Freight movement, port facilities, and economic competitiveness [July 2014]

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 12-22
FINAL REPORT
FREIGHT MOVEMENT, PORT FACILITIES, AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
OFFICE OF RESEARCH
15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2534

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE

1. Report No.: FHWA-GA-15-1222

2. Government Accession No.:

3. Recipient's Catalog No.:

4. Title and Subtitle: Freight Movement, Port Facilities, and Economic Competitiveness
7. Author(s): Dr. Catherine L. Ross, Principal Investigator Dr. David Jung-Hwi Lee, Co-Principal Investigator

5. Report Date: July 2014 6. Performing Organization Code: 8. Performing Organ. Report No.: 12-22

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Georgia Tech Research Corporation College of Architecture Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD) 760 Spring Street, Suite 213 Atlanta, GA 30332-0790
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Research 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2534

10. Work Unit No.:
11. Contract or Grant No.: 0011746
13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Final; January 2012 July 2014
14. Sponsoring Agency Code:

15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
16. Abstract: This research report examines how the Panama Canal expansion will affect freight at three ports, truck movement between the ports and inland economic hubs and the economic impacts accompanying the shift in cargo shipping patterns. Economic impacts stemming from the Panama Canal expansion are examined with three primary research objectives: to profile the relationship between the Panama Canal and port activities along the East and Gulf Coasts and explore the nature of inland freight movement; to examine the implications for highway infrastructure resulting from a change in freight movement; and to model different scenarios of the Panama Canal expansions' impact on local economic activity.
The analysis begins by examining 14 east and Gulf Coast ports having a combined cargo volume of over one quarter million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU). The research contains a deeper analysis of the relationship between highway network conditions, port activity and local and regional economies utilizing large seasonal truck GPS samples for three selected ports: the Garden City Terminal at the Port of Savannah, the Norfolk International Terminals in at the Port of Virginia, and the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal at the Port of New Orleans. GPS truck data showed that congestion around the Port of New Orleans is limiting truck range compared with Savannah or Norfolk. While the Savannah area is not severely congested, main truck routes encounter congestion around major cities and highway interchanges in Georgia, and by 2040 congestion is expected to affect urban and rural interstates in South and North Carolina.

17. Key Words: Freight Movement; Port Facilities; Georgia Freight and Logistics Plan; Panama Canal Expansion

18. Distribution Statement:

19. Security Classification (of this report): Unclassified
Form DOT 1700.7 (8-69)

20. Security Classification (of this page):
Unclassified

21. Number of Pages: 223

22. Price:

ii

Project Title: Freight Movement, Port Facilities, and Economic Competitiveness Deliverable 5: Final Report
Submitted to: National Center for Transportation Systems Productivity and Management Civil & Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology O. Lamar Allen Sustainable Education Building 788 Atlantic Drive Atlanta, GA 30332-0355 Point of Contact: Dr. Michael P. Hunter
Submitted by: Georgia Tech Research Corporation (A Non-profit, State Controlled Institution of Higher Education) Principal Investigator: Dr. Catherine L. Ross (catherine.ross@coa.gatech.edu) Co-Principal Investigator: Dr. David Jung-Hwi Lee (david.lee@coa.gatech.edu) Researchers: Dr. Chelsea C. White III, Dr. Alan L. Erera, Peter Hylton, Fangru Wang, Yun Sang Lee, Sarah Smith Georgia Institute of Technology College of Architecture Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD) 760 Spring Street, Suite 213 Atlanta, GA 30332-0790 Phone: (404) 385-5133, FAX: (404) 385-5127
iii

University Transportation Center: Freight Movement, Port Facilities, and Economic Competitiveness

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. 1

About the Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 7

Research Background .........................................................................................TQ.h.u.ea..lC.it.ey.n.G.t.er.or.w.f.ot.hr... 7

Report Organization ............................................................................................a..n.d..R..e..g.i.o.n..a.l...12
Development

SECTION II. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 14

(CQGRD) is an applied

Expected Impacts of Canal Expansion ................................................................r.e.s..e.a..r.c.h..c..e.n..t.e.r14

of the Georgia
Introduction ......................................................................................................I.n.s..t.it.u..t.e..o.f......14

Traffic Diversion ...............................................................................................TT.he..ce.h.C.n.eo.n.l.ot.eg.ry.......14

Vessel Size ......................................................................................................sc.eo..rm.v.em..s.u.n..it.i.e.s...b.y16

Export Potential................................................................................................p..r.o.d..u.c.i.n..g.,......16
disseminating,

Other Opinions.................................................................................................a..n.d..h..e.l.p..in..g..t.o..17

implement new
Uncertainties ....................................................................................................i.d.e..a.s..a..n.d........17

technologies
Economic, Safety, and Policy Considerations......................................................t.h..a.t..im...p.r.o..v.e....21

Economic Impact Analysis and Methodologies ................................................tp.h.r.ea.c.tt.hi.ce.e.o.r.oy.f.a..n.d..21

Freight Safety ..................................................................................................q..u.a..li.t.y..g.r.o..w..th....21

The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan .............................................................24

SECTION III. BASELINE CONDITIONS..................................................... 27 For more
information
Characterizing the Nature of Freight Movement ..................................................v.i.s.i.t..............27
www.cqgrd.gate
Status of the Panama Canal ............................................................................c.h....e.d..u............27

Panama Canal Expansion..................................................................................................31

Asian American Trade Routes ........................................................................................35

Status of East and Gulf Coast Ports with Over a Quarter Million Container Volume Annually ...................................................................................................................39

Current Pattern of North American Inland Freight Movement Pattern.................................39

iv

Port Overview ....................................................................................................................45 SECTION IV. FREIGHT MOVEMENT FROM A MEGAREGIONS PERSPECTIVE.......................................................................................... 52
Case Study Introduction ........................................................................................................52 Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion ...........................................................................................52 Texas Triangle Megaregion ...............................................................................................53 DC-Virginia Megaregion.....................................................................................................53
Port Facilities.........................................................................................................................54 Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion ...........................................................................................54 Texas Triangle Megaregion ...............................................................................................56 DC-Virginia Megaregion.....................................................................................................59
Major Truck Corridors in the Three Megaregions...................................................................61 Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion ...........................................................................................62 Texas Triangle Megaregion ...............................................................................................66 DC-Virginia Megaregion.....................................................................................................71
Industry Clustering.................................................................................................................76 Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion ...........................................................................................76 Texas Triangle Megaregion ...............................................................................................79 DC-Virginia Megaregion.....................................................................................................81 Policy Implications .............................................................................................................82
Warehouse and Distribution Center Locations.......................................................................84 Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion ...........................................................................................84 Texas Triangle Megaregion ...............................................................................................86 DC-Virginia Megaregion.....................................................................................................88 Policy Implications .............................................................................................................90
Commodities Distributions of the Megaregions ......................................................................92 FAF3 Data Structure and Processing .................................................................................92 Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Imported Commodities .......................................................94 Texas Triangle Megaregion Imported Commodities ...........................................................98 DC-Virginia Megaregion Imported Commodities ..............................................................102 Policy Implications ...........................................................................................................106
SECTION V. TRUCK NETWORK ANALYSIS ......................................... 107 Analysis of Trucking Routes from Selected Port Facilities ...................................................107
v

Introduction ......................................................................................................................107 Research Scope ..............................................................................................................108 Methodology ....................................................................................................................108 Analysis ...........................................................................................................................110 Policy Implications ...........................................................................................................131 Port-to-Destination Performance Analysis from the Megaregion Perspective ......................132 Methodology ....................................................................................................................132 Analysis ...........................................................................................................................134 Comparative Analysis ......................................................................................................146 Policy Implications ...........................................................................................................148 SECTION VI. IMPACTS OF THE PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION ON FREIGHT MOVEMENT............................................................................ 149 Modeling the Panama Canal Expansion Impacts.................................................................149 Analytical Approach .........................................................................................................149 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................149 Port Activity Growth .........................................................................................................149 Economic Growth Factor..................................................................................................151 Growth Factor Due to Canal Expansion ...........................................................................152 Base Year (2013) to Year 2040........................................................................................154 Projected Freight Volumes for 2040 .................................................................................154 Conversion of Tonnage to Truck Volumes .......................................................................156 Link Volumes on Truck Corridors .....................................................................................159 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................159 SECTION VII. REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS ............... 160 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................160 Methodology of Estimating the Economic Impact of Increase in Truck Volume due to Panama Expansion...................................................................................................161 Economic Impact Analysis Results ......................................................................................164 County Economic Impact of Output and Value Added......................................................164 County Economic Impact of Employment.........................................................................169 Impact of Commodity Movement on the Major Truck Corridors in Georgia.......................173 Section VIII: CONCLUSION ..................................................................... 182 Review of Research Question and Methodology .................................................................182
vi

Shipping Volumes ...............................................................................................................183 Finding 1: Cargo throughput at any individual port depends on a myriad of local, national, and global factors. ....................................................................................183
Truck Volumes ....................................................................................................................184 Finding 1: Several scenarios of freight demand show the Panama Canal expansion will likely have a significant impact on truck traffic. ..........................................184 Finding 2: Rail will be most competitive with trucks on corridors with a high levels of congestion. ........................................................................................................184
Bottlenecks .......................................................................................................................... 185 Finding 1: Highways around the Savannah port are better prepared for canal-related growth than either Norfolk or New Orleans. ................................................185 Finding 2: Bottlenecks exist around all three ports with increased levels of congestion expected. .......................................................................................................185 Finding 3: Most major Georgia freight routes are currently designated freight corridors; others may need to be added. ...............................................................187
Parking Needs and Safety ...................................................................................................189 Finding 1: The availability of truck parking may be a safety concern as freight traffic grows...........................................................................................................189 Finding 2: Georgia is least equipped with truck parking compared to surrounding states. ..........................................................................................................189 Finding 3: Each corridor in each megaregion will require additional parking to maintain the current level of service. ............................................................................190 Finding 4: Growing freight volumes may affect truck-related accident rates far from the port generating the traffic. .............................................................................190
Economic Impact.................................................................................................................190 Finding 1: Primary benefactors are counties surrounding the Port of Savannah and major population centers ..........................................................................190 Finding 2: Panama Canal expansion will potentially have an economic impact of over $35 billion by 2040 in Georgia...................................................................191
Recommendations............................................................................................................... 192 I. Address Bottlenecks .....................................................................................................192 II. Strengthen Coordination between Port Operators and State Department of Transportation..............................................................................................................192 III. Leverage Designated Freight Corridors.......................................................................193
REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 194 APPENDICES.......................................................................................... 202
vii

APPENDIX 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology.................................................................202 Two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes ........................202 Industry Clustering in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion .......................................................205 Industry Clustering in Texas Triangle Megaregion ...........................................................207 Industry Clustering in DC-VA Megaregion........................................................................208
APPENDIX 2: Trip Algorithm ...............................................................................................209 APPENDIX 3: Distribution Centers ......................................................................................210 APPENDIX 4: Major Truck Corridors ...................................................................................212 APPENDIX 5: Truck Volumes in Destination Counties ........................................................219 APPENDIX 6: Truck Volumes on Major Corridors ...............................................................221
viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Major Port Locations

9

Figure 2. Three Ports and Megaregions of Study

10

Figure 3: Movement of Line of Cost Equivalence Before and After Canal Expansion

15

Figure 4: Competing Routes to the U.S. East Coast from Asia Through the Suez Canal

("Westbound"), the Panama Canal ("Eastbound"), and Ship and Truck/Rail ("Land Bridge") 18

Figure 5: Contrast Between a Conventional Route to U.S. East and Gulf Coasts and a Proposed

Routing Involving a Caribbean Transshipment Hub

20

Figure 6: Cargo Volume Trend

32

Figure 7: Canal Waters Time

32

Figure 8: Cargo Volume by Trade Route

34

Figure 9: The Proportion of Cargo Volume by Trade Route

35

Figure 10: NYE / SCE Combo Service - Trade Route

36

Figure 11: Vessel Size Categories

37

Figure 12: Maersk Transpacific 3 Route

37

Figure 13: Panama Canal Route vs. Suez Canal Route Between East Asia and the Eastern

United States

38

Figure 14: Major Port Locations

39

Figure 15: Savannah Transportation Infrastructure

40

Figure 16: Norfolk Transportation Infrastructure

42

Figure 17: New Orleans Transportation Infrastructure

44

Figure 18: Planned Port Depths

50

Figure 19: Port Deepening Status

50

Figure 20: Ports in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion and Their Total Trade Volumes

54

Figure 21: Ports in Texas Triangle Megaregion and Their Total Trade Volumes

56

Figure 22: Ports in DC-Virginia Megaregion and Their Total Trade Volumes

59

Figure 23: FAF3 Network

61

Figure 24: Major Truck Corridors with Volumes Over 4,000 Trucks per Day per Route in

Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

62

Figure 25: Volume to Capacity Ratio Along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

64

Figure 26: Average Travel Speed Along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

65

Figure 27: Peak Hour Delay Along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2007

66

Figure 28: Major Truck Corridors in Texas Triangle Megaregion

67

Figure 29: 2007 Volume to Capacity Ratio Along Routes in Texas Triangle

68

Figure 30: Average Travel Speed Along the Routes in the Texas Triangle in 2007

69

Figure 31: Peak Hour Delay in Minutes Along the Routes in the Texas Triangle in 2007

70

Figure 32: Major Truck Corridors with Daily Truck Volume Larger Than 4,000 in 2007 in DC-

Virginia Megaregion

71

Figure 33: Volume to Capacity Ratio Along the Routes in DC-Virginia Megaregion

73

Figure 34: Average Travel Speed in DC-Virginia

74

Figure 35: Peak Hour Delay in Minutes in DC-Virginia

75

Figure 36: Location Quotients for NAICS 31-33 / Manufacturing

78

Figure 37: NAICS 21 Activity in the Texas Triangle

80

Figure 38: Location Quotients for NAICS 54 / Professional Services

82

ix

Figure 39: Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Distribution Centers by Proximity to Cities

85

Figure 40: Piedmont Atlantic Distribution Centers

86

Figure 41: Texas Triangle Distribution Centers by Proximity to Cities

87

Figure 42: Texas Triangle Distribution Centers

88

Figure 43: DC-Virginia Distribution Centers by Proximity to Cities

89

Figure 44: DC-Virginia Distribution Centers

90

Figure 45. Mix of Commodities Imported to the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Through the

Coastal Ports, by Tonnage

95

Figure 46: Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)

96

Figure 47: Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Extra-Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)

97

Figure 48. Mix of Commodities Imported to the Texas Triangle Megaregion Through the Coastal

Ports, by Tonnage

99

Figure 49: Texas Triangle Megaregion Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)

100

Figure 50: Texas Triangle Megaregion Extra-Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)

100

Figure 51. Mix of Commodities Imported to the DC-Virginia Megaregion Through the Coastal

Ports, by Tonnage

103

Figure 52: DC-Virginia Megaregion Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)

104

Figure 53: DC-Virginia Megaregion Extra-Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)

105

Figure 54: Truck Flows From the Ports of Savannah, Norfolk, and New Orleans

110

Figure 55: Distribution of Truck Trip Lengths by Port of Origin

111

Figure 56: Change in Average Truck Trip Lengths by Quarter and Port of Origin

111

Figure 57: Port of Savannah

112

Figure 58: Savannah Trip Length Distribution by Year

113

Figure 59: Top 20 Port of Savannah Destinations

114

Figure 60: Savannah Route Choice and Destinations

115

Figure 61: Change in Savannah Route Utilization

116

Figure 62: Port of Norfolk

117

Figure 63: Norfolk Trip Length Distribution by Year

118

Figure 64: Top 20 Port of Norfolk Destinations

119

Figure 65: Norfolk Route Choice and Destinations

120

Figure 66: Change in Norfolk Route Utilization

122

Figure 67: Port of New Orleans

124

Figure 68: New Orleans Trip Length Distribution by Year

125

Figure 69: Top 20 Port of New Orleans Destinations

126

Figure 70: New Orleans Route Choice and Destinations

127

Figure 71: Change in New Orleans Route Utilization

129

Figure 72: Operational Regions

133

Figure 73: Port of Savannah Operational Region

134

Figure 74: Selected Routes Departing Savannah

135

Figure 75: Truck Parking Facilities in the Savannah Operational Region

137

Figure 76: Port of Norfolk Operational Region

138

Figure 77: Selected Routes Departing Norfolk

139

Figure 78: Truck Parking Facilities in the Norfolk Operational Region

141

Figure 79: Port of New Orleans Operational Region

142

x

Figure 80: Selected Routes Departing New Orleans

143

Figure 81: Truck Parking Facilities in the New Orleans Operational Region

145

Figure 82: Flow Chart of Estimating the Economic Impact of the Panama Canal Expansion on

Georgia

161

Figure 83: Economic Impact of Output and Value Added by County for the Base State in 2013

and Four Scenarios in 2040

165

Figure 84: Top 25 Counties of Output and Value Added in Scenario 2

167

Figure 85: Top 25 Counties of Growth of Employment in Scenario 2

171

Figure 86: Daily Route Volume of Commodities Transported by Truck due to the Impact of

Panama Canal Expansion

174

Figure 87: Important Truck Routes in Georgia by Their Shares of Tonnage of Commodities 175

Figure 88: Map of the Counties Covered by the Three Major Truck Corridors by Economic

Impact

176

Figure 89: Comparison Between the Most Impacted Truck Corridors and the Major Truck

Corridors Designated by the Statewide Plan

178

Figure 90: Interstate Truck Routes in Georgia by Their Shares of Tonnage of Commodities 179

Figure 91: Primary Freight Network by the Shares of Tonnage of Commodities from the Port of

Savannah

180

Figure 92: 2040 Congestion in Georgia

186

Figure 93: Comparison between the Most Impacted Truck Corridors and the Major Truck

Corridors Designated by the Statewide Plan

188

Figure 94: Location Quotient for NAICS 11 / Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting 205

Figure 95: Location Quotient for NAICS 48-49 / Transportation and Warehousing

205

Figure 96: Location Quotient for NAICS 22 / Utilities

206

Figure 97: Location Quotient for NAICS 44-45 / Retail Trade

206

Figure 98: Location Quotient for NAICS 23 Activity in the Texas Triangle

207

Figure 99: Location Quotient for NAICS 53 Activity in the Texas Triangle

207

Figure 100: Location Quotient for NAICS 61 / Educational Services

208

Figure 101: Location Quotient for NAICS 23 / Construction

208

Figure 102: 2040 Truck Volume per Day per Route in the Texas Triangle

212

Figure 103: 2040 Volume to Capacity Ratio Along Routes in the Texas Triangle

212

Figure 104: Average Travel Speed Along the Routes in Texas Triangle in 2040

213

Figure 105: Peak Hour Delay in Minutes along the Routes in the Texas Triangle in 2040 214

Figure 106: Major Corridors and Truck Volumes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2040 214

Figure 107: Volume to Capacity Ratio Along routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

215

Figure 108: Average Travel Speed Along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2040

215

Figure 109: Peak Hour Delay on the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2040

216

Figure 110: Forecasted Major Corridors and Truck Volumes in DC-Virginia 2040

216

Figure 111: Volume to Capacity Ratio of the Routes in DC-Virginia Megaregion

217

Figure 112: Forecasted Average Travel Speed along the Routes in DC-Virginia Megaregion 217

Figure 113: Forecasted Peak Hour Delay in DC-Virginia Megaregion

218

Figure 114: Differences in 2040 Truck Volume per Day between Scenarios for New Orleans 219

Figure 115: Differences in 2040 Truck Volume per Day between Scenarios for Norfolk

220

xi

Figure 116: Differences in 2040 Corridor Level Truck Volume per Day between Scenarios for

Norfolk

221

Figure 117: Differences in 2040 Corridor Level Truck Volume per Day Between Scenarios for

New Orleans

222

Figure 118: Differences in 2040 Corridor Level Truck Volume per Day Between Scenarios for

Savannah

223

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Cargo Volume by Trade Route in 2011

27

Table 2: Vessel Types in 2011

28

Table 3: Commodity Types in 2011 (Long Tons)

28

Table 4: Cargo Volume Through the Panama Canal in 2011 (Long Tons)

30

Table 5: Cargo Volume Through the Panama Canal in 2011 (Long Tons)

30

Table 6: Transit Time in Days (Latest update: 29 Oct 2013)

36

Table 7: Port Details, Ordered by Decreasing Container Volume

46

Table 8: Port Deepening Projects

49

Table 9: Profile of Ports in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

55

Table 10: Profile of Ports in Texas Triangle Megaregion

57

Table 11: Profile of Ports in DC Virginia Megaregion

60

Table 12: Top 20 Truck Corridors in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

63

Table 13: Top 20 Truck Corridors in the Texas Triangle

67

Table 14: Top 20 Truck Corridors in DC-Virginia Megaregion

72

Table 15: Piedmont Atlantic Industries, Ordered by Location Quotient

77

Table 16: Texas Triangle Location Quotients, Decreasing Order

79

Table 17: DC-Virginia Industries, Ordered by Location Quotient

81

Table 18: FAF3 Commodities

92

Table 19: Top 20 Port of Savannah Destinations

114

Table 20: Top 10 Most Utilized Segments - Savannah

115

Table 21: Largest Increase in Segment Utilization - Savannah

116

Table 22: Largest Decrease in Segment Utilization - Savannah

117

Table 23: Top 20 Port of Norfolk Destinations

119

Table 24: Top 10 Most Utilized Segments - Norfolk

121

Table 25: Largest Increase in Segment Utilization - Norfolk

122

Table 26: Largest Decrease in Segment Utilization - Norfolk

122

Table 27: Top 20 Port of New Orleans Destinations

126

Table 28: Top 10 Most Utilized Segments New Orleans

128

Table 29: Largest Increase in Segment Utilization New Orleans

129

Table 30: Largest Decrease in Segment Utilization New Orleans

129

Table 31: Profile of Selected Savannah Routes

135

Table 32: Travel Time Analysis for Savannah

136

Table 33: Parking Characteristics Along Selected Routes Departing Savannah

137

Table 34: Profile of Selected Norfolk Routes

140

Table 35: Travel Time Analysis for Norfolk

140

Table 36: Parking Characteristics Along Selected Routes Departing Norfolk

141

Table 37: Profile of Selected New Orleans Routes

143

Table 38: Travel Time Analysis for New Orleans

144

Table 39: Parking Characteristics along Selected Routes Departing New Orleans

145

Table 40: Summary of Comparative Indicators by Operating Region

146

Table 41: Comparison of Parking Ratios for Selected Routes

147

Table 42: Number of Additional Truck Parking Spaces needed by 2040 to Maintain Current

Level of Service

147

xiii

Table 43: Panama Share at Ports

150

Table 44: Truck Rail Shares

151

Table 45: Growth in Demand due to Economic Growth

151

Table 46: Scenarios

153

Table 47: Ports Capacities

153

Table 48: Savannah - Projected Volumes 2040

155

Table 49: Norfolk Projected Volumes 2040

155

Table 50: New Orleans Projected Volumes 2040

156

Table 51: Truck Configurations

157

Table 52 Truck Body Types

157

Table 53 Truck Allocation Factors

157

Table 54 Equivalent Loaded Trucks

158

Table 55 Empty Truck Factors

158

Table 56 Total Daily Truck Volumes From Ports Under Different Scenarios

159

Table 57: Top 25 County in Terms of Output and Value Added From Panama Canal Expansion

165

Table 58: Top 10 Most Impacted Industry Sectors by Output and Value Added

167

Table 59: Top 5 Counties and Their Top 5 Industry Sectors in Terms of Output and Value

Added

168

Table 60: Top 25 County in Terms of Increase in Employment From Panama Canal Expansion

169

Table 61: Top 10 Most Impacted Industry Sectors by Employment

171

Table 62: Top 5 Counties and their Top 5 Industry Sectors in Terms of Employment

172

Table 63: Counties Covered by the Three Major Truck Corridors by Economic Impact

176

Table 64: Truck Parking on Each Port's Largest Truck Routes

189

Table 65: Distribution Centers in Piedmont Atlantic

210

Table 66: Distribution Center Density in Piedmont Atlantic

210

Table 67: Distribution Centers in Texas Triangle

210

Table 68: Distribution Center Density in Texas Triangle

211

Table 69: Distribution Centers in DC-Virginia

211

Table 70: Distribution Center Density in DC-Virginia

211

xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Freight movement supports economic activity, undergirds quality of life, and shapes pollution and energy consumption. Freight connects production and consumption nodes, and provides access for businesses and consumers to a wide array of goods and resources. Freight is integral component to different parts of the production process as raw materials, pre-assembly subcomponents, finished products, and retail goods must all be transported to customers. Customers realize the impact of freight delays in the form of elevated costs and geographically limited access to markets as a result of the highly integrated nature of freight with the supply chain.
The expansive geographical range at which freight routinely operates means that many related issues cannot be fully addressed at the local level alone. A significant amount of cargo movement occurs as a part of globalized supply chains that link natural resources, manufacturers, intermediaries, and consumers throughout the world. Local freight movement depends not just on local conditions, but in large part it also dependent on global economic conditions and transportation infrastructure. A given road's freight volume may depend less on local characteristics than global production and consumption locations, and on its connection with global transportation infrastructure. Thus, a local perspective is necessary but not sufficient to understand freight movements occurring in any one city, county, or even state because the dynamics that drive freight are not local. Moreover, while local planning and engineering is necessary to respond to freight challenges, larger-scale policies are needed to optimize investments and ensure a consistent approach to solving freight issues.
The megaregion is a geographic scale useful to analyze freight movement. Megaregions are areas of continuous development that link cities, peripheries, and rural areas with long-term economic and transportation interactions. As the country's economic drivers, America's 10 megaregions concentrate a majority of its productive and purchasing power on a fraction of its land. The megaregion is the most ideal spatial unit from which multi-jurisdictional freight planning should be conducted. This report examines the potential impacts of freight movement through the lens of the megaregion to provide a clear understanding of the flow of goods at the most appropriate geographic scale.
The volume of freight imported into the United State and exported across the globe has increased exponentially over the past several decades. Much of this growth is related to expanding trade with East Asia. Most cargo between the two regions moves along a limited number of cargo routes. Two of the most travelled routes include a multimodal shipment of goods starting with a water route then offloaded at ports in California, Oregon, or Washington and loaded onto trucks or trains to complete the journey to the eastern United States. Another route, one that is growing in importance to the US economy is an all-water route with ships transiting the Panama Canal on their way to the East Coast and Gulf Coast U.S. ports. In both cases, to achieve economies of scale, ocean carriers are building larger and larger ocean going vessels.
These modern ships strain the capacity of one of the world's transportation network choke points: the Panama Canal. The vessels are much larger than the canal's original engineers could have foreseen; many of the vessels are larger than can be accommodated by the canal's locks. Moreover, the substantial increase demand for travel through the Panama Canal is

Executive Summary
pushing the current volume of movement towards the capacity. In preparation for forecasted trade growth, the Panama Canal Authority undertook an ambitious expansion project to accommodate modern ships and additional cargo volume. The expansion is scheduled for completion in 2016. The new locks will accommodate modern deep-draft ships with a draft of up to 50 feet, compared to a previous functional capacity of 39.5 feet. The canal offers a more direct--and with a larger ship capacity more economical--route to and from the eastern U.S., compared to the multi-model transcontinental ground shipments that is needed for freight arriving by ship on the west coast. This has the potential to shift a portion of previously West Coast port bound imports to the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico ports.
Cargo rarely stops at the port at which it is imported. Rather, dockworkers transfer cargo from the ship onto another mode that can reach the next destination. Several factors affect whether onward transportation occurs on a truck, train, barge, pipeline, or other mode. Generally, cargo that is time-sensitive, more valuable per weight, and closer to the final destination moves by truck compared with other modes. Moreover, ocean imports from East Asia moves inland by truck at a higher percentage (66% of tonnage) than total ocean imports (35% of tonnage), likely because of their commodity types (FAF3, 2011). Thus, ocean shipping volume and locations affects where, when, and how many trucks travel on American roads. Ocean shipping growth-- especially from East Asia--merits examination to understand how it will affect roads
This research report forecasts how the Panama Canal expansion will affect three ports, truck movement between the ports and inland economic hubs, and the economic impacts that may accompany the shift in cargo shipping patterns. The project uniquely examines a broad range of economic impacts stemming from the Panama Canal expansion with three primary research objectives: to profile the relationship between the Panama Canal and port activities along the East and Gulf Coasts and explore the nature of inland freight movement from these ports; to examine the highway infrastructure implications resulting from a change in freight movement; and to model with scenarios the Panama Canal expansion's impact on local economic activity.
The analysis begins by broadly examining 14 East and Gulf Coast ports with a combined cargo volume of over one quarter million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU). The research then focuses on a deeper analysis of the relationship between highway network conditions, port activity and land and regional economies utilizing large seasonal truck GPS samples for three selected ports: the Garden City Terminal at the Port of Savannah, the Norfolk International Terminals in at the Port of Virginia, and the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal at the Port of New Orleans. The research team found that many ports are exploring deepening their harbors to accommodate the largest of the new `post-Panamax' ships that may traverse the expanded canal. However, only a few ports have moved beyond studies, namely Norfolk, Baltimore, New York / New Jersey, and Miami. Savannah is set to begin dredging very soon, and New Orleans is planning the most ambitious deepening project on the Gulf Coast. Therefore, the ports that have the harbor depths and supporting infrastructure in place to accommodate larger ships when the expanded canal opens in 2016 are the most likely to see cargo growth. When freight volumes do grow, they will enter an environment that is already severely congested in key places and getting worse. GPS truck data showed that congestion around the Port of New Orleans is limiting truck range compared with Savannah or Norfolk. While the Savannah area is
2

Executive Summary
not severely congested, main truck routes encounter congestion around major cities and highway interchanges in Georgia, and by 2040 congestion is expected to afflict many urban and rural interstates in South and North Carolina as well. Similarly, trucks leaving Norfolk encounter moderate congestion in large cities today, but by 2040 congestion is forecasted to be severe not only in major cities, but also along rural interstate segments as well. Chronic congestion can increase the cost of goods and force trucks to use less efficient routes. Congestion in rural and metro areas far away from a port does matter for port operations because of trucks movement patterns. Additionally, the study team found that truck parking shortages may already exist and will worsen in the future. Truck parking is very important to allow drivers to meet federally required rest periods and to enhance truck safety. However, parking is provided very unevenly around major ports. The literature documents widespread parking shortages, leading some drivers to park on ramps, highway shoulders, and other dangerous locations. A truck parking database analyzed in conjunction with GPS truck data revealed that major truck routes around the Port of Norfolk had fewer truck parking spaces per truck mile traveled than either Savannah or New Orleans. Overall shipping growth and cargo diversion caused by the Panama Canal will require roads around East and Gulf Coast ports to add in some cases hundreds or even thousands of truck parking spaces.
Next a forecast of changes along major freight corridors and potential bottlenecks is developed to measure the impact of the Panama Canal on inland transportation infrastructure. Cargo volumes in Savannah, GA; Norfolk, VA; and New Orleans, LA are examined providing a variety of generalizable results that can inform similar analysis in other East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. It matters for cargo volumes in ports and on roadways how much the canal expansion shifts traffic from West Coast to East and Gulf Coast ports. High rates of diverted shipments will produce a much greater impact on eastern ports and roads than will simply growing the status quo. Imports into the Port of Norfolk are forecasted to produce between 2,667 daily trucks (if the canal expansion has no impact) and 4,000 trucks (if the canal expansion has high impact). The Port of Savannah is likely to generate between 5,530 daily trucks (no impact) and 9,124 trucks (high impact), while New Orleans forecasts the most traffic with between 6,953 daily trucks (no impact) to 12,167 trucks (high impact). GPS data showed that many of these trucks stop at local distribution centers--up to 67.8% around the Port of Savannah. At these distribution centers, shipments are processed and loaded onto different trucks for onward movement. Trucks that do not stop in local distribution centers directly travel to inland customers or warehouses. The research team forecasted that there will be between 278 of these direct trucks per day on I-75 between Macon and Atlanta (if the canal expansion has no impact) to 458 direct trucks (if the canal expansion has a significant impact). When port cargo from distribution centers is added, the actual number of port-related trucks is much higher although difficult to estimate. Similarly, trucks leaving from the Port of New Orleans will significantly impact roads in Louisiana and surrounding states. Effects are projected to be greatest on interstates north and east of the port. I-55 south of Jackson, MS may see a between 509 (no impact) and 890 daily port-related trucks (high impact). I-10 around Gulfport could see between 371 (no impact) and 649 daily portrelated trucks (high impact), and even I-20 as far away as western Birmingham, AL could see between 296 (no impact) and 518 (high impact) daily port-related trucks. A particularly important segment for New Orleans is the I-10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain because it is a natural bottleneck. The bridge could see upwards of 2,469 (no impact) to 4,321 (high impact) daily port-
3

Executive Summary
related trucks. While Norfolk's geography creates fewer bottlenecks than New Orleans, cargo growth will still concentrate truck traffic a several important roadways. Direct shipments from the port alone (without counting trucks that have already stopped in local distribution centers) will add between 455 (no impact) and 682 (high impact) daily port-related trucks to the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel on I-64. The Monitor-Merrimack Bridge Tunnel on I-664 is forecasted to see between 172 (no impact) and 278 (high impact) daily port-related trucks, while the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel on US 13 could see 125 (low impact) to 187 (high impact) daily port-related trucks. Large impacts are also felt farther away. I-64 west of Richmond could see from 280 (no impact) to 421 (high impact) daily port-related trucks, while I-95 just south of the VA-NC border could see between 234 (no impact) and 351 (high impact) daily trucks.
The focus of the study narrows once more to the state of Georgia developing a model of economic activity in each county that depends on port-related imports yielding important information on direct and indirect industry and freight linkages. These linkages are used to estimate the economic impact of the Panama Canal on Georgia's 159 counties. Through 2040, the canal expansion is expected to generate between $21 billion and $57 billion dollars in economic activity equating to between $5.4 billion and $36 billion dollars in economic growth compared with 2013 port activity. The Port of Savannah is expected to sustain between 38 thousand and 66 thousand jobs. The exact amount of growth depends on the extent to which the canal expansion diverts ships from competing routes. The greatest monetary impacts will be felt in Fulton, Gwinnett, Chatham, Troup, and Cobb Counties in decreasing order, while the most jobs will be felt in Gwinnett, Fulton, Chatham, Troup, and DeKalb Counties. Moreover, the economic impacts are much larger than the approximately $652 million necessary to deepen the Savannah harbor. If the Panama Canal expansion diverts a small amount of cargo from West Coast ports, the impact on Georgia of that small diversion alone is estimated at $10 billion, and a large diversion could affect $31 billion in Georgian economic activity.
The research provides decision makers with insights to improve regional and statewide transportation planning and support economic development. The project addresses the emerging topic of freight planning at a megaregion scale; an issue that is important for effectively and efficiently capturing the economic benefits canal expansion will generate. Responding to the cargo growth at the Port of Savannah or any other large port will large depend on coordination across silos, organizations, and states. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) should continue coordinating with other states, such as through their membership in the Institute for Trade & Transportation Studies, to ensure continuous freight flows across the megaregion serviced by the Port of Savannah. Many of the greatest impacts will be on interstate highways, which will require federal agency support. Local governments can help freight flow smoothly in the state by aligning their land use regulations with Georgia's designated freight corridors. In particular, land use regulations should encourage the distribution centers that will accompany port cargo growth to locate along existing designated freight corridors and discourage incompatible land uses. It may also be helpful to continue strengthening the existing working relationships with the Georgia Ports Authority to ensure that the state's transportation planners remain aware of changes to ocean carrier operations that may affect the frequency, amount, or cargo types transported to and from the Port of Savannah. Finally, other modal operators--particularly railroads--should play a role in accommodating
4

Executive Summary freight growth. Using alternative modes may allow cargo to bypass congested roadways. Without a doubt, capacity is important to solving the challenges and realizing the opportunities presented by port cargo growth. However, using existing capacity as fully as possible, encouraging land uses that minimize redundant investment, and fully exploring all modes should allow the state to effectively manage and support port-related trucking.
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) supported this research, conducted under the auspices of the National Center for Transportation System Productivity and Management (NCTSPM) at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The research team drew the following major findings from its analysis:
Shipping Volumes
Finding 1: Cargo throughput at any individual port depends on a myriad of local national, and global factors.
Truck Volumes
Finding 1: Several scenarios of freight demand show the Panama Canal expansion will likely have a significant impact on truck traffic.
Finding 2: Rail will be most competitive with trucks on corridors with a high levels of congestion.
Bottlenecks
Finding 1: Highways around the Savannah port are better prepared for canal-related growth than either Norfolk or New Orleans.
Finding 2: Bottlenecks exist around all three ports with increased levels of congestion expected.
Finding 3: Most major Georgia freight routes are currently designated freight corridors; others may need to be added.
Parking Needs and Safety
Finding 1: The availability of truck parking may be a safety concern as freight traffic grows.
Finding 2: Georgia is least equipped with truck parking compared to surrounding states. Finding 3: Each corridor in each megaregion will require additional parking to maintain
the current level of service. Finding 4: Growing freight volumes may affect truck-related accident rates far from the
port generating the traffic.
Economic Impact
Finding 1: Primary benefactors are counties surrounding the Port of Savannah and major population centers. 5

