As available data have increased and as the national transportation funding bills have moved toward objective evaluation, departments of transportation (DOTs) throughout the United States have begun to develop tools to attempt to measure the effects of different projects. Increasingly, DOTs recognize that the freight transportation system is necessarily multimodal. However, no DOTs have clearly stated objective tools with which to evaluate multimodal freight project comparisons. This paper informs that gap by summarizing the existing academic literature on the state of the science for the estimation of freight project impacts and by reviewing methods currently used by selected DOTs nationwide. These methods are analyzed to identify common themes to determine potential avenues for multimodal project evaluation.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan, 2010–2050: Task 5 Report: Freight Improvement Project Recommendations.Georgia Department of Transportation and the Georgia Center of Innovation for Logistics, Savannah, 2011.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; Economic Development Research Group, Inc.; Halcrow, Inc.; DecisionTek LLC; and Boston Strategies International. NCFRP Report 12: Framework and Tools for Estimating Benefits of Specific Freight Network Investments.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
18.
SageJ., CasavantK., JessupE., WangZ., and GoodchildA.WSDOT Truck Freight Highway Benefit and Economic Impacts Analysis: Review of Literature.Washington State DOT, Olympia, 2012.
19.
KimS. D., BrewerT., KretchikG., KwonD., YeoH., and BrownK.Prioritization of Future Freight Infrastructure Projects within the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS), Anchorage, Alaska, 2010.
20.
BryanJ., WeisbrodG., and MartlandC. D.NCHRP Report 586: Rail Freight Solutions to Roadway Congestion-Report and Guidebook.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
RoopS. S., and MathurS. K.NCHRP Research Results Digest 258: Development of a Computer Model for Multimodal, Multicriteria Transportation Investment Analysis.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001.
23.
YoungR., BarnesJ., and RutherfordG. S.Multimodal Investment Choice Analysis, Volume I: Phase I.Final research report. Research Project T1803. Task 36. Washington State Transportation Center, Olympia, 2002.
24.
ProtopapasA., KruseC. J., and OlsonL. E.Modal Comparison of Domestic Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2330, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 55–62.
25.
KoB.Identification of Preferred Performance Measures for the Assessment of Truck Level of Service. PhD dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, 2007.
26.
McMullenB. S., and MonsereC.Freight Performance Measures: Approach Analysis: Final Report. SPR 664 for Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, May 2010.
27.
Gordon Proctor & Associates, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., American Transportation Research Institute, StarIsis Corporation, and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. NCFRP Report 10: Performance Measures for Freight Transportation.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
28.
WinterichD., EiseleW. L., VillaJ., and SchrankD. L.Developing and Applying Mobility Performance Measures for Freight Transportation in Urban Areas (No. SWUTC/09/476660-00014-1). Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, College Station, 2009.
29.
GongQ., MiaoQ., WangB. X., and AdamsT. M.Assessing Public Benefits and Costs of Freight Transportation Projects: Measuring Shippers’ Value of Delay on the Freight System (No. CFIRE 04-14). 2012.
30.
OutwaterM. L., AdlerT., DumontJ., KitchenM., and BassokA.Quantitative Approaches for Project Prioritization. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2303, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 108–116.
