6]> Water transportation created natural nodes, such as harbor cities along ocean shores and rivers, as well as their junctions. Big ships and vessels are for ocean and major rivers while canoes and rowboats serve as feeder lines. Important inland waterways are Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois Rivers. Off-shore transportation has its main line between New Orleans and the Northeast US. Railroad provides a lineal transportation network with increased speed and volume. High speed trains are being studied in certain regions and corridors. A French-Canadian group was awarded a contract to build America's first high-speed trains scheduled to begin service by 1999 between Washington DC and Boston. Then came the automobiles and highways as the dominant mode which has door to door accessibility greatly enhanced. With the construction of the Interstate Highway System starting in 1956, the nation's mobility is further increased. Now the Interstate system consists of approximately 45,000 miles of highway linking 90% of the nation's cities with 50,000 population or more. It also created urban sprawl on the American landscape. Finally, a network of airports added a third dimension to the transportation system which can move people and goods in relatively short time compared with previous modes. Major new commercial airports are Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Denver (DIA) built in 1971 and 1995 respectively. Every time when a new mode emerged, it was quite often considered as a replacing function rather than complementing other modes already in existence (Eno's[2]>. Individual modal system has been planned, built, and operated with little regard for relationships to other modes. Government transportation policies and funding strategies also evolved in response to modes separately (Krebs[6]), for instance the modal administrations within the US Department
Urban Transport and the Environment 565 of Transportation: Federal Maritime Administration (FMA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Connection and transfer services, however, tend to decline in quality once the passenger get off a train or goods off a ship. Inefficiency occurs at locations such as terminals, ports, airports, and transfer stations, as well as the infrastructure leading to the above facilities. Total passenger traffic by percentage of different modes 1970 to 1992 in the US are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Total Passenger Percentage by Mode and Year Passenger Mode Percent Distribution 1970 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 Private Auto 86.9% 82.5% 80.1% 80.2% 80.7% 80.5% Domestic Airway 10.1% 14.9% 17.7% 17.9% 17.4% 17.7% Bus 2.1% 1.8% 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% Railroad 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994 Cross-modal type of projects either fell through the cracks between the modes or did not get enough attention they deserve. This is where the intermodal concept and practice best fit in. In the private freight sector, intermodal practices have worked well for many years. However, the public passenger transportation is moving much slower towards an intermodal system. In 1991, the modal percentage share of intercity freight in the US in terms of tonnage and ton-miles is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Intercity Freight by Mode and Tons/Ton-Miles Freight Mode By Tons By Ton-Miles Truck Rail Water Pipeline Air 41.5% 26.8% 15.8% 15.8% 0.1% 24.5% 34.8% 21.9% 18.5% 0.3% Source: Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1994
566 Urban Transport and the Environment As a rule of thumb, highway related spending accounts for more than 80% of the US transportation spending and aviation about 10%. The rest modes sum up to the remaining 10%. Table 3 represents a breakdown of modal elements for 1991. Table 3 Transportation Spending by Mode Highway $804 Billion (83%) Air Rail Water Transit Pipeline $88 Billion $34 Billion $22 Billion $18 Billion $8 Billion (9%) (3%) (2%) (2%) (1%) Source: Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1994 3 Reasons for Intermodal Transportation 3.1 Economic Efficiency ( Krebs[6]) * Lowering overall transportation costs * Increasing economic productivity and efficiency * Shifting transport burden from over-burdened portions to less burdened ones * Generating higher returns from public and private infrastructure investment * Reducing energy consumption and improving environment * Employing the relative strengths of each mode while reducing use of less efficient modes 3.2 Growing Congestion of Transportation Systems which tend to * Increase accident rates * Increase operating costs * Cause air pollution problems * Reduce industrial productivity and business efficiency 3.3 Fewer New Construction of Transportation Infrastructures 3.4 More Long Distance Transporting 3.5 Increasing International Shipping and Containerization 4 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) The ISTEA is a legislative action passed in 1991 which brings major challenges