Executive Summary Finding 2: Panama Canal expansion will potentially have an economic impact of over $35 billion by 2040 in Georgia.
The research team recommend the followings: Address Bottlenecks 1. Expand capacity on some key roadways. 2. Partner with other states in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion to address bottlenecks on primary port-related corridors outside the state. 3. Leverage data and information technologies to optimize roadway operations. Strengthen Coordination between Port Operators and State Department of Transportation 1. Maintain a close working relationship with the Georgia Ports Authority. 2. Build partnerships with other state departments of transportation and port operators in megaregions to explore how cooperation can maximize megaregion attractiveness to ocean carriers. Leverage Designated Freight Corridors 1. Align freight corridors with import truck traffic. The analysis has confirmed that most major port-related routes are already state freight routes. 2. Coordinate freight corridors with surrounding states in megaregion to ensure continuity across state lines. 3. Work with local governments to align zoning with designated freight corridors.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation, State of Georgia, or the Federal Highway Administration.
6

Section I: Introduction
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
Research Background
To many Americans, global supply chains seem understandably distant from daily life. The transactions that connect suppliers, factories, stores, and consumers all over the world can appear abstract in a way that make its effects on quality of life hard to see. In reality, logistics are deeply interwoven into nearly everyone's life. Americans buy globally produced goods in stores, businesses transform imported materials into finished products, and companies sell their goods on a global market. Interlinking each of these myriad activities is an army of companies and individuals operating trucks, trains, and pipelines within the United States, and ships and airplanes between overseas destinations. Ever-active freight movement links each organization in countless production activities that allow the complex global economy to function. As such, even local freight movements carry a global component. Local, intra-state, and inter-state freight are all at times responsible for transporting goods the first or last miles to or from an overseas destination.
Global supply chains are now an integral part of many economic sectors. To be sure, globalization has been controversial because of its connections with offshore production and reduced regulatory oversight. However, today global supply chains are a reality deeply imbedded in American consumption and economic patterns. Significant amounts of America's economic activity depend on globally sourced goods. Transportation costs are built into products that are produced overseas in part or in full, as well as American goods and services that use imported goods as inputs. Economic wellbeing has come to depend on reliable and inexpensive transportation. Congestion at any point along the supply chain raises costs passed on to consumers and ultimately discourages overseas trade.
A major change to the global cargo transportation network will occur in 2016 when new oversized locks at the Panama Canal are opened. The Panama Canal is one of the most important passageways linking East Asian and Eastern American ports. The Panama Canal expansion will allow larger, more efficient ships to transit between the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea in a way that will change the Panama Canal's benefits relative to competing routes. Many have projected that the expansion will lower the cost of shipping directly from Asia to U.S. East and Gulf Coast ports, in the process shifting cargo away from West Coast ports. East and Gulf Coast ports are preparing accordingly. Many are buying larger cranes and deepening their harbors to welcome the larger ships, knowing that with cargo come jobs and corporate transportation investment. However, by focusing attention on just the ports themselves, more macro-level megaregion planning activities may not be receiving enough attention. Moreover, cargo does not stop once it leaves a ship. From there it is transported usually by truck or train to consumers from a few miles offsite to thousands of miles away. If these last important links in the supply chain are not ready to accommodate the new freight, then congestion will raise costs for consumers around the country, force cargo into less ideal ports, and sap trade's economic benefits. Moreover, high truck volumes would tend to raise roadway accident rates if growth is not accompanied by strategies to enhance safety, such as driver rest areas and appropriate roadway geometry.
7

Section I: Introduction The danger of congested roads is even greater because port-related freight will increase at the same time that nationwide freight is projected to grow independently of the canal expansion. Major trucking corridors support 75% of total commodity flows by value, but freight already strains existing roads. Moreover, the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3) projects that truck tonmiles will grow from over 2.18 trillion ton miles in 2015 to over 3.31 trillion in 2040, an increase of 52%. The Panama Canal expansion will reconfigure global supply chains, shifting trucks away from some ports and towards others. As a result, congestion risks spreading to the nation's most import freight arteries, which directly affects economic competitiveness. This report presents findings of a multiyear study of roadways and counties around three case study ports under several ocean shipping scenarios. The Port of Savannah (Garden City Terminal), the Port of Hampton Roads (the Norfolk International Terminals), and Port of New Orleans (Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal) were chosen for analysis because they each are investing to be ready for more and larger ships. The study examines how the Panama Canal expansion will likely affect each port's cargo volume, if and where bottlenecks might occur in the port's operating region, and how much cargo increases will stimulate the state economy. The ports were selected because of the contrasts that they provide. The ports differ in size, commodity types, and primary trade partners, but each is investing in infrastructure and projects to accommodate larger ships related to the Panama Canal expansion. The ports are at different points in readiness for post-Panamax ships; the Port of Virginia at Norfolk is naturally one of the deepest harbors on the East Coast with a depth of at least 50 feet. By contrast, the Port of Savannah is set to begin dredging to deepen the harbor to 47 feet, and the Port of New Orleans is conducting studies. Moreover, each port presents a different commodity. Savannah and Norfolk import large quantities of consumer goods, while New Orleans' largest shipment categories are mostly energy resources and industrial products. The ports are linked differently with inland transportation networks. Most imports into Savannah move inland by truck, while Norfolk has a larger rail presence, and New Orleans is nearly evenly split among truck, rail, pipelines, and water movement. Finally, the three ports' areas of influence cover a significant portion of the eastern United States with minimal overlap. These characteristics make study findings most transferrable to other settings in the eastern United States, including the 11 other large container ports that are presented in Figure 1.
8

Section I: Introduction
Figure 1: Major Port Locations Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, modified from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center (2014) and ESRI GIS data (2010)
The study also builds on years of research findings by the Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD), which have shown that freight connections should be addressed at the megaregion scale. Megaregions have the distinct advantage of following functional rather than purely political boundaries. The megaregion framework aligns closely with the system-wide, multijurisdictional scale needed to analyze global supply chains. A number of studies have established megaregions' importance. In 2005, approximately two-thirds of all U.S. trade took place in the 50 largest metropolitan areas (Puentes, 2008). International trade's place in most megaregions continues to grow (Ross et al., 2008). As economic centers, megaregions also serve as freight nodes connecting origins and destinations. Megaregion's central role underscores the importance of considering freight movement at the scale of the megaregion (Gifford et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2008; Seedah & Harrison, 2011). Megaregion planning allows regions, cities and towns to compete globally as cohesive regions connected by efficient and reliable transportation links. This study concentrates on three megaregions that are partially contained in the three case study ports' operating area. Figure 2 below shows the locations for the Texas Triangle Megaregion, the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion, and the DC-Virginia Megaregion relative to the ports of New Orleans, Savannah, and Norfolk. The megaregions' different economic and
9

Section I: Introduction commodity profiles are mirrored to a large extent in the ports' commodity imports. The existing truck movements also attest to the links between the ports and megaregion economies. Each megaregion highlights the ports' large area of influences.
Figure 2. Three Ports and Megaregions of Study Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (2009) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center (2014)
A key data source for this study is a disaggregate truck movement database generated by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). This database, which is generated from location readings collected from several hundred thousand trucks equipped with advanced global positioning system-based (GPS) technology, contains several billion position reads annually. The Federal Highway Administration has used ATRI's truck data as part of its Freight Performance Measures program, as have numerous states and metropolitan regions for freight planning purposes. Many other data sources support the freight analysis presented in the report. The Freight Analysis Framework, version 3 (FAF3) documents freight movement among 123 regions throughout the United States. FAF3 also forecasts future freight movement and overseas imports through year 2040. The research team also called on economic analysis tools. One is called IMPLAN. IMPLAN quantifies economic relationships among industrial sectors and identifies county-level demand for different commodities. The research team merged these primary datasets and other secondary data to build and supports its analysis and conclusions. In the end, the study connects macroeconomic changes and the Panama Canal expansion with specific roadway volumes, the project allows planners to prepare in a way that avoids or
10

Section I: Introduction minimizes congestion, infrastructure degradation, and safety degradation. The research team found that forecasted freight increases are likely to strain selected road segments around the three study ports. Planning will be important for effectively and efficiently capturing the economic benefits that the expansion will generate. Effective planning must go beyond individual jurisdictions and bring governments together to address freight movement at the regional and the megaregion scale. Inter-jurisdictional cooperation is important for each ports region's economic competitiveness and indeed for the entire national economy, which depends on reliable and economical freight movement.
11

Section I: Introduction
Report Organization
The report begins broadly and narrows its focus until it identifies specific corridors at risk for bottlenecks and economic impact. Early report sections (namely Sections II and III) are both geographically broad and topically diverse. They describe current and forecasted states of transoceanic shipping and nationwide trucking, while also raising a series of related safety and economic issues. Subsequent Sections IV, V, and VI hone the focus onto the three case study ports and associated megaregions. The report documents current truck movements that originate at the three case study ports by analyzing a sample of GPS data and identifies how the Panama Canal expansion is likely to affect trucking patterns. Finally Section VII describes an economic analysis approach that could be used in any state but is concretely applied to Georgia's 159 counties. Section VIII reviews key report findings and draws policy implications. The following paragraphs address each section's purpose.
Section II Literature Review: The literature review grounds the report in the most advanced knowledge on (1) freight characteristics and previous Panama Canal studies, (2) freight regulations and safety, and (3) economic impact analysis methodologies. A significant portion of the literature review focuses on trucking because of the need to address inland port-related freight corridors. Moreover, trucking accounts for 69% of freight movement by tonnage and 75% of freight movement by value in the United States (American Trucking Associations, 2013a), making it essential to economic health. The literature review also uncovers important freight and regulatory issues. Federal regulations require that truck drivers rest after a certain period of on-duty time. Truck traffic growth will accentuate the need for rest areas for truck drivers to operate safely and legally.
Section III Baseline Conditions: Baseline conditions are the context through which the research explains the trends and forecasts developed in latter sections. This section identifies existing conditions and statistics on the relationship between the Panama Canal and the eastern ports. The section details port characteristics, freight volumes, commodity breakdowns, and improvement plans, as well as current and forecasted Panama Canal volumes.
Section IV Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective: Megaregions are an important framework for understanding multi-jurisdictional issues like freight. Section IV profiles freight and freight-generating activity in each of the three megaregions corresponding with the case study ports. Specifically, the section describes the status of port facilities, major truck corridors, the spatial structure of industry clusters and functional relationships, warehousing hub, and megaregion import commodities.
Section V Truck Network Analysis: Advanced global positioning system (GPS) data for thousands of trucks allowed the research team to study current truck movement from each of the three ports. To understand how increased port activity will affect regional transportation networks in the future, it is first important to understand how the network is currently behaving. This section also establishes the operating range for the trucks, which defines the freight-shed for each port. Three characteristics have been determined for each freight-shed: (1) size of the region and extent of the trucking transportation network; (2) ease of trucking mobility in the region, and (3) availability of truck parking.
12

Section I: Introduction Section VI Impacts of the Panama Canal Expansion on Freight Movement: One of the report's major contributions is its growth scenarios that quantify potential Panama Canal expansion impacts on the three case study ports. The forecasts implicitly account for changes in the canal's relative competitiveness vis--vis other trade routes and for economic growth in destination counties. The port forecasts provide inputs for Section VII's economic analysis. Section VII Regional Economic Impact Analysis. Section VII propose and implements a methodology for estimating county-level economic impacts related to forecasted freight increases in the state of Georgia. This will provide transportation planners with guidance on the important transportation corridors that will need the most investment. Section VIII Conclusions: The final section draws together all report section and information from the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan into concise findings and recommendations for future action.
13

Section II: Literature Review
SECTION II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Expected Impacts of Canal Expansion
Introduction
The Panama Canal expansion is expected to support growth in shipping tonnage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, with larger post-Panamax ships comprising much of the fleet. Post-Panamax ships are too wide or deep to fit through the Panama Canal (whose present locks are 110 feet wide, 1,050 feet long, and approximately 41 feet deep), but will be able to traverse the newly built Panama Canal locks, (which will be 180 feet wide, 1,400 feet long, and 60 feet deep). The expansion is expected to open new opportunities for U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast ports, which will likely see growth in maritime cargo diverted from West Coast ports. There is a general consensus that the expanded Panama Canal will be a boon for East Coast and Gulf Coast ports because of potential traffic diversion, increasing ship size, and export opportunities.
Traffic Diversion
While cargo volume between East Asia and the eastern United States are the Panama Canal's largest single trade route, the Panama Canal competes with two other routes for freight between East Asian and the eastern United States. One route is called the intermodal route. The intermodal route transports cargo from Asian ports to western U.S. and Canadian ports. From there, the cargo is loaded onto trucks or trains to complete the journey on land. The intermodal route is normally a few days faster than the all water route through the Panama Canal, though it is also more expensive.
The second competing route is through the Suez Canal. Cargo is loaded onto ships in Asia and travels westward to ports on America's East and Gulf Coasts through the Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal, and the Mediterranean Sea. The Suez route is longer than the Panama Canal route for origins east of Singapore. However, the Suez Canal is much larger than the Panama Canal and therefore can accommodate much larger ships.
The Panama Canal's ability to compete with the intermodal route and the Suez route is a function of several factors, including ship size and energy costs. Drewry (2008) predicts that cargo from Asia would increasingly divert from West Coast ports to East Coast and Gulf Coast ports because of rising intermodal costs and falling all-water costs. The expanded Panama Canal lowers costs for the Panama route, even as high demand for rail transport has pushed up intermodal route costs. CanagaRetna (2010) highlights the shift from West Coast ports to East Coast and Gulf Coast ports facilitated by the expanded canal.
Jones Lang LaSalle (2011) believes that the highest value cargo from Northeast Asia to the eastern U.S. will continue to use the intermodal route even as lower value cargo follows the lowest cost shipment option, which is the all-water route. A "demarcation line" (Jones Lang LaSalle, 2011) or "line of cost equivalence" (Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2010) divides the United States according to the coast that is most cost-effective for receiving shipments from East Asia:
14

Section II: Literature Review areas east of the line can most economically receive shipments from the Gulf Coast or East Coast, whereas areas west of the line could receive shipments from the West Coast at the lowest price. The Canal expansion will likely move the old line of cost equivalence westward, increasing the territory that can economically receive lower-value Asian cargo through East and Gulf Coast ports. Table 3Error! Reference source not found. below shows the approximate old (black) and new (red) locations of the line of cost equivalence (Jones Lang LaSalle, 2011).
Figure 3: Movement of Line of Cost Equivalence Before and After Canal Expansion Source: Jones Lang LaSalle, 2011
Other factors favoring the Panama Canal route over the intermodal route include a series of expensive strikes and work slowdowns along the West Coast ports and more available land for supply chain functions near East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. Already the canal is performing strongly compared with its competition. Between 1999 and 2007, the Panama Canal Authority reports that the Panama Canal's share of freight between Northeast Asia and the U.S. East Coast increased from 11.3% to 43.0% at the expense of the intermodal route (Rodrigue, 2010). The Panama Canal's strong performance combined with global cargo volume growth has caused many East and Gulf Coast ports to plan for growth. The global economy and the shipping industry continues to recover from the recent economic recession (De Monie, Rodrigue, & Notteboom, 2009). The Port of Hampton Roads / Norfolk forecasts an increase in demand from 2.1 million TEUs to a minimum of 4 million TEUs by 2028 based on the Global Insights forecast for the East Coast (The Port of Virginia, 2013). The Georgia Port Authority projects increases in vessel calls between 5% and 7% annually at the Port of Savannah through 2022 (Institute for Water Resources, 2012). The Port of New Orleans is also expecting
15

Section II: Literature Review significant cargo increases (Masson, 2013). The expanded Panama Canal may divert significant freight volume from West Coast ports to East and Gulf Coast ports.
On a regional scale, IHS Global Insights (2009) predicts growth in East Coast and Gulf Coast ports due to trade with Europe and Latin America without apparently accounting for trade diversion due to the Panama Canal. If there is significant diversion, the effects could be dramatic, as IHS Global Insights (2009) predicts that TEUs from China and Taiwan to the U.S. to increase by about 375% between 2013 and 2037. Moreover, Global Insights estimates that the Panama Canal cargo tonnage throughput will increase by 3% per year (Knight, 2008).
Vessel Size
Many analysts expect the expanded Panama Canal to lead to larger ships frequenting East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. Marginal decreases in per unit shipping costs have encouraged shipping companies to order post-Panamax ships. It has been especially important to reduce shipping costs in light of fuel prices and industry overcapacity in recent years, which have led some shipping companies to reduce ship speeds and pass on savings to clients, a practice referred to as "slow steaming" (Jones Lang LaSalle, 2011).
Today 30% of the world fleet is post-Panamax, as are most ships on order (Bank of America Merrill Lynch, 2013). Ashar (2010) argues that shippers in recent years have favored the longer transit times and lower costs of an all water route compared with the faster times and higher costs of the intermodal route. This has contributed to the Panama Canal's steadily increasing market share on the Asia-eastern U.S. route. The Panama Canal is likely to continue increasing its market share, especially for low-value commodities, as the expanded Canal increases shipment reliability and decreases shipping cost (Rodrigue, 2010; Salin, 2010).
Export Potential
The Panama Canal expansion also offers East Coast ports an opportunity to expand their exports to Asia. There is already extra export capacity compared with imports in East Coast and Gulf Coast ports (Rodrigue, 2010). However, the canal expansion will offer more reliable and faster transit times that may make it more advantageous for exports to leave from East Coast and Gulf Coast ports, especially for low-value commodities. Presently, it is common practice for ships loaded with low-value commodities to not purchase a canal reservation and instead to wait for an available transit time (Institute for Water Resources, 2012). Canal congestion increases wait time.
Baird, Bittner, Gollnik, and Gardner (2011) describe the potential for decreased costs and increasing reliability for the all-water route for exporting Midwestern grain to Asia. Similarly, Costa and Rosson (2012) modelled U.S. cotton exports under different scenarios and predict that lowered shipment costs associated with the Panama Canal expansion will dramatically increase cotton exports through the canal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also expects the Panama Canal expansion "to significantly lower the delivery cost of U.S. agricultural exports to Asia and other foreign markets" (Institute for Water Resources, 2012).
16

Section II: Literature Review However, Baird et al. (2011) believe that short-term export increases from Gulf Coast ports will depend heavily on Panama Canal Authority's operating and pricing policies. Significant increases in Canal transit fees could mitigate the all-water route's savings. Even if high canal transit fees discourage agricultural products from diverting to Gulf Coast ports in the short-run, Baird et al. (2011) argue that Gulf Coast ports are likely to accommodate additional grain exports to Asia in the long-run.
Other Opinions
While it is generally viewed that the Panama Canal will increase cargo volumes to East Coast and Gulf Coast ports, there remain some questions. Ashar (2010) argues that the savings of post-Panamax ships over Panamax ships is too minor to divert large amounts of cargo from the intermodal route. Moreover, Mitchell (2011) asserts that freight volumes on the intermodal route are not significant enough for a small diversion to have a major impact on East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. For these authors, growth in port volumes will come largely through total cargo volume increases between Asia and the eastern United States.
Uncertainties
The extent to which East and Gulf Coast ports experience cargo growth depends on macroeconomic conditions and business strategies that cannot be accurately predicted. Among the macroeconomic conditions are the strength and locations of manufacturer and consumer demand. The Panama Canal Authority's fee structure, ocean carriers' operational decisions, and West Coast ports' responses will also affect canal traffic. Finally, there is a possibility that new routes may emerge to compete with the Panama Canal, either in the form of a Nicaraguan Canal or an Artic passage. Each uncertainty is reviewed below.
Location of Production Centers
Economic dynamics in Asia and the United States could affect short- or long-term supply or demand. Rodrigue (2010) discusses the possibility of production leaving China--where labor costs are rising--for less expensive countries in South Asia, Southeast Asia, or Latin America. If supply does shift to Southeast or South Asia, the westbound-route through the Suez Canal might attract shipping companies. Southeast Asia is near the point at which ships can reach the U.S. East Coast by the same distance either eastward (through the Panama Canal) or westward (through the Suez Canal). This is called the "indifference point," located near Singapore. Production occurring east of Singapore would favor the Panama Canal and production occurring west of Singapore would favor the Suez Canal. However, this shift does not threaten East Coast and Gulf Coast port volumes. In fact, it might likely increase them. It could also imply a decreased reliance on the Panama Canal to reach the American market. Figure 4 below shows the competing westbound and eastbound routes as they relate to the indifference point.
17

Section II: Literature Review
Figure 4: Competing Routes to the U.S. East Coast from Asia through the Suez Canal ("Westbound"), the Panama Canal ("Eastbound"), and Ship and Truck/Rail ("Land Bridge")
Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, modified from Rodrigue (2010)
High oil prices, rising labor costs, and supply chain uncertainty might also drive production to Latin America or even back to the United States itself (Harrington, 2012; The Economist, 2013). Most origins in Latin America would still rely on ocean shipment that might or might not use the Panama Canal but would use East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. Fossey (2010) and Drewry (2008) assert that shifts in production from East Asia to South America may also drive growth in Gulf and East Coast ports. Consumer Demand Rodrigue (2010) addresses consumer demand since stagnant consumer demand could affect shipping demand. America's aging population will likely devote a higher portion of the gross domestic product to healthcare rather than other economic sectors that drive shipments from East Asia. Rodrigue and Notteboom (2010) also contend that high levels of government debt may result in spending cuts that depress American consumer demand. Traffic into and out of American East Coast and Gulf Coast ports will depend heavily on American and foreign economics.
18

Section II: Literature Review Strategies from West Coast Ports
Another uncertainty is the success of improvements to the intermodal route. According to Salin (2010), Mexican and Canadian western ports are growing and coordinating with railroads to accommodate east-bound cargo shipments diverted from U.S. West Coast ports. Some, such as Prince Rupert, offer additional time savings over U.S. West Coast ports. Simultaneously, Ashar (2010) notes that West Coast ports are expanding capacity and collaborating with railroads to improve service.
Panama Canal Tolling
The all-water route through the Panama Canal must maintain a lower cost structure than the intermodal route to justify the extra transit time. While the expanded Panama Canal will enable ocean carriers to employ larger ships and greater economies of scale to reduce shipping cost, the Panama Canal Authority's tolls must not increase too much to undo the efficiency gains. Rodrigue and Notteboom (2010) note that tolls between 2006 and 2011 increased 80%, which captures "about 40% of the potential cost savings of the expansion." IHS Global Insight agrees that the flow of freight into East Coast and Gulf Coast ports from Asia will depend heavily on the Panama Canal's rate of tolls and American railroad companies' operations (IHS Global Insights, 2009).
Supply Chain Configurations
It is unclear how ocean carriers will respond to the new routing options that the expanded Canal allows. As Rodrigue (2010) explains, the Panama Canal expansion's "consequences are multidimensional and prone with feedback effects, some of which may even be unintended." The complexity of global shipping and supply chain management undermines the predictability of shipping outcomes even in cases of known and studied changes. Nonetheless, most of the possible ocean carrier reactions still provide for tonnage increases to East Coast and Gulf Coast ports.
Several authors document the possibility of a Caribbean transshipment hub. Transshipment involves the transfer of cargo between vessels, usually to obtain supply chain efficiencies. Rodrigue (2010) documents three dynamics that might support the development of a transshipment hub in the Caribbean Sea: (1) optimized utilization of post-Panamax ships into a circum-equatorial route rather than transoceanic pendulum connectors between the U.S. and Asia, (2) the ability to accommodate multiple cargo destinations along the coast, and (3) the use of larger and more efficient feeder ships between East and Gulf Coast ports, and the Caribbean transshipment hub. While Rodrigue (2010) supposes that transshipping would decrease the size of ships frequenting East Coast ports and might spread cargo over more ports, it would not directly impact total cargo volumes to East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurs that a transshipment hub would allow shipping companies to take greatest advantage of the expanded Canal within an environment in which many East Coast ports cannot accommodate post-Panamax vessels, even while acknowledging extra delays and handling costs involved in transshipment (Institute for Water Resources, 2012).
19

Section II: Literature Review
Figure 5: Contrast Between a Conventional Route to U.S. East and Gulf Coasts and a Proposed Routing Involving a Caribbean Transshipment Hub
Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, modified from Ashar (2006)
New Water Routes Finally, there is a chance in the medium- to long-term that alternate routes to the Panama Canal could make it easier to transport cargo to East Asia to East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. A Chinese company recently proposed a canal through Nicaragua to compete with the Panama Canal (Moore, 2013). The Nicaraguan canal could be operational as soon as 2019. By 2050, it may also be possible for ships to navigate Canada's Northwest Passage in summer due to global warming. This could provide another connection between East Coast ports and Asia, although there are no known shipping forecasts that far into the future (Smith & Stephenson, 2013).
20

Section II: Literature Review
Economic, Safety, and Policy Considerations
Economic Impact Analysis and Methodologies
The Panama Canal expansion is expected to bring significant regional economic impacts by creating more shipping capacity through the canal and new opportunities for East Coast and Gulf Coast ports. Freight shipments occur because of underlying economic supply and demand relationships between producers and consumers, but freight movement itself generates new economic activity. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014), truck transportation employs approximately 1.3 million people nationwide, and freight contributes hundreds of billions of dollars of economic activity into the national economy (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, n.d.).
Freight may stimulate new economic activity in several ways. First, it may change a local area's relative accessibility to markets by changing the time or cost incurred by goods moving between the locality and other consumer and production markets. High relative freight accessibility may make a county more attractive for production and intermediate freight processing activity. Second, increasing freight accessibility may reduce the local cost imported goods, which would increasing consumption and potentially spurring in-migration. Moreover, the freight industry pays drivers, consumes fuel, and pays for vehicle maintenance. These trucking industry outlays stimulate the economy. Finally, there are indirect effects to the extent that the increased freight movement requires new warehouses to process flows or that freight employees spend income on other goods. Measuring and evaluating the economic impacts of the additional freight movement requires a regional economic model to convert the direct economic activities to broader regional economic impacts with specific indicators like employment, gross regional/state product, and personal income. Section VII develops and applies an economic model to assess county-level economic impacts of increased ocean shipping and port throughput.
Freight Safety
As policymakers consider cargo's economic impacts on their regions and how the infrastructure must be updated to stay competitive, one major consideration that must not be overlooked is truck safety. Truck volume on roads is expected to increase dramatically in the future, raising the potential for severe crashes which can cause fatalities and roadway congestion. Providing truck facilities such as increased parking spaces to prevent driver fatigue will be essential to reduce accidents.
Based on the published data, accidents involving trucks are on average more severe than nontruck accidents. In 2012, there were 111,784 large truck crashes in the United States, causing 3,878 deaths and 61,153 injuries (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2013). According to a report by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2006), fatigue is a major factor in 13.0% of large truck crashes. Other common factors include prescription drug use , over-the-counter drug use, lack of familiarity with the roadway, and various forms of driver error (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2006). The most common factors contributing to an accident are related to driving management (i.e., driver-related factors) and
21

Section II: Literature Review
environmental factors rather than vehicle failures. Traffic flow interruption is the single most common environmental factor (24.6% of accidents), and vehicle-related failure is a factor in no more than 3% of major accidents.
Accidents involving trucks can occur in rural, urban, and semi-urban areas. The Georgia Department of Transportation (2011) found that over half of Georgia's truck accidents occur in the Atlanta region. However, rural accidents can still be very significant from a safety perspective even when they are a small percentage of total crashes because they may be more severe. In this case, the Georgia Department of Transportation found that truck accidents in rural areas have a high percentage of head-on collisions, which are more deadly than other accident types. Thus, 57% of Georgia's truck-related fatal crashes are in rural areas even though only a quarter of all truck related accidents are in rural areas. Georgia's truck-related crash characteristics may be indicative of accident characteristics elsewhere.
Federal regulations on driver hours of service (HOS) exist to minimize driver fatigue and increase roadway safety for large trucks. Until July 1, 2013, HOS regulations allowed drivers to work for up to 11 hours after 10 hours off-duty. In July 2013, the HOS changed to help drivers to remain on regular circadian sleep schedules. Driver `restart' period (a 36-hour period off-duty reoccurring up to every seven days) are now required to contain two consecutive periods from 1:00 AM to 5:00 AM (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, n.d.; National Association of Truck Stop Owners, 2013b). According to research by Van Dongen, Jackson, and Belenky (2010), aligning extended rest periods with circadian rhythms improves driver alertness compared with rests of similar lengths not aligned with normal day-night wake and sleep times. Thus, the updated HOS regulations are likely to improve driver rest and truck safety, even though Belenky, Wu, Zaslona, and Hodges (2012) found that many drivers already obtained adequate sleep aligned with circadian rhythms.
Even with rest, driver errors become more likely with longer working days and driver times. Blanco et al.'s (2011) study of 97 drivers and driving behavior found that drives made more severe errors as work days became longer. However, driving breaks "significantly reduced the risk of being involved in a [safety critical event] during the 1-hour window after the break" (Blanco et al., 2011). Thus, it appears that regular breaks like those provided by public rest stops can improve safety, at least for the several hours after the break. Knipling et al. (2004) reviewed the general categories affecting truck safety and suggested improvements in programs directed at driver fatigue, driver licensing and enforcement, non-commercial driver instruction on sharing the road with trucks, truck maintenance, infrastructure design and maintenance, and private safety initiatives.
The federal HOS regulations require that drivers take rests of defined times after given lengths of time driving. The requirement to rest on the road necessitates that parking be available for drivers. There are nationwide networks of state-managed welcome centers and rest stops providing truck parking as well as privately owned truck stops near highways that provide truck parking in addition to commercial services.
There are no known nationwide studies to quantify existing truck parking capacity. However, several researchers have quantified parking at the state or corridor level. Chatterjee and
22

Section II: Literature Review
Wegmann (2000) found 31 rest areas with spaces for 472 large trucks along Tennessee's interstates. The researchers also documented 16 "pull-out" areas that were commonly used for truck parking with approximately 240 truck spaces. ConnDOT (2008) analyzed its state-owned truck parking facilities at 23 service plazas (which include commercial activity) and 8 rest areas. Georgia has 17 rest areas and 9 welcome centers, most of which include truck parking (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2012).
Many studies have shown private truck stop parking to outnumber public rest stop parking for trucks by a ratio ten to one. Chatterjee and Wegmann (2000) documented truck parking in truck stops visible from Tennessee interstates, finding approximately 5,240 private truck parking spaces, compared with approximately 712 official and unofficial publicly owned spaces. Truck stops also outnumber rest areas in Georgia. Georgia has 26 rest stops and welcome centers, about a quarter of the 100 truck stops with overnight parking (TruckStopGuide.com, 2013). The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan documented 10,040 truck parking spots in Georgia at private truck stops, public rest areas, and public weigh stations (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013c). The parking spots are very unevenly distributed along interstate corridors. The interstates with the most truck parking spaces per miles are I-20 west of Atlanta, I-75 north of Atlanta, and I-75 south of Macon. Each of these corridors has over 15 truck parking spaces per interstate mile. By comparison, I-16 between Savannah and Macon only has two truck parking spaces per mile. The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan also compared peak demand for truck parking with supply and finds that some interstates severely undersupply parking. The corridors where parking supply is inadequate are I-16 (52% below peak demand), I-75 south of Macon (42% below peak demand), I-85 south of Atlanta (7% below peak demand), and I-85 north of Atlanta (3% below peak demand).
Truck parking shortages have been documented around the country for decades, especially at rest stops. In 1997, Davis's survey of 48 states showed that "8 in 10 [public] rest areas reported truck parking areas as either full or overflowing onto the ramps at night," and half were full during the day. Chatterjee and Wegmann (2000) also documented truck parking shortages in several states, including Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia. More recently, ConnDOT (2008) observed illegal truck parking due to parking shortages, estimating with the Federal Highway Administration Truck Parking Demand Model that demand surpassed supply by 65%, the equivalent of about 700 additional truck parking spaces. According to Chatterjee and Wegmann (2000), the shortfall was most severe Monday through Thursday and very late at night (e.g., after 2:00 AM). The result is many trucks parking on ramps or highway shoulders rather than in official spaces (Chatterjee & Wegmann, 2000; ConnDOT, 2008; Davis, 1997), which can be a safety hazard for passing traffic. According to a comment made by a GDOT official (Chatterjee & Wegmann, 2000), some of the shortage near Atlanta was due to trucks using public parking as a staging facilities for deliveries in metro Atlanta.
State decisions make a difference in the use of truck parking. According to Davis (1997), and Chatterjee and Wegmann (2000), drivers most often used spaces allowing trucks to pull through, even sometimes parking illegally rather than using a space requiring back-up. Several states also have at various times implemented truck parking limits, though many have been weakly enforced for fear of sending tired drivers onto the roads (Davis, 1997; Trombly, 2003).
23

Section II: Literature Review
When enforced, limits appeared to push drivers taking longer breaks to stop at truck stops or other locations without time limits (Garber & Wang, 2004). Georgia also instituted a no parking policy on ramps and at some shoulders, and both Georgia and Virginia have increased truck parking supply (Chatterjee & Wegmann, 2000).
Private truck stops are not generally as full as rest stops, though there are still capacity problems (Garber & Wang, 2004). Fleger et al. (2002) found that nationwide 48% of drivers said that parking was seldom available at rest stops vs. 16% citing unavailability at truck stops. Drivers use truck stops and rest stops for different purposes. Rest stops tend to accommodate shorter breaks than truck stops, which are used for extended rest (Chatterjee & Wegmann, 2000; Fleger et al., 2002). On the whole, the aggregate capacity of truck stops and rest stops is frequently insufficient to reliably meet trucker demand (Fleger et al., 2002; Martin & Shaheen, 2013).
Carson, Pezoldt, Koncz, and Obeng-Boampong (2011) compared the benefits and costs of Texas rest areas as they apply to both passenger and freight traffic. Benefits accrue to road users, public agencies (e.g., Texas Department of Transportation), and external entities, like businesses along the highways. The primary benefits to highway users were in safety, convenience, reduction of excess travel to reach off-interstate facilities, and by providing an area for commercial vehicle staging. Users typically bear few costs except for a marginal safety risk when merging back onto the highway. Public agencies may gain direct monetary benefit by leasing or franchising services, though commercial activity at rest stops is heavily limited and regulated. Public agencies may also gain some monetary benefit from a reduction in stops on shoulders, reducing stops on shoulders would increase road safety and decrease maintenance requirements. By contrast, public agencies must pay for the rest area construction, operations, and maintenance. According to Carson et al. (2011), the overall benefits outweighed costs by a ratio of between 8.7:1 and 29.5:1 depending on the corridor. However, most of the costs were borne by the public agencies while benefits accrued to highway users and external organizations.
Part of the parking problem comes from drivers not knowing where to find parking. Several organizations have created programs to help truck drivers find parking. One such effort is by Travel Centers of America, which has a new program called "Reserve It" to allow drivers to reserve truck parking at its truck stops. "Reserve It" employs a smartphone app to communicate with drivers (National Association of Truck Stop Owners, 2013a). Travel Centers of America is also working with the State of Michigan to investigate using interstate signs to communicate parking information (National Association of Truck Stop Owners, 2013a). Providing information to truck drivers is one of the solutions listed by Knipling et al. (2004), others include expanding rest stop parking, creating alternative parking at sites such as weigh stations and government facilities, and changing enforcement practices.
The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan
Freight has a major impact on economic performance. Investment in transportation assets for freight supports not only freight-related sectors, but also the entire economy. Several states in the DC-Virginia, Piedmont Atlantic, and Texas Triangle Megaregions have created freight plans
24

Section II: Literature Review
to leverage the link between economic performance and freight movement. The Virginia Department of Transportation completed a draft Multimodal Freight Plan in 2013 in conjunction with Cambridge Systematics. The plan concentrates on freight strategies, freight performance measures, and corridors (Virginia Department of Transportation, 2013). Maryland's freight plan dates from even a few years before 2009 (Maryland Department of Transportation, 2009). In the Texas Triangle, neither Texas nor adjacent Louisiana have a complete and distinct freight plan. However, the Texas Department of Transportation (2014) is developing a freight plan, and Louisiana's statewide transportation plans includes a freight chapter (Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 2003). Several states have freight plans or reports in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion, including Tennessee (Tennessee Department of Transportation, 2014), Georgia (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013c), Alabama (Alabama Department of Transportation, 2010), and North Carolina (North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2008). South Carolina is developing a freight plan (South Carolina Department of Transportation, 2013).
The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan is one of the most extensive freight plans in the country. The plan was led by the Office of Planning at the Georgia Department of Transportation with technical assistance from Cambridge Systematics. The plan has earned recognition in several forums including the Federal Highway Administration's 2012 Transportation Planning Excellence Award co-sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration and the Transportation Research Board. The plan's analysis results and methods serve as a benchmark to guide this study's megaregion-scale freight and economic analysis. It also informs research on the Savannah case study. This section summarizes several of the Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan's findings related to the nature of freight movement, future freight transportation projections, and economic impacts.
The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan builds on the deep, bidirectional connection between freight and the state's economy in order to guide state infrastructure investment. The plan outlines transportation investments importance for the state's population and economic growth. The plan found reasons to be concerned about underinvestment. Over the past decade the state's transportation funding has decreased below the nationwide transportation investment baseline. Increasingly deteriorating performance may threaten economic growth. The Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan calls for new transportation investment to add over $480 billion to the gross state product and almost half a million jobs by 2040.
The plan establishes a series of baseline business as usual, high, and low forecasts for the state's economy, and land, air, and sea cargo. The Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan's baseline estimate for the Port of Savannah cargo volume is 6.5 million TEU by 2050. The low estimate assumes that the port will lose market share to other East Coast ports and handle only 3.5 million TEUs, while the high estimate assumes that the port will dramatically gain vessel call share to handle up to 15 million TEUs by 2050. The report describes the role that the Panama Canal expansion is likely to play in shaping east coast ports' maritime cargo growth.
The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan analyzes cargo characteristics in detail. Most Georgia trucking happens on interstate highways even though they account for less than 1% of the state's road mileage.. The most intensive truck movement centers on the Atlanta and
25

Section II: Literature Review Savannah regions. Some corridors oversupply truck parking, while others--notably I-16 between Savannah and Macon--undersupply parking. Sea and air gateways also have a close relationship with freight movement. The Port of Savannah has increased throughput by 1,857% since 1996, which spurred freight volumes and nearby logistics activity. Simultaneously, the $500 million dollar investment to expand Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in the 1970s has continued to pay dividends. Atlanta's air cargo facilities directly and indirectly generate over 31 thousand jobs and $7.5 billion in economic activity annually in the Atlanta metro area.
The Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan highlights several industries with exceptionally strong links to the freight industry. One is warehousing and distribution, which has grown due to Georgia's high quality transportation infrastructure and the state's central "keystone" location in the Southeast, which make it an advantageous distribution hub. The agriculture and food processing industries also rely heavily on truck transportation, particularly for shorter trips for which intermodal rail-truck is less efficient. Mining produces bulk commodities requiring lowcost transportation for use and export. Similarly, lumber and wood production generate $15.1 billion annually in Georgia. Since lumber and wood are spread throughout the state, they rely on efficient transportation to connect production and processing facilities.
The Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan forecasts commodity movement changes through 2050 for different commodity types from IHS Global Insight's Transearch database. Transearch includes commodity-specific forecasts, which allowed the Office of Planning to produce commodity specific estimates to complement GPS-based truck movement data from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). The truck-borne commodity movement for which Transearch forecasts the highest growth rate are instruments, photo equipment, or optical equipment (6.7% annual growth through 2050); ordnance or accessories (4.1%); and fresh fish or marine products (4.0%). However, each of these are among the smallest commodity categories. The large categories grow more modestly. Nonmetallic minerals, which accounts for over a quarter of today's Georgia commodity truck movement tonnage, is forecasted to grow by 1.7% annually, while traffic to and from warehouses and distribution centers (i.e., "secondary traffic") is forecasted to grow by 2.4% annually. The Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan also includes present and 2050 forecasted volume versus capacity analysis for Georgia interstates. Atlanta-area highways are expected to operate at more than twice capacity by 2050, causing significant deterioration in level of service. Congestion decreases as distance from Atlanta increases. By contrast, I-16 connecting the Port of Savannah with inland Georgia is projected to remain well under capacity. I-95, which primarily serves pass-through traffic, expected to face congestion in the Savannah area prior to 2050.
The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan grounds the present research's methods and expands and validates its findings in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. The present study undertakes complementary work of analyzing truck movements, parking facilities, economic connections, and growth projections at a larger megaregion scale.
26

SECTION III. BASELINE CONDITIONS

Characterizing the Nature of Freight Movement

Status of the Panama Canal

The Panama Canal is the 50 mile-long waterway that cuts through the isthmus joining North and South America and enables ships to cross between the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea. In 2011, about 222 million long tons of cargo transited the Panama Canal, which is about 3% of world seaborne trade cargo volume (Panama Canal Authority, 2013b). The Panama Canal became a bottleneck in all water freight movement and was on the path to obsolescence. At present the largest ships that can transit the canal carry approximately 5,000 TEU (twenty foot equivalent). This led to the decision of expansion of the canal by the introduction of a third set of locks. Post expansion, the New Panama capacity as specified by the Panama Canal Authorities, is going to be 12,000 TEU.

