Final Scope

A number of different methods are used to survey freight movements at state and regional levels, including movements by small freight services and commercial service providers (e.g., plumbers, cable servicemen, etc).   The data obtained are used for different purposes and have different levels of accuracy, reliability, and detail.  A need exists to examine the different methods, techniques, and results of current efforts to survey and collect data on freight transportation.  This review should be comprehensive and include sample size, data accuracy, data comprehensiveness, and survey objectives.  It may also include a discussion of the feasibility and benefits of linking survey data with data from informatics such as roadway, on-board vehicle, and wide area sensors.

The following information will be collected on methods and techniques used to survey freight transportation by all modes-

·        Purposes for which data are collected, and survey methods appropriate for each purpose

·        Survey types, including

• Roadside interviews
• Web based
• Mail-in / mail-back surveys
• Vehicle Intercept
• Telephone call-in / call-back
• Personal interviews
• Vehicle tracking
• License plate match
• Administrative data
• Focus and stakeholder groups/ Delphi techniques

·        sampling issues

·        regional / corridor vs. statewide survey freight survey issues and tools

·        design of surveys at different levels so that data can be integrated

·        cost of surveys and data collection

·        proprietary and restricted-use information issues, 

·        any guidelines used by agencies in formulating freight transportation surveys to meet their specific data needs, and

·        gaps in knowledge and research needs, including for guidelines  

Information will be gathered by literature review (including international), surveys of state DOTs and MPOs, and selected interviews.

The report will include a matrix of data needs and survey types, and brief case studies illustrating successful practices.   

Information Sources:

RITA / Census Commodity Flow Survey

FHWA Freight Model Improvement Program

TRB SR 276, A Concept for a National Freight Data Program, Appendix B Review of Freight Survey Collection Techniques

TRB Travel Survey Methods Committee, Freight Survey Subcommittee 

FHWA Quick Response Freight Manual II http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/qrfm2/index.htm#toc

NCFRP 12, Specifications for Freight Transportation Data Architecture

States which are active in freight surveys, e.g., California, Texas, Ohio, Virginia, Washington, Oregon, New York, Quebec, Alabama, Florida (multi-state coalitions, e.g. I-95)

MPOs, e.g. Baltimore, Phoenix, Los Angeles SCAG, Bay Area MTC, Fresno, San Diego Sandag, Hampton Roads, ARC, Washington MWCOG, Chicago CMAP,  New York NYMTC and PANYNJ

NCDOT survey on how states are structured for freight planning (UNC).    

Topic Panel

Matthew Fowler, Georgia DOT

Todd Sax, California Air Resources Board

Frank Southworth, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Georgia Institute of Technology

Kimberly Spence, Virginia DOT

Janie Temple, Texas DOT

George Xu, Washington State DOT

Raj S. Ghaman, Federal Highway Administration

Michael Sprung, Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Elaine King, Transportation Research Board

Consultant

David S. Kriger, iTRANS Consulting, Inc.

TRB Staff

Jon M. Williams

phone               202/334-3245

fax                    202/334-2081

email                jwilliams@nas.edu