Urban Transport and the Environment 567 to transportation by restructuring funding and redirecting programs and projects with the following features: * shift of focus from new construction to improving existing systems; * greaterflexibilityfor metropolitan areas in determining transportation pogroms and projects; *fiscallyconstrained transportation improvement program; * conformity with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments; * attention upon transportation impacts on historic preservation, aesthetics, scenic, and archaeological projects, as well as water quality; * requirements of preparing six management systems: intermodal, congestion, public transportation, safety, pavement, and bridge; * emphasis on development of an integrated and multimodal system. The last two features relate to intermodal aspects of developing an environmentally sound and economically efficient transportation system. 5 Examples of Intermodal Transportation in the United States 5.1 Current Passenger Intermodal Projects in the US There are more than 100 intermodal transportation passenger terminal facility projects in the US. Most are under study with about a dozen have completed and anotherfifteenunder different stages of construction (USDOT[14]). Since the passage of the ISTEA, considerable interest has been generated throughout the US with respect to the construction of new facilities and rehabilitation of existing facilities, i.e. centrally located main railway stations. Services usually include some of the modes, such as air, auto, bicycle, bus, heavy rail, light rail, intercity bus, pedestrian, taxi, van, etc. 5.2 US DOT's Office of Intermodalism and US DOT's Reorganization The Office of Intermodalism in the Secretary's Office was created by the Title V of the ISTEA as the major intermodal advocate. There are discussions on potential consolidation of the US DOT's ten agencies into three: Coast Guard, Aviation, and Intermodal. The last one consists of FHWA, FT A, FRA, and others. The proposal is still subject to further evaluation due to various concerns, such as existing federal grants delivery systems, highway Trust Fund, and effects on private/public alliance and privatization (Griffin[3]). 5.3 US DOT's National Transportation System (NTS) Intermodal transportation is the basis of the NTS, a concept promoted by Secretary Pena. NTS is more than just maps showing availability of various
568 Urban Transport and the Environment modes by location. It emphasizes analytical and performance measures. By incorporating the individual modes into the NTS, the nation's transportation system will function in a more collaborated way. 5.4 Denver Union Terminal (DUT) The City of Denver, along with regional transit agency, EPA, property owners, is conducting a joint intermodal facility study to determine the feasibility of using the DUT to connect intercity, regional, and local transportation modes with emphasis on how to integrate the needs of future and existing private development and public infrastructure improvements in the vicinity. Current work focuses on the items listed below (Perkins-Smith and Gibson[10]): * types of modes currently operating from this terminal; * relationships among these modes; * opportunities and constraints of terminal and adjacent areas; * space and operating requirements of individual modes; * facility layouts for development scenarios; * technical andfinancialanalysis. 5.5 Integration of Bus and Light Rail Transit (LRT) in Denver Thefirstleg (5.3 miles) of the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) LRT went into operation in October 1994. The system operates between 4:30 AM and 1:30 AM, 7 days a week with four headway patterns, namely, peak (5 minutes), off-peak (10), night (15), and late night (30): Denver LRT Headway Hours 4:30AM - 6:OOAM 6:OOAM - 9:OOAM 9:OOAM - 4:OOPM 4:OOPM - 7:OOPM 7:OOPM -10:OOPM 10:OOPM-Midnight Midnight- 1:30AM Weekdays Off-Peak Peak OfF-Peak Peak OfF-Peak Night Late Night Weekends/Holidays Off-Peak OfF-Peak Off-Peak Off-Peak Night Night Late Night Source: MAC Extension: Response to DRCOG Evaluation Criteria 1992 RTD has a complex bus operations system. The inclusion of a LRT in the core of the Denver central business district (CBD) requires detailed analysis and reworking of the system wide bus operating plan including the following goals:
Urban Transport and the Environment 569 * make distinction between transit stops and transit stations; * do not have bus routes competing with LRT line; * keep buses out of CBD through feeder bus services to LRT; * regional, express, and limited bus services from SE and SW terminate at southern LRT station for transfer; * Continue providing cross-town service by rerouting away from CBD. The impact of LRT on bus operations is four fold: 1) almost 500 daily bus trips removed from CBD; 2) reduction of heavy diesel-engine buses from CBD traffic, 3) reduced bus staging needs in CBD; 4) improved environment for residents near CBD. 5.6 American President Lines (APL) APL is one of the pioneers in modern intermodal freight transportation. In 1970's the APL made its decision to concentrate solely on trade in the Pacific Basin. Its container fleet serves the Far East/Southeast Asia and the US West coast. After reaching the west coast, containers are shipped by double-stack rail cars eastward. The strategy to handle the empty containers after reaching destinations was tofillthem with domestic cargo bound for the coastal areas in the west. Using this intermodal strategy, the APL competes successfully with the all-water service by other companies through the Panama Canal (Muller [8]). 6 Problems and Concerns of Intermodal Transportation Every change of modes embracing a transfer costs in terms of time and money, such as rail traction fee, costs for using terminal units, and terminal equipment/operation fee for key parties involved (ECMT[1J). The following problems and concerns are identified from passenger and freight intermodal points of view (Krebs[6], Eno's[2]): 6.1 Institutional * Traditional modal bias of transportation agencies; * Equipment standardization problems; * Voluntary cooperation among different modal carriers vs. creation of multimodal transportation companies. 6.2 Financial/Legal * Time delay caused by mode change process; * Inflexible pricing - saving only on long distance shipping; * Loss due to damage during shipping;