The trade to and from the east coast of the U.S. is the most important in the Panama Canal's cargo volume. Among the 13 principal trade routes identified by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP), the trade between the east coast of the U.S. and Asia accounted for about 40% of all trades in 2011. There are four more trade routes involving the east coast of the U.S.: East Coast U.S. West Coast South America; East Coast U.S. West Coast Central America; U.S. Inter-coastal; and East Coast U.S./Canada Oceania. The cargo volume of all five trade routes accounted for about 60% of the total cargo volume (Panama Canal Authority, 2013b)Error! Reference source not found..

Table 1: Cargo Volume by Trade Route in 2011

Trade Route

Cargo Volume (Thousands of Long Tons)

East Coast U.S. - Asia

87,210

East Coast U.S. - West Coast South America

26,202

Round the World

202

Europe - West Coast South America

15,175

Europe - Asia

1,555

Europe - West Coast U.S./Canada

9,919

East Coast U.S. - West Coast Central America

11,742

South America Inter-coastal

13,233

West Indices - West Coast Central America

1,626

U.S. Inter-coastal (including Alaska and Hawaii)

5,777

East Coast U.S./Canada - Oceania

1,653

East Coast South America - West Coast U.S./Canada

3,825

All Other Routes

44,235

Total

222,355

Source: Statistics and Models Administration Unit, Panama Canal Authority

Percentage
39.2% 11.8%
0.1% 6.8% 0.7% 4.5% 5.3% 6.0% 0.7% 2.6% 0.7%
1.7%
19.9% 100.0%

Bulk carriers are the most important vessel type in terms of total cargo volume as seen in Table 2Error! Reference source not found.. Bulk cargo volume accounted for 46% of the total cargo. Bulk cargo includes petroleum, natural gas, coal, metallic ores, grains, and other highweight, low-value commodities which are transported by rail, pipeline, and inland waterways more frequently than truck. Container ships and tankers are next to bulk carriers, accounting for

Section III: Baseline Conditions
28% and 21% of cargo volume respectively. Most containers travel inland by truck, although rail intermodal has steadily increased its container volume (Association of American Railroads, 2013). The bulk carriers' share of cargo traveling from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean is even larger, at approximately 50%. This is likely reflective of the large amount of export cargo of agricultural and petroleum products from the East and Gulf Coast of the U.S. Also, tankers' share increases to 27%, while container ships' share decreases to 20%. Looking at just the cargo from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, the patterns change again. The share of bulk carriers and cargo carriers is almost the same, roughly 40% and 39% respectively. Meanwhile, the share of tankers decreases to about 13%. This reflects the importance of manufactured products from Asia traveling to the East Coast of the U.S.

Table 2: Vessel Types in 2011

Total

Atlantic to Pacific

Volume Percentage

Volume Percentage

Bulk Carriers

102,403

46.0%

67,145

50.1%

Container Cargo

61,039

27.4%

26,847

20.0%

General Cargo

7,447

3.3%

3,733

2.8%

Passenger

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Refrigerated Cargo

4,487

2.0%

560

0.4%

Tank

46,923

21.1%

35,562

26.6%

Other

135

0.1%

66

0.0%

Total

222,433

100.0%

133,914

100.0%

Source: Statistics and Models Administration Unit, Panama Canal Authority Volume in thousands of long tons

Pacific to Atlantic

Volume Percentage

35,259

39.8%

34,192

38.6%

3,714

4.2%

0

0.0%

3,927

4.4%

11,360 68
88,518

12.8% 0.1%
100.0%

The pattern found in commodity types passing through the canal is consistent with that of vessel types as seen in Table 3Error! Reference source not found.. The share of container cargo is about 25%. Most other commodities, except canned and refrigerated foods and petroleum and petroleum products, are likely to be transported by bulk carriers. Grains and petroleum and petroleum products account for about 18% and 16% respectively. Looking at grains and petroleum products passing from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, the shares increase to 30% and 21% respectively, signifying the U.S. export of agricultural and petroleum products. If we look at the cargo from Pacific Ocean to Atlantic Ocean, the share of container cargo increases to about 36% and the share of grains and petroleum products decreases to about 2% and 9%.

Table 3: Commodity Types in 2011 (Long Tons)

Canned And Refrigerated Foods
Chemicals And Petroleum Chemicals

Total Volume Percentage

3,630

1.6%

13,057

5.9%

Atlantic to Pacific Volume Percentage

79

0.1%

8,627

6.4%

Pacific to Atlantic Volume Percentage

3,551

4.0%

4,430

5.0%

28

Section III: Baseline Conditions

Coal And Coke (Excluding Petroleum Coke)

Total Volume Percentage

14,209

6.4%

Grains

40,246

18.1%

Lumber And Products
Machinery And Equipment
Manufactures Of Iron And Steel
Minerals, Miscellaneous Nitrates, Phosphates And Potash

3,188 4,034 6,475 8,553 6,384

1.4% 1.8% 2.9% 3.8% 2.9%

Ores And Metals

17,371

7.8%

Other Agricultural Commodities
Petroleum And Petroleum Products

1,524 35,686

0.7% 16.0%

Miscellaneous

7,490

3.4%

Atlantic to Pacific Volume Percentage

10,463

7.8%

38,261 1,166 1,493 2,902 198

28.6% 0.9% 1.1% 2.2% 0.1%

4,157

3.1%

9,035 399
28,041 3,068

6.8% 0.3% 21.0% 2.3%

Container Cargo

54,639

24.6%

23,163

17.3%

Total

222,355

100.0% 133,836

100.0%

Source: Statistics and Models Administration Unit, Panama Canal Authority Volume in thousands of long tons

Pacific to Atlantic Volume Percentage

3,746

4.2%

1,985 2,022 2,541 3,573 8,355

2.2% 2.3% 2.9% 4.0% 9.4%

2,227

2.5%

8,336 1,125 7,645 4,422 31,476 88,518

9.4% 1.3% 8.6% 5.0% 35.6% 100.0%

Table 4Error! Reference source not found. compares the cargo volume headed to the U.S. eastern ports transiting the canal to the total imported cargo volume of U.S. eastern ports. The total share of cargo passing through the canal is 6.6%. However, the importance of the canal varies for different ports. For example, the Panama Canal's share of import cargo is 23.3% in the south Atlantic ports, but the share is only 4.1% in the Gulf ports.
In 2011, the cargo volume passing through the canal going to the U.S. eastern ports was about 40 million long tons, about 50% of the cargo volume transiting from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. About 39% and 58% of the cargo bound for eastern ports went to ports in the Gulf coast and the Atlantic coasts. Only 3% of the cargo went to the ports in the Great Lakes. Among the cargo to the Atlantic coasts, 54% went to ports in the northern Atlantic coast. Asia and South America were most important origins of cargo, accounting for about 65% and 26% respectively.

29

Section III: Baseline Conditions
Table 4: Cargo Volume through the Panama Canal in 2011 (Long Tons)

From
U.S. Canada Central America South America Oceania

North Atlantic
Ports 36,123 2,015
1,082,044
5,052,952
91,317

To East Coast United States

South Atlantic
Ports
90,550

Great Lakes Ports
0

Gulf Ports
547,235

42,643

52,266

195,271

Total 673,908 292,195

Percentage 1.7% 0.7%

228,371

2,848

470,787

1,784,049

4.4%

1,795,607 108,450

411,400 3,518,416

295,123

307,295

10,778,376 802,186

26.4% 2.0%

Asia

6,470,205

8,663,088

520,775 10,853,646 26,507,714

64.9%

Imports from P.C. to East Coast U.S.

12,734,656

10,928,709

1,282,412 15,892,650

40,838,428

100.0%

Percentage

31.2%

26.8%

Source: Panama Canal Authority, 2013

3.1%

38.9%

100.0%

Table 5Error! Reference source not found. compares the total imports to each port region with the total imports passing through the canal to each port region. Although the cargo volumes to north Atlantic ports and south Atlantic ports are not very different, the share of cargo via the canal among the south Atlantic ports is larger than that among the north Atlantic ports. This is because of the much larger scale of imported cargo in the north Atlantic ports. We might interpret this to mean that the Panama Canal's role is more important in the south Atlantic ports.

Table 5: Cargo Volume through the Panama Canal in 2011 (Long Tons)

From

North Atlantic
Ports

To East Coast United States

South Atlantic
Ports

Great Lakes Ports

Gulf Ports

Imports from P.C. to East Coast U.S.

12,734,656

10,928,709

1,282,412 15,892,650

Total Imports to East Coast U.S. Share of Imports via P.C.

146,094,983 8.7%

46,977,410 15,470,793 385,921,772

23.3%

8.3%

4.1%

Source: Panama Canal Authority and USDOT Maritime Administration

Other Ports
0
26,844,081
0.0%

Total 40,838,428 621,309,039
6.6%

30

Section III: Baseline Conditions Panama Canal Expansion
The Panama Canal Authority (Autoridad del Canal de Panam - ACP) started the expansion project of the canal in September 2007 and is expected to complete it by 2016. The capacity of the canal will be expanded by constructing lock facilities, excavating new access channels, and widening and deepening existing channels and the Gatun Lake (Panama Canal Authority, 2006). In the expansion proposal, the ACP predicts that the canal's annual cargo volume will nearly double in the next 20 years from 279 million Panama Canal Universal Metric System (PCUMS) tons to 508 million PCUMS tons, assuming the expansion. Without the expansion, the ACP predicts that the canal would lose the potential of 178 million PCUMS tons per year in demand growth. Among various market segments the containerized cargo growth, from 98 PCUMS tons to 296 PCUMS tons, is expected to drive this increase owing to the trade growth between Northeast Asia, especially China, and the U.S. east coast (Panama Canal Authority, 2006).
The new set of locks will be able to accommodate larger vessels. The existing locks' chambers are 1,000 feet long, 110 feet wide, and 41.5 feet deep and serve up to the "Panamax" size container vessels with dimensions of 965 feet in length, 106 feet in width, and a 39.5 feet in draft in tropical fresh water (Payer, 2005). The new locks' chambers are 1,400 feet long, 180 feet wide, and 60 feet deep. The new chambers will accommodate vessels larger than Panamax vessels known as post-Panamax containerships with dimensions of 1,200 feet in length, 160 feet in width, and 50 feet in draft in tropical fresh water (Panama Canal Authority, 2006). According to their capacity simulation model, the current capacity of the canal is determined to be between 330 and 340 million PCUMS tons per year (Panama Canal Authority, 2006). The same model suggests the new set of locks will add a capacity of 300 PCUMS tons per year, resulting in the total capacity of over 600 million tons with forecasted mix of various types of vessels.
Several years have passed since the 2007 proposal, and they included a global economic slowdown, so the demand growth of the canal's throughput is not likely to occur at the level the proposal predicted. Figure 6 shows the trend of annual cargo volume from 1999 and 2012. The cargo volume growth was the largest when the proposal was made, but after 2007 the cargo volume decreased until 2010 due to the global recession. However, the cargo volume began increasing again in 2010 with a growth rate similar to that of the middle 2000s. In 2007 when the proposal was written, it was expected that the cargo volume would reach the maximum capacity of between 330 and 340 million PCUMS tons per year by 2009 or 2010. Despite the years of delay caused by the global economic slowdown, the maximum capacity was reached in 2012 with cargo volume of about 333 million PCUMS tons (Panama Canal Authority, 2012).
31

PC/UMS Tons

Section III: Baseline Conditions
350,000,000 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000
50,000,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Years
Figure 6: Cargo Volume Trend
Source: Panama Canal Authority (2013b), Panama Canal Authority Announces by Fiscal Year
The Canal Waters Time (CWT), the sum of waiting time and transit time, is an indicator of reliability of the canal's transit service. The average CWTs in the 2000s fluctuated around 25 hours, with the longest CWTs seen in the middle-2000s, as seen in Figure 7Error! Reference source not found.. The average CWT dropped significantly in 2009 and 2010 and then started to increase again, consistent with the cargo volume movement. This chart does not indicate extreme levels of congestion, possibly because smaller-scale improvement projects were completed in the late 2000s (Panama Canal Authority, 2014).
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Years Figure 7: Canal Waters Time
Source: Panama Canal Authority (2013b), Panama Canal Authority Announces by Fiscal Year
32

Canal Waters Time in Hours

Section III: Baseline Conditions Figure 8 and Figure 9Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found.show the cargo volume trends by principal trade route. Over the year, the East Coast U.S. Asia route has been the route with the highest cargo volume. Its proportion was between 30% and 40% in the early 2000s, but it increased up to 45% in middle 2000s. After the global recession, the share of the East Coast Asia route decreased to about 40%. The East Coast U.S. West Coast South and Central Americas comprises over 10% of the cargo volume and their size and share slightly increased in recent years. The share of routes involving the West Coast U.S. is less than 5%. The share of routes involving Europe has decreased from about 19% in the early 2000s to about 10% in the late 2000s. Some routes such as Europe-Asia, West Indies-West Coast Central America, and Round-the-World are virtually disappearing in the Panama Canal's share of throughput. All other routes with unknown origin-destination information comprise about 20% of the cargo volume (Panama Canal Authority, 2013b).
33

PC/UMS Net Ton s

Section III: Baseline Conditions
350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000
50,000 -

All Other Routes
E.C. South America - West Coast U.S./Canada East Coast U.S./Canada Oceania U.S. Intercoastal (including Alaska and Hawaii) West Indies - W.C. Central America South America Intercoastal
East Coast U.S. - W.C. Central America Europe - West Coast U.S./Canada Europe - Asia
Europe -West Coast South America Round-the-World
East Coast U.S. - W.C. South America East Coast U.S. - Asia

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 8: Cargo Volume by Trade Route Source:Panama Canal Authority (2013b), Panama Canal Traffic along Principal Trade Routes

34

Section III: Baseline Conditions
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

All Other Routes
E.C. South America - West Coast U.S./Canada East Coast U.S./Canada Oceania U.S. Intercoastal (including Alaska and Hawaii) West Indies - W.C. Central America South America Intercoastal
East Coast U.S. - W.C. Central America Europe - West Coast U.S./Canada Europe - Asia
Europe -West Coast South America Round-the-World
East Coast U.S. - W.C. South America East Coast U.S. - Asia

Figure 9: The Proportion of Cargo Volume by Trade Route
Source: Panama Canal Authority (2013b) Panama Canal Traffic along Principal Trade Routes
Asian American Trade Routes
The largest single trade route through the Panama Canal connects East Asia and the Eastern United States. Many major shipping companies offer competing service on this route. Oftentimes, ships will stop at several Asian ports and several American ports for one or two days each to load and offload cargo. Stopping at multiple ports allows ocean carriers to economically broaden their geographical coverage. Figure 10 illustrates a conventional Northeast Asia to Eastern U.S. routing operated by Hapag-Llyod, the sixth largest ocean carrier worldwide (Burnson, 2012). City pairs are separated by between 23 and 37 days depending on the order of port calls (Table 6).

35

Section III: Baseline Conditions

Figure 10: NYE / SCE Combo Service - Trade Route Source: Hapag-Lloyd (2014)

Table 6: Transit Time in Days (Latest update: 29 Oct 2013)

From/To Arrival Day Xiamen Kaohsiung Hong Kong Yantian Shanghai (Yan) Busan

Savannah

Charleston

MON

TUE

31

32

30

31

29

30

28

29

25

26

23

24

Source: Hapag-Lloyd (2014)

New York THU 34 33 32 31 28 26

Norfolk SUN 37 36 35 34 31 29

Other ocean carriers offer similar routes, including Maersk, the largest ocean carrier by volume. Maersk is known for its large, fuel efficient container ships, many of which are too large to pass through the existing Panama Canal (referred to as "post-Panamax" in this report and as "new Panamax" in Figure 11 below). Already, Maersk's route between East Asia and the Eastern U.S. travels via the Suez Canal rather than the Panama Canal, ostensibly to benefit from the Suez Canal's larger dimensions compared with the unexpanded Panama Canal (Figure 12). Maersk's service stops in the Ports of New York and New Jersey, Norfolk, and Savannah, as well as several Chinese, Japanese, and Malaysian ports. Carriers have had to balance per-unit cost savings with the largest ships against the added time of using the longer Suez Canal route. The expanded Panama Canal will reduce the trade-off, allowing larger ships to take the shorter route between East Asia and the Eastern United States (Figure 13).

36

Section III: Baseline Conditions
Figure 11: Vessel Size Categories
Source: Rodigue and Ashar (2012)
Figure 12: Maersk Transpacific 3 Route
Source: Maersk Lines (2012)
37

Section III: Baseline Conditions
Figure 13: Panama Canal Route vs. Suez Canal Route between East Asia and the Eastern United States
38

Section III: Baseline Conditions
Status of East and Gulf Coast Ports with Over a Quarter Million Container Volume Annually
Current Pattern of North American Inland Freight Movement Pattern
Examining overall volume, current projects, and existing import volumes of each of the major U.S. ports provides a context for understanding ocean shipping trends and projections. East and Gulf Coast ports have been preparing for new cargo that many have forecasted will arrive from Asia--bypassing traditional West Coast ports--after the Panama Canal expansion. Many of these ports hope to process cargo that has traditionally been offloaded in West Coast ports and transported by land to eastern markets. This section presents a brief overview of the East, and Gulf Coast ports with over 250,000 annual TEU throughput annually (shown in Figure 14). It describes major commodities and capacity enhancing projects to show each port's potential to absorb future ocean cargo.

New York/New Jersey

Figure 14: Major Port Locations

The Port of New York and New Jersey was ranked third busiest container port in the United States in 2011 by the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), with a container volume of 5,503,485 TEUs (a change of 4.0% from container volume in 2010) and is also the largest port on the East Coast. In 2011, the largest import commodities were furniture and women's
39

Section III: Baseline Conditions and infant apparel, and the largest export commodities were paper, carbon, crepe and automobiles. The largest trading partner overall is China (28.4% of total New York / New Jersey trade), while the fastest-growing import trading partner is Peru (33.7% growth over 2010), and the fastest-growing export trading partner is China (21.7% growth over 2010). Infrastructure projects to expand the port's facilities include roadway, rail and intermodal facility improvements, such as the expansion of the Express Rail system. Additionally, the Port of New York and New Jersey plans to deepen its harbor channels to 50 feet in order to accommodate larger ships and expected demand for international trade with the expansion of the Panama Canal (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2013). Savannah The Port of Savannah was ranked fourth busiest American container port in 2011, with a container volume of 2,944,678 TEUs (a change of 4.2% from container volume in 2010). In 2011, the fastest growing export commodity was wood pulp (14% of total exports); the fastest growing import commodity was automotive parts (57% five year growth); and the largest import commodity group was furniture (13% of total imports). The Port of Savannah is a major destination for imports from Northeast and Southeast Asia and exports, and it is a major exporter to Northeast Asia and Europe. The fastest growing markets for imports into Savannah are in Central America (483% five-year growth), and the fastest growing markets for exports from Savannah are located in Northeast Asia (17% or 62,137 TEUs). The Port of Savannah is near the intersections of I-16 and I-95, as well as two Class I railroads. Both I-95 and I-16 are federally designated freight corridors as part of the Primary Freight Network (draft). There are numerous distribution centers in Chatham County in which the port is located serving port-related functions. Figure 15 below shows the surrounding freight transportation infrastructure.
Figure 15: Savannah Transportation Infrastructure
40

Section III: Baseline Conditions The Port of Savannah plans to expand capacity by deepening the Savannah harbor. The planned deepening of the Savannah harbor was included in a list of seven "nationally and regionally significant" projects to be expedited by executive order (The White House, 2012). The Port of Savannah should see work on the major capacity expansion project begin in the summer of 2014. The Port of Savannah can, and does, currently receive the larger postPanamax ships, but constrained by tidal cycles. The project will dredge and deepen the Savannah harbor to better accommodate the larger `post-Panamax' vessels that will soon be able to traverse the Panama Canal. The project was originally proposed in the 1999 Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) with a spending cap of $230,174,000 (Water Resources Development Act of 1999). After several years of delays and increasing cost estimates the project cost now exceeds that cap. A new Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) was receive House of Representatives approval in May 2014 that will increase the total spending authorization to $652 million if it becomes law ("On the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3080, Water Resources Development Act of 2013: Roll Vote No. 163," 2014, Water Resources Reform & Development Act of 2013). The act would allow the Army Corp of Engineers to begin work on the expansion with an expected completion date of 2016. In addition to the federal authorization, the state of Georgia has set aside $255 million dollars for the project that will qualify for federal matching funds. The Georgia Ports Authority intends to deepen the harbor to 47 feet below mean low water.
Hampton Roads / Norfolk
The Port of Hampton Roads/Norfolk was ranked the seventh busiest U.S. container port in 2011, with a container volume of 1,918,029 TEUs (a change of 1.2% from container volume in 2010). Hampton Roads is one of the deepest natural harbors on the East Coast at 50 feet and has among the largest cranes in the world. In 2011, the largest import commodities were mineral fuel and oil and machinery, and the largest export commodities were mineral fuel and oil, and wood pulp. The largest import trading partners by tonnage are China and Colombia, and the largest export trading partners by tonnage are Brazil and the Netherlands. The top trading partners by commodity value are China and Germany. Projects to expand the Port of Hampton Roads/Norfolk include a project to expand Craney Island eastward to accommodate a fourth terminal, as well as equipment and infrastructure upgrades, including landside road and rail infrastructure (Virginia Port Authority, 2013). The Port of Hampton Roads / Norfolk is connected with inland destinations by I-64--which is a federally designated freight corridor in the Primary Freight Network (draft)--and several state roads, as well as two Class I rail lines. The surrounding cities and counties in southeastern Virginia are home to many supporting warehouses and distribution centers, depicted in Figure 16 below. The Port of Hampton Roads / Norfolk is currently 50 feet deep, and there are early discussions to deepen the harbor to 55 feet.
41

Section III: Baseline Conditions

Houston

Figure 16: Norfolk Transportation Infrastructure

The Port of Houston was ranked eighth busiest U.S. container port, with a container volume of 1,866,450 TEUs (a change of 2.7% from 2010). The Port of Houston ranks first in foreign tonnage and U.S. exports, and second in total U.S. tonnage. In 2011, the top bulk commodities were industrial chemicals and fuel coke. The largest import trading partners in U.S. dollars were Europe and North America, while the largest export trading partners in dollars were Latin America and Europe. Projects to expand the Port of Houston include a project to complete the construction of a new container terminal (Bayport) as well as infrastructure investments. The port also has plans to deepen its harbor channels to 45 feet to accommodate the larger container ships that will be able to pass through the expanded Panama Canal (Port of Houston Authority, 2013).

Charleston

The Port of Charleston was ranked tenth busiest in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 1,381,352 TEUs (a change of 1.2% from 2010). The Port of Charleston is ranked as the eighth port district in the U.S. in dollar value of goods. In 2011, the top export commodities were paper and paperboard (19% of total exports), and wood pulp; while the top import commodities were furniture and auto parts. The top trade lanes in 2009 were Northern Europe (36% of total) and Northeast Asia (22% of total). The Port of Charleston plans to deepen its harbor channels to approximately 47 feet to accommodate larger vessels. The planned deepening of the Charleston harbor was included in a list of seven "nationally and regionally
42

Section III: Baseline Conditions significant" projects to be expedited by executive order (South Carolina Ports Authority, n.d.; The White House, 2012).
Miami
The Port of Miami was ranked twelfth busiest container port in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 906,607 TEUs (a change of 7.0% from 2010). In 2011, the top import commodities were beverages, apparel, and fruits and nuts, while the top export commodities were wood pulp and base metals. The top import regions were Asia/Pacific and Central America, while the top export regions were Asia/Pacific, the Caribbean and Central America. The Port of Miami is deepening its harbor channels to 50 feet to accommodate larger vessels expected with the Panama Canal expansion. Dredging began in late 2013 and is expected to be completed in 2015 (Miami-Dade County, 2013). Other planned capital improvement projects include roadway and intermodal facility expansions, re-introduced rail service, and the acquisition of larger cranes to service the larger vessels. The planned deepening of the Miami harbor was included in a list of seven "nationally and regionally significant" projects to be expedited by executive order (Miami-Dade County, 2012; The White House, 2012).
Jacksonville
The Port of Jacksonville was ranked 13th busiest container port in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 899,258 TEUs (a change of 8.8% from 2010). In 2011, the top import commodities by tonnage were coal, fuel coke, gasoline and petroleum, while the top export commodities were automobiles and general cargo. The largest import trade lanes were Puerto Rico and Israel, while the largest export trade lanes were with Colombia and the Virgin Islands. The Port of Jacksonville plans to deepen its harbor channels to approximately 47 feet. The Port of Jacksonville also plans to reconfigure the St. Johns River in order to improve navigation near the harbor. The planned deepening of the Jacksonville harbor was included in a list of seven "nationally and regionally significant" projects to be expedited by executive order (Jacksonville Port Authority, 2013; The White House, 2012).
Port Everglades
Port Everglades was ranked 14th busiest in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 880,999 TEUs (a change of 11.1% from 2010). In 2011, the top import commodities were fruits and bananas, while the top export commodities were paper and grocery products. The top trade lanes were the Caribbean and Central America, while the top trading partners (both import and export) were Honduras and Guatemala. Port Everglades plans to deepen its harbor channels to 48 feet to accommodate larger vessels expected with the Panama Canal expansion (Broward County Port Everglades Department, n.d.).
Baltimore
The Port of Baltimore was ranked 15th busiest in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 631,804 TEUs (a change of 8.8% from 2010). In 2011, the top import commodities were coal, oil and scrap metal, while the top export commodities were iron ore, salt and sugar.
43

Section III: Baseline Conditions The top import trade partners were Chile, Brazil and China, while the top export trading partners were China and Japan. The Port of Baltimore already has a 50 feet harbor channel, and has acquired post-Panamax shipping cranes (Maryland Department of Transportation, n.d.). New Orleans The Port of New Orleans was ranked 16th busiest in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 477,363 TEUs (a change of 11.7% from container volume in 2010), and is the only port in the U.S. served by six Class I railroads. The primary break-bulk cargo commodities served by the Port of New Orleans are steel, nonferrous materials, rubber and forest products. The Port of New Orleans has plans to deepen its harbor channels to 50 feet to accommodate larger vessels expected with the Panama Canal expansion (Port of New Orleans, n.d.). The Port of New Orleans has several roadways that are federally designated freight corridors as part of the Primary Freight Network (draft), and it is home to six Class I railroads, depictured in Figure 17.
Figure 17: New Orleans Transportation Infrastructure
Philadelphia The Port of Philadelphia was ranked 18th busiest in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 291,091 TEUs (a change of 6.7% from container volume in 2010). In 2007, the top import commodities were crude petroleum, refined petroleum products, meat, fruit, wine, beverages, and paper products, while the top export commodities were iron and steel scrap and waste, paper, and meat. The top import trading partners were Nigeria, Cameroon and Turkey,
44

Section III: Baseline Conditions while the top export trading partners were Australia, Cameroon and Turkey (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2009). The Port of Philadelphia plans to deepen its harbor channels to 45 feet (as part of the Delaware River harbor deepening project), expand its container facilities and capacity, and improve its infrastructure and security (as a designated Strategic Military Port) (Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, 2013). Wilmington, NC The Port of Wilmington in North Carolina was ranked 19th busiest in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 287,469 TEUs (a change of 8.4% from container volume in 2010). In 2012, the largest import commodities by tonnage were chemicals and grains, while the top export commodities were forest products, wood pulp and woodchips. The top import trading partners were China, Great Britain and Trinidad & Tobago, while the top export trading partners were China, Turkey and South Korea. The largest overall trading partners were China, Great Britain and Belgium. The Port of Wilmington is currently equipped with a 44-foot deep harbor channel, post-Panamax cranes and surface transportation infrastructure improvements (rail and highway) (North Carolina State Ports Authority, 2012). Wilmington, DE The Port of Wilmington in Delaware was ranked 20th busiest container port in the U.S. in 2011 by the AAPA, with a container volume of 272,996 TEUs (a change of 3.8% from container volume in 2010). The Port of Wilmington is a leading importer of fresh fruit and juice concentrate. The Port of Wilmington's harbor channels are 38 feet deep. While the Delaware River deepening will deepen access channels as far as Philadelphia, it will not deepen the Port of Wilmington's berths (Diamond State Port Corporation, n.d.). Port Overview Ports vary widely amongst themselves, especially in terms of their throughput, major commodities, trading partners, and expansion projects. Table 7Error! Reference source not found. below provides a detailed list of port characteristics in decreasing order of containerized throughput.
45

Section III: Baseline Conditions

Port Los Angeles Long Beach

Table 7: Port Details, Ordered by Decreasing Container Volume

Container Volume
(TEUs) in 2010

Import Commodities

7,940,511

furniture and automotive parts

Export Commodities
wastepaper and scrap metal

International Trade
Top trade route: Northeast Asia, Top trading partner: China/Hong Kong

6,061,085 crude oil and electronics

petroleum coke and petroleum bulk

Top trade route: East Asia, Top trading partner: China/Hong Kong

Plans for Expansion
Harbor deepening, terminal expansion, infrastructure improvements
Harbor deepening, infrastructure improvement

New York/New Jersey*

5,503,485

furniture and women's and infant apparel

paper, carbon and crepe and automobiles

Top trading partner: China

Harbor deepening, infrastructure improvement

Savannah* Oakland

Top commodity is furniture; 2,944,678 fastest-growing is
automotive
2,342,504 machinery and electronics

Fastest-growing export is wood pulp
dried fruit & nuts and meats

Fastest-growing import market is in Central America, Fastestgrowing export market is in Northeast Asia
Top import trading partner: China, Top export trading partner: Japan and China

Harbor deepening, infrastructure improvement
Infrastructure improvements, army base redevelopment, harbor deepening

Seattle

2,033,535

machinery and electrical machinery

Hampton Roads/Norfolk

1,918,029

mineral fuel and oil and machinery

grain, seed and fruit and machinery
mineral fuel and oil and wood pulp

Top trading partners: China, Japan and South Korea
Top import trading partner: China and Colombia, Top export trading partners: Brazil and the Netherlands

Plan to increase container volume by 50%, naturally deepwater port
Terminal expansion, infrastructure improvements, naturally deepwater port

46

Section III: Baseline Conditions

Port Houston Tacoma

Container Volume
(TEUs) in 2010

Import Commodities

Top bulk commodities: 1,866,450 industrial chemicals and
coke

1,485, 617

vehicles and parts and industrial machinery

Charleston*

1,381,352

paper, paperboard and wood pulp

Export Commodities

International Trade

Plans for Expansion

N/A grains and cereals

Top import trading partners ($) : Europe and North America, Top export trading partners ($): Latin America and Europe

Terminal expansion, infrastructure improvements, harbor deepening

Top trading partners: China/Hong Kong and Japan

Terminal expansion, infrastructure improvements, naturally deepwater port

furniture and auto parts

Top trade lanes: North Europe and Northeast Asia

Harbor deepening

Honolulu
Miami*
Jacksonville* Port Everglades Baltimore

938,821 N/A

N/A

N/A

Military reservation redevelopment

906,607

beverages, apparel and fruits and nuts

wood pulp and base metals

899,258

coal and coke, gasoline and petroleum

automobiles and general cargo

880,999 fruits and bananas

paper and grocery products

631,804 coal, oil and scrap metal

iron ore, salt and sugar

Top import regions: Asia/Pacific and Central America, top export regions: Asia/Pacific, the Caribbean and Central America
Top import trade lanes: Puerto Rico and Israel, Top export trade lanes: Colombia and the Virgin Islands
Top trade lanes: the Caribbean and Central America, Top trading partners: Honduras and Guatemala
Top import trading partners: Chile, Brazil and China, Top export trading partners: China and Japan

Harbor deepening, infrastructure improvement, crane acquisition
Harbor deepening, navigation improvements
Naturally deepwater port, has acquired post-Panamax cranes

47

Section III: Baseline Conditions

Port New Orleans Anchorage Philadelphia
Wilmington (NC)

Container Volume
(TEUs) in 2010

Import Commodities

477,363

Iron and steel, forest products and aluminum

423,381

Top commodities: vehicles and petroleum

291,091

crude petroleum, refined petroleum products, meat, fruit, wine, beverage, and paper products

287,469 chemicals, grains and urea

Export Commodities

International Trade

Plans for Expansion

Chemicals, animal and vegetable products, forest products

Top import trade routes: Europe and Asia, Top export trade routes: Europe, Asia and South America

Harbor deepening

N/A

N/A

Terminal expansion, infrastructure improvements (planned)

iron and steel scrap and waste, paper, and meat
forest products, wood pulp and woodchips

Top import trading partners: Nigeria, Cameroon and Turkey, top export trading partners: Australia, Cameroon and Turkey Top import trading partners: China, Great Britain, Trinidad & Tobago, Top export trading partners: China, Turkey & South Korea, Top overal trading partners: China, Great Britain and Belgium

Harbor deepening, terminal expansion, infrastructure improvements
Naturally deepwater port, has acquired post-Panamax cranes

Wilmington (DE)

272,996

Top importer of fresh fruit and juice concentrate

N/A

N/A

Harbor deepening

N/A: Information not applicable or not available *East coast ports whose harbor channel deepening projects have been fast-tracked by the White House Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, compiled from multiple sources including the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and the ports' websites

48

Section III: Baseline Conditions

Port Preparations

Several ports are aggressively pursuing opportunities to deepen and expand their harbors to accommodate larger ships. This includes the Georgia Ports Authority, which is coordinating the Savannah River dredging to 47 feet. The Port of Hampton Roads / Norfolk already has a natural 50 foot channel leading to berths with 50 foot drafts. Table 8 and Figure 18 below summarize other port deepening projects in major eastern U.S. ports. Furthermore, Figure 19 shows port deepening status.

