Footnote 1. Assigning the user benefits of freight transport to shippers rather than vehicle drivers is consistent with the concept of assigning the user benefits of public transport to bus passengers rather than bus drivers. |-BACK-|
Footnote 2. For example, car speeds may benefit as a result of new truck lanes or improved truck routes intended to address truck flow needs. |-BACK-|
Footnote 3. As previously noted, environmental impacts related to large-scale transportation project investments have been addressed in other studies and are excluded from this report to maintain a focus on non-environmental economic effects. |-BACK-|
Footnote 4. A string line display is a time space diagram where geographic locations (either stations or mileposts) are on the y-axis and times are on the x-axis. Trains can be shown moving in two directions. A key aspect of string line displays is showing where two trains cross, which must be at a siding or other location with multiple tracks. |-BACK-|
Footnote 5. For a more detailed description of parametric capacity models, see Harold Krueger, Parametric Modeling in Rail Capacity Planning, Proceedings of the 1999 Winter Simulation Conference. Also see Federal Railroad Administration, Parametric Analysis of Railway Line Capacity, August 1975, Report No. FRA-OPPD-75-1. |-BACK-|
Footnote 6. Most travel demand network models are based on “average” travel conditions and typically do not adequately capture the effects of incidents. |-BACK-|
Footnote 7. Economies of scale effects for carriers and shippers that gain business must be compared with productivity losses at firms in the U.S. that lose business activity. |-BACK-|
Footnote 8. As long as demand is price-sensitive (elastic), then a monopoly with sufficiently reduced operating costs will find it profitable to also reduce its selling prices. |-BACK-|
Footnote 9. Freight Transportation: Improvements and the Economy, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Washington, D.C.; June 2004. |-BACK-|
Footnote 10. Economic Effects of Transportation: The Freight Story, Final Report, by ICF Consulting and HLB Decision Economics for the FHWA, 2002. |-BACK-|
Footnote 11. Economic Implications of Road Congestion, Weisbrod, G., D. Vary, and G. Treyz. 2001, NCHRP Report 463, National Academy Press. |-BACK-|
Footnote 12. Value-added effects by industry are consistent with the concept of gross domestic product (GDP) and is the most commonly used metric to capture the production of the U.S. economy. |-BACK-|
Footnote 13. Calculated from the U.S. International Trade Administration data. |-BACK-|
Footnote 14. Export growth from transportation projects in one area could, of course, offset exports from another site in the U.S. However, the offset ratio for local growth in export is likely to be far less than 1.0, while for purely local sectors (e.g., dry cleaning, restaurants), the offset ratio will be 1.0. In any case, exports are reported net of interregional offsets. |-BACK-|
Footnote 15. Note: All applications of the REMI model for major transportation projects have used REMI Policy Insight as part of a broader analysis framework to analyze freight cost impacts and calculate implications for industry costs (as inputs to the model). There is also a version called TranSight, which provides a limited set of transportation inputs (VMT, VHT, and accident rates for highway and bus modes), making it generally useful for straightforward urban congestion scenarios. By itself, it lacks the ability to fully distinguish freight from passenger mode impacts, to account for impacts on different commodities, or to adjust for time of day, seasonality, or reliability factors. |-BACK-|
Footnote 16. Use of the REDYN model for transportation impact analysis is conducted through the TREDIS-REDYN system. |-BACK-|
Footnote 17. For further description, see Economic Analysis Primer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Asset Management, August 2003. |-BACK-|
Footnote 18. Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study Summary Report, I-95 Corridor Coalition, April 2002. |-BACK-|
Footnote 19. Rail Short Haul Intermodal Corridor Case Studies, Foundations for Intermodal Research and Education, March 2003. |-BACK-|
Footnote 20. Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study Interim Benefits Assessment, I-95 Corridor Coalition, February 2004. |-BACK-|
Footnote 21. PB Consult originally used estimates of 500 miles (for trips originating and terminating in MD) and 750 miles (for through trips). Based on the CFS data, these were deemed to be somewhat aggressive, and consequently, the average distance was lowered. In an attempt to maintain the same ratio used by PB Consult between through and non-through trips, an estimate of 500 miles was used for through trips. |-BACK-|
Footnote 22. Cambridge Systematics created linear time-series for all benefit concepts to assess benefits over time and estimate benefit/cost measures. The use of linear extrapolations is more conservative than an alternative approach of using exponential growth factors. |-BACK-|
Footnote 23. In the March 31, 2005 memorandum from PB Consult to Maryland DOT, they use a value of $30.00 per hour for all Amtrak NE Corridor riders. The assumption used here is more conservative and accounts for passenger travel that is not of a business nature. |-BACK-|
Footnote 24. Fifty percent of the people traveling through Maryland were assumed to be doing so for business, 25 percent of people traveling to/from MD on the NE Corridor were assumed to be doing so for business, while 50 percent of those traveling to/from MD on the remaining lines were doing so for the same purpose. The combination of these percentages and the ridership results in 46 percent of people traveling for business. |-BACK-|
Footnote 25. If the data is readily available, an alternative approach would use the business output per Supply Chain Type™ combined with data from the Transportation Satellite Accounts to more accurately reflect how modal improvements (rail, highway, marine, air) are linked to industries. |-BACK-|
Footnote 26. It is important to view these costs as preliminary as actual costs could vary significantly once the actual alignment is chosen and more detailed engineering work is completed. |-BACK-|
Footnote 27. 2005 State of Logistics Report. |-BACK-|
Footnote 28. Shippers are defined here as companies that send product to another company, whereas receivers are companies that receive product that is shipped by another company. Most manufacturers are both shippers and receivers because they receive raw materials and ship finished product, so when viewed across a whole sector the distinction becomes irrelevant. |-BACK-|
Footnote 29. Although companies usually have a mix of freight terms with their suppliers and customers, in practice shippers often pay the freight bill to the carriers and receivers pay it as part of the product price or as a separate line item on the invoice. Receivers increasingly “unbundle” the freight component, especially where they have significant purchasing power in freight, in order to have more control over the delivered cost. |-BACK-|
Footnote 30. Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, U.S. DOT, FHWA, May 2000. |-BACK-|
Footnote 31. CSX, UP, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, Canadian Pacific, and Canadian National. |-BACK-|