570 Urban Transport and the Environment * Claim handling and responsible parties determination; * Status quo mentality, e.g. airport authority not willing to give up passenger auto parking revenues by encouraging transit usage. 6.3 Informational * Insufficient or inconsistent modal information; * Proprietary nature of freight transport information. 6.4 Operational * Inadequate terminal/transfer point facilities; * Lack of a set of acceptable performance measures; * Damage to roadway pavement and bridge from heavy trucks; * Causing congestion and noise in old urban areas. In urban areas, there are concerns for goods movement in the old ports and rail yards due to of operational constraints, such as road geometric design, pavement conditions, tunnel and overpass clearance for double-stack rail cars, and bridge loading capacity (Lipinskif?]). The most critical concern, however, is the lacking of a set of performance measures in order to provide information on how the intermodal system works, where the problems are, as well as for comparison purposes. A FHWA paper (Ismart[5]) lists the following performance categories and measures byfreightand passenger: Freight Category Physical Limitation Measure * Structural vertical clearance * Remaining design life Terminal Accessibility * Travel time from terminal to major arterials of access controlled facility Delivery & Collection * Unloading dock availability System * Time for delivery or loading * Percent delivered off-peak Transferability and Coordination Safety * Transfer time between modes * Speed of modes and delay time * Highway delay at railroad crossings * Highway delay time at bridge openings * Accident per million vehicle
Urban Transport and the Environment 571 legal or Regulatory * Administrative processing time * Degree of liability Passenger Physical Limitations Terminal Accessibility Delivery & Collection Transferability and Collection Safety Legal or Regulatory * Volume to capacity ratio of parking spaces during peak time * Remaining design life * Capacity and level of service * Pedestrian crossing per mile of major arterials and limited access facilities * Travel time between terminal and major activity centers or % of market within 45 minutes * Number of modal choices * Transfer time between modes * Queuing time * Accident per million vehicles * Accident per million pedestrians * Accident per 100,000 bicycles * Same as freight measures The standards used for measurement include clearance (ft.), design life (year), travel/delivery/loading/queuing time (hour/minute), speed (mile), market served (percentage), ratio, rate, etc. Apparently tremendous data collection is the first step of developing performance measures. Without adequate performance measures as analytical tools, intermodal transportation development will be far from implementation except for some sporadic cases. 7 Conclusion Transportation involves more than moving people or goods from origins to destinations. With emphasis on better connection and cooperation, intermodal transportation offers an opportunity to develop an efficient transportation network, given the country's vast land area, increasing mobility, and concerns for a sustainable environment. References 1. ECMT, Possibilities and Limitations of Combined Transport, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1993
572 Urban Transport and the Environment 2. Eno 's Transportation Quarterly, Intermodalism: An Eno's Forum, Autumn, 1994, 343-354 3. Griffin, Gene C, US DOT Reorganization, in Eno's Transportation Quarterly, Summer, 1995, 3, 3-14 4. Horowitz, Alan J. & Thompson, Nick A., Evaluation oflntermodal Passenger transfer Facilities, Technology Sharing Program, US Department of Transportation, September 1995 5. Ismart, Dane, Intermodal Management System, No Date 6. Krebs, Robert D., Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System in Eno's Transportation Quarterly, Autumn 1994, 333-342 7. Lipinski, Martin E. Intermodal Terminal Access - Challenge to Transportation Engineers in Compendium of Technical Papers, 65th ITE Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1995 8. Muller, Gerhardt, Intermodal Freight Transportation, Intermodal Assoc. of North America and Eno Transportation Foundation, 3rd ed., 1995 9. National Commission on Intermodal Transportation, Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System, Washington, September 1994 10. Perkins-Smith, Debra, Gibson, Larry W, Intermodal Facility Development of Denver Union Station, in Compendium of Technical Papers, 65th ITE Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1995 11. Regional Transportation District, MAC Extension: Response to DRCOG Evaluation Criteria, June 1992 12. Transportation Research Board, ISTEA and Intermodal Planning: Concept, Practice, and Vision, Special Report 240, 1993 13. US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual Report, 1994 14. US Department of Transportation, Intermodal Terminal Committee, Intermodal Passenger Terminal Facilities Project Summaries: A Compendium of Proposed, Active, and Completed Intermodal Passenger Terminal Facilities, 1994