Table 8: Port Deepening Projects

Port
Houston
New Orleans Miami Port Everglades Jacksonville Savannah Charleston Wilmington, NC Norfolk /Hampton Roads Baltimore Wilmington, DE Philadelphia New York and New Jersey

Current Depth (feet), Mean Low Water 45
47

Future Depth (feet) , Mean Low Water
More channels will be 45' depth
50

Expected Completion TBD TBD

42

50

2015

48

48

TBD

40

47

TBD

42

47

2016

45

47

TBD

44

44

N/A

50

55

N/A

50

50

N/A

38

38

N/A

40

45

2017

45

50

2014

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, compiled from multiple sources including the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and the ports' websites

49

Section III: Baseline Conditions
Figure 18: Planned Port Depths
Figure 19: Port Deepening Status
50

Section III: Baseline Conditions Readiness for post-Panamax vessel drafts of nearly 50 feet is a spectrum that depends not only on harbor depth, but also on tidal effects. Tidal ranges at each port affect actual port depth at any given time. Many times, tides may allow a port to accommodate post-Panamax ships for several hours daily even when its mean low water depth is below 50 feet. Therefore, not all port expansion projects will result in the same capacity even after deepening projects are complete (Kendall, Shaw, & Kendall, 2012).
51

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
SECTION IV. FREIGHT MOVEMENT FROM A MEGAREGIONS PERSPECTIVE
Case Study Introduction
To better understand the specific truck movements from the East Coast and Gulf Coast ports, and resulting impacts on roadway transportation, three ports were selected as case studies for additional detailed analysis. The following case study ports were selected: the Port of Hampton Roads / Norfolk, VA; the Port of Savannah, GA; and the Port of New Orleans, LA. These three ports were chosen as case studies because they are gateways to three different megaregions (DC-Virginia, Piedmont Atlantic, and Texas Triangle respectively). Moreover, each port has a unique commodity flow mix and different levels of access to landside infrastructure, which make research results more easily generalizable to other large East Coast and Gulf Coast ports.
The research team conducted a detailed analysis of truck movement emanating from three ports utilizing GPS truck flow data. The findings generated from the analysis will inform the transportation decision making process by identifying roadway infrastructure inadequacies that could hinder freight movement between the ports and inland consumers. Each of the three ports provides a gateway to the following megaregion-scale freight movement routes: the Port of New Orleans connects vessel movement up the Mississippi River and into the Texas Triangle Megaregion's eastern edge. The Port of Norfolk makes up a large part of the Port of Virginia, which is the largest seaport in the DC-Virginia Megaregion. Finally, the Port of Savannah is the largest seaport near the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion and one of the country's consistently fastest growing container terminals.
Understanding each megaregion's freight and economic characteristics frames analysis on how the Panama Canal expansion may affected truck movement and economic activity in the states and megaregions around each port. To that end, Section IV highlights major freight corridors, distribution centers hubs, industrial clustering, and the primary commodity movement within each megaregion.
Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
The Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion is composed of several core metropolitan areas, including Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte, Durham, and Raleigh. Theses metropolitan areas contain the greatest density of people and highest intensity of travel and economic interaction across the megaregion. The Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion also contains or is near several gateway cities, including the port cities of Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, and Mobile. Nashville, Charlotte, and Atlanta are among the megaregion's major rail and airport hubs. These gateway cities provide important domestic and international links that facilitate the flow of goods, people, information, and culture. All of the cities are connected not only to each other, but also to the numerous small cities and large swaths of rural and undeveloped land that surround them (Regional Plan Association, 2014a).
Several interstate highway corridors anchor the megaregion, namely I-85, I-20, I-26, and I-77 among others. The spatial pattern of the megaregion includes major branches and corridors
52

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective which connect the key nodes. Within the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion, trucks transport 89% of freight by value as of 2002, and the percentage is expected to increase slightly through 2035 (Ross, Woo, West, Meyer, & Amekudzi, 2011) Texas Triangle Megaregion The Texas Triangle Megaregion is primarily in the state of Texas around the cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. It is a growing megaregion that already generates about 7% of American gross domestic product, and it is expected to be home to 35 million people by 2050, a 15 million increase over today (Regional Plan Association, 2014b). Freight movement is also projected to increase substantially. From 2002 to 2035, there will be a projected 313% increase in freight demand. The megaregion's exports to other counties and states outside of the megaregion have a higher average value than those remaining in the megaregion. Sixty percent of the value of regional products leave the megaregion, compared with only 33% of the tonnage (Ross et al., 2011). DC-Virginia Megaregion The DC-Virginia Megaregion represents the southern portion of the northeastern megaregion of the United States and is anchored mainly by the four metropolitan areas of Washington DC, Baltimore, Richmond and Norfolk. The region is oriented around the I-95 and I-64 highways, which form north-south and east-west axes respectively. Both of these corridors are heavily trafficked and expected to continue growing. The I-95 corridor is projected to increase traffic volumes by 208% by 2035, and I-64 is projected to see a 155% volume increase. This growth will require significant investment to accommodate the increased demand (Ross et al., 2011).
53

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Port Facilities
Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion The following Figure 20 shows the eight major port facilities in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion along with their total 2011 trade volume. Table 9 summarizes the ports' characteristics. Five of the eight ports are cargo-oriented, and four of the five have deep-water channels (i.e., deeper than 40 feet), which can accommodate Panamax vessels. The major commodities associated with each port are listed in Table 9. The largest of these ports compete amongst themselves for transoceanic shipments. While Nashville, Chattanooga, and Guntersville service navigable rivers, the coastal ports--especially Savannah and Charleston-- compete for import and export traffic. These coastal ports distinguish themselves through price, quality of port facilities, proximity to customers, and quality of transportation infrastructure.
Figure 20: Ports in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion and Their Total Trade Volumes
54

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

Table 9: Profile of Ports in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

Port Name

Port Type

Savannah, GA

Panamax (postPanamax* deepening set to begin)

Total Trade (short tons)
In 2011
35,459,297

Trade Share
50.1%

Max Channel Depth (feet)
42

Number of Docks
61

Commodities

Main Imports

Main Exports

Furniture; retail consumer goods; machinery, appliances & electronics; automotive; hardware & houseware; food; apparel; mineral; toys; chemical;

Wood pulp; food; paper & paperboard, incl waste; clay; automotive; fabrics, incl raw cotton; machinery, appliances & electronics; chemical; resins & rubber; retail consumer goods

Charleston, SC
Wilmington, NC

Panamax (postPanamax* deepening being studied)
Panamax

17,916,618 25.3% 6,972,535 9.9%

Furniture, auto parts, sheets and

Paper and paperboard, wood

towels and blankets, fabrics, auto

pulp, auto parts, logs and

45

121 & trucktire & tubes, general cargo,

lumber, fabrics, general cargo

menswear

Chemicals, grains, urea, ore, mica,

Forest products, wood pulp, gen.

42

32 schist, machinery/Pts.

merchandise/Misc. Food products, forest products

Morehead City, NC

Deepwater

3,569,512 5.0%

Sulfur products, rubber, scrap

Phosphate, woodchips, metal

45

17 metal, ore, mica, schist, metal

products, military, gen.

products

merchandise/misc

Chattanooga, TN

Inland

2,404,012 3.4%

Processed foods, iron and steel products, textiles, apparel, cosmetics,

9

32 pharmaceuticals, clay products, furniture, machinery, paper, petroleum

products

Nashville, TN Inland

1,918,167 2.7%

Dry bulk commodities, including

Dry bulk commodities, including

sand and gravel, coke, salt,

sand and gravel, coke, salt,

ferroalloys, and dry bulk fertilizers,

ferroalloys, and dry bulk

20

39 steel rods, petroleum products, fuel

fertilizers, scrap metal

oil, caustic soda, bulk cement,

asphalt, steel products

Guntersville, AL Georgetown, SC

Inland Seaport

1,539,765 967,625

2.2% 1.4%

12

20

27

17

Coal, coke, iron ore, and scrap iron Steel, cement, aggregates, and forest products

*Panamax refers to the limit of ship size of 3,000 to 3,400 TEU, and post-Panamax refers to those of 4,000 to 5,000 TEU Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, compiled from multiple sources including US Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center

55

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective The Port of Savannah is the largest port in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion both in terms of trade volume and trade value. In 2013, the Port of Savannah had an annual total trade volume of about 28-million short tons and serves as the point of entry for approximately half of the total volume of commodities shipped into the megaregion. The foreign trade volume through the Port of Savannah was about 20 million short tons in 2011 and thus was responsible for the fourth greatest volume of foreign trade in the country (Maritime Administration, 2013). The other major port located in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion is the Port of Charleston, which processed nearly 18 million short tons in 2011 and is responsible for about a quarter of the total tonnage of foreign trade flow exported to and from the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. Texas Triangle Megaregion Figure 21 shows the fourteen major port facilities in the Texas Triangle Megaregion with magnitudes showing their total trade of volume in 2011. Table 10 summarizes the characteristics of those ports.
Figure 21: Ports in Texas Triangle Megaregion and Their Total Trade Volumes
56

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

Port Name

Port Type

South Louisiana, LA, Panamax Port of

Houston, TX post Panamax*

New Orleans, LA

Panamax (postPanamax* deepening being studied)

Beaumont, TX Panamax

Table 10: Profile of Ports in Texas Triangle Megaregion

Total Trade (short tons)
In 2011
246,508,817

Trade Share
26.2%

Max Channel
Depth (feet)
45

Number of Docks

Main Imports

Commodities Main Exports

Crude oil, chemical/fertilizers, 183 steel products, petrochemicals

Maize, soybeans, wheat, animal feed

237,798,639 25.3%

77,174,712

8.2%

73,672,069

7.8%

Petroleum and petroleum

Petroleum and petroleum

products; iron and steel; crude

products; organic chemicals;

45

388

fertilizers and minerals; organic chemicals; wood and

cereals and cereal products; plastics; animal or vegetable fats

articles of wood.

and oils

Petroleum products, iron,

Cereal grain, soybeans,

steel, metal ores, non-metallic

petroleum, animal feeds, organic

minerals, coffee, inorganic

chemicals, paper and linear board,

47

327 chemicals, forest products,

vegetable fats and oils, iron, steel,

vegetable fats and oils, natural

metal ores and scraps, inorganic

rubber, fertilizers, organic

chemicals

chemicals

Forest products, aggregate,

Bulk grain, potash, forest products,

military cargo, steel, project

military cargo, project cargo

40

98 cargo

Baton Rouge, LA

Panamax

57,871,900

6.2%

Molasses, petroleum, steel

Forestry products, petroleum

coils, ores, chemicals

products, grain, coke, pipe,

45

138

bagged grains, fertilizer

Crude oil

Texas City, TX Deepwater

57,757,532

6.1%

45

47

Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, intermediate chemicals, petroleum coke

Lake Charles, LA

Deepwater

54,246,843

5.8%

Bagged rice, flour, forest products, aluminum, petroleum products and

40

192

barites

57

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

Port Name

Port Type

Total Trade (short tons)
In 2011

Plaquemines, LA, Port of

Panamax (In progress for post-Panamax*)

54,093,006

Port Arthur, TX

Panamax

30,274,736

Freeport, TX Panamax Galveston, TX Panamax

23,311,868 13,743,671

Matagorda Port, TX

Deepwater

9,333,126

Victoria, TX

Inland

Orange, TX

Inland

3,528,265 696,405

Trade Share
5.8%
3.2% 2.5% 1.5% 1.0%
0.4% 0.1%

Max Channel
Depth (feet)
45
40
45 45
38
9 25

Number of Docks

Main Imports

Commodities Main Exports

Coke, carbon black feed stock, crude, fuel oil, IC 4, gasoline, 110 heating oil, naphtha, natural gas, cobalt, petroleum products, and phosphate

Steel slabs, wood pulp,

69

newsprint, lumber, plywood, project cargo, military

Coal, grain-corn, soybean, wheat Linerboard, plywood, steel pipe

Aggregate, chemicals,

Autos, chemicals, clothing, foods,

62

clothing, foods (fruit), crude, LNG, paper goods, plastics,

paper goods, resins, rice

windmills

74

Cotton, heavy cargos of cattle, rice

Wind power equipment, bananas, agricultural equipment, machinery, 137 vehicles, fertilizer products, lumber products, militaryrelated cargos

Bulk grains, containers, machinery, vehicles, linerboard and paper, carbon black, light fuels

Major products transferred are liquid and dry bulk and general and

23

project cargos

Local industrial facilities with warehousing, packaging bulk cargo, and

45

railroad/truck shopping operations

*Panamax refers to the limit of ship size of 3,000 to 3,400 TEU, and post-Panamax refers to those of 4,000 to 5,000 TEU Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, compiled from multiple sources including US Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center

58

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective DC-Virginia Megaregion Figure 22 shows the fourteen major port facilities in the DC-Virginia Megaregion and their total trade of volume in 2011. Table 11 summarizes relevant port characteristics.
Figure 22: Ports in DC-Virginia Megaregion and Their Total Trade Volumes
59

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

Table 11: Profile of Ports in DC Virginia Megaregion

Port Name
Norfolk Harbor, VA

Port Type
postPanamax*

Total Trade (short tons)
In 2011
47,352,771

Trade Share
39.7%

Max Channel
Depth (feet)

Number of
Docks

Main Imports

Commodities

Main Exports

Mineral fuel and oil; machinery; salt,

Mineral fuel and oil, cereals,

50

133

sulfur, earth, and stone; fertilizers; and furniture and bedding

fertilizers, food waste, animal feed, and wood pulp

Baltimore, MD

postPanamax*)

44,865,703 37.6%

Automobiles and small trucks, farm

Coal, corn, soybeans, lignite,

and construction machinery, iron ore,

coal coke, petroleum, and fuel

petroleum products, gypsum, sugar,

oils

50

141

cement, bauxite, salt, crude mineral substances, fertilizer and fertilizer

materials, ferroalloys, wood pulp, and

paper

Newport News, VA
Hopewell, VA

Panamax Inland

25,200,668 1,018,890

21.1% 0.9%

Richmond, VA

Inland

902,213

0.8%

Cambridge, MD Cruise port Alexandria, VA Deepwater

--

--

--

--

40

38

23

2

All Manufactured Equipment, Machinery and Products Asphalt, petroleum products, and sodium hydroxide by barge.

Chemicals, pharmaceuticals, forest products, machinery, consumer goods,

frozen seafood, produce, bottled water from Iceland, recreational campers,

25

56 steel, steel products, stone, tobacco leaf, aluminum, project cargo, vehicles,

recreational boats, wire coils, wire rods, pipe, bulk grain, minerals, and

livestock.

--

27

--

45

18

Military equipment on inland waterways

Cape Charles, VA

Cruise port

--

--

--

11

--

*Panamax refers to the limit of ship size of 3,000 to 3,400 TEU, and post-Panamax refers to those of 4,000 to 5,000 TEU Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, compiled from multiple sources including US Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center

60

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Major Truck Corridors in the Three Megaregions
The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3) database and flow assignment provide estimates for 2007 and 2040 freight traffic along the FAF3 road network, which is shown in Figure 23. Truck tonnage is assigned to the network segments by using highway links characteristics, such as route number and milepost, functional classification of the highway, and number of lanes. This allows the Federal Highway Administration to estimate truck volumes, volume to capacity ratios, travel speed, and delays across the network (Federal Highway Administration, 2012). The U.S. Department of Transportation has designated a subset of U.S. highways as part of a 27,000 mile-long Primary Freight Network (draft), which designates the most important freight routes to U.S. economic activity based on congressionally defined freight characteristics, multimodal infrastructure access, and a total mileage cap. An additional 14,000 miles are added to compose the Comprehensive Primary Freight Network (draft). The comprehensive Primary Freight Network includes all roads that meet congressionally defined criteria.
Figure 23: FAF3 Network
Network truck volumes were mapped and the major truck routes for the three study megaregions were identified. Key route characteristics were selected, including truck volume, volume to capacity ratios, average travel speed, and peak hour travel delay to demonstrate the truck travel patterns and the general use of the road network in the three megaregions.
61

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Major Corridors Researchers identified the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion's major truck corridors in Figure 24. Major truck corridors are defined as routes with a daily truck volume greater than 4,000. Table 12 summarizes the top 20 truck corridors by selecting the routes with the highest average daily truck volumes from the major truck corridors. The top 20 corridors are interstate highways, like Interstate 285 (I-285), a circular highway around the City of Atlanta, Interstate 24 (I-24), linking Atlanta and Nashville (via I-75 through Chattanooga), Interstate 75 (I-75), which extends southnorth across the country. Table 12 and Figure 106 (see page 214 in Appendix 4) show the forecasted truck volumes along these major corridors in 2040, indicating that there will be a dramatic increase in the truck volumes on most of the routes, and that major truck route volumes could potentially double by 2040.
Figure 24: Major Truck Corridors with Volumes Over 4,000 Trucks per Day per Route in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
62

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Table 12: Top 20 Truck Corridors in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion

Rank
Route Name
Average Daily Truck Volume 2007 Average Daily Truck Volume 2040

1

2

3

I285 I24 N

I75

27,643 24,370 20,921

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I440 N

I540

I85

I20

I277

I40

I440

18,579 14,791 14,704 14,122 13,997 13,764 13,395

48,835 51,927 39,055 33,121 30,706 28,724 31,320 27,557 24,715 25,443

Rank
Route Name
Average Daily Truck Volume 2007 Average Daily Truck Volume 2040
Source: FAF3

11

12

13

I24 I485

I77

13,385 12,809 12,377

14

15

I985

I475

16

17

18

I65

I575

I459

19

20

I16

I675

11,690 11,400 11,146 11,028 10,673 9,801 9,201

26,471 26,499 24,789 21,845 17,255 25,084 20,638 30,159 18,338 15,539

The Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion truck corridors align with state-level corridors identified in the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan. The Georgia Department of Transportation (2011) examined interstate sections and found I-75 north of Atlanta to be Georgia's most intensive freight corridor, followed by I-75 between Atlanta and Macon. The busiest corridors in Georgia are in and around metro Atlanta, including I-285, I-75, and I-85. Some corridors stand out more at a state scale than a megaregion scale. I-16 between Savannah and Macon is very important for intra-state freight traffic even though it is only the 19th busiest freight corridor in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. The Georgia Department of Transportation found that approximately 80% of the trucks on I-16 were moving freight intrastate (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013c).

Volume to Capacity Ratio

Figure 25 shows the 2007 volume to capacity ratio (VCR) along Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion routes. Volume to capacity ratios reflect traffic congestion severity. Most of the major truck corridors have a VCR greater than 0.7, indicating that the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion's freight arterials are congested. Congestion tends to be most severe around major cities, including Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte, and Raleigh. The major routes linking to the Ports of Savannah, Charleston, and Wilmington are also somewhat congested. Figure 107 (see page 215 in Appendix 4) describes the forecasted VCR on the routes in 2040, showing that most of the major routes will likely to have a VCR greater than 1 by that time if capacity and demand are not addressed. This figure represents a paralyzed transportation system with its arterials severely congested, and it calls for solutions to address congestion before the roads cease to be navigable.

63

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 25: Volume to Capacity Ratio along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
Megaregion-level congestion findings supports the Georgia Department of Transportation's (2011) bottleneck analysis in the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan. The Georgia Department of Transportation found high levels of congestion closest to metro Atlanta. I-285 regularly operates beyond capacity, as do I-75, I-85, and I-20 closest to Atlanta. Significantly, I16 connecting Savannah and Macon is projected to remain far below capacity through 2050. Average Travel Speed Figure 26 shows the 2007 average travel speed on the routes within the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. Most parts of the arterials have an average travel speed larger than 55 mph, which is about the free flow travel speed, indicating the current transportation system functions efficiently. The extreme slow travel speed (less than 25 mph) often appears at intersections and is only for small segments of the routes. Figure 108 in the Appendix 5 plots the forecasted average travel speed in 2040 and it depicts a much more deteriorated picture, where most parts of the major corridors across the region have a travel speed of less than 25 mph.
64

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 26: Average Travel Speed along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
Peak Hour Travel Delay Figure 27 shows the 2007 peak hour travel delay in minutes for the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. Generally, the peak hour delay is less than three minutes on most of the routes except some segments in the major cities. However, the current travel delay will probably expand drastically by 2040 and most segments of the major routes within the megaregion have more than 12 minutes' peak hour delay, as shown in Figure 109 (see page 216 in Appendix 4).
65

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 27: Peak Hour Delay along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2007
Texas Triangle Megaregion Major Corridors The Texas Triangle is composed of the metro regions of Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and surrounding counties. Figure 28 shows the major truck corridors inside the megaregion boundary. The major corridors are identified by selecting all the routes with a daily truck volume greater than 4,000 within the Texas Triangle Megaregion, as shown in Figure 28, which summarizes the top 20 truck corridors with the highest daily truck volume among each route. Most of the top 20 truck corridors are interstate highways like Interstate 35, linking San Antonio to Dallas, and there are also some US highways and state highways with heavy daily truck flows, like U.S. Route 75 (US75), linking Dallas to the north, and Texas State Highway 225 (S225), going west-east through Houston. The major truck corridors will possibly be impacted most if there is any change to the truck movement derived from the Panama Canal expansion. Figure 102 (see page 212 in Appendix 4) shows the forecasted 2040 truck volumes per day per route in the Texas Triangle Megaregion.
66

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

Figure 28: Major Truck Corridors in Texas Triangle Megaregion

Rank
Route Name
Average Daily Truck Volume 2007 Average Daily Truck Volume 2040
Rank
Route Name
Average Daily Truck Volume 2007 Average Daily Truck Volume 2040
Source: FAF3

Table 13: Top 20 Truck Corridors in the Texas Triangle

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I35

I635

I45 I35W I35E

I30 S548 S

U75

I610

I10

17,435 16,523 16,512 15,317 14,155 13,188 13,107 12,692 12,390 12,245

36,500 32,132 32,140 29,476 28,208 26,602 25,683 24,732 24,062 25,594

11

12

13

14

15

16

I20 U290 S225 S183 S288

U59

17

18

19

20

I37

U80 S360

U90

11,422 9,842 9,616 9,549 9,438 9,432 9,380 9,172 9,123 8,692

22,181 19,374 18,686 18,327 17,832 18,463 17,706 17,965 17,898 16,831

67

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Volume to Capacity Ratio Figure 29 shows the volume to capacity ratio (VCR) along the road network in the Texas Triangle in 2007, and Figure 103 (see page 212 in Appendix 4) shows the 2040 forecasted VCR. The VCR depicts actual route-specific traffic congestion, taking into account all types of traffic. Generally a VCR below 0.5 implies that there is a free-flow travel speed; a VCR between 0.5 and 0.7 reflects moderate travel condition; a VCR between 0.7 and 1 is a sign of congestion; and a VCR greater than 1 indicates severe congestion. As Figure 29 shows, most of the congestion appears around the four anchor cities of Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, where the VCR on the major routes are often above 0.7 and sometimes above 1. Congestion also tends to happen on certain important road intersections, such as the intersection of I-35 and US190 near the City of Belton. The interstate with the most heavy daily truck volume is I35, and it is also the most congested major route in the area.
Figure 29: 2007 Volume to Capacity Ratio along Routes in Texas Triangle
Average Travel Speed Figure 30 maps the actual travel speed along the routes in the Texas Triangle in 2007, and Figure 104 (see page 213 in Appendix 4) maps the forecasted 2040 travel speeds. The maps correspond to the maps of VCR and also reflect traffic congestion. Although it seems that in 2007 the slow travel speeds (less than 25 mph) only appear near the four anchor cities and
68

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective some big route intersections, such slow speeds will occur on most of the routes in 2040 (see Figure 104 on page 213 in Appendix 4), which will hinder efficient transportation and freight movement.
Figure 30: Average Travel Speed along the Routes in the Texas Triangle in 2007
Peak Hour Travel Delay
69

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Figure 31 shows the average peak hour travel delay major Texas Triangle routes in 2007, and Figure 105 (see page 214 in Appendix 4) maps the forecasted average peak hour travel delay in 2040. The average peak hour travel delay reflect the congestion level by showing how much extra travel time people spent on travel due to congestion. Figure 31 shows that in most of the megaregion, the peak hour travel delay is below three minutes, but for some routes within the four anchor cities the travel delay is as high as 12 minutes. The travel delay is calculated on a per vehicle base. Congestion costs can be monetized by summing all vehicles' delay time and multiplying by a dollar value of time. Congestion costs are generally quite large under high volume or severe delays. The forecasted 2040 peak hour delay is much more severe than at present, posing a challenge for future planning of transportation and freight movement.
Figure 31: Peak Hour Delay in Minutes along the Routes in the Texas Triangle in 2007
70

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective DC-Virginia Megaregion Major Corridors
The DC-Virginia Megaregion stretches from the Hampton Roads area of Virginia through Richmond, northern Virginia, eastern West Virginia, Washington and Baltimore, as well as eastern Maryland and southern
Delaware. Figure 32 shows the major truck corridors with daily truck volumes over 4,000 daily trucks within the DC-Virginia Megaregion, and Figure 110 shows the forecasted truck volumes in this area in 2040.
Table 14 summarizes the top 20 truck corridors by average daily truck volume. Most of the top 20 truck corridors are interstate highways, such as Interstate 95 (I-95), the main interstate highway going along the east coast, Interstate 695 (I-695), the circular highway route around the City of Baltimore, and Interstate 495 (I-495), the circular highway route around Washington DC.
Figure 32: Major Truck Corridors with Daily Truck Volume Larger Than 4,000 in 2007 in DC-Virginia Megaregion
71

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

Table 14: Top 20 Truck Corridors in DC-Virginia Megaregion

Rank Route Name

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I95 I695

I495

I81

I395

I270

I83

I70

I97

I595

Average Daily Truck Volume 2007

17,616 15,459

15,229

14,220 13,393

12,282

11,733 11,640

10,658

10,535

Average Daily Truck Volume 2040

31,995 25,151

26,240

31,126 22,742

20,391

19,479 19,761

17,077

17,580

Rank
Route Name
Average Daily Truck Volume 2007
Average Daily Truck Volume 2040
Source: FAF3

11

12

I295 S695

10,379 9,258

17,176 15,349

13 U50 9,092
13,342

14 U301 8,407
13,681

15 U15 8,151
13,815

16 I66 8,128
13,913

17 U40 7,709
13,026

18 U1 7,548
10,422

19 I64 7,548
12,903

20 I85 7,505
12,873

72

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Volume to Capacity Ratio Figure 33 maps the Volume to Capacity Ratio (VCR) for the DC-Virginia Megaregion and Figure 111 (see page 217 in Appendix 4) maps the forecasted VCR in year 2040. For 2007, most routes have a VCR less than 0.5, which indicates free flow. However, congestion in and around Washington DC and Baltimore is very severe, and there is also some congestion around Richmond and Norfolk. A VCR of 0.7 is a sign of the beginning of congestion, and a VCR over 1 indicates serious congestion. Figure 33 demonstrates the megaregion's serious congestion. The forecasted 2040 congestion implies that if there is no change to the existing condition, most arterials and the nearby major cities will be severely congested by 2040.
Figure 33: Volume to Capacity Ratio along the Routes in DC-Virginia Megaregion
73

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Average Travel Speed Figure 34 shows the average travel speed in year 2007 for the DC-Virginia Megaregion and Figure 112 (see page 217 in Appendix 4) shows the forecasted condition in 2040. Currently, travel is very slow only on small road segments around Washington DC and at some intersections. However, projections show the megaregion transportation system near paralysis by 2040 without transformative action. Moreover, currently travel speeds on the routes linking to the Port of Norfolk are mostly between 25 and 40 mph, which is a sign of existing congestion. The 2040 forecasted map shows that nearly all the routes around the port will have a travel speed below 25 miles per hour.
Figure 34: Average Travel Speed in DC-Virginia
74

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Peak Hour Travel Delay Figure 35 shows the peak hour travel delay in minutes for the DC-Virginia Megaregion, and Figure 113 (see page 218 in Appendix 4) shows the forecasted condition in 2040. As previously stated, peak hour travel delay is based on the extra time spent on travel per vehicle. Even when the present map only shows isolated delays, the total delay may be very significant due to high traffic volume. The 2040 map shows that the whole megaregion faces the challenge of great travel delay in 2040, when most routes would experience over 12 minutes of peak hour travel delay.
Figure 35: Peak Hour Delay in Minutes in DC-Virginia
75

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Industry Clustering
Determining industrial specializations in a region can uncover the underlying economic drivers of freight movement. Industries that are clustered in a region typically indicate export economies which bring in money from outside of the region. The assumption is that highly clustered industries produce more of a good or service than what is demanded locally. One method to pinpoint industrial clustering is to compare location quotients across industries. A location quotient measures an industry's share of regional employment compared to its share of national employment.
County-level employment in the DC-Virginia, Piedmont Atlantic, and Texas Triangle Megaregions was analyzed to determine locations in each that had significant industrial clustering and to determine the strongest industries in the megaregion compared with employment in the rest of the country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005), "location quotients are ratios that compare the concentration of a resource or activity, such as employment, in a defined area to that of a larger area or base." When the base is the entire United States, a location quotient greater than 1 indicates that a county has a higher ratio of employment in a given industry than the nation as a whole, whereas a location quotient below 1 indicates a lower employment ratio than the nation as a whole. Location quotient measures account for population size to ensure that clustering reflects industrial strengths beyond those inherent to any location with a large population. They treat counties of any population identically.
A location quotient database was developed from the Bureau of Labor Statistics location quotient calculator located at http://data.bls.gov/location_quotient/ControllerServlet for year 2012 with "U.S. Total" as the base area. It used sector industry groups defined by two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. See Appendix 1 for the codes with brief definitions from the U.S. Census Bureau.
A database of county-level location quotients by two-digit industry sector was developed for the DC-Virginia, Piedmont Atlantic, and Texas Triangle Megaregions. Each county location quotient was aggregated into a megaregion location quotient by weighting each county by its population. It is important to weigh the location quotients by population to gain a more accurate understanding of the megaregion because counties vary significantly in geographic, economic, and demographic size even within one state. For example, The Bureau of Labor Statistics treats independent municipalities as counties, thus producing data for a series of small areas that would otherwise have the same influence on megaregion statistics as much larger and more populous areas if the location quotients were not weighted by population. An aggregate location quotient for each megaregion and each industry sector was developed and imported into ArcGIS for spatial analysis.
Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
The Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion is a diverse megaregion that stretches along the I-85, I-20, and related corridors from eastern North Carolina to central Tennessee and Alabama. Certain
76

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective industries are unusually present in the megaregion compared with other locations and other megaregions.
Table 15 ranks the industries in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion by location quotient from most to least productive. Location quotients above 1 indicate a relative industrial concentration and location quotients below 1 indicate a less representation of the industry than in the nation as a whole.
Table 15: Piedmont Atlantic Industries, Ordered by Location Quotient

Base Industry: Total, all industries
NAICS 31-33 Manufacturing NAICS 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting NAICS 48-49 Transportation and warehousing NAICS 22 Utilities NAICS 44-45 Retail trade NAICS 23 Construction NAICS 72 Accommodation and food services NAICS 42 Wholesale trade NAICS 56 Administrative and waste services NAICS 62 Health care and social assistance NAICS 55 Management of companies and enterprises NAICS 51 Information NAICS 54 Professional and technical services NAICS 61 Educational services NAICS 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation NAICS 52 Finance and insurance NAICS 53 Real estate and rental and leasing NAICS 81 Other services, except public administration NAICS 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Location Quotient
1.62 1.29 1.18 1.13 1.12 1.05 1.04 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.86 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.47

The industries most clustered in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion depend heavily on transporting physical goods, transforming raw and semi-processed materials, and natural resources. Resource intensive industries include the three industries with the highest megaregion location quotient: NAICS 31-33 (manufacturing), NAICS 11 (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting), and NAICS 48-49 (transportation and warehousing). However, other resource intensive industries are not common in Piedmont Atlantic, notably NAICS 21 (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction). NAICS 21 has the megaregion's lowest location quotient.
NAICS 31-33 (manufacturing) has the megaregion's highest location quotient, which attests to a long-term trend of manufacturing growth. Manufacturing is prominent throughout the megaregion. However, unlike past manufacturing trends concentrated in cities, manufacturing in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion is disproportionately suburban and rural. While the counties containing Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, and Columbia all have low location quotients for manufacturing, the surrounding suburbs and interconnecting rural areas are much higher. This does not necessarily mean that manufacturing is necessarily less present in cities in an absolute sense, but rather than it is much less prevalent in large
77

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective cities per capita than in rural areas. Figure 36 shows the Piedmont Atlantic location quotients for manufacturing.
Figure 36: Location Quotients for NAICS 31-33 / Manufacturing
While NAICS 11 (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting) appears to have a high location quotient in Piedmont Atlantic, it is really much lower than it appears because many county values were "not calculable" or "not disclosable," because they were so low. To be sure, there are rural areas with a high NAICS 11 location quotient in Piedmont Atlantic, but the megaregion as a whole does not have as high a NAICS 11 location quotient as it appears. Figure 94 in Appendix 1 shows the areas with a high NAICS 11 location quotient. NAICS 48-49 (transportation and warehousing) is the next highest location quotient in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion, which reinforced work by Dablanc and Ross (2012) describing the megaregion's logistics hub. Many of the areas with high NAICS 48-49 location quotients are along major roadway corridors, though to be sure not all counties along major highways have highly concentrated logistics employment. In general, the most concentrated logistics employment is either in or around urban centers, or along the highways connecting them (Figure 95 in Appendix 1).
78

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective The Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion has a high location quotient for NAICS 22 (utilities), though in reality it may not be as high as it appears because of a large number of counties with "not calculable" or "not disclosable" quotients. Figure 96 in Appendix 1 shows the counties with the largest concentration of utility employment per capita.
Finally, Piedmont Atlantic has a large proportion of retail employment, which is NAICS 44-45. Retail is often highest per capita in the counties around the central city, whether the city is Nashville, Atlanta, Charlotte, or Durham. Retail is also spread very widely around the megaregion, which likely reflects the fact that retail serves local residents, which inhibits excessive retail clustering on a regional or megaregion scale. Figure 97 in Appendix 1 shows relative retail concentrations.
Texas Triangle Megaregion
Texas Triangle's location quotients reflect the concentration of different industries per capita compared with the rest of the country. Texas Triangle's industrial concentrations differ significantly from those in DC-Virginia or Piedmont-Atlantic. Table 16 shows all location quotients in the Texas Triangle Megaregion in decreasing order. The lowest location quotients are NAICS 61 (educational services), NAICS 55 (management of companies and enterprises), and NAICS 11 (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting).
Table 16: Texas Triangle Location Quotients, Decreasing Order

Base Industry: Total, all industries
NAICS 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction NAICS 23 Construction NAICS 53 Real estate and rental and leasing NAICS 56 Administrative and waste services NAICS 42 Wholesale trade NAICS 22 Utilities NAICS 52 Finance and insurance NAICS 72 Accommodation and food services NAICS 48-49 Transportation and warehousing NAICS 54 Professional and technical services NAICS 44-45 Retail trade NAICS 31-33 Manufacturing NAICS 51 Information NAICS 62 Health care and social assistance NAICS 81 Other services, except public administration NAICS 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation NAICS 61 Educational services NAICS 55 Management of companies and enterprises NAICS 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting

Location Quotient
3.34 1.39 1.18 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.04 1.01 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.83 0.75 0.68 0.66 0.33

NAICS 21 (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction) is by far the highest location quotient, at 3.34, which means that the industries are 3.34 times as concentrated in the Texas Triangle than in the nation as a whole. The high level of concentration speaks to the strength of the Texas Triangle's energy sector. However, it is not spread evenly in the Texas Triangle. NAICS
79

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective 21 activity is concentrated northwest of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, in the center (around Leon and Freestone Counties), and along the megaregion's southern edge. Figure 37 shows the activity concentrations.
Figure 37: NAICS 21 Activity in the Texas Triangle
NAICS 23 (construction), whose location quotient is 1.39, is the second most concentrated industry in Texas Triangle. It is spread more evenly throughout the country, as visible in Figure 98 in Appendix 1. Finally, NAICS 53 (real estate and rental and leasing) is the third highest location quotient in the Texas Triangle (location quotient of 1.18). NAICS 53 activity is spread in all parts of the megaregion, with some concentrations in or adjacent to the cities of Dallas (Dallas County), Kileen (Bell County), Houston (Harris County) and San Antonio (Bexas County) (see Figure 99 in Appendix 1).
80

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective DC-Virginia Megaregion
Two of the three most concentrated industries in DC-Virginia are service and knowledge oriented, whereas the least prominent industries are NAICS 21 (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction) and NAICS 11 (agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting), which are both natural resource intensive. These rankings by location quotient can be seen in Table 17 below, which list industries in DC-Virginia in ordered by an aggregate location quotient and weighted by county population.
Table 17: DC-Virginia Industries, Ordered by Location Quotient

Base Industry: Total, all industries
NAICS 54 Professional and technical services NAICS 61 Educational services NAICS 23 Construction NAICS 81 Other services, except public administration NAICS 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation NAICS 99 Unclassified NAICS 72 Accommodation and food services NAICS 53 Real estate and rental and leasing NAICS 44-45 Retail trade NAICS 62 Health care and social assistance NAICS 48-49 Transportation and warehousing NAICS 55 Management of companies and enterprises NAICS 51 Information NAICS 56 Administrative and waste services NAICS 52 Finance and insurance NAICS 22 Utilities NAICS 31-33 Manufacturing NAICS 42 Wholesale trade NAICS 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting NAICS 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

Location Quotient
1.40 1.26 1.09 1.04 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.58 0.53 0.26 0.16

NAICS 54 (professional and technical services) is the most concentrated industry with a location quotient of 1.40. It is most concentrated in the District of Columbia as well as the surrounding counties. Secondary concentrations are in the areas around Hampton Roads, Richmond, and Charlottesville, VA; and Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Frederick County, MD. Figure 38 below shows the concentration of NAICS 21.

81

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 38: Location Quotients for NAICS 54 / Professional Services
NAICS 61 (educational services) is the second strongest industry cluster in DC-Virginia with a location quotient of 1.26. Its location quotient is highest in rural counties including Rockingham County and Madison County, VA; and Jefferson County and Winchester, WV; as well as the District of Columbia and Baltimore, MD. However, there are also more diffuse educational service clusters around the Washington DC metro area, Greater Richmond, Charlottesville, and Hampton Roads, VA. Figure 100 in Appendix 1 shows NAICS 61 concentrations. Neither of the two largest concentrations in DC-Virginia will require significant amounts of freight movement as they mostly deliver information and services. By contrast, NAICS 23 (construction) is the third most prominent industry, and it would likely generate large amounts of freight movement. Construction is most concentrated in rural and semi-rural counties, including Powhatan, New Kent, Fauquier, Prince William, VA; and George's County, MD, visible in Figure 101 in Appendix 1. Policy Implications Each megaregion has its unique major contributors to regional economies. Industry clusters refer to spatial concentrations of interconnected companies, service providers, and firms in related industries, and associated institutions that compete but also cooperate. Clusters reflect a region's competitive advantage for a particular industry. Industry clusters are intended to provide background for the truck movements described in this report by revealing the industries that drive freight movement. Most industries require physical materials for manufacturing, processing, or sale. Many industries also produce commodities for exports. Freight transportation connects each of these steps.
82

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Understanding spatial and economic inter-connectedness will help policymakers to establish goals for necessary transportation infrastructure, other support infrastructure (e.g., telecommunications), and regulatory and administrative supports. Importantly, industrial clustering identifies economic strengths and begins to frame the basis for a strategy aimed at enhancing and expanding economic efficiencies by identifying future opportunities tied to existing capabilities and projected growth. The location quotient approach used in this section is just a first step. Further analyses to explore a full spectrum of megaregions' industry clustering are needed. Policies should consider various factors such as a shared labor pool, knowledge spillover and information exchange, a combination of capital pool, and the networking relationships the firms have in the regional economy which will drive industry clustering and agglomeration of economy with expected benefits which include cost savings, increased revenues, knowledge spillover, and risk sharing.
83

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Warehouse and Distribution Center Locations
Warehouses and distribution centers are facilities that process freight flows to prepare them for onward movement. They perform functions that support distribution including storage, breaking down shipments, matching supply to demand, packaging shipments, and shipping to stores and customers. Many companies involved in distributing goods operate warehouses or distribution centers to prepare and process those goods. The distinction between a warehouse and a distribution center relates more to function than form. The two may be indistinguishable physically, but distribution centers focus on processing goods and preparing them for shipment whereas warehouses are used for storage. Stored inventories allow customers to meet demand by ensuring that there will be an adequate supply available at the right time. Just-in-time logistics has allowed companies to de-emphasize on-site inventory.
It is important to understand where warehouses and distribution centers are located because they attract, produce, and facilitate freight traffic. Distribution centers shape freight flows between producers, ports, stores, consumers, and other parts of the supply chain. This section analyzes distribution center locations to understand freight dynamics.
The research team analyzed warehouse and distribution center locations for the DC-Virginia, Piedmont Atlantic, and Texas Triangle Megaregions. County-level data was used for the number of warehouse and distribution center establishments in each county provided by the U.S. Census Bureau's North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. NAICS code 493 corresponds with warehousing and storage, which the U.S. Census Bureau describes as follows.
"Industries in the Warehousing and Storage subsector are primarily engaged in operating warehousing and storage facilities for general merchandise, refrigerated goods, and other warehouse products. These establishments provide facilities to store goods.... They may also provide a range of services, often referred to as logistics services, related to the distribution of goods. Logistics services can include labeling, breaking bulk, inventory control and management, light assembly, order entry and fulfillment, packaging, pick and pack, price marking and ticketing, and transportation arrangement." (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).
The following section describes distribution center and warehouse locations for each megaregion. Because the data does not distinguish distribution centers from warehouses, the word distribution center is used to encompass both functions.
Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
The Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion's most concentrated distribution center cluster is in the Atlanta region, which has 329 warehouses and distribution centers in a 25 mile radius from the city center. This is 2.33 times as many as the next densest cluster around Charlotte, NC. Most Atlanta-area distribution centers are fairly clustered in metro Atlanta including the central
84

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective counties of DeKalb and Fulton. There is a smaller number of distribution centers in counties between 25 and 50 miles from the city center.
Charlotte is also a significant distribution cluster. Charlotte has 141 distribution centers in counties within a 25-mile radius from downtown. However, it is also near the center of a larger cluster that is within 100 miles, concentrated along the I-85, I-40, and I-26 corridors and including places like Greenville, SC and Greensboro, NC.
Figure 39 shows that Nashville has the third largest distribution center concentration. Unlike Charlotte, Nashville has few distribution centers in the broader region. Chattanooga, TN; Birmingham, AL; and Columbia, SC are among the smallest distribution center hubs. While Chattanooga has few distribution centers with 25 miles, its large 100-mile region includes parts of Atlanta, Nashville, and rural Tennessee, each with many distribution centers and which give Chattanooga 588 distribution centers in a
100 mile radius. Chattanooga is an example of a place with relatively little local distribution activity but which is still very well connected to larger distribution networks.
Figure 39 below gives a complete list of distribution centers in some of Piedmont Atlantic's key clusters. Table 65Error! Reference source not found. and Source: Center
for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
Table 66 in Appendix 3 detail metropolitan region-level distribution centers.
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
25 Miles 50 Miles 100 Miles
Figure 39: Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Distribution Centers by Proximity to Cities Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business
Patterns, 2011
85

Distribution Centers

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Piedmont Atlantic's distribution centers cluster around major cities and transportation infrastructure intersections. The greatest number of warehouses are around cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, and Spartanburg that are at state and interstate highway intersections. Some of these locations also provide nearby commercial airport access. A smaller number of distribution centers cluster around highway corridors or in counties without interstate access. Figure 40 shows Piedmont Atlantic distribution center locations where each dot equals one distribution center.
Figure 40: Piedmont Atlantic Distribution Centers Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business
Patterns, 2011
Texas Triangle Megaregion Texas Triangle's distribution centers cluster around major metro regions and highway intersections. With 340 distribution centers within a 25-mile radius of Dallas, the Dallas-Fort Worth area has the largest concentration of distribution centers, more than any other metro area in the Texas Triangle, Piedmont Atlantic or DC-Virginia. Houston is the second largest concentration, with 245 distribution centers if a 25-mile radius. San Antonio and Austin each
86

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
have fewer than 70 distribution centers in 25 miles, which makes them among the smallest concentrations of any of the megaregions examined.
Compared with Piedmont Atlantic, Texas Triangle's distribution centers are more concentrated around just a couple of metro regions, particularly Dallas and Houston. By comparison, Piedmont Atlantic has a larger number of cities with sizable distribution center concentrations. However, Texas Triangle's distribution centers are more tightly clustered. As Figure 41 shows, the vast majority of the distribution centers around Dallas and Houston are within a 25 mile radius. This compares with places like Spartanburg, SC and Martinsburg, WV where the 50 mile radius had many more distribution centers than the 25 mile radius, and with places like Charlotte, Chattanooga, and Columbia where the 100 mile radius has several times more distribution centers than the 25 mile radius. This is partially due to the fact that the clusters themselves are more widely spaced in the Texas Triangle, such that a 100 mile radius does introduce onto a separate cluster except for San Antonio and Austin. In Piedmont Atlantic and DC-Virginia, distribution center clusters are very often close enough to blend (e.g., Washington DC and Baltimore), or where they are captured in a 100-mile radius.

Distribution Centers

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100
50 0 Dallas

Houston 25 Miles 50 Miles

San Antonio 100 Miles

Austin

Figure 41: Texas Triangle Distribution Centers by Proximity to Cities
Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
Figure 42 shows the county-level locations of distribution centers in the Texas Triangle. Outside of the clusters in the major cities, the I-35 corridor between San
Antonio and Dallas has attracted a large number of distribution centers, as has I-10, in some cases east of Houston. Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development,
U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
87

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Table 67 and Table 68 in Appendix 3 also detail metropolitan region-level distribution centers.
Figure 42: Texas Triangle Distribution Centers Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business
Patterns, 2011
DC-Virginia Megaregion The DC-Virginia Megaregion is at the southern end of an intensive distribution center cluster in the northeastern United States. As visible in Figure 43 below, Baltimore and Washington DC have the megaregion's highest cluster of distribution centers in a 25-miles radius of the city. Many of the distribution centers in eastern Pennsylvania are within a 100-miles radius of these two cities, which accounts for the much of the jump in the number of distribution centers between a 50-mile radius and a 100-mile radius. For example, Baltimore has 374 distribution centers in a 50-mile radius, but 849 in a 100-mile radius.
88

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
900

800

700

Distribution Centers

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Baltimore

Washington 25 Miles

Norfolk

Richmond

50 Miles 100 Miles

Martinsburg

Figure 43: DC-Virginia Distribution Centers by Proximity to Cities
Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
The megaregion's second largest distribution center hub is the Hampton Roads area. There are 85 distribution centers within a 25-mile radius of Norfolk, with a major concentration in nearby Chesapeake, VA. The distribution center density is likely related to the Hampton Roads area's ports in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Newport News.
Richmond is another concentration of distribution centers, although slightly smaller than the Hampton Roads area. Finally, there are additional distribution centers sparsely arranged in western Maryland, southern Delaware, and eastern West Virginia. Many are located along state and interstate highways, such as I-70 and I-81, both of which pass through Hagerstown, MD, and US-13 in Delaware. Figure 44 shows all distribution centers in the DC-Virginia Megaregion, where each dot represents one distribution center in that county. A dot's location does not necessarily represent its location within the county. Table 69 and Table 70 in Appendix 3 also detail metropolitan region-level distribution centers.

89

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 44: DC-Virginia Distribution Centers Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business
Patterns, 2011
DC-Virginia's spatial arrangement of distribution centers more closely resembles the Piedmont Atlantic than Texas Triangle. Distribution centers are only loosely clustered around cities and highway intersections. In some cases, the clusters blend together, and there is a greater number of distribution centers along rural highway corridors. For example, distribution centers in northern Virginia and central Maryland form a large cluster with no clear boundaries and that blends with the Northeast Megaregion. This contrasts with the much more spatially distinct pattern in the Texas Triangle. Policy Implications Understanding where distribution centers are concentrated today and where they are likely to be built in the future can help identify freight corridors and transportation infrastructure in need of investment. Distribution centers operate as company-specific freight hubs. Counties with high numbers of distribution centers are likely to experience significant and sustained inbound and outbound truck traffic. Counties with a trend of increasing distribution centers will likely generate more freight traffic in the future. Planners and policymakers should consider distribution center locations when prioritizing transportation investment to more efficiently allocate funds and strengthen regional economies.
90

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Planners may also want to consider distribution center locations in freight demand models. Freight modeling includes identifying special districts that generate disproportionate amounts of traffic. Using the distribution center clusters to delineate special districts can improve model accuracy. Future distribution center locations are highly related to zoning and land use regulations. These regulations are handled at the local level while major transportation investments are determined by larger political entities. There is potential for a mutually beneficial partnership between local land use officials, and regional, state, or eventually megaregion transportation planners to ensure that the transportation facilities and zoning regulations are complementary to maximize freight efficiency and transportation spending's return on investment. Location analyses for newly planned facilities should be conducted strategically in conjunction with formulating regional industry clustering policies. There is also a need for further in-depth analyses. For example, categorizing distribution centers by commodity types can be useful connecting with state/regional multimodal plans to avoid unnecessary congestion, improve safety, and minimize environmental externalities which are expected from massive increases in freight movements.
91

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Commodities Distributions of the Megaregions

Many economic effects of freight movement are related to the commodity types being transported rather than the truck movement itself. Truck movements supply different industries with commodities for their operations. Even when observed truck movement data is available, as it is in this study in the form of GPS-derived data, the commodities inside each truck normally remain opaque to researchers. This section benchmarks commodity imports through American ports into the Piedmont Atlantic, DC-Virginia, and Texas Triangle Megaregions to provide a context for understanding port-related truck movement in Section V and economic impact in Section VII.

FAF3 Data Structure and Processing

The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3) database and flow assignment was used to estimate imports destined for the Piedmont Atlantic, DC-Virginia, and Texas Triangle Megaregions in 2007 and 2040. The Freight Analysis Framework provides estimates for 2007, 2015, and 2040 freight traffic into and out of geographically defined FAF3 regions. There are 123 domestic regions and 8 foreign regions, which are continental or sub-continental in scale (Federal Highway Administration, 2012). As such, the freight analysis framework estimates domestic freight movements by commodity tonnage and value, as well as imports and exports. FAF3 includes six modes of transportation: truck, rail, water, air, intermodal (except air-truck), and pipeline. FAF3 accounts for 42 commodity types. The commodity names are listed in Table 18. Outside of the table, commodities are referenced by a partial name for ease of reading rather than the complete name or the commodity code.

Table 18: FAF3 Commodities

SCTG Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20
21

Commodity Description Live animals and live fish Cereal grains Other agricultural products Animal feed and products of animal origin, n.e.c. Meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations Milled grain products and preparations, bakery products Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils Alcoholic beverages Tobacco products Monumental or building stone Natural sands Gravel and crushed stone Nonmetallic minerals n.e.c. Metallic ores and concentrates Coal Crude petroleum
Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel
Fuel oils Coal and petroleum products, n.e.c.* (includes Natural gas) Basic chemicals
Pharmaceutical products

92

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

SCTG Code Commodity Description

22 Fertilizers

23 Chemical products and preparations, n.e.c.*

24 Plastics and rubber

25 Logs and other wood in the rough

26 Wood products

27 Pulp, newsprint, paper, and paperboard

28 Paper or paperboard articles

29 Printed products

30 Textiles, leather, and articles of textiles or leather

31 Nonmetallic mineral products

32 Base metal in primary or semi-finished forms and in finished basic shapes

33 Articles of base metal

34 Machinery

35

Electronic and other electrical equipment and components and office equipment

36 Motorized and other vehicles (including parts)

37 Transportation equipment, n.e.c.*

38 Precision instruments and apparatus

39

Furniture, mattresses and mattress supports, lamps, lighting fittings, and illuminated signs

40 Miscellaneous manufactured products

41 Waste and scrap

43 Mixed freight

99 Commodity unknown

*n.e.c. = not elsewhere classified

FAF3 zones were aggregated to approximate core megaregion areas. It is necessary to approximate megaregion boundaries since FAF3 regions and megaregion boundaries do not align exactly. This study focuses on the Panama Canal expansion's influence on imports. Therefore, the FAF3 data was carefully processed to pick out the commodities imported through a gateway by water and transported into each of the three megaregions. Imports include both foreign imports into ports in the megaregion being considered and other ports in other megaregions and in non-megaregion areas.

93

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Imported Commodities While the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion contains few major ports inside its boundaries, the ports of Charleston and Savannah are two of the largest nearby deep-water ports. This used import gateways in the coastal Piedmont Atlantic states, namely Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan benchmarks state-level commodity movement. The Georgia Department of Transportation found that nonmetallic minerals, movement to and from warehouses and distribution centers (i.e., "secondary traffic"), and clay/concrete/glass/stone are the largest commodity movements in Georgia. These commodity types tend to be moved short distances. For medium- and long-distance truck movements, farm and food-related products, and transportation equipment are Georgia's largest commodity categories (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013c). Figure 45 shows the distribution of commodities by SCTG commodity classifications imported to the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2007 and the projected distribution and total volume for year 2040. The top imports for both year 2007 and 2040 are fuel oils, nonmetallic minerals, gasoline, pharmaceutical products, and textile products. Comparing the distribution of commodities in 2007 and 2040 reveals that logs and wood, and coal imports into the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion will likely decrease, while volumes of base metal and precision instruments imports are projected to grow. The total tonnage of commodities imported through the coastal ports will grow by 150%, as projected by the FAF3 data, even without assuming there is impact from the Panama Canal expansion.
94

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 45. Mix of Commodities Imported to the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Through the Coastal Ports, by Tonnage
95

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 46 and Figure 47 below show the breakdown of the commodities imported to the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. Megaregion imports (Figure 46) are imported through ports in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion imports numbered 25 million tons in 2007, and are expected to increase by 167% by 2040. The three largest commodities are coal & petroleum products, base metal, and coal. Coal imports are expected to stagnate, while machinery tonnage may grow 720% by 2040 (Figure 46).

Thounsands of Tons Change from 2007 to 2040

18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000
-

19 18

Tonnage 2007

800%

600%

400%

200%

0%

-200% 13 17 15 31 20 24 34 26
SCTG Code

Tonnage 2040

Change between 2007 and 2040

Figure 46: Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)
*Mixed freight (43) omitted.
Extra-megaregion imports (Figure 47) enter the United States through a port outside of the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion and are transported to the megaregion afterwards. 2007 extramegaregion imports totaled 25 million tons, which is roughly the same as for Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion imports. This means that about half of imports destined through the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion come through ports on the Georgia coast, and about half come through other gateways by multiple modes. The commodities imported through other gateways is slightly different. Wood products, coal, and fertilizers dominate extra-Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion imports (Figure 47).

96

Thounsands of Tons Change from 2007 to 2040

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
26 15 22
Tonnage 2007

13 24 20 SCTG Code
Tonnage 2040

800% 600% 400% 200% 0% -200% 30 34 31 32
Change between 2007 and 2040

Figure 47: Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion Extra-Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)
*Mixed freight (43) omitted.

97

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Texas Triangle Megaregion Imported Commodities The Texas Triangle consists of the Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston metro regions with surrounding counties. This analysis isolated imports by water through any port in Texas, which is FAF3 code 48. Figure 48 exhibit the distributions of commodities by SCTG classifications imported through the ports into the Texas Triangle Megaregion. The largest import commodity for the Texas megaregion is crude petroleum. Nonetheless, crude petroleum's relative share of megaregion imports is projected to fall from 61% to 48% between 2007 and 2040. Other major import commodities for both year 2007 and 2040 include coal and petroleum products, fuel oils, basic chemicals, metallic ores, nonmetallic minerals, gasoline, and base metal. The FAF3 data suggests that there will be machinery imports, coal, and petroleum will grow. The Texas Triangle Megaregion's import growth between 2007 and 2040 is more moderate than in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. However, Texas Triangle import tonnage is forecasted to grow by 79% between 2007 and 2040.
98

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 48. Mix of Commodities Imported to the Texas Triangle Megaregion Through the Coastal Ports, by Tonnage
99

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 49 and Figure 50 show import commodities for ports located inside the megaregion (Texas Triangle Megaregion Imports) and outside the megaregion (extra-megaregion imports). Crude petroleum is by far the largest megaregion import by tonnage. Its 2007 tonnage was 170 million tons, expected to increase only slightly by 2040 to 189 million tons. Import growth of megaregion import commodities is expected to be modest, with some growth rates as low as 20% among the top 10 imports, as shown in Figure 49.

Change from 2007 to 2040

Thounsands of Tons

200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000
80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000
16 18
Tonnage 2007

19 14 31 20 SCTG
Tonnage 2040

250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 17 13 33 32
Change between 2007 and 2040

Figure 49: Texas Triangle Megaregion Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)
*Mixed freight (43) omitted.
Extra-megaregion import commodities are imported into non-Texas Triangle gateways but travel domestically into the megaregion. The largest of these is coal & petroleum products (SCTG 19), and crude petroleum (SCTG 16). In contrast to megaregion imports, extra-megaregion petroleum imports are expected to grow rapidly (762% between 2007 and 2040), meaning that a larger portion of Texas Triangle's crude petroleum is likely to be imported through gateways outside of the megaregion (Figure 50).

Change from 2007 to 2040

Thounsands of Tons

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000
19 16
Tonnage 2007

20 13 33 26
SCTG Tonnage 2040

1000% 800% 600% 400% 200% 0% -200% 24 32 34 31
Change between 2007 and 2040

Figure 50: Texas Triangle Megaregion Extra-Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage) 100

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
*Mixed freight (43) omitted.
101

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective DC-Virginia Megaregion Imported Commodities Figure 51 shows that DC-Virginia Megaregion's largest commodities imported through the ports for year 2007 and 2040. The mix of commodities for the DC-Virginia Megaregion follows a similar pattern of the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion, with the dominant imports as fuel oils, coal, metallic ores, and nonmetallic minerals. There will be an obvious drop in the shares of gasoline, and logs and wood imported to the DC-Virginia Megaregion from 2007 and 2040, which is similar to projected declines the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. The share of articles of base metal and fertilizer will grow rapidly from 2007 to 2040. The DC-Virginia Megaregion will witness an approximate 71% increase in total tonnage of commodities imported through the port gateways from 2007 to 2040, which will require substantial growth in the capacity of related infrastructure.
102

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 51. Mix of Commodities Imported to the DC-Virginia Megaregion through the Coastal Ports, by Tonnage
103

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective
Figure 52 and Figure 53 show the top 10 commodity types imported to the DC-Virginia Megaregion. Figure 52 shows megaregion imports, while Figure 53 shows extra-megaregion imports. DC-Virginia Megaregion imports enter through DC-Virginia ports and remain in the megaregion. Almost all of the top ten megaregion imports are natural resources or energy resources, including coal & petroleum, minerals, fuel oil, gasoline, and wood (Figure 52). Growth rates are expected to be low (less than 150%), and in some cases commodity tonnage will shrink through 2040.

Thounsands of Tons Change from 2007 to 2040

14,000 12,000 10,000
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000
19 14
Tonnage 2007

15 13 18 17 SCTG
Tonnage 2040

200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% -100% 31 07 24 26
Change between 2007 and 2040

Figure 52: DC-Virginia Megaregion Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)
*Mixed freight (43) omitted.
Extra-megaregion import commodities enter the United States through gateways outside of the DC-Virginia Megaregion but are later transported into DC-Virginia. DC-Virginia's extramegaregion imports also skew towards natural resources and energy. Coal is far and away the largest import, although its absolute tonnage is expected to decline through 2040. By contrast, wood products, articles of base metal, and chemical products are growing at much higher rates (Figure 52).

104

Thounsands of Tons Change from 2007 to 2040

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
15 26
Tonnage 2007

33 07 13 20 SCTG
Tonnage 2040

400% 300% 200% 100% 0% -100% 32 28 23 27
Change between 2007 and 2040

Figure 53: DC-Virginia Megaregion Extra-Megaregion Imports* (Tonnage)
*Mixed freight (43) omitted.

105

Section IV: Freight Movement from a Megaregions Perspective Policy Implications This section reviewed commodity imports into the three megaregions closest to the case study ports of Norfolk, New Orleans, and Savannah based on FAF3 data. The analysis is intended to frame freight and economic analysis in following sections. Moreover, understanding spatial structure of industries at megaregion level and associated dynamics of commodity flows can help planners and policymakers develop long-range regional economic development strategies. Each megaregion has its unique political, economic, environmental circumstances which accommodate its spatial structure of industry settings. Future freight flow will be composed of different commodities in different proportions than freight flows today. In the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion and DC-Virginia, imports such as logs (25) are projected to fall out of the top 10 while machinery (34) and precisions instruments (38) will replace them. However, mixed fright (43) and bulk commodities such as fuel oil (18), natural gas (19), and petroleum (16) will remain influential in the three megaregions under study. Knowing current spatial and functional relationships among industries should provide planning entities a better vision of megaregions' economic strengths and potential, which will help shape transportation policies.
106

Section V: Port Analysis
SECTION V. TRUCK NETWORK ANALYSIS
Analysis of Trucking Routes from Selected Port Facilities
Introduction
Currently, intercity and interstate freight movement between metropolitan areas occurs primarily along major trucking corridors. Trucks transport over 80% of U.S. freight (based on revenue), which makes investment in infrastructure repair and upgrades essential for economic competitiveness (American Trucking Associations, 2013b), and close to 69% of domestic freight tonnage (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012). Trucks also move most tonnage to and from 8 of the 14 ports addressed earlier in the report along the East and Gulf Coasts. Only those ports specializing in bulk commodities moved larger tonnages by rail, pipeline, and inland waterways (FAF3, 2011). Truck corridors are important infrastructure whose needs can best be addressed at the megaregion scale through inter-jurisdictional cooperation which allows regions, cities and towns to compete globally as cohesive regions connected by efficient and reliable transportation links.
With the expansion of the Panama Canal due to be completed in 2016, there has been much attention on which ports along the United States' eastern coastline will accommodate the new cargo ships. Many ports, such as Savannah, have focused their energies on securing the proper permitting to deepen their ports to accommodate larger vessels (Copeland, 2011). Recognizing the economic benefits that increased port throughput would generate, state and local governments are working to ensure that their seaport receives a share of the increased demand (Associated Press, 2012). However, by focusing attention exclusively on ports, more macro-level planning activities may not be receiving enough attention. Once cargo arrives at the port facility, not only must the facility have enough capacity to handle additional cargo, but the transportation infrastructure that connects the port to the region must also be able to accommodate an increase in port-related traffic.
This study focuses on port-related freight's state and regional impacts, laying the groundwork for regional planning activities at the megaregion scale that accommodate increased portrelated freight. To understand how increased port activity will affect regional transportation networks, it is first important to study how the network is currently behaving. Given that trucking accounts for the majority of freight movement in the United States, trucking will be the subject of the study. The first part of the study will focus on characterizing the behavior of trucking operations once a vehicle departs a port facility.
A data key source this study is the American Transportation Research Institute's (ATRI) database of truck Global Positioning System (GPS) position readings. This database, which is comprised of several hundred thousand large trucks equipped with advanced GPS technology, generates several billion position reads annually. These data have been used nationally by the Federal Highway Administration as part of its Freight Performance Measures (FPM) program, as well as by numerous states and metropolitan regions for freight planning purposes.
107

Section V: Port Analysis Research Scope
The American Transportation Research Institute conducted the following steps on the three selected case study ports.
For each port facility, identify at least 1,000 unique truck trips that have a nexus with the port during each season of a three year period (resulting in a total of 12 samples)
Run a trip algorithm to determine the first destination of the truck once leaving the port facility (excluding stops at rest areas, major refueling stations)
Aggregate destination data at the county level to identify destination distributions Aggregate route choice data to determine routing distributions Analyze the aggregated destination and route choice data to determine trends over the
study period.
Methodology
Truck flows can provide valuable information for planners because they contain information on freight origins and destinations as well as trip routes. Understanding how trucks are currently using the transportation network is an important base for projecting future truck movements.
This study's truck flow data source is ATRI's FPM database of trucks equipped with GPS tracking devices. The ATRI FPM database compiles anonymous trucking operations data from several hundred thousand trucks using GPS technology from onboard trucking systems. The database generates billions of data points annually. Each truck used in FPM analysis has a regular position reading (generally recorded every 1 to 15 minutes) and includes information on vehicle location, unique vehicle identification, time/date, and, in many cases, vehicle spot speed. This information can be aggregated and analyzed in a number of different ways, including determining truck travel patterns/flows.
Truck GPS data has unique advantages: GPS devices provide precise and comprehensive data without burdening the companies whose data is being reported. GPS data has the potential to provide more detailed trip information than roadside truck counts and can produce more reliable truck movement information than travel diaries because it does not depend on driver memory or effort. GPS data has the advantage of being much cheaper to collect than conventional techniques. GPS data also provides a new option for collecting truck data for longer periods of time, over larger geographic areas or from much larger samples. The truck GPS data has become recognized as a promising data source for quantitative study of truck behavior characteristics and travel patterns by providing empirical evidence of where and when actual truck movements take place.
On the other hand, the current GPS data has some limitations as well: Since the primary source of ATRI's GPS data is onboard devices installed on commercial trucks mainly from large trucking companies and independent truckers covering mostly tractor-trailer combinations, the dataset is somewhat over-represented by medium to large fleets, and over-represented in medium to heavy duty trucks at the expense of intra-urban pick-up and delivery (P&D) trucks. The ATRI's national database is based on the maximum loaded weight of the truck using the
108

Section V: Port Analysis
gross vehicle weight (GVW) rating. The database suggests that 89% of the population is Class 8 and the remaining 11% have GVW putting them in the Class 7 or smaller. Additionally, ATRI estimates the following: (1) 72% Very Large or Large Fleet; 28% Small or Medium Fleet, (2) 83% Truckload; 17% Less-than-truckload, and (3) 83% For-hire; 14% Private; 3% other. It does not provide key truck characteristics such as commodity transported, shipment size, and truck classification. Therefore, the current GPS dataset can be utilized best when combined with other data sources and methods of data collection.

A series of FPM data samples were drawn from the larger FPM database to isolate vehicles that serviced the primary port terminals in Savannah, Norfolk, and New Orleans (i.e. the truck was within the boundaries of the facility). A separate sample was isolated for each of the three ports for the following 12 time periods. The samples looked at only outbound truck trips from the selected ports, not inbound to the ports:

First Quarter 2008

First Quarter 2010

First Quarter 2012

Second Quarter 2008

Second Quarter 2010

Second Quarter 2012

Third Quarter 2008

Third Quarter 2010

Third Quarter 2012

Fourth Quarter 2008

Fourth Quarter 2010

Fourth Quarter 2012

Generating samples from these 12 time periods enables an analysis that accounts for the effects of seasonality and the U.S. recession between December 2007 and June 2009.
Once the trucks were isolated for each sample, an algorithm was developed to determine when vehicle stops occurred to generate destination information. An illustration of the algorithm can be found in Appendix 2. Generally speaking, a truck was determined to have reached a destination when it was stationary for more than 30 minutes. Once this occurred, a destination was recorded and the truck movements were no longer tracked. ATRI added an exception to this rule when the vehicle was stopped at known major truck stops, rest areas, or weigh stations. This exception was added to eliminate intermediate stops (e.g. refueling, mandated rest breaks) to determine true destination information. Given the highly diversified operations of the trucking industry, it is impractical correctly classify 100 percent of the trips (e.g. it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a vehicle that stopped at a small fuel station for 35 minutes is delivering fuel to the station, or is simply stopping to refuel and rest). However, ATRI's experience has shown that the aforementioned filters produce highly accurate truck flows with valuable origin/destination information.
Once the algorithm was applied to the data, general destination information (reported at the county level) as well as route selection on the National Highway System (NHS) was aggregated. The following section presents the truck flow analysis findings.

109

Section V: Port Analysis Analysis The analysis isolated 119,096 truck trips from the 36 FPM samples (three ports with 12 samples each). Figure 54 presents the resulting truck flows from the entire sample, with Savannah flows in red, Norfolk in blue, and New Orleans in green. Not surprisingly, trucks that served these ports tended to remain in the eastern half of the continent as freight bound for the western half of the U.S. would likely arrive via a Pacific Ocean port. The Hampton Roads / Norfolk port appears to have the smallest geographic service area given the competition from the nearby ports, such as the Port of New York and New Jersey that serves the heavily populated northeastern states.
Figure 54: Truck Flows From the Ports of Savannah, Norfolk, and New Orleans
Trip lengths varied among the ports, with the Port of New Orleans generally having the longest trips (mean=168.4 miles, median=117.0 miles), Savannah with the shortest trips (mean=95.1 miles, median = 10.6 miles) and Norfolk in between the two (mean=120.7 miles, median=38.0 miles). Figure 55 presents the trip length distribution for each port. The Port of Savannah trips are skewed towards short-haul trips, compared to the Port of New Orleans trips, which are skewed more towards long-haul trips. The trip length differences are indicative of the operations at each port and of the location of regional distribution facilities.
110

Share of Trips

Section V: Port Analysis
35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
5.0% 0.0%

Savannah Norfolk New Orleans

Trip Length
Figure 55: Distribution of Truck Trip Lengths by Port of Origin
Interestingly, there appears to have been a shift during the study period from longer trips to shorter trips. Figure 56 illustrates how the average trip length has changed over the 12 quarters of the study period. There was a sharp drop in average trip lengths in 2008, just as the recession was intensifying. The drop was strongest in New Orleans and Norfolk. However, throughout 2010 and 2012 the average trip lengths remained relatively stable. There are a number of potential explanations for this shift that warrant additional research, including the economic recession and business operations consolidation near ports to reduce transportation costs. Interestingly, Port of Savannah truck trips did not experience a sharp decline in average length.
400 350 300 250 200
Savannah 150
Norfolk 100
NewOrleans 50
0
Quarter
Figure 56: Change in Average Truck Trip Lengths by Quarter and Port of Origin
111

Average Trip Length

Section V: Port Analysis Port of Savannah The Port of Savannah, shown in Figure 57, is located north of Savannah's central business district near State Route (SR) 21 in Garden City, GA. The port is strategically located near I-95 and I-16, which allows efficient access to markets to the north, south, and west. The surrounding area is generally undeveloped in nature which is ideal for freight distribution terminals due to the relatively low land values and lack of congestion.
Figure 57: Port of Savannah
Given the suitability for freight distribution facilities nearby, a large share of truck trips from the Port of Savannah are relatively short in length. As illustrated by Figure 58, the majority of truck trips from the port are shorter than 25 miles (58.7% across the three years of analysis). The average trip length during the study period is 95.1 miles, with a median length of only 10.6 miles, which is the shortest trip length of the three ports studied. Interestingly, trip length for Savannah trucks has been trending downward slightly during the study period with average trip lengths of 114.3 miles, 93.0 miles, and 89.7 miles in 2008, 2010, and 2012, respectively. This decrease could be the result of improved rail access or additional distribution facilities near the port as the port continues to grow in importance nationally.
112

Share of Trips

Section V: Port Analysis
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
5% 0%
Trip Length Figure 58: Savannah Trip Length Distribution by Year

2008 2010 2012

113

Section V: Port Analysis
With so many trips shorter than 25 miles, it is not surprising that Chatham County, the home of the Port of Savannah, is the top destination for trucks leaving the port. As Table 19 indicates, Chatham County accounts for over two-thirds (67.8%) of the truck trip destinations. Glynn and McIntosh counties are the next most common counties, both of which are in the nearby Brunswick, GA metropolitan area. As shown in the map in Figure 59, many of the other counties listed are in larger metropolitan regions in the southeast, including Atlanta, GA (DeKalb, Fulton, and Spalding counties), Augusta, GA (Richmond County), Charlotte, NC (Mecklenburg County), and Jacksonville, FL (Duval County).

Table 19: Top 20 Port of Savannah-Related Truck Destinations

Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

County
Chatham Glynn
McIntosh Richmond
Liberty Bryan DeKalb Mecklenburg Lexington Charleston Duval Wayne Jefferson Effingham Jasper Berkeley Fulton Golleton Washington Spalding

State
GA GA GA GA GA GA GA NC SC SC FL GA GA GA SC SC GA SC GA GA

Share of Destinations
67.8% 3.7% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%

Figure 59: Top 20 Port of Savannah Destinations

As previously stated, Savannah has connectivity to major north/south and east/west corridors which allows the port to serve the entire southeastern United States relatively efficiently. Figure 60 illustrates the primary routes used by trucks once they leave the port as a share of total trips (e.g. a value of 25% indicates one-quarter of all trips analyzed utilized that route). Additionally, Figure 60 also presents the share of trip destinations for each county. The most popular routes for trucks leaving the port (in addition to the main port access roads of SR 25 and SR 307) include I-95, I-16, and SR 21, as indicated in Table 20 From these routes the trucks can connect to other major corridors in the region, such as I-10, I-26, I-20, US 84 and I-77.

114

Section V: Port Analysis

Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 60: Savannah Route Choice and Destinations

Table 20: Top 10 Most Utilized Segments - Savannah

Route
SR 25 SR 21 SR 21 SR 25
I-95 I-95 I-95 SR 307 I-16 I-95

Location
SR 307 south to SR 21 (GA) SR 307 north to I-95 (GA)
SR 307 south to I-516 (GA) North of SR 307 (GA)
US 84 south to US 25 (GA) SR 144 south to US 84 (GA)
SR 21 south to I-16 (GA) SR 25 to SR 21 (GA)
US 25 west to US 1 (GA) US 17 north to US 78 (SC)

Share of Total Trips
73.1% 35.3% 26.5% 18.2%
9.9% 9.7% 9.5% 9.4% 8.3% 8.3%

With trip lengths generally decreasing, there has also been a decrease in the share of trips that utilize certain routes to serve longer-distance destinations. Figure 61 shows the change in route utilization by comparing 2008 and 2012 route selection data. For example, if 20 percent of
115

Section V: Port Analysis
trucks used a certain segment in 2008 but only 15 percent utilized that segment in 2012, Figure 61 would indicate a decrease in share of 5 percentage points. This analysis indicates a relatively large drop in trips that utilized I-95 northbound and southbound while I-16 and SR 21 experienced a slight increase in utilization. The five segments with the largest utilization growth and the five segments with the greatest decline are presented in Table 21 and Table 22.

Figure 61: Change in Savannah Route Utilization

Rank
1 2 3 4

Table 21: Largest Increase in Segment Utilization - Savannah

Increasing Utilization Top 5 Corridors

Route

Segment 2008 Share

SR 25 I-16 I-16 I-16

North of SR 307 (GA) SR 67 west to US 25 (GA) US 280 west to SR 67 (GA)
US 25 west to US 1 (GA)

13.8%1 4.1% 5.7% 5.9%

2012 Share
22.5% 8.8%
10.2% 9.4%

Change in Share 2008
vs. 2012 8.7% 4.7% 4.5% 3.5%

1 There have been construction detours in this area during those years for major road projects that may have affected the 2008 data.
116

Section V: Port Analysis

Increasing Utilization Top 5 Corridors

Rank

Route

Segment 2008 Share

5

I-95

SR 21 south to I-16 (GA)

5.6%

2012 Share
8.4%

Change in Share 2008
vs. 2012
2.8%

Rank
1 2 3 4 5

Table 22: Largest Decrease in Segment Utilization - Savannah

Decreasing Utilization Top 5 Segments

Route

Segment 2008 Share

SR 25 SR 21
I-95 SR 21
I-95

SR 307 south to SR 21 (GA) SR 307 south to I-516 (GA) SR 144 south to US 84 (GA)
SR 307 north to I-95 (GA) US 84 south to US 25 (GA)

85.8% 35.6% 21.3% 45.3% 20.9%

2012 Share
71.2% 23.8%
9.9% 34.0% 11.0%

Change in Share 2008
vs. 2012 -14.6% -11.8% -11.4% -11.2% -9.9%

Port of Norfolk
As shown in Figure 62, the Norfolk International Terminals analyzed for this study are located north of downtown Norfolk near the Naval Station Norfolk. The site is surrounded by the urban areas of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News, and Hampton. The port is proximate to I-564 which feeds into the region's main interstate, I-64. Given the Port of Norfolk's urban location, it is possible that many key distribution sites are located further from the port to capitalize on lower land values in less developed areas.

Figure 62: Port of Norfolk
117

Section V: Port Analysis

Truck trips from the port are generally longer in length compared to Savannah trips. Over the course of the three years studied, Norfolk trips averaged 120.7 miles in length, with a median length of 38.0 miles. As was found in the Port of Savannah analysis, truck trip lengths from the Port of Norfolk appear to decrease over the course of the study period, as illustrated in Figure 63. In fact, the decrease was rather sharp from 2008 to 2010 (average trip lengths of 208.8 miles and 109.3 miles, respectively) before leveling out in 2012 (average trip length of 105.7 miles).

Share of Trips

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

2008

10%

2010

5%

2012

0%

Trip Length Figure 63: Norfolk Trip Length Distribution by Year

118

Section V: Port Analysis
With the port centrally located in an urban area, it is expected that many of the top destinations are in the surrounding counties and cities. As Table 23 shows, this assumption is accurate as the top five destinations are surrounding counties and cities while the number six destination is the home of the port (City of Norfolk). Unlike Savannah, many of the other counties shown in Table 23 are not located in a major metropolitan area, as illustrated in Figure 64. Beyond the Norfolk area, the only other major metropolitan destinations are Chesterfield and New Kent counties (Richmond, VA) and Johnston and Wake counties (Raleigh-Durham, NC). The remaining are generally rural counties along major corridors (I-95, I-64, I-81).
Table 23: Top 20 Port of Norfolk Destinations

Rank

City/County

State

Share of Destinations

1

Chesapeake VA

2

Portsmouth VA

3

Hampton VA

4 Virginia Beach VA

5

Suffolk VA

6

Norfolk VA

7

Bertie NC

8

Chesterfield VA

9

Robeson NC

10

Southampton VA

11

Augusta VA

12

Johnston NC

13

Sussex DE

14 Newport News VA

15

Harnett NC

16

New Kent VA

17

Isle of Wight VA

18

Nash NC

19

Alleghany VA

20

Wake NC

15.9% 11.2%
8.9% 4.6% 3.2% 2.6% 2.6% 2.2% 2.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9%

Figure 64: Top 20 Port of Norfolk Destinations

119

Section V: Port Analysis As Figure 65 indicates, truck movement from Norfolk predominately moves west and south, with some northbound movement. Given the proximity of the ports of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York/New Jersey to the north, the lack of movement to the northeast is expected. An analysis of the route choices reveals several major routes from the port, including:
I-64 westbound to I-95 north, I-81 south, and into West Virginia and Kentucky US 58 westbound to I-95 southbound US 460 westbound to I-95 and I-81 US 13 northbound to Delaware A listing of the ten most frequently utilized route segments, in terms of share of total trips, is included in Table 24.
Figure 65: Norfolk Route Choice and Destinations
120

Section V: Port Analysis
Table 24: Top 10 Most Utilized Segments - Norfolk

Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Route
SR 337 I-564
SR 406 US 58 I-64 US 13 I-64 I-64 I-64 I-664

Location
I-564 south to US 58 (VA) SR 337 east to I-64 (VA)
SR 337 east to I-564 (VA) US 460 west to I-95 (VA) US 158 north to I-264 (VA) I-664 south to US-58 (VA) US 13 west to SR 168 (VA) US 60 west to I-664 (Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel) (VA) SR 33 west to I-295 (VA) I-64 south to SR 143 (VA)

Share of Total Trips 51.1% 45.5% 21.7% 20.2% 19.6% 19.3% 17.6% 17.1% 15.9% 15.6%

Similar to the findings in the Savannah analysis, the decrease in trip lengths has led to less utilization of certain corridors outside of the immediate Norfolk region. As Figure 66 illustrates, I-64 westbound, US 58 westbound, and I-95 southbound all experienced declines in utilization by at least 10 percentage points when comparing 2008 to 2012. Conversely, I-64 on the east side of Norfolk experienced a 10 point or more increase in utilization, while US 13 into Delaware also experienced a modest increase. Table 25 and Table 26 contain a list of the segments with the greatest change in utilization.

121

Section V: Port Analysis

Figure 66: Change in Norfolk Route Utilization

Rank
1 2 3 4 5

Route
I-64 SR 406
I-64 I-64 460

Table 25: Largest Increase in Segment Utilization - Norfolk

Increasing Utilization Top 5 Corridors

Segment

2008 Share

2012 Share

US 13 west to SR 168 (VA)

12.9%

32.0%

SR 337 east to I-564 (VA)

16.2%

31.8%

US 158 north to I-264 (VA)

15.8%

30.7%

I-264 north to US 13 (VA) I-64 south to US 58 (VA)

4.8% 3.9%

13.1% 10.9%

Rank
1 2

Route
US 13 I-264

Table 26: Largest Decrease in Segment Utilization - Norfolk

Decreasing Utilization Top 5 Segments

Segment

2008 Share

2012 Share

I-664 south to US-58 (VA) US 17 south to I-664 (VA)

78.3% 29.6%

9.5% 4.7%

122

Change in Share 2008 vs. 2012 19.1% 15.7% 14.9% 8.3% 7.0%
Change in Share 2008 vs. 2012 -68.8% -24.9%

Section V: Port Analysis

Rank
3 4 5

Route
I-95 I-95 US 58

Decreasing Utilization Top 5 Segments

Segment

2008 Share

2012 Share

US 158 south to US 64 (NC)

21.6%

7.4%

US 58 south to US 158 (NC/VA)

23.7%

9.5%

US 460 west to I-95 (VA)

33.2%

19.2%

Change in Share 2008 vs. 2012
-14.2% -14.1% -14.0%

123

Section V: Port Analysis Port of New Orleans The facility analyzed for this study is located along the northern bank of the Mississippi River, south of the New Orleans central business district, as shown in Figure 67. The port is in an urban location, and trucks must travel through the core of New Orleans to reach the major interstate serving the city, I-10. While I-10 is a major east-west corridor, trucks departing the Port of New Orleans must travel out of the metropolitan region before reaching a major northsouth interstate.
Figure 67: Port of New Orleans
Given the port's location in an urban area with relatively higher land values than the nearby rural areas, it is expected that distribution facilities would be located further from the port compared to what is found in the less urban Savannah metropolitan area. This hypothesis is confirmed when Figure 68 is analyzed, which indicates that New Orleans has a smaller share of short trips (less than 25 miles) than was found in Savannah and Norfolk. Only 25.9 % of New Orleans trips were shorter than 25 miles, and the average trip length of 168.4 miles and median trip length of 117.0 miles are the longest trip lengths of the three ports analyzed. However, Figure 68 also alludes to a declining trip length over the course of the study. When analyzing the trip lengths,
124

Section V: Port Analysis
the average trip length declined sharply from 280.2 miles in 2008 to 159.6 miles in 2010 before rebounding slightly to 162.0 miles in 2012.

Share of Trips

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

2008

10%

2010

5%

2012

0%

Trip Length Figure 68: New Orleans Trip Length Distribution by Year

125

Section V: Port Analysis
As was the case in Norfolk, the county with the most destinations of New Orleans trips is not the home county of the port, but rather Jefferson Parish, which is a suburban parish west of New Orleans. As Table 27 indicates, Jefferson Parish accounted for over one-third (35.1%) of destinations. Many of the most popular destinations were outside of Louisiana, as shown in Figure 69, with only seven of the top 20 counties located in Louisiana. Other popular destinations were generally near large southern cities, including Gulfport/Biloxi, MS (Harrison, Hancock counties), Jackson, MS (Hinds, Rankin counties), Birmingham, AL (Jefferson County), Mobile, AL (Mobile County), and Atlanta, GA (Carroll County).
Table 27: Top 20 Port of New Orleans Destinations

Rank County/Parish

1

Jefferson

2

Harrison

3

Orleans

4

Hinds

5

Jefferson

6

Mobile

7

St. Tammany

8

Greene

9

Hancock

10

St. John the Baptist

11

St. Charles

12

Tuscaloosa

13

Pearl River

14

Tangipahoa

15

Rankin

16

Etowah

17

East Baton Rouge

18

Warren

19

Forrest

20

Carroll

State

Share of Destinations

LA

35.1%

MS

18.5%

LA

9.2%

MS

3.3%

AL

2.1%

AL

1.6%

LA

1.6%

AL

1.5%

MS

1.3%

LA

1.1%

LA

1.1%

AL

0.8%

MS

0.7%

LA

0.7%

MS

0.7%

AL

0.6%

LA

0.6%

KY

0.5%

MS

0.5%

GA

0.5%

Figure 69: Top 20 Port of New Orleans Destinations

126

Section V: Port Analysis Given Savannah and Jacksonville's location to the east, and Houston's location to the west, the predominate direction of travel for trucks leaving the New Orleans port is northbound, as illustrated in Figure 70. This is also consistent with the city's historical role as the economic gateway of the Mississippi River. The analysis reveals several heavily travelled corridors, including:
I-10 eastbound to Biloxi, MS and Mobile, AL continuing on I-65 to Montgomery, AL; I-10 eastbound to I-59 northbound to I-20 eastbound toward Birmingham, AL; I-55 northbound t toward Memphis, TN; and I-10 westbound to I-49 toward Shreveport, LA. The ten routes with the largest share of utilization are shown in Table 28.
Figure 70: New Orleans Route Choice and Destinations
127

Section V: Port Analysis
Table 28: Top 10 Most Utilized Segments New Orleans

Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Route
I-10 I-10 US 90 US 90 I-10 I-10 I-59 I-59 I-59 I-59

Location
SR 607 east to US 49 (MS) I-510 east to I-12 (LA)
I-10 east to SR 428 (LA) I-610 east to I-10 (LA)
US 90 east to I-510 (LA) I-59 east to SR 607 (LA/MS)
US 11 north to US 98 (MS) US 84 north to I-20 (MS)
I-10 north to US 11 (LA/MS) US 98 north to US 84 (MS)

Share of Total Trips
43.0% 35.5% 28.9% 17.6% 14.4% 13.8% 12.7% 11.1% 11.0%
9.4%

As found with the other ports, there has been a decrease in trip lengths which led to a decrease in utilization of certain corridors. In the case of New Orleans, it appears that I-55 experienced the biggest loss in utilization between 2008 and 2012, as illustrated by Figure 71. I-10 westbound also experienced a decline in share, as did the I-20 corridor. The exception appears to be the I-10 easbtound corridor through Gulfport/Biloxi, MS, which saw a noticeable increase in utilization between 2008 and 2012. The locations with the greatest increases and decreases in utilization are listed in Table 29 and Table 30.

128

Section V: Port Analysis

Figure 71: Change in New Orleans Route Utilization

Rank
1 2 3 4 5

Route
I-10 US 90 US 90 I-10 US 90

Table 29: Largest Increase in Segment Utilization New Orleans

Increasing Utilization Top 5 Corridors

Segment

2008 Share

SR 607 east to US 49 (MS)

14.5%

I-610 east to I-10 (LA)

12.7%

I-10 east to I-510 (LA)

1.6%

I-59 east to SR 607 (LA/MS)

9.3%

Huey Long Bridge (LA)

1.1%

2012 Share 43.6% 20.2% 7.6% 15.3% 6.4%

Change in Share 2008 vs. 2012 29.1% 7.5% 6.1% 6.0% 5.3%

Rank 1

Route I-55

Table 30: Largest Decrease in Segment Utilization New Orleans

Decreasing Utilization Top 5 Segments

Segment

2008 Share

I-10 north to I-12 (LA)

31.6%

2012 Share
8.3%

Change in Share 2008 vs. 2012
-23.3%

129

Section V: Port Analysis

Rank Route

Decreasing Utilization Top 5 Segments

Segment

2008 Share

2

I-55

3

I-55

4

I-55

5

I-10

I-12 north to US 98 (LA/MS) US 84 north to I-20 (MS) US 98 north to US 84 (MS) I-310 west to I-55 (LA)

28.3% 26.7% 25.9% 25.8%

2012 Share
7.6% 6.7% 6.1% 7.0%

Change in Share 2008 vs. 2012
-20.7% -20.0% -19.8% -18.9%

130

Section V: Port Analysis Policy Implications Once a truck leaves a port, vehicle movement appears to be highly influenced by the location of the port. Given the amount of freight that passes through ports, freight warehousing and distribution facilities tend to locate nearby. Generally these facilities have a large footprint and locate in more rural locations where land values are less expensive and traffic congestion is minimal. Therefore, trucks that serve ports in more urbanized locations are more likely to have longer average trip lengths since these key distribution facilities are further away. The analysis revealed that the trucks leaving the Port of Savannah had the shortest average trip length, while trucks leaving the ports of Norfolk and New Orleans had longer average trip lengths. This correlates with the less urban location of Savannah compared to Norfolk and New Orleans. Across all three ports, average truck trip lengths declined from 2008 to 2012. The sharpest declines were recorded in Norfolk and New Orleans between 2008 and 2010 which coincided with the most severe portion of the recession. It is possible that the recession affected truck travel patterns due to a decline in business and a consolidation of operations. Between 2010 and 2012, as the recession ended and a slow recovery began, trip lengths stabilized and, in some cases, rose slightly. The decrease in trip lengths also resulted in a decrease in utilization for certain routes leaving the port area, particularly those routes that served longer-distance destinations. Conversely, certain routes that served more proximate destinations saw an increase in utilization. If the trend of shorter truck trips and destinations closer to the ports continues, it will require upgrades to the local and regional transportation network as more and more trucks utilize these secondary roads to reach key warehousing and distribution facilities. As new logistics facilities locate or expand near ports, investments in important connecting roads will also be necessary. This route selection portion of the study evaluated the first trip segment that a truck makes after leaving a port. The logistics and distribution centers continue to generate freight traffic to transport the same commodities that came in through the port to storage, warehousing, and retail destinations. These second leg freight trips also rely on the hinterland interstate highway and arterial road network. The following section takes a deeper look at the entire freight region.
131

Section V: Port Analysis
Port-to-Destination Performance Analysis from the Megaregion Perspective
Methodology While the previous section focused on the characteristics of truck trips from each port, this section is designed to study the operational region of trucks once leaving the port analyzing three main characteristics.
Size of the region and extent of the trucking transportation network Ease of trucking mobility in the region Availability of truck parking The first step is to establish a truck operating region for each port. While trucks often travel well over 500 miles for a single leg of a trip, ATRI sought to establish an operating region that represented a reasonable distance that a truck could travel in one working day. According to Hours-of-Service Regulations maintained by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the maximum daily driving time for truck drivers is 11 hours (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2013). Given that drivers will have some on-duty time where they are not driving the vehicle, the maximum amount of time a driver would actually be driving is typically closer to 10 hours. Previous work by ATRI has shown the average speed of trucks to be 39.98 miles per hour (American Transportation Research Institute, 2013a), which would translate to a daily operating region of approximately 400 miles (10 hours x 39.98 miles per hour). Given that over 95% of the trips identified in the previous analysis were 400 miles or less, a 400-mile operations range appeared to be an appropriate assumption. Using that threshold, Figure 72 presents the resulting operating regions for each of the three ports.
132

Section V: Port Analysis
Figure 72: Operational Regions
With the 400-mile regional operation threshold, ATRI then began to link those regions with a variety of different data sources to determine the characteristics of those regions. These data sources included:
Population data from the Census Bureau at the census tract level (US Census Bureau, 2013)
Road network data from the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) (Federal Highway Administration, 2013)
Federal Highway Administration truck parking facility database ATRI's National Corridors Analysis and Speed Tool (NCAST) (American Transportation
Research Institute, 2012) In addition to geospatial analysis, ATRI also conducted a travel time analysis for major routes (each 400 miles in length) that trucks utilize once leaving the port. Building upon the analysis at the beginning of Section V, ATRI selected five of the most heavily utilized interstate highway routes to analyze. Using hourly average speed information in ATRI's NCAST tool, a best-case and worst-case travel time along each 400-mile route was calculated based on departure time. The differential between the two travel times provides a congestion indicator. Large differentials indicate that severe congestion occurs at certain times of day along the corridor. A small
133

Section V: Port Analysis differential suggests that there is no time of day when congestion along the corridor increases significantly. Analysis The next subsections provide an overview of each region's operations. Following the individual analyses, a combined analysis is presented to compare and contrast the characteristics of each region. Port of Savannah The operating region for trucks departing the port of Savannah, shown in Figure 73, covers all or most of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, as well as northern Florida, far eastern Tennessee, and eastern Alabama. This region, which includes major cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa, is home to approximately 37.8 million residents according to the 2010 Census.
Figure 73: Port of Savannah Operational Region
An analysis of the region's road network reveals an extensive highways network that serves to move freight. The Federal Highway Administration's Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3) is used as a planning tool to study the movement of freight nationally. The routes included in FAF3 are the key roadways used by trucks to transport goods, and are indicative of the scope of
134

Section V: Port Analysis
the primary truck network in the United States. Within the Savannah region, there are 51,842 centerline miles of FAF3 roads, which is the most of any of the three port regions studied. In 2007, it was estimated that these roads generated 86.2 million miles in truck VMT daily, indicating an average daily volume of 1,663 trucks per centerline mile (daily VMT/centerline mileage). By 2040, daily VMT is expected to nearly double to 171.8 million miles per day.
ATRI selected five heavily travelled interstate routes used by trucks leaving the Port of Savannah to determine congestion levels. The five routes selected are illustrated in Figure 74, each of which is 400 miles in length. These routes are characterized by the highways, urban areas, and average daily truck VMT in 2007 shown in Table 31.

Figure 74: Selected Routes Departing Savannah

Table 31: Profile of Selected Savannah Routes

Route # 1 2

Highways

Urban Aras

I-95 south to I-10 west
I-16 west to I-285 north to I-20 west

Savannah, GA; Jacksonville, FL; Tallahassee, FL Savannah, GA; Macon, GA; Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL

135

Average Daily Truck VMT 3,061,749
3,876,592

Section V: Port Analysis

Route # 3 4 5

Highways

Urban Aras

I-16 west to I-285 north to I-75 north I-95 north to I-26 west to I-77 north to I-85 north

Savannah, GA; Macon, GA; Atlanta, GA; Chattanooga, TN; Knoxville, TN Savannah, GA; Columbia, SC; Charlotte, NC; Greensboro, NC; Durham, NC

I-95 north

Savannah, GA; Fayetteville, NC

Average Daily Truck VMT 4,280,456
3,836,883
2,668,798

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3), Federal Highway Administration

ATRI then calculated the minimum and maximum travel times on each road based on average speed data from NCAST and time of departure. The travel time differential between the minimum and maximum travel time indicates how congestion varies during an average day. Table 32 presents the travel times of the five routes and reveals that there is relatively little variation in travel times, suggesting minimal congestion on these routes. Route three has the largest differential, 35:01, likely due to that route's exposure to Atlanta congestion.

Table 32: Travel Time Analysis for Savannah

Route #
1 2 3 4 5

Route Name
I-95 S to I-10 W I-16 W to I-20 W I-16 W to I-75 N I-95 N to I-85 N I-95 N

Average Travel Time
6:31:30 6:39:10 6:38:29 6:29:53 6:24:46

Minimum Travel Time
6:25:55 6:33:37 6:29:25 6:21:36 6:20:40

Maximum Travel Time
6:35:20 6:48:37 7:04:26 6:36:16 6:30:01

Max Min Differential
0:09:25 0:14:59 0:35:01 0:14:40 0:09:21

Source: ATRI's National Corridors Analysis and Speed Tool (NCAST) (American Transportation Research Institute, 2012)
ATRI also analyzed the prevalence of truck parking facilities in the Savannah region. Figure 75 shows the location of known truck parking facilities in the region. According to the database, the region has 652 parking facilities, accounting for 36,224 parking spaces, which equates to one parking space for every 2,380 daily miles travelled. ATRI also conducted a similar analysis along the five routes shown in Figure 74. As Table 33 indicates, Route 1 has the most favorable ratio of parking spaces to daily truck VMT (one space per 867 miles) while Route 2 had the least favorable ratio (one space per 1,507 miles).

136

Section V: Port Analysis

Figure 75: Truck Parking Facilities in the Savannah Operational Region

Route #
1 2 3 4 5

Table 33: Parking Characteristics along Selected Routes Departing Savannah

Route Name
I-95 S to I-10 W I-16 W to I-20 W I-16 W to I-75 N I-95 N to I-85 N
I-95 N

Number of Spaces
3,531 2,572 2,954 3,574 2,898

Total Daily VMT
3,061,749 3,876,592 4,280,456 3,836,883 2,668,798

Truck Miles per Space 867 1,507 1,449 1,074 921

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3), Federal Highway Administration; Federal Highway Administration truck parking facility database

137

Section V: Port Analysis Port of Norfolk As shown in Figure 76, Norfolk's truck region extends along the eastern seaboard from New York City to Columbia, SC and westward to Pittsburgh, PA and West Virginia. This region, which includes some of the nation's largest cities, is home to approximately 56.2 million residents according to the 2010 Census, which is by far the largest population of any of the three port regions studied.
Figure 76: Port of Norfolk Operational Region
Interestingly, despite the region's higher population, it contains fewer FAF3 centerline miles than the Savannah truck region (43,445 centerline miles compared to 51,842 centerline miles respectively). However, the 2007 daily truck VMT in the Norfolk region is larger than that of the Savannah region (91.1 million miles per day, versus 86.2 million miles), which indicates that the Norfolk region is more congested. On average, each mile of FAF3 roadway was used by 2,097 trucks per day, compared to only 1,663 trucks in Savannah. By 2040, truck VMT in the Norfolk region is expected to increase to 167.3 million miles per day.
138

Section V: Port Analysis A travel time analysis of five key routes confirms that the Norfolk region is subjected to more congestion than the Savannah region. Figure 77 displays the five routes selected for analysis while Table 34 presents the highways, urban areas, and average daily truck VMT for each route.
Figure 77: Selected Routes Departing Norfolk
139

Section V: Port Analysis
Route # Highways

Table 34: Profile of Selected Norfolk Routes Urban Aras

1

US 58 west to I-95 south

Norfolk, VA; Fayetteville, NC

Average Daily Truck VMT
2,285,909

2

US 460 west to I-85 south to I- Norfolk, VA; Durham, NC;

40 west

Greensboro, NC; Winston-Salem, NC

2,815,943

3

I-64 west to I-295 north to I-64 west to I-81 south

Norfolk, VA; Richmond, VA

3,404,109

4

I-64 west to I-295 north to I-64 Norfolk, VA; Richmond, VA;

west

Charleston, WV

I-64 west to I-95 north (incl. I- Norfolk, VA; Richmond, VA;

5

295 in VA, I-895 in MD, I-295 Washington, DC; Baltimore, MD;

in NJ, and I-195 in NJ)

Philadelphia, PA

2,089,478 4,998,452

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3), Federal Highway Administration

Table 35 presents the results of the route travel time analysis. The Norfolk differentials tend to be larger than the Savannah differentials. Route 5, which traverses Washington, DC, Baltimore, and Philadelphia has the largest differential of any route in the three-port analysis (1:21:04).

Route #
1 2 3 4 5

Table 35: Travel Time Analysis for Norfolk

Route Name
US 58 W to I-95 S US 460 W to I-85 S I-64 W to I-81 S I-64 W I-64 W to I-95 N

Average Travel Time
6:35:52 6:49:04 6:47:12 6:57:57 7:13:28

Minimum Travel Time
6:28:03 6:41:52 6:33:30 6:46:07 6:40:57

Maximum Travel Time
6:56:38 7:07:20 7:13:13 7:26:39 8:02:02

Max Min Differential
0:28:35 0:25:28 0:39:43 0:40:32 1:21:04

Source: ATRI's National Corridors Analysis and Speed Tool (NCAST) (American Transportation Research Institute, 2012)
Truck parking appears to be less prevalent in the Norfolk truck region. Despite the higher VMT, the region has fewer truck parking facilities than the Savannah region. According to the truck parking database, the region has 468 parking facilities (shown in Figure 78) with 26,582 parking spaces. This equates to one truck parking space for every 3,428 daily truck miles travelled (compared to 2,380 miles per space in the Savannah region). A parking analysis was also conducted for the five routes shown in Figure 77. As Table 36 indicates, Route 1 had the most favorable ratio of parking spaces to daily truck VMT (1 space per 826 miles) while Route 5 had the least favorable ratio (1 space per 1,713 miles).

140

Section V: Port Analysis

Figure 78: Truck Parking Facilities in the Norfolk Operational Region

Route #
1 2 3 4 5

Table 36: Parking Characteristics along Selected Routes Departing Norfolk

Route Name
US 58 W to I-95 S US 460 W to I-85 S I-64 W to I-81 S I-64 W I-64 W to I-95 N

Number of Spaces
2,768 2,335 2,497 1,378 2,918

Total Daily VMT
2,285,909 2,815,943 3,404,109 2,089,478 4,998,452

Truck Miles per Space
826 1,206 1,363 1,516 1,713

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3), Federal Highway Administration; Federal Highway Administration truck parking facility database

141

Section V: Port Analysis Port of New Orleans The operating region for trucks departing the port of New Orleans extends along the Gulf Coast from Houston, TX to Tallahassee, FL and north to Memphis, TN (Figure 79). Of the three regions studied, the New Orleans region has the smallest population at 19.7 million residents in 2010.
Figure 79: Port of New Orleans Operational Region
Commensurate with the region's smaller population, it also has fewer FAF3 centerline miles (33,875 centerline miles, the least of the three regions). In 2007, it was estimated that these roads accounted for 54.4 million miles in daily truck VMT which, again, is the smallest of the three regions. The average truck volume per mile was also the lowest at 1,606 trucks per mile per day (slightly below Savannah, which was 1,663 trucks per mile per day). However, this region is expected to see the largest percentage increase in VMT over the next few decades, according to FAF3 projections. By 2040, the daily VMT is expected to more than double to 119.0 million miles per day, which is a 119 % increase over 2007 levels.
142

Section V: Port Analysis
The five routes selected for the New Orleans travel time analysis are shown in Figure 80. These routes are characterized by the highways, urban areas, and average daily truck VMT shown in Table 37.

Figure 80: Selected Routes Departing New Orleans

Table 37: Profile of Selected New Orleans Routes

Route # 1 2 3 4 5

Highways
I-10 west to I-49 north to I-20 west
I-10 west to I-55 north
I-10 east to I-59 north to I-65 north I-10 east to I-65 north to I-85 north
I-10 east

Urban Areas
New Orleans, LA; Baton Rouge, LA; Shreveport, LA New Orleans, LA; Jackson, MS; Memphis, TN
New Orleans, LA; Birmingham, AL
New Orleans, LA; Mobile, AL; Montgomery, AL New Orleans, LA; Mobile, AL; Tallahassee, FL

Average Daily Truck VMT 2,959,799 1,737,887 2,993,810 3,064,909 2,915,876

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3), Federal Highway Administration
143

Section V: Port Analysis

Table 38 presents the five routes' travel times. Given the lower VMT figures for the region, it was expected that region's congestion would be minimal. Nevertheless, travel time differentials remained generally larger than in the Savannah region. It appears that even with the region's semi-rural nature, the Port of New Orleans' urban location is likely subjecting trucks to congestion when leaving the port. The routes' travel time differentials are similar, which suggests that the source of the congestion is near to the port. All trucks would be subjected to the congestion when leaving, regardless of final destination. A review of the NCAST average speeds find that such a scenario is indeed occurring. The key road connecting the port to I-10 generally experiences speeds between 40 and 45 miles per hour during overnight hours. However, average speeds drop as low as 15 miles per hour during the afternoon.

Table 38: Travel Time Analysis for New Orleans

Route # Route Name

1

I-10 W to I-49 N

2

I-10 W to I-55 N

3

I-10 E to I-59 N

4

I-10 E to I-85 N

5

I-10 E

Average Travel Time
6:42:10 6:36:45 6:31:28 6:31:16 6:31:36

Minimum Travel Time
6:30:25 6:27:28 6:25:05 6:23:23 6:23:47

Maximum Travel Time
7:04:00 6:59:39 6:49:42 6:50:05 6:52:57

Max Min Differential
0:33:35 0:32:10 0:24:37 0:26:42 0:29:11

Source: ATRI's National Corridors Analysis and Speed Tool (NCAST) (American Transportation Research Institute, 2012)
Of the three regions, truck parking appears to be most plentiful in the New Orleans region, relative to truck VMT. According to the truck parking database, the region has 572 parking facilities (shown in Figure 81Error! Reference source not found.) with 29,714 parking spaces. This equates to one truck parking space for every 1,831 daily truck miles travelled on the FAF. A similar parking analysis was also performed for the five routes shown in Table 39. As Table 39 shows, Route 2 had the most favorable ratio of parking spaces to daily truck VMT (1 space per 744 miles) while Route 4 had the least favorable ratio (1 space per 1,485 miles).

144

Section V: Port Analysis

Figure 81: Truck Parking Facilities in the New Orleans Operational Region

Table 39: Parking Characteristics along Selected Routes Departing New Orleans

Route #
1 2 3 4 5

Route Name
I-10 W to I-49 N I-10 W to I-55 N I-10 E to I-59 N I-10 E to I-85 N I-10 E

Number of Spaces
2,395 2,337 3,417 2,064 2,377

Total Daily VMT
2,959,799 1,737,887 2,993,810 3,064,909 2,915,876

Truck Miles per Space 1,236 744 876 1,485 1,227

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3), Federal Highway Administration; Federal Highway Administration truck parking facility database

145

Section V: Port Analysis Comparative Analysis

Each of the three regions exhibits different characteristics, as demonstrated by Table 40. Norfolk's region overlaps with some of the heavily populated northeastern cities, which gives it the largest population of the three regions. While that population density translates to more destinations to ship freight to, it also equates to more congestion on the roadways. The Norfolk region has the highest average number of trucks per FAF3 centerline mile (i.e. highest average volume) as well as the greatest travel time differentials.

By contrast, New Orleans is the least populated of the three regions and has the lowest daily truck VMT and the lowest average number of trucks per FAF3 centerline mile. However, the port's location in a large urban area negatively effects congestion, giving that region the secondhighest average travel time differential.

The Savannah operating region has a population that is larger than New Orleans' population but smaller than Norfolk's. However, Savannah has the largest network of FAF3 roads and is projected to have the largest daily VMT by 2040 according to FAF3. That larger network will allow the region to more effectively absorb additional truck trips in the future. Even with rapid VMT growth, Savannah will have the lowest number of trucks per centerline mile in 2040 (assuming that the 2007 FAF3 network remains constant). Congestion does not appear to be much of an issue in the region, as the travel time differentials are lowest in Savannah compared to the other two regions.

Table 40: Summary of Comparative Indicators by Operating Region

Metric

Savannah

Norfolk New Orleans

2010 Population
2007 Centerline FAF miles
2007 Daily Truck VMT (mi)
2040 Daily Truck VMT (mi)
2007 Average Number of Trucks per Centerline Mile 2040 Average Number of Trucks per Centerline Mile 2012 Average Travel Time Differential (hh:mm:ss) 2012 Smallest Travel Time Differential (hh:mm:ss) 2012 Largest Travel Time Differential (hh:mm:ss)
Number of Parking Facilities
Number of Truck Parking Spaces
Daily Truck VMT per Parking Space (mi)

37,754,646 51,842
86,197,813 171,846,415
1,663

56,192,993 43,445
91,110,816 167,288,926
2,097

3,315

3,851

00:16:41

00:43:05

00:08:50

00:25:28

00:26:55 652
36,224 2,380
146

01:21:04 468
26,582 3,428

19,746,132 33,875
54,405,780 119,038,226
1,606 3,514 00:29:15 00:24:37 00:33:35
572 29,714
1,831

Section V: Port Analysis

In terms of truck parking, the Norfolk region has the most competition for truck parking spaces, while New Orleans has the least competition. In the Norfolk region, there is one space for every 3,428 miles travelled, while that figure is much lower in the New Orleans region (one space for every 1,831 miles travelled). However, the supply versus demand dynamics can vary in each region by highway corridor. Table 41 presents the ratio of truck parking spaces to daily truck VMT for the five routes selected for study in each region. Norfolk contains the two routes with the worst ratios (Route Five: I-95 north, Route Four: I-64 west), while New Orleans has the two routes with the best ratios (Route Two: I-55 north, Route Three: I-59 north)

Table 41: Comparison of Parking Ratios for Selected Routes (Number of Daily Truck Miles Travelled per Parking Space)

Route # 1 2 3 4 5

Savannah 867 1,507 1,449 1,074 921

Norfolk 826 1,206 1,363 1,516 1,713

New Orleans 1,236 744 876 1,485 1,227

As previously discussed, truck parking is very important for the safe and efficient movement of freight by truck. With truck VMT projected to increase substantially in all three of the regions, it will be essential to not only increase roadway capacity, but also truck parking capacity. As Table 42 indicates, a substantial investment in truck parking will be necessary over the next few decades to maintain the current level of service on the 15 corridors analyzed in this study. However, it is important to note that these figures are only based on maintaining the current level of service, and some of these routes may already be underserved. This is evidenced by an annual trucking industry survey by ATRI which found that a truck parking shortage was the sixth most critical issue facing the trucking industry in 2013 (American Transportation Research Institute, 2013b).

Table 42: Number of Additional Truck Parking Spaces needed by 2040 to Maintain Current Level of Service

Route # 1 2 3 4 5

Savannah 3,737 2,962 2,773 3,458 3,394

Norfolk 2,872 1,880 4,969 1,374 1,980

New Orleans 2,650 5,920 5,567 2,177 2,594

147

Section V: Port Analysis
Policy Implications
Each of the three megaregions is characterized by a different operating context. Both the Norfolk and New Orleans ports are located in large urban areas that subject all trucks leaving the port to congestion at certain times of the day. However, once trucks leave New Orleans, there is very little congestion in the rest of the region. In contrast, trucks leaving Norfolk continue to experience congestion, particularly for those trucks travelling north toward the MidAtlantic States. Savannah has a somewhat different operating environment. While trucks do experience congestion in larger urban areas such as Atlanta and Charlotte, there is comparatively little congestion near the port, which provides trucks with more flexibility to avoid congested locations.
Freight mobility is highly dependent on the route that trucks utilize, as evidenced by the varying travel time differentials, truck volumes, and truck parking availability along each route. The analysis presented in this report is critical for understanding the environment in which trucks must operate once they leave a port terminal and how route choice can affect mobility. Population density, road density, traffic volumes, congestion, and truck parking all play important roles in determining the efficiency and safety of trucking movements. Given the projected increases in regional VMT and additional activity expected at port facilities, it will be necessary to address infrastructure design, capacity, and safety issues at a regional scale in order to maintain economic competitiveness.
Truck freight is expected to steadily grow nationwide into the future. The Government Accountability Office (2008) forecasted an average 2.1% annual truck tonnage growth rate between 2002 and 2035. The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF3) forecasts an annualized average of 1.7% tonnage growth between 2012 and 2040 (Federal Highway Administration, 2013). The American Trucking Association (ATA) forecasts truckload tonnage growth of 3.2% between 2014 and 2018, slowing to 1.1% through 2024. ATA expects less-than-truckload tonnage to grow slightly faster than truckload tonnage (Berman, 2013). Less-than-truckload shipments combine loads from multiple shippers into a single trailer rather than dedicating a complete trailer to each load.
The Georgia Department of Transportation examines truck tonnage growth through different economic and freight forecasts. The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan reflects the Georgia Department of Transportation's freight forecasts and goals. (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013c). ATA forecasts 2.2% growth between 2009 and 2021, which is almost identical to the 2.3% growth rate forecasted by Moody's Analytics between 2009 and 2050. Global Insight's TRANSEARCH provides a conservative estimate for Georgia truck tonnage, growing at just 1.5% annually from 2007 to 2050. Overall, these findings show that truck tonnage in the United States is likely to increase on average by between 1% and 2% for the foreseeable future, but that growth in some regions will surpass the national baseline. As truck volume increases around ports do to the Panama Canal expansion and other factors, ports, local governments, and states must maintain and update their primary freight routes to accommodate the traffic or risk costly delays.
148

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
SECTION VI. IMPACTS OF THE PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION ON FREIGHT MOVEMENT
Modeling the Panama Canal Expansion Impacts
Analytical Approach
This section estimates the amount by which the Panama Canal expansion is likely to increase cargo movements at the Ports of Savannah, Hampton Roads / Norfolk, and New Orleans. The port-specific cargo projections are innovative in their own right because they outline a methodology for estimating the Panama Canal expansion's effects on port cargo throughput. Moreover, the projections will serve as a foundation for the economic impact analysis undertaken in Section VII.
Assumptions
The analysis assumes that most macroeconomic conditions and supply chain configurations remain constant through the projection period. The model accepts that trade volume at each port will be affected exclusively by growth in demand for commodities at each county and by the Panama Canal expansion. Specifically, the forecasts assume that
1. Global trade channels will remain open at similar cost and reliability as experienced today, which precludes persistent disruptions due to severe weather or international conflict.
2. There will be no other major changes to the global freight network (e.g., new trade routes through a Nicaraguan Canal, an Arctic passage, improved transcontinental rail service) or major economic changes (e.g., sudden increase in Asian labor costs or energy costs, both of which would change medium- to long-term production locations).
3. Growth in commodity demand is independent of canal capacity. 4. Demand is proportional to freight-shed purchasing power. Freight-shed refers to the
region whose commodity demand is fulfilled by trade volumes entering at a particular port. Freight-sheds were identified based on truck GPS data in Section V. 5. The road network has adequate capacity to accommodate truck volumes. 6. The ratio of incoming cargo transported by different modes is constant and is pegged to each port's 2011 mode ratio. 7. Cargo that traverses the Panama Canal has the same mode split after being offloaded at a port as all cargo offloaded at that port.
Port Activity Growth
The year 2040 was selected as the forecast year to maximize the canal expansions visible effects and to make results as closely aligned with state and metropolitan transportation planning timelines as possible. The Panama Canal expansion's effects are likely to be felt progressively. Most shippers and ocean carriers are locked into five-to-ten-year contracts with ports and importers, which means that freight route choice will require several years to adapt. Moreover, states and metropolitan planning organizations are required by federal statue to plan
149

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
for transportation with at least a 20 year horizon (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, 2012).

Cargo from both the Panama Canal and other trade routes come together at each port. The research team estimated the fraction of traffic from the Panama Canal at each port by examining the amount of cargo from different countries of origin. Table 43 shows the estimated fraction of cargo that traverses the Panama Canal prior to arrival at the port.

Table 43: Panama Share at Ports

Port New Orleans Norfolk Savannah

Fraction of Panama Volume 0.75 0.50 0.65

The researchers derived the equation that estimates each port's 2040 cargo tonnage as follows.

V2040 VP,2040 VNP,2040
where
VP VNP V VP,2040 VP,2013 VNP,2040 VNP,2013
and
V, VP,t, VNP,t = the total container volume at the port, container volume from Panama Canal to the port, and container volume not from Panama to the port, respectively
Growth due to Panama Canal expansion Bureau of Economic Analysisgrowth in demand factor V Total freight volume at the port VP Freight volume at the port via Panama VNP V VP t Truck share proportion P Panama Canal share proportion NP Non - Panama Canal share proportion
The research team estimated the percentage of cargo weight transported by truck from each port (t) based on data from the Maritime Administration. As previously stated, it is assumed that the percentage of cargo transported by truck will remain constant between 2013 and 2040. Table 44 shows mode ratios.

150

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
Table 44: Truck Rail Shares

Port - Truck Share
New Orleans Norfolk Savannah

Tonnage

Ton-Mile

Percent (2011) Percent (2011)

58

50

92

98

96

91

Percent 2011 Value (Millions
of Dollars) 55
100
98

Percent Current Value (Millions of
Dollars) 54
100
98

The equation showing derivation of the cargo tonnage moved from ports by truck is shown below.
V2040,t V2013[ p (1 p) ] t

Economic Growth Factor
The port-specific cargo projections account for forecasted macroeconomic changes, namely growth in consumer demand for commodities. Growth in commodity demand is assumed to be directly proportional to average state per capita income. Changes in per capita income approximate a population's changing purchasing power. Table 45 below shows the income growth rates used. The 2013 to 2040 growth rates are derived from the compound annual growth rate provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis from 2011 to 2013 and 2003 to 2013. The research team calculated a ten-year compound growth rate. The ten year growth rate is assumed to be the same for the time horizon chosen for this study (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2014).

Table 45: Growth in Demand due to Economic Growth

FIPS Code 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana

Growth Factor 2.3 2.7 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.9 3.4 2.1 1.8 2.7 2.0 2.2 2.0

151

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion

FIPS Code 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 56

State Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New England New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Growth Factor 3.0 2.6 2.3 3.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 1.8 2.2 2.7 2.1 2.8 2.5 1.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.9 2.1 5.5 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.1 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.2 3.2

Growth Factor Due to Canal Expansion
The Panama Canal expansion may spur cargo increases at East and Gulf Coast ports by either of the following two dynamics.
152

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
1. Intermodal route shift to regions in the middle of North America from West Coast of the United States to the East and Gulf Coasts. This represents a westward shift of the cost equivalency line, which makes East and Gulf Coast ports more attractive import locations for the center of the country.
2. Higher trade volumes to cross coasts between the Americas (i.e., travel from the South American West Coast to the North American Gulf and East Coast).

The first factor, intermodal route shift, requires intermodal cost, travel time tradeoffs, customer preferences of various regions of North America, and a mode-route choice - discrete choice models of freight customers. The second factor, trade between South and North America, is an induced demand factor without precedent. As no models exist for understanding intermodal route shift and inter-American trade volumes, the projections instead rely on four broad scenarios of the Panama Canal expansion's effects on global shipping. The scenarios implicitly account for the canal's competitiveness compared with other routes. Each scenario assigns the expanded canal a share in increasing canal volumes compared with a non-expanded canal by the factors in Table 46. Scenario 1 assumes that the expanded Panama Canal does not divert any traffic from West Coast to East and Gulf Coast ports, Scenario 2 assumes low diversion, Scenario 3 assumes moderate diversion, and Scenario 4 assumes high diversion.

Table 46: Scenarios

Scenarios 1 - No impact 2 - Little Impact 3 - Moderate Impact 4 - High Impact

Panama Factor 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0

The research team checked port and roadway volume projections against capacity to ensure that the model did not project volume beyond a freight facility's ability to handle. Port projections were obtained from the Maritime Administration, as shown in Table 47 below. Trucks were allocated onto available road capacity by scaling forecasted volumes by the Panama Canal expansion factors in Table 46. Many of the truck corridors have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional trucks, so it was not necessary to assign trucks to routes while iteratively adjusting for capacity constraints

Table 47: Ports Capacities

Port

State

Coast

Calls Capacity by Deadweights

New Orleans

LA

Gulf Coast

2,942

141,360,610

Norfolk

VA

Atlantic

3,671

216,323,007

Savannah

GA

Atlantic

2,731

134,564,763

Source: U.S. Maritime Administration (n.d.), Vessel Calls at U.S. Ports, 2011

153

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion Base Year (2013) to Year 2040
2013 is the analysis base year. However, FAF3 data was only available for 2011. The model required input data showing the tonnage of commodities that entered each region by water and were moved inland by truck. Therefore, the 2013 base year was calculated by scaling 2011 tonnage using a Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014) economic growth factor from 2011 and 2013. This established 2013 base port tonnage.
The 2040 projections involved first scaling down the 2013 data to 2010, and then projecting forward three decades to 2040. 2013 data is preferable for 2010 data as a starting point because it incorporates the most recent actual data possible into the forecasts. The same Bureau of Economic Analysis growth factors were used to scale down 2013 base tonnage to year 2010. The cargo tonnage was then scaled up with an equation from 2010 to 2040, listed below. The equation uses a ten-year growth percentage that is constant from decade to decade. The percentage is based on economic growth from 2003 to 2013.
The following equations were used to scale port freight tonnage.
2011 to 2013:V2013 V2011 1 r1113annual 2
Establishes 2013 base year
2013 to 2010: V2010 V2013 1 r1013annual 3
Preliminary step for 2010 to 2040 equation
2010 to 2040: V2040 V2010 1 r0313tenyr 3
Establishes 2040 project year
where
V[year] = Port volume in a given year
R11-13-annual = Annual growth rate between 2011 and 2013
R10-13-annual = Annual growth rate between 2010 and 2013
R03-13-tenyr = Ten year growth rate between 2003 and 2013
Projected Freight Volumes for 2040
The Port of Savannah's cargo volume increases significantly under all scenarios. Scenario 4 shows a 65% cargo increase over Scenario 1, the no-impact scenario. The port is not likely to surpass capacity due to the canal expansion. Under the Scenario 4, the Port of Savannah will still retain at least 20 million tons of usable capacity. Moreover, under scenario 1, approximately half of the port's potential capacity will remain available.
154

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
This suggests that the present capacity of the Port of Savannah will be sufficient to accommodate increased flow resulting from the Panama Expansion under all scenarios. Increasing the port's capacity and improving infrastructure will reduce congestion. However, the forecast assumes that port capacity will remain sufficient to meet demand. This may require executing long-term expansion projects. It is important to note that cargo handling is not evenly spread through a week at each port, but rather ebbs and flows based on vessel call schedules. Additional capacity will allow the Port of Savannah to respond to high throughput periods without excess congestion. Table 48 displays commodity movement projections through the Port of Savannah for different year 2040 scenarios.

Table 48: Savannah - Projected Volumes 2040

Mode
Truck Multiple modes & mail No domestic mode Other and unknown Pipeline
Rail
Water

Percent

Savannah (Thousands of Tons Tons)

2011

2013 2040 1.0

2040 - 1.3

63.9% 18,639 19,629

44,950

53,715

6.8% 1,996

2,102

4,814

5,753

2.4%

695

732

1,676

2,002

1.8%

533

561

1,285

1,536

22.2% 6,470

6,814

15,603

18,646

2.9%

848

893

2,045

2,444

0.0%

5

5

11

13

2040 - 1.6 62,480 6,691 2,329 1,786 21,688 2,843 16

2040 2.0 74,167 7,943 2,765 2,121 25,745 3,374 18

Sum

100.0% 29,186 30,735

70,384

84,108

97,833

116,133

Scenario 4 increases the Port of Hampton Roads / Norfolk's cargo throughput by 50% compared with Scenario 1. Capacity is not expected to be a major issues for Norfolk since under the Scenario 4--the high-impact scenario--the capacity will remain less than half of the available capacity, assuming that capacity will be spread among the multiple terminals in the Hampton Roads that all operate under the Virginia Port Authority. The present capacity of the Port of Norfolk is likely to remain unsaturated even under the impact of the increased flow resulting from the Panama Canal expansion. Increasing the capacity further will reduce congestion. Table 49 displays commodity movement projections by mode that the Port of Hampton Roads / Norfolk for different year-2040 scenarios.

Table 49: Norfolk Projected Volumes 2040

Mode
Truck Multiple modes & mail No domestic mode

Percent 57.4% 17.0% 18.2%

Norfolk (Thousands of Tons)

2011 2013 2040 1.0

2040 - 1.3

9,121 9,605

21,995

25,295

2,704 2,848

6,521

7,499

2,896

3,049

6,983
155

8,030

2040 - 1.6 28,594 8,478 9,077

2040 2.0 32,993 9,782 10,474

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion

Mode Other and unknown
Pipeline

Percent 2.5% 0.0%

Norfolk (Thousands of Tons)

2011 2013 2040 1.0

2040 - 1.3

398

419

960

1,104

-

-

-

-

Rail

4.8%

761

802

1,836

2,111

Water

0.0%

3

3

7

8

Sum

100.0% 15,883 16,726

38,302

44,047

2040 - 1.6 1,248 2,387 9
49,792

2040 2.0 1,440 2,754 10
57,453

The Port of New Orleans will have higher absolute tonnage traffic than either Savannah or Norfolk. Moreover, the canal expansion is expected to significantly impact the port, increasing cargo throughput by approximately 75%. Unlike Norfolk and Savannah, the Port of New Orleans may experience more cargo demand than it has the capacity to accommodate. Under the Scenario 1 (no impact), there is already a risk of traffic being higher than the port's capacity. Moreover, it would be very challenging for the port to respond to the very high cargo demand forecasted under Scenario 4 without significant new capacity. The present capacity of the Port of New Orleans is unlikely to be able to accommodate increased freight volume related to the Panama Canal expansion. Table 50 contains commodity movement projections by mode for the Port of New Orleans for different year 2040 scenarios.

Mode
Truck
Multiple modes & mail No domestic mode Other and unknown
Pipeline

Percent 14.7% 6.6% 25.7% 0.8% 35.9%

Rail

5.3%

Water

11.1%

Sum

100.0%

Table 50: New Orleans Projected Volumes 2040

New Orleans (Thousands of Tons)

2011

2013 2040 1.0

2040 - 1.3

23,541 24,791

56,771

69,544

10,653 41,245
1,323 57,651
8,524 17,764

11,219 43,435
1,393 60,711
8,976 18,707

25,692 99,466
3,190 139,029
20,556 42,839

31,472 121,845
3,907 170,311
25,181 52,478

160,701 169,232

387,541

474,738

2040 - 1.6 82,317 37,253
144,225 4,625
201,592 29,806 62,117
561,934

2040 2.0 99,348 44,960
174,065 5,582
243,301 35,972 74,969
678,197

Conversion of Tonnage to Truck Volumes
The projected freight volumes at each port under different scenarios obtained above are expressed in kilo tons, which are equal to one thousand metric tons. The cargo weights were converted into an equivalent number of trucks following the FAF3 truck conversion procedures
156

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
from the document FAF3 Freight Traffic Analysis (Battelle, 2011a). Converting cargo tonnage to trucks depends on truck configuration, body type, and commodities. The conversion itself involved the following three steps.

1. Allocating Commodities to Truck Configurations: Tonnage was allocated to different truck configurations based on the distance between the port county and the destination county. Table 51, Table 52, and Table 53 describe the truck configurations, show body type prevalence, and show their allocation based on travel distance. Truck trailers account for the vast majority of trucks on medium- and long-distance hauls.

Table 51: Truck Configurations

Group 1 2 3 4 5

Abbreviation SU TT CS DBL TPT

Truck Configurations Description Single Unit Trucks Truck plus Trailer Combinations Tractor plus Semitrailer Combinations Tractor plus Double Trailer Combinations Tractor plus Triple Trailer Combinations

Body
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Table 52 Truck Body Types
Truck-Body Types Truck Fleet Description
37.7% Dry Van 24.4% Flat Bed 14.7% Bulk
8.2% Reefer 8.0% Tank 2.1% Logging 1.7% Livestock 0.9% Automobile 2.3% Other

Minimum Range (miles)
0 51 101 201 501

Maximum Range (miles)
50 100 200 500 10,000

Table 53 Truck Allocation Factors

Truck Allocation Factors

Single Unit

Truck Combination Combination Combination

Trailer Semitrailer

Double

Triple

0.793201 0.577445 0.313468 0.142467
0.06466

0.070139 0.058172 0.045762 0.027288
0.0149

0.130465 0.344653 0.565269 0.751628 0.879727

0.006179 0.019608 0.074434 0.075218 0.034143

0.000017 0
0.000452 0.002031 0.004225

2. Estimating Average Payloads: The research team selected the commodity type based on our requirement (43 - unknown freight) using FAF3 Freight Traffic Analysis, Appendix B (Battelle, 2011c).

157

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
3. Converting Tonnage to Equivalent Trucks: For each truck configuration, an analysis was conducted using the conversion method detailed in FAF3 Freight Traffic Analysis, Appendix A (Battelle, 2011b). Multiplying each truck configuration's tonnage with the corresponding body type's volume produced equivalent truck volumes for each truck body type. The method used factors for commodity 42, "commodity unknown," as detailed in FAF3 Freight Traffic Analysis, Appendix B (Battelle, 2011c). Table 54 shows the conversion factors used.

Table 54 Equivalent Loaded Trucks

Truck Type SU TT CS DBL TPT

Auto
0 0 0 0 0

Livestock
0 0 0 0 0

Bulk
0.00215 0 0 0 0

Flatbed
0.01208 0.00708
0.0015 0 0

Tank
0.02291 0.05154 0.03183
0 0

Day Van 0.00117 0.00145 0.00323
0 0

Reefer
0 0 0 0 0

Logging
0 0 0 0 0

Other
0.00181 0 0 0 0

The previous conversion does not account for empty trucks. Empty trucks move from one place to another without a cargo load for reasons that may include staging to pick up a load elsewhere. Empty trucks can be expressed as a fraction of other truck traffic. Table 55 gives the empty truck factors to be used depending on the shipping type as provided by FAF3 Freight Traffic Analysis.

Table 55 Empty Truck Factors

Body Type
Dry Van Flat Bed Bulk Reefer Tank Logging Livestock Automobile Other
Dry Van Flat Bed Bulk Reefer Tank Logging Livestock Automobile Other

Empty Truck Factors

Single

Truck

Combination

Unit

Trailer

Semitrailer

Domestic and Sea-Port Shipping

0.00

0.00

0.14

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.21

0.14

0.20

0.14

0.16

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.20

0.12

0.07

0.10

0.10

0.08

0.09

0.24

0.21

0.20

0.10

0.06

0.25

Land Border Shipping

0.00

0.00

0.28

0.00

0.00

0.40

0.42

0.28

0.40

0.28

0.32

0.32

0.34

0.36

0.40

0.24

0.14

0.20

0.20

0.16

0.18

0.48

0.42

0.40

0.20

0.12

0.50

Combination Double
0.00 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.00
0.00 0.32 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.00

Combination Triple
0.00 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

158

Section VI: Impacts of Panama Canal Expansion
The empty truck factors are applied for each county in the freight-shed to obtain the total portrelated truck volumes. Table 56 displays total daily truck volumes moving out of the different ports. The road network around Savannah and New Orleans will face most of the impact due to expansion.

Table 56 Total Daily Truck Volumes From Ports Under Different Scenarios

Port New Orleans Norfolk Savannah

2040 1.0 6,953 2,667 5,530

2040 - 1.3 8,517 3,066 6,608

2040 - 1.6 10,081 3,466 7,687

2040 2.0 12,167 4,000 9,124

Link Volumes on Truck Corridors
In the previous section, the destination volumes of freight in trucks have been estimated. Using the Georgia Department of Transportation Statewide Travel Demand Model as a base, the research team allocated each scenario's truck volume onto the state's road network. The loaded road network indicates some roadway effects related to the canal expansion. The maps are shown in Appendix 6. The proportion of volumes on different links for each destination county volume is obtained from the representative freight-shed in Section V.

Conclusion
This section's primary contribution is to calculate the number of additional trucks that will travel from each of the three ports to destination counties under the four Panama Canal expansion impact scenarios. Section VII uses the county tables to estimate the canal's economic impact on each county.
The analysis also allows for several other findings. The Port of New Orleans is the busiest of the three ports and is also most likely to face capacity constraints related to the canal expansion. The capacity constraint could present other ports in the same region with the opportunity to divert vessels to their own facilities. By contrast, port deepening and expansion in Norfolk and Savannah will allow the ports to accommodate new vessel types and ease port congestion.

159

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
SECTION VII. REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Conceptual Framework
Cargo movement's economic and social impacts are greatest in origin and destination counties where cargo is loaded, offloaded, transferred, processed, and sold. Increasing cargo throughput in ocean ports will cause ripple effects on destination counties through the economic activity that freight responds to and induces. Elected officials, residents, and business owners may wish to understand how cargo growth at the Port of Savannah will affect the rest of Georgia's counties. This section models cargo's local economic benefits in destination counties with input-output models that capture cargo effects on local economic activity and crosssectorial economic multipliers. The models respond to multiple scenarios of canal expansion effects and economic growth.
160

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Methodology of Estimating the Economic Impact of Increase in Truck Volume due to Panama Expansion
The economic impact of increased supply of commodities related to the Panama Canal expansion can be quantified with several related datasets. The methodology developed for this estimation is illustrated in Figure 82. The economic impact builds upon previously estimated truck and commodity movement from the Port of Savannah to all the counties in Georgia; described in the previous section. This section accounts for only positive economic benefits which are expected due to the Panama Canal expansion, not accounting for negative impacts of increased congestion, potential crashes, and pollution.
Figure 82: Flow Chart of Estimating the Economic Impact of the Panama Canal Expansion on Georgia
Step 1: Extracting the Dollar Value of Commodities Demanded by Georgia Counties from IMPLAN Models
161

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Section VI provided an estimate of total tonnage transported from the Port of Savannah to each county in Georgia, and the expected growth in tonnage under various scenarios as a result of the Panama Canal expansion. Estimating the economic impact of this change in tonnage flow requires disaggregation of the data in commodity-specific port-to-county components. To perform the disaggregation, detailed data on county-level commodity demand from IMPLAN was used to conduct the analysis (IMPLAN Group, 2013). The IMPLAN database is built on an input-output dollar flow table, which accounts for all dollar flows between industrial sectors of the economy at a specified geographic level. In this study, IMPLAN models of commodity demand were developed for all Georgia counties.
Step 2: Matching the IMPLAN Commodity Code with the Three-digit NAICS Code The IMPLAN model results provided the total dollar value of demand for 440 commodity types imported into each of the 159 counties in Georgia in 2010. To simplify the estimation of economic impacts of the 440 commodities, the dataset was aggregated to 80 commodities that correspond with the Census Bureau's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) three-digit codes. The process also made the resulting commodity flow data consistent with other analysis in the rest of this study.
Step 3: Matching the Commodities Tonnage with Dollar Values The output from the IMPLAN models is measured in commodity dollar value, thus it was necessary to convert the estimated total commodity tonnage transported to each county, estimated in Section VI, into dollar values to be consistent with the IMPLAN output. The 80 three-digit NIACS-based commodity flows to each Georgia county were reduced to just 26 commodities that are exclusively transported by truck. The dollar value of the 26 types of commodities for which there is demand in each of the 159 Georgia counties was transformed into tonnage based on 2010 commodity price data. Then, the demand for each of the 26 commodities carried by truck to each county was derived to estimate the specific composition of each county's incoming freight from the Port of Savannah. Next, the total commodity tonnage transported to each county by truck was multiplied by the commodity shares to produce countyspecific commodity tonnage for each of the 26 commodities. Commodity tonnage was then converted to dollar values, to derive the monetary value of the 26 commodity types for which there is demand in each of Georgia's 159 counties
Step 4: Estimating the Dollar Value of Commodities Going into the Georgia Counties from the Port of Savannah for Different Scenarios
It was assumed that each commodity's demand distribution at the county-level remains constant over the forecast period. The base state is the freight distribution in 2010, scaled to 2013 values. To restate from Section VI, Scenario 1 represents the projected change in commodity demand in 2040 without the Panama Canal expansion. Scenario 2 through Scenario 4 represent three projected 2040 conditions assuming the Panama Canal expansion will bring about little, moderate, and high demand for commodities and truck flows, respectively. The difference between each of the four scenarios in year 2040 and the base state is the difference in dollar values of the 26 commodity types flowing the counties by truck.
162

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis Step 5: Estimating the Economic Impact of Increased Commodities Going into the Georgia Counties due to the Panama Expansion The last step is to estimate the economic impact of the Panama Canal expansion on each of Georgia's counties by applying commodity-specific economic multipliers from IMPLAN. Economic multipliers measure the total production requirements in the study area for every unit of production that serves final demand (IMPLAN Group, 2013). This study applies multipliers for output, value added, and employment in each Georgia county by applying each of the three sets of multipliers to the dollar value of the 26 commodity types from Step 4. The final result not only estimates the county-level economic impact in terms of output, value added, and employment, but also provides an estimate of the total economic impact for each county and the value projected to result directly from the Panama Canal expansion.
163

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Economic Impact Analysis Results
County Economic Impact of Output and Value Added Economic impact in terms of changes to economic output represents the value of industry production, given the dollar values of specific commodities imported into each county. A change in value added is the difference between an industry's or an establishment's total output and the cost of its intermediate input, which consists of employee compensation, taxes on production and imports less subsidies, and gross operating surplus (IMPLAN Group, 2013). The sum of output and value added effects is a measure of the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts brought about by an increase in imports of commodities, stemming from an increase in demand due to the Panama Canal expansion. Figure 83 shows the output and value added county-level economic impacts of commodity flows, for 2013 and the four 2040 growth scenarios. The analysis shows that under Scenario 1, which is the "no build" scenario for 2040, the growth in commodity movement from the Port of Savannah to each county by truck and resulting economic impact will almost double from the 2013 baseline. Scenarios 2 through 4 show that as the total commodity volume imported through the Port of Savannah increases, economic impacts will be significant for counties adjacent to the port, such as Chatham, Glynn, and Liberty and for the economies of the counties in the Atlanta metropolitan area, such as Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, and DeKalb. Each of these counties could benefit in excess of billion dollars annually by 2040.
164

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Figure 83: Economic Impact of Output and Value Added by County for the Base State in 2013 and Four Scenarios in 2040
Table 57 lists the 25 counties that will experience the most significant economic impact in terms of output and value added due to increasing imports through the Port of Savannah and Figure 84 maps out those counties under Scenario 2. The table illustrates the potentially high level of impact at the county-level, an expansion of the canal could induce. Statewide, the annual economic impact of imports by 2040 is estimated to be approximately $35 billion assuming in Scenario 2 that the canal expansion has a minimal impact. The economy grows substantially assuming either a moderate or high impact with an approximate total economic impact of $44 billion and $57 billion respectively.

The counties in Georgia that will benefit the most from a Panama Canal expansion are concentrated around Atlanta and the Port of Savannah. If the canal expansion's impact is minimal, seven Georgia counties will experience an economic impact greater than a billion dollars. Under the high-impact scenario, that number increases to ten counties.

Table 57: Top 25 County in Terms of Output and Value Added From Panama Canal Expansion

County Economic Impact (Output + Value Added) from Panama Canal Expansion (In Million) - Top 25

Rank County

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

Growth of Scenario4

State Total

1

Fulton

$21,071 $4,570

$26,440 $5,734

$35,705 $7,744

$44,967 $9,753

$57,320 $12,432

165

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

County Economic Impact (Output + Value Added) from Panama Canal Expansion (In Million) - Top 25

Rank County

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

Growth of Scenario4

2

Gwinnett

$4,032

$5,059

$6,832

$8,604

$10,967

3

Chatham

$3,641

$4,569

$6,170

$7,771

$9,906

4

Troup

5

Cobb

$1,389 $1,062

$1,743 $1,332

$2,353 $1,799

$2,964 $2,265

$3,778 $2,888

6

DeKalb

$1,050

$1,318

$1,779

$2,241

$2,856

7

Whitfield

$648

$812

$1,097

$1,382

$1,761

8

Bartow

$518

$650

$877

$1,105

$1,408

9

Glynn

$479

$600

$811

$1,021

$1,302

10 Floyd

$383

$481

$649

$818

$1,042

11 Hall

$269

$338

$456

$575

$733

12 Richmond

$254

$319

$431

$543

$692

13 Henry

$246

$308

$416

$524

$668

14 Gordon

$207

$259

$350

$441

$562

15 Muscogee

$203

$255

$344

$433

$552

16 Liberty 17 Bibb

$176 $162

$221 $203

$298 $275

$376 $346

$479 $441

18 Clayton

$121

$152

$205

$259

$330

19 Fayette

$120

$151

$204

$257

$327

20 Coweta

$118

$148

$200

$252

$322

21 Dougherty

$104

$130

$176

$222

$283

22 Clarke

$101

$126

$171

$215

$274

23 Douglas

$76

$95

$129

$162

$207

24 Spalding

$75

$94

$127

$160

$204

25 Lowndes

$62

$77

$104

$131

$167

166

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Figure 84: Top 25 Counties of Output and Value Added in Scenario 2
Table 58 lists the top 10 industry sectors that will experience the greatest economic impact in terms of the sum of output and value added as a result of the Panama Canal expansion. As shown in the table, the top 10 industrial sectors benefiting from an expansion are primarily associated with farming, forestry, food, and textiles.

Table 58: Top 10 Most Impacted Industry Sectors by Output and Value Added

Top 10 Industry Sectors Impacted by Output and Value Added (In Million)

Rank Industry Sector

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

1

Crop Farming

$2,688

$3,373

$4,555

$5,736

2

Livestock

3

Forestry & Logging

$2,183 $2,092

$2,740 $2,626

$3,700 $3,546

$4,659 $4,465

4

Ag & Forestry Svcs

$1,967

$2,468

$3,333

$4,198

5

Mining

$1,965

$2,466

$3,330

$4,194

6

Food products

$1,886

$2,367

$3,196

$4,025

Growth of Scenario4
$7,312 $5,939 $5,692 $5,352 $5,346 $5,131

167

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Top 10 Industry Sectors Impacted by Output and Value Added (In Million)

Rank Industry Sector

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

7

Beverage & Tobacco

$1,476

$1,853

$2,502

$3,151

8

Textile Mills

$1,434

$1,799

$2,429

$3,060

9

Textile Products

$961

$1,206

$1,628

$2,051

10 Leather & Allied

$785

$985

$1,331

$1,676

Growth of Scenario4
$4,016 $3,900 $2,614 $2,136

Table 59 lists the top five counties in Georgia in terms of their growth in output and value added due to Panama Canal expansion and the corresponding top five industrial sectors that will be most impacted. While the commodity specific impacts to each county are unique, there are similarities in commodity-based impacts among the counties. Food products, chemical manufacturing, miscellaneous manufacturing, computers and other electronics, publishing industries, and petroleum and coal products are among the sectors that will have the greatest economic impact for the top-five. Among these six major sectors, only food products are among the top 10 industry sectors statewide.

Table 59: Top 5 Counties and Their Top 5 Industry Sectors in Terms of Output and Value Added

Output + Value Added (In Millions)

Rank

County

Top 5 Industry Sectors

2013

Growth of Scenario 1

Growth of Scenario 2

Growth of Scenario 3

1 Food products

$721

2

Petroleum & coal prod

$623

1

Fulton

3

Computer & oth electron

$504

4

Chemical Manufacturing

$467

5 Miscellaneous mfg $422

1

Chemical Manufacturing

$553

2 Food products

$528

2

Gwinnett

3

Computer & oth electron

$496

4 Miscellaneous mfg $397

5

Publishing industries

1

Transportation eqpmt

$355 $858

2 Food products

$481

3

Chatham

3

Petroleum & coal prod

4

Publishing industries

$453 $353

5 Miscellaneous mfg $315

4

Troup

1

Transportation eqpmt

$197

$904 $782 $632 $586 $529 $694 $663 $622 $498 $446 $1,077 $603 $569 $442 $395 $248

$1,221 $1,056
$854 $792 $715 $938 $895 $840 $673 $602 $1,454 $815 $768 $597 $533 $334

$1,538 $1,330 $1,076
$997 $900 $1,181 $1,128 $1,058 $848 $758 $1,832 $1,026 $967 $752 $672 $421

Growth of Scenario 4
$1,961 $1,696
$1,371
$1,271 $1,148 $1,505 $1,437 $1,349 $1,081
$966
$2,335 $1,308 $1,233
$959 $856 $537

168

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Rank 5

County Cobb

Top 5 Industry Sectors

2

Publishing industries

3 Textile Products

4

Petroleum & coal prod

5 Food products

1 Food products

2

Chemical Manufacturing

3 Miscellaneous mfg

4

Publishing industries

5 Textile Products

2013
$197 $191 $134 $116 $168 $129 $107
$93 $90

Output + Value Added (In Millions)
Growth of Growth of Growth of Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

$247 $239 $169 $146 $211 $162 $134 $117 $113

$333 $323 $228 $197 $285 $219 $181 $158 $152

$420 $407 $287 $248 $359 $276 $227 $199 $191

Growth of Scenario 4
$535 $519 $365 $316 $182 $253 $244 $233 $458

County Economic Impact of Employment

In addition to output and value added impacts, another important measure of economic impact is employment growth. As Table 60 shows, if the Panama Canal expansion did not occur, Georgia would still gain about 10 thousand net jobs related directly to the 26 truck-shipped commodities by 2040. However, the Panama Canal expansion is expected to spur the creation of over 26 thousand new jobs by 2040 with just a minimal impact. Moreover, under the moderate and high impact scenarios an additional 43 thousand and 66 thousand more jobs are estimated in 2040, respectively. The top 25 counties in terms of job growth are around the port and in the metro Atlanta area, as shown in Figure 85.

Table 60: Top 25 County in Terms of Increase in Employment From Panama Canal Expansion

Rank
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

County Economic Impact (Employment) from Panama Canal Expansion - Top 25

County

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

State Total Gwinnett Fulton Chatham Troup DeKalb Cobb Whitfield Liberty Floyd Glynn Bartow

38,556 7,249 7,159 5,314 4,080 2,378 1,657 1,173 980 814 765 670

9,823 1,847 1,824 1,354 1,040
606 422 299 250 207 195 171

26,777 5,034 4,972 3,691 2,834 1,651 1,151 815 681 566 532 465

43,725 8,220 8,118 6,027 4,627 2,696 1,879 1,330 1,112 923 868 760

169

Growth of Scenario4
66,328 12,470 12,315
9,142 7,020 4,090 2,850 2,018 1,686 1,401 1,317 1,152

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Rank
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

County Economic Impact (Employment) from Panama Canal Expansion - Top 25

County

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

Richmond Gordon Hall Bibb Henry Coweta Muscogee Fayette Clarke Dougherty Clayton Effingham Laurens Bryan

570

145

396

646

508

129

353

576

455

116

316

516

386

98

268

438

382

97

265

433

292

74

203

331

274

70

191

311

193

49

134

219

186

47

129

211

171

44

119

194

164

42

114

186

155

40

108

176

154

39

107

174

134

34

93

151

Growth of Scenario4
980 874 783 665 657 502 472 331 320 294 282 267 264 230

170

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Figure 85: Top 25 Counties of Growth of Employment in Scenario 2
Table 61 provides a list of the top 10 industrial sectors that will bring about the greatest net employment growth. Industrial sectors related to farming, forestry, food, and textile will also see job increases. Moreover, other industries like publishing, miscellaneous manufacturing, and furniture production--industries that are heavily reliant on commodities and labor--are likely to generate the most new employment.

Table 61: Top 10 Most Impacted Industry Sectors by Employment

Top 10 Industry Sectors Impacted by Employment

Rank Description

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

Growth of Scenario4

1 Publishing industries 2 Textile Products 3 Miscellaneous mfg

5,290 4,818 4,241

1,348 1,228 1,080

3,674 3,346 2,945

5,999 5,464 4,809

9,100 8,289 7,295

171

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Top 10 Industry Sectors Impacted by Employment

Rank Description

Base 2013

Growth of Scenario1

Growth of Scenario2

Growth of Scenario3

4 Ag & Forestry Svcs 5 Crop Farming 6 Transportation eqpmt 7 Livestock

8

Furniture & related prod

9 Food products

10

Computer & oth electron

3,410 3,076 2,478 2,291
2,230
2,049
1,867

869

2,368

3,867

784

2,136

3,488

631

1,721

2,810

584

1,591

2,598

568

1,549

2,529

522

1,423

2,324

476

1,297

2,118

Growth of Scenario4
5,866 5,292 4,262 3,941
3,836
3,526
3,212

Table 62 lists the top five counties in terms of employment growth due to the Panama Canal expansion along with each of their five most impacted industrial sectors. The five counties are almost the same five counties in terms of economic impact of output and value added shown in Table 59, except that DeKalb is now among the top five instead of Cobb. The five counties also share great similarity among their top five industry sectors. Miscellaneous manufacturing, textile products, publishing industries tend to be the sectors that will be impacted most by the canal expansion. These three industrial sectors are also the top three most impacted industrial sectors statewide.
Table 62: Top 5 Counties and their Top 5 Industry Sectors in Terms of Employment

Rank County Top 5 Industry Sectors

Employment

2013

Growth of Scenario 1

Growth of Scenario 2

Growth of Scenario 3

Growth of Scenario 4

1 Miscellaneous mfg 1,094

279

2

Publishing industries

914

233

1

Gwinnett

3

Computer & oth electron

908

231

4 Textile Products

786

200

5

Furniture & related prod

782

199

1 Miscellaneous mfg 1,019

260

2

Publishing industries

818

208

2

Fulton 3 Food products

760

194

4

Computer & oth electron

702

179

5 Textile Products

664

169

172

760

1,240

635

1,036

631

1,030

546

891

543

886

708

1,156

568

927

528

861

487

796

461

753

1,882 1,572 1,562 1,352 1,345 1,753 1,407 1,307 1,207 1,142

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Employment

Rank County Top 5 Industry Sectors

1

Transportation eqpmt

2

Publishing industries

3

Chatham 3 Miscellaneous mfg

2013

Growth of Scenario 1

Growth of Scenario 2

Growth of Scenario 3

1,240

316

984

251

854

218

861

1,407

684

1,116

593

969

4 Textile Products

793

202

551

899

5 Food products

350

89

243

397

1 Ag & Forestry Svcs 1,782

454

1,237

2,020

2 Textile Products

542

138

376

614

4

Troup

3 Livestock

4

Publishing industries

5 Crop Farming

426

109

296

483

346

88

240

392

342

87

238

388

1 Livestock

498

127

346

564

2 Miscellaneous mfg

347

5

DeKalb

3

Publishing industries

337

4 Textile Products

307

5

Furniture & related prod

154

89

241

394

86

234

383

78

213

348

39

107

174

Growth of Scenario 4
2,134 1,694 1,470 1,364
602 3,065
932 733 595 589 856 598 580 528 264

Impact of Commodity Movement on the Major Truck Corridors in Georgia
The Panama Canal expansion will have a significant impact on the state's transportation network, particularly along major truck routes. Figure 86 shows how the daily volume of commodities carried by truck on different roads will increase under each of the growth scenarios. A large proportion of the major routes will gain more than 100 thousand tons of commodities daily, even under minimal impact scenarios.

173

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Figure 86: Daily Route Volume of Commodities Transported by Truck due to the Impact of Panama Canal Expansion
Figure 87 shows the major truck corridors statewide by their shares of commodity tonnage. The commodities considered here originate from the Port of Savannah, and freight is assigned to each road segment such that commodity volumes decrease as distance from the port increases. Decreasing commodity volumes represent trucks that have reached their destination. The four major truck routes originating from the Port of Savannah are: 1) Interstate 16 to the Atlanta metropolitan area; 2) State Route 21 to the City of Augusta; 3) Interstate 95 and US Route 17 to Brunswick; and 4) US Route 17 (US Route 82) and US Route 84 to a series of mid-sized cities, including Jesup, Waycross, Valdosta, and Thomasville.
174

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Figure 87: Important Truck Routes in Georgia by Their Shares of Tonnage of Commodities
There is a clear relationship between economic benefits in each county and the major freight routes that pass through the county. Figure 88 identifies the major trucking routes from the Port
175

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
of Savannah and the counties that are traversed by the route. These major facilities include route that go to Atlanta, Augusta, Brunswick, and Thomasville. These cities are situated in counties that are among those that are estimated to be the most economically impacted by the Panama Canal expansion.

Figure 88: Map of the Counties Covered by the Three Major Truck Corridors by Economic Impact

Table 63 summarizes the economic impact of output and value added of the counties traversed by the four major truck routes. The counties covered by the routes to Atlanta make up a large portion of Georgia's total economic impact. The counties covered by the other three corridors are likewise substantially impacted economically.

Table 63: Counties Covered by the Three Major Truck Corridors by Economic Impact

Major Truck Corridors from Savannah
To Atlanta To Augusta To Brunswick

Number of
Counties Traverse
d
34
5
5

Output + Value Added
2013 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added -
S1 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added -
S2 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added
S3 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added
- S4 (In Millions)

13,380 310 760

16,789 388 953

22,673 524
1,287

28,554 660
1,621

36,398 842
2,066

176

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis

Major Truck Corridors from Savannah
To Thomasville

Number of
Counties Traverse
d
15

Output + Value Added
2013 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added -
S1 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added -
S2 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added
S3 (In Millions)

Output + Value Added
- S4 (In Millions)

341

428

578

728

928

State Total

159

21,071

26,440

35,705

44,967

57,320

Figure 89 compares the major truck corridors designated in the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistic Plan to those identified in this study as important truck routes from the Port of Savannah under the scenarios for year 2040 (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013b). The routes that are completely green are important truck routes estimated to carry at least an additional 10,000 tons of daily commodities due the canal expansion (under Scenario 2, which is the minimal impact scenario) but are not included in the statewide plan. The truck route from the Port of Savannah to Augusta following State Route 21 and US Route 25, carries 2% of all commodities whose trip origin is at the port. The two routes likely carry substantially more portrelated cargo when commodities that were first processed in distribution centers nearby the port are added, which could not be estimated from the GPS data. However, neither State Route 21 nor US Route 25 are included among the major truck corridors included in the Statewide Freight and Logistic Plan. Another important corridor missing from the plan is US Route 341 and US Route 23, which links Brunswick, Jesup, Baxley, and McRae in the southeastern part of the state. Although its volume compared with other state freight corridors is relatively small, US Route 341 and US Route 23 combine with US Route 319 to provide the primary transportation links into the Brunswick McRae corridor. US Route 341 and US Route 23 carrying 0.2% commodities coming directly from the Port of Savannah by truck and likely significantly more when commodities from the port that are processed in Chatham County warehouses are included. The truck corridors that play important role in local economic development and opportunity that may merit additional state and local attention and investment.

177

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Figure 89: Comparison Between the Most Impacted Truck Corridors and the Major Truck Corridors Designated by the Statewide Plan
Figure 90 shows the interstate highways in Georgia by their share of the growth in commodities transported by truck from the Port of Savannah due to the Panama Canal expansion. The highway around the port itself will take on large proportions of the commodity increases, including I-516 and I-95. Statewide, the route that includes I-16 and I-475 linking the port to the Atlanta metropolitan area is projected to carry a substantially increased portion of commodities.
178

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Figure 90: Interstate Truck Routes in Georgia by Their Shares of Tonnage of Commodities
Figure 91 shows the interstates in Georgia that are designated by the Federal Highway Administration to be part of the new national Primary Freight Network which is a draft version (Federal Highway Administration, 2014). The figure shows each interstate's share of the increase in commodities transported from the Port of Savannah due to the canal expansion. All of the interstates that are projected to experience a significant increase in commodity movement from the Port of Savannah have been designated as components of the Primary Freight Network.
179

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis
Figure 91: Primary Freight Network by the Shares of Tonnage of Commodities from the Port of Savannah
The Panama Canal expansion is likely to increase commodity movement through the Port of Savannah, which has the potential to cause social benefits through its positive economic impact on Georgia counties. This section incorporates projected commodity movements for four different year 2040 scenarios and the input-output economic modeling techniques to estimate the economic impact derived from the increased commodity movements due the canal expansion. The industry sectors that will be most significantly affected in terms of output and value added are associated with farming, forestry, food product, and textiles, which are important compositions of the economic base of the state of Georgia. The industry sectors that will see the greatest employment increase due the canal expansion include publishing, textile, miscellaneous manufacturing, and computer and other electronics, which are more laborintense and are already quickly growing in Georgia. Well-functioning roadways will help the state accommodate the between $21 billion and $57 billion dollars and between 38 thousand and 66 thousand jobs in canal-related economic windfall that is projected through 2040. The county-level economic analysis reveals that the dollar and employment impact concentrates in the counties adjacent to the Port of Savannah and in metropolitan Atlanta. Nonetheless, it is important that the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan also accommodate small routes and rural areas' port connectivity and economic opportunity. Georgia's Freight Corridor Network prepare the state well to accommodate the port-related truck movements that are expended to significantly grow through 2040. The route-level analysis identifies the four major truck corridors from the Port of Savannah, three of which are already
180

Section VII: Regional Economic Impacts Analysis designated freight corridors. The four major truck routes will account for over half of the total economic impact brought by the canal expansion. However, the analysis also identified two additional corridors that may merit statewide attention between Savannah and Augusta, and between Brunswick and McRae because they carry a relatively high percentage of direct port traffic, larger percentage of secondary port traffic, and are the primary transportation links for their respective region to the port. In each case, a statewide approach is important to address state, county, and local action to address transportation needs. Transportation infrastructure that relates to the Port of Savannah is particularly important to avoid forming bottlenecks of the potential economic growth.
181

Section VIII: Conclusion
Section VIII: CONCLUSION
Review of Research Question and Methodology
Global supply chains are changing in ways that will influence port operations along America's East Coast and Gulf Coast. Global trade and national economies are recovering after the declines of the global economic downturn, shipyards are filling orders for a new generation of outsized cargo ships, and the Panama Canal is nearing completion of its first new locks since the canal's opening a century ago. These trends are likely to increase the size of vessels calling on East and Gulf Coast ports and their total demand for cargo throughput. While many ports are making significant infrastructure investments in response to the forecasted demand, much less attention has been paid to the road network that accommodates a large portion of inland cargo movement.
As cargo volumes grow, changes in transportation costs and conditions pose a risk to quality of life. Traffic congestion could force freight onto relatively inefficient routes. Overcrowding and insufficient driver rest areas could increase the number of avoidable accidents. This study analyzed the challenges posed by the changing freight environment to answer three primary questions.
1. How much will the demand for cargo throughput increase at selected ports due to economic growth and the Panama Canal expansion?
2. On what roads may level of service degrade as a result of an increase port-related truck based freight movement?
3. What is the potential economic benefit to each of the 159 Georgia counties from the Panama Canal expansion?
This report addressed the three primary research questions and supporting secondary questions through a series of approaches that incorporated a vast amount of data analyzed with a variety of techniques. The analysis includes a literature review on the current impacts of the Panama Canal, a review of techniques used to conduct economic impact analysis, and a broad examination of truck safety issues. A thorough review was conducted of existing ocean shipping, port operations, and truck movement conditions.
Disaggregate truck movement data derived from GPS units installed in trucks was used to capture truck movement patterns from the three study ports at different times of the year. This aided in projecting Panama Canal-related growth around each of the three port's expanding freight sheds. The data were used to estimate changes in trucking activity on each roadway, to measure increases in corridor specific traffic congestion, and to identify potential bottlenecks. Finally, using the information gathered on changes in port-related goods movement and truck activity, economic impact forecasts were developed for each Georgia county based on the projected freight growth under different scenarios.
The research team drew the following major findings from its analysis.
182

Section VIII: Conclusion
Shipping Volumes
Finding 1: Cargo throughput at any individual port depends on a myriad of local, national, and global factors.
There is a variety of factors that influence cargo shipping volumes at individual ports. Many of the factors depend on policies and non-transparent decision making processes. This makes it difficult if not altogether impossible to predict a port's absolute change in cargo throughput with complete accuracy. A thorough review of the literature helped to identify many factors that influence cargo shipping volumes at ports, including--
Port infrastructure improvements and deepening. The baseline analysis identified ports in Norfolk, Baltimore, Miami, and New York / New Jersey as having completed or in a stage approaching completion of port expansion projects. Dredging to deepen the port in Savannah is currently underway. Many other ports are in the early planning stages to accommodate post-Panamax ships.
Future energy costs. The attractiveness of off-shore production compared with domestic production depends on transportation and labor costs. Higher energy prices could favor domestic production. Moreover, high energy costs favor the Panama Canal route for shipments between East Asia and the eastern U.S. compared with the faster but more expensive intermodal route. East and Gulf Coast ports benefit under energy prices that are high enough to favor trans-Panama shipment without stifling global trade.
Relative labor costs in different parts of the world. Rising labor costs in Northeast Asia--notably China--have spurred some companies to shift production to lower-cost locations, typically in Southeast Asia, South Asia, or Latin America. Production relocation reconfigure corresponding supply chains.
Trade barriers. Tariffs and regulatory trade barriers have fallen in recent decades. A reversal of the trend could hold back global trade.
Panama Canal transit fees. The attraction of the Panama Canal route compared with the intermodal route is based on differential costs. Water remains an economical transportation method, making an all water route cheaper and slower than a route using water and land transportation. The water route's continued price competitiveness depends on the Panama Canal Authority keeping fees reasonable.
Ocean carrier reconfiguration. Ocean carriers allocate their ships to maximize profitability. At intervals, changing conditions force ocean carriers to make revolutionary changes to their shipping routes to rationalize their operations. While predicted revolutions have not yet occurred, conditions in the shipping industry may prompt ocean carriers to change their route configuration differently than most forecasts have assumed.
West Coast ports' reaction. Some West Coast ports have taken steps to improve service and hold onto traffic that could otherwise divert through the canal. Simultaneously, ports in Mexico's and Canada's west coast are offering rail connections to eastern U.S. destinations. The ability of ports, truckers, and railroads to retain customers remains undetermined.
Freight forecasts must necessarily use ranges to account for uncertainties. The research team created four different scenarios that implicitly account for uncertainties in the canal's ability to divert traffic. The assumption is made that the remaining uncertainties are constant.
183

Section VIII: Conclusion
Truck Volumes
Finding 1: Several scenarios of freight demand show the Panama Canal expansion will likely have a significant impact on truck traffic.
The amount of freight traffic diverted from West Coast ports by the Panama Canal expansion will have a significant impact on truck traffic from the three ports analyzed in the report. To better understand the potential impacts of such a diversion, three freight demand scenarios were developed to model freight-shed impacts. A low-impact scenario forecasts a truck volume increase of 15% at Norfolk, 19% at Savannah, and 22% at New Orleans. A high-impact scenario forecasts an increase in truck traffic from the Port of Norfolk of up to 50%, 65% at the Port of Savannah, and 75% at the Port of New Orleans; compared to a scenario where the Panama Canal expansion does not occur. Under the full range of scenarios, the Panama Canal will have a significant impact on the demand for truck-based freight, which will increase the traffic volume on many freight corridors.
Finding 2: Rail will be most competitive with trucks on corridors with a high levels of congestion.
Intermodal rail shipping may be a viable strategy to mitigate forecasted congestion. There are several roadways around ports that already experience high volume-to-capacity ratios (congestion) that are forecasted to have substantial port-related traffic growth through 2040. The following identifies the major freight corridors for each of the three ports examined in this report.
Port of Savannah o I-95 north and south from Savannah, GA o I-75 between Macon, GA and Knoxville, TN o Atlanta-area interstates o I-26 between I-95 and Spartanburg, SC
Port of Norfolk o I-64 between Norfolk and Richmond, VA o I-95 between Richmond, VA and Philadelphia, PA o I-95 south of Virginia North Carolina border o Interstates and state roads in the area of Washington DC and Baltimore
Port of New Orleans o Interstates around New Orleans, LA o I-10 west to Houston, TX (moderately severe) and east to Pensacola, FL (very severe) o I-55 between Brookhaven and Jackson, MS o I-20 east of Meridian, MS o Interstates around Houston
Rail may be particularly important at the Port of New Orleans for several reasons. First, GPS truck data shows that congestion in the New Orleans area is already hindering truck movement compared with Norfolk and Savannah. Moreover, New Orleans is home to six class I railroads, compared with just two in both Savannah and Norfolk. Finally, New Orleans' commodity mix
184

Section VIII: Conclusion favors bulk cargo. Bulk cargo often has a lower value by weight than containerized cargo, meaning that transportation cost is more important relative to transportation speed compared with higher value-per-weight goods. Rail likely still has a major role to play in moving containers from Savannah and Norfolk, as evidenced by the construction of an inland port linked with the Norfolk area in Front Royal Virginia and the decision to build an inland port in Cordele, GA with a direct Savannah rail link.
Bottlenecks
Finding 1: Highways around the Savannah port are better prepared for canalrelated growth than either Norfolk or New Orleans.
The Federal FAF3 forecast for the Savannah area show a lower daily truck-miles-to-roadwaycapacity ratio than Norfolk or New Orleans. The FAF3 forecast shows the Savannah port area will have a ratio of truck VMT to centerline roadway miles of about 3,315. Compared to a ratio 3,514 in New Orleans and 3,851 in Norfolk, Savannah has significantly more existing centerline capacity to accommodate expect growth. This places Savannah in a better position to address port-related congestion.
Finding 2: Bottlenecks exist around all three ports with increased levels of congestion expected.
The worst bottlenecks for the Port of Savannah are located around the metropolitan areas that major truck corridors pass through. Norfolk's worst bottlenecks occur on bridges and in tunnels around the port, as well as nearby urban areas. The worst congestion for New Orleans occurs directly around the port, which affects all trucking routes.
Georgia experiences the worst congestion around metro Atlanta. However, by 2040, Atlanta area congestion is forecasted to be much more severe, and congestion will spread to rural truck routes, including I-20, the length of I-75, I-95, and several state routes (Figure 92). According to the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan, key future congested interstate corridors include: I-85 north of Atlanta, I-85 south of Atlanta, I-75 between Atlanta and Macon, I-75 between Atlanta and Tennessee, I-20 outside of the Atlanta metropolitan region, a few segments of I-95 in the Savannah metropolitan region. Capacity will have to increase throughout Georgia to accommodate port-related truck growth. Figure 92 shows the likely bottlenecks in Georgia using not only FAF3 but also the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan where a robust statewide analysis was conducted.
185

Section VIII: Conclusion
Figure 92: 2040 Congestion in Georgia
186

Section VIII: Conclusion Finding 3: Most major Georgia freight routes are currently designated freight
corridors; others may need to be added. Most of the primary freight routes from the Port of Savannah are already designated freight routes by the Georgia Department of Transportation (see Figure 93). The most notable exception is US Route 25 corridor between Savannah and Augusta, which may merit consideration as a future state freight routes. State Route 21 carries 2% of all trucks that leave the Port of Savannah, and US Route 25 carries 1% of all trucks. Each route doubtlessly carries additional freight that is processed in warehouses near the port prior to onward movement. As for State Route 25, the Jimmy Deloach Extension project (now under construction) will provide a new route for Port-related trucks directly to/from I-95 and the Port -- alleviating much truck traffic from State Routes 21 and 25. Finally, the route is the primary connection between the Port of Savannah and the Augusta metro area, which is Georgia's second largest metropolitan area. The route is particularly important since there is no direct interstate highway connection between the two regions.
187

Section VIII: Conclusion
Figure 93: Comparison between the Most Impacted Truck Corridors and the Major Truck Corridors Designated by the Statewide Plan
188

Section VIII: Conclusion
Parking Needs and Safety

Finding 1: The availability of truck parking may be a safety concern as freight traffic grows.

When truck parking per truck VMT along each port's five main routes was examined, it revealed that New Orleans has the most spaces per mile and Norfolk the fewest. However, the New Orleans area is forecasted to experience some of the greatest canal-related growth, which may degrade its ability to adequately provide driver rest areas in its region. Table 64 below shows the average number of truck VMT per truck parking space along major corridors in each port's operating area.

Table 64: Truck Parking on Each Port's Largest Truck Routes

Port
New Orleans Norfolk Savannah

Weighted Average of Truck VMT per Truck Parking Space (5 Largest Truck Routes) 1,086 1,311 1,141

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, Freight Analysis Framework (FAF), Federal Highway Administration truck parking facility database

Finding 2: Georgia is least equipped with truck parking compared to surrounding states.

The five largest truck routes by VMT to and from the Port of Savannah (shown in Table 67), are primarily in Georgia (route 2 Routes along I-16 and I-20; and route 3 along I-16 and I-17) and have the highest ratio of truck VMT to parking space. By contrast, routes with major portions in Florida (route 1) and the Carolinas (routes 4 and
5) have a third fewer daily truck miles per parking space. This means that trucks traveling from Savannah through Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina are likely
to find parking spaces for required rest more easily than trucks traveling through Georgia. Moreover, the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan also analyzed truck parking in Georgia. When this report's analysis is combined with the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan, it suggests that Georgia's most severe parking shortages may be on I-16 between Savannah and Macon, and on I-75 between Atlanta and Macon. The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan found inadequate parking on I-16 and I-75 between Atlanta and Macon. Both interstates are part of the routes 2
and 3 (identified previously and in Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional
Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011

Table 67 below), which confirms the inadequacy of available parking.

Table 67: Truck Parking on the Port of Savannah's Largest Truck Routes

Route Number States

1

GA and FL

Route Name I-95 S to I-10 W
189

Truck Miles per Space 867

Section VIII: Conclusion

Route Number 2 3 4 5

States GA and AL GA and TN SC and NC SC and NC

Route Name I-16 W to I-20 W I-16 W to I-75 N I-95 N to I-85 N I-95 N

Truck Miles per Space 1,507 1,449 1,074 921

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, Freight Analysis Framework (FAF), Federal Highway Administration truck parking facility database
Finding 3: Each corridor in each megaregion will require additional parking to maintain the current level of service.

The high impact scenarios developed in this study show that hundreds of new truck parking spaces will be needed to accommodate truck movement related to the Panama Canal expansion. New Orleans' operating area will require the highest absolute number of new spaces to maintain current level of service. Savannah's operating area will require an intermediate number, and Norfolk's a lower number. Routes along Savannah will require new parking spaces to deal with increased freight from economic growth. The effects of Panama Canal expansion are on the order of several dozen truck spaces per freight corridor
Finding 4: Growing freight volumes may affect truck-related accident rates far from the port generating the traffic.

Interactions between trucks and passenger cars can be dangerous because of their very different operating characteristics. The growing cargo through the Port of Savannah will increase truck volumes in the Savannah area and along major corridors, including those far from the port that carry significant automotive traffic. I-285 is a truck bypass route for I-20, I-75, I-675, and I-85, and GA400. Moreover, I-285 carries significant local passenger traffic and is particularly important. The Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan found the most truck accidents around I-285, ostensibly because of the mixing of truck and car volume. Two of the port's five largest truck routes pass through I-285, which will increase port-related truck traffic accordingly.

Economic Impact

Finding 1: Primary benefactors are counties surrounding the Port of Savannah and major population centers
The moderate impact scenarios (Scenario 3) developed in this study show the Panama Canal expansion is expected to result in a $7.7 billion impact in Chatham County alone (the home county of the Port of Savannah). The canal expansion will have a major impact on metro Atlanta counties, including $9.8 billion in Fulton, $8.6 billion in Gwinnett, $2.3 billion in Cobb, and $2.2 billion in DeKalb (up from $3.6 billion, $4.0 billion, $1.1 billion, and $1.1 billion respectively in 2013). Smaller cities will also benefit from increased freight activity. Troup County in western Georgia is forecasted to experience up to $3.0 billion in canal-related activity (up from $1.4 billion in 2014), with an impact of $1.4 billion in Whitfield County and a $1.0 billion impact in

190

Section VIII: Conclusion Glynn County. The moderate impact scenario also forecasts 43,725 jobs by 2040 for the state, following a similar distribution across the counties as the economic impact. Finding 2: Panama Canal expansion will potentially have an economic impact of
over $35 billion by 2040 in Georgia. Without the Panama Canal expansion the Port of Savannah will add up to $26 billion to the state's economy by 2040. With the canal expansion, even the smallest impact will add $36 billion to the state economy (Scenario 2). A large impact (Scenario 4) will add up to $57 billion.
191

Section VIII: Conclusion
Recommendations
The Georgia Department of Transportation can undertake key actions to ensure that roadways carrying cargo to and from the Port of Savannah retain a high level of service.
I. Address Bottlenecks
1. Expand capacity on some key roadways. Major truck routes from the Port of Savannah use I-95, I-16, I-75, I-20, and I-285, sections of which are already projected to be operating above capacity by 2040. These may warrant capacity expansion. Moreover, most traffic also uses local access roads in Chatham County to reach interstate highways or local distribution centers. Through the Federally-required transportation planning process, the Georgia Department of Transportation will continue to work with the Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Commission as it works on its current MPO Freight Plan to identify freight transportation needs servicing the port and distribution centers, including State Route 21 (Augusta Road) and State Route 307 (Dean Forest Road). This should include an analysis of likely future locations of distribution centers and other freight-generating facilities.
2. Partner with other states in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion to address bottlenecks on primary port-related corridors outside the state. All of largest truck corridor serving the Savannah Port involve Georgia's adjacent states. The Georgia Department should continue its membership in those freight-focused organizations consisting of neighboring state DOTs to ensure that port-related freight can reliably reach customers, reinforcing the port's competitive position.
3. Leverage data and information technologies to optimize roadway operations. The Georgia Department of Transportation collects significant amounts of data, which have allowed it to implement advanced intelligent transportation systems (ITS). ITS in Georgia has many components, including Transportation Management Centers and statewide Transportation Control Centers, ramp meters at some highway onramps, and the Georgia-NaviGAtor 511 portal to provide information to travelers (Georgia Department of Transportation, 2013a). These and similar technologies hold promise maintaining freight flow throughout the state and should be continually developed.
II. Strengthen Coordination between Port Operators and State Department of Transportation
1. Maintain a close working relationship with the Georgia Ports Authority. The Georgia Department of Transportation has a history of working closely with the Georgia Ports Authority to share information and understand how Georgia's road and sea infrastructure affect each other. It is important to continue the relationship since the Georgia Ports Authority is directly connected with the ocean carriers who call on the Port of Savannah. These carriers' operational decisions affect the timing and amount of cargo in the ports and on the roads. A working relationship between the Georgia Department of
192

Section VIII: Conclusion Transportation and the Georgia Ports Authority should continue to convey shipping information relevant to inland travel, including total volumes, simultaneous discharge amounts, discharge frequency, and shipment configuration (e.g., bulk vs. containerized cargo).
2. Build partnerships with other state departments of transportation and port operators in megaregions to explore how cooperation can maximize megaregion attractiveness to ocean carriers. Freight crosses state lines regularly. Georgia can benefit from shipping in adjacent states and vice-versa. The state of Georgia can work with adjacent states to explore how Savannah and other ports can specialize in complementary areas of natural advantage. Specialization and coordination can make the megaregion's ports as attractive as possible to ocean carriers and avoid overinvestment which may result from pursuing the same market segments.
III. Leverage Designated Freight Corridors
1. Align freight corridors with import truck traffic. The analysis has confirmed that most major port-related routes are already State Freight Network routes. However, some routes such as US Route 25 between Savannah and Augusta are not currently State Freight Network routes. State Freight Network corridors should be reexamined in light of port traffic. Especially the routes between the Port of Savannah and the Augusta metro area, which is Georgia's second largest metropolitan area, are special interests. The routes are particularly important since there is no direct interstate highway connection between the two regions.
2. Coordinate freight corridors with surrounding states in megaregion to ensure continuity across state lines. Freight corridors normally cross multiple state boundaries. The Georgia Department of Transportation should work with other states to ensure that traffic continues to flow across state lines on state and local roads.
3. Work with local governments to align zoning with designated freight corridors. Georgia's freight corridors have the largest chance of effectively serving freight if locally controlled land uses align with freight functions. Local governments should regulate land use such that freight generators locate along freight routes and conflicting uses prefer other locations. The Georgia Department of Transportation can ensure that local land use departments are aware of the freight plan.
193

REFERENCES
Alabama Department of Transportation. (2010). Alabama Statewide Freight Study and Action Plan (Final Report). Retrieved from http://www.uahcmer.com/2010/06/01/alabamastatewide-freight-study-and-action-plan/statewide-freight-study-final-report/
American Transportation Research Institute. (2012). National Corridors Analysis and Speed Tool. Retrieved from http://atri-online.org/n-cast/
American Transportation Research Institute. (2013a). An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: A 2013 Update. Retrieved from http://atri-online.org/2013/09/04/an-analysis-ofthe-operational-costs-of-trucking-a-2013-update-report-request/
American Transportation Research Institute. (2013b). Critical Issues in the Trucking Industry: 2013.
American Trucking Associations. (2013a). American Trucking Trends 2013. Retrieved from http://www.trucking.org/itemcontent.aspx?uid=d62a253d-b830-4fa3-b069-f7f8ff5d40df
American Trucking Associations. (2013b, May 29). New Report Underscores Trucking's Essential Role in U.S. Economy. Retrieved from http://www.truckline.com/article.aspx?uid=ef9eab57-99be-410b-999d-348b21fe5687
Ashar, A. (2006). Revolution #4. Containerisation International, 4649.
Ashar, A. (2010). An expanding brief. Containerisation International, 43. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=933903
Associated Press. (2012, December 2). Governors Meet on Savannah River Port. Atlanta Journal Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/governors-meet-onsavannah-1343781.html
Association of American Railroads. (2013). Rail Intermodal Keeps America Moving. Retrieved from https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/Background-Papers/Rail-Intermodal.pdf
Baird, T., Bittner, J., Gollnik, R., & Gardner, S. (2011). Understanding the Consequences of the Panama Canal Expansion on Midwest Grain and Agricultural Exports (No. CFIRE 0318). National Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research & Education. Retrieved from http://www.wistrans.org/cfire/documents/CFIRE_03-18_Final_Report.pdf
Bank of America Merrill Lynch. (2013). Get Ready for the Big Ships. Retrieved from http://corp.bankofamerica.com/documents/10157/67594/MISC-04-132648_Fortune_Custom_Content_Panama_Canal_FINAL_051613.pdf
Battelle. (2011a). FAF3 FREIGHT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENT OF TRUCK PAYLOAD EQUIVALENCY FACTOR. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved from http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Data/Freight_Traffic_Analysis/chap3.htm
Battelle. (2011b). FAF3: Appendix A Truck Equivalency Factors. Retrieved from http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Data/Freight_Traffic_Analysis/appendixa.htm
Battelle. (2011c). FAF3: Appendix B FAF3 Commodities. Retrieved from http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Data/Freight_Traffic_Analysis/appendixa.htm
Belenky, G., Wu, L., Zaslona, J., & Hodges, J. (2012). Motorcoach Driver Fatigue Study, 2011 (Final Report No. FMCSA-RRR-12-042). Sleep and Performance Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/researchtechnology/report/Motorcoach-Driver-Fatigue-Study-2011-508.pdf

References
Berman, J. (2013, June 26). ATA unveils U.S. Freight Forecast to 2024. Logistics Management. Retrieved from http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/ata_unveils_u.s._freight_forecast_to_2024
Blanco, M., Hanowski, R. J., Olson, R. L., Morgan, J. F., Soccolich, S. A., Wu, S.-C., & Guo, F. (2011). The impact of driving, non-driving work, and rest breaks on driving performance in commercial motor vehicle operations. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1108816
Broward County Port Everglades Department. (n.d.). Fort Lauderdale Port - Official Port Everglades Site - Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.porteverglades.net/
Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2014). Regional Data - GDP and Personal Income. U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov/itable/index.cfm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005, March 30). Location Quotient Calculator. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewlq.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014, March 13). Truck Transportation: NAICS 484. Industries at a Glance. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag484.htm
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2009). Port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-Water Gateway. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/americas_freight_trans portation_gateways/2009/highlights_of_top_25_freight_gateways_by_shipment_value/p ort_of_philadelphia/index.html
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (n.d.). Economic Impact on Transportation | Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved March 13, 2014, from http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/freight_transportation/ html/transportation.html
Burnson, P. (2012, October 1). Top 30 Ocean Carriers Special Report: Sailing into the black? Retrieved from http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/top_30_ocean_carriers_special_report_sailing_into _the_black
CanagaRetna, S. (2010). The Panama Canal Expansion and SLC State Ports. Southern Legislative Conference. Retrieved from https://www.slcatlanta.org/Publications/EconDev/ports_web.pdf
Carson, J. L., Pezoldt, V. J., Koncz, N., & Obeng-Boampong, K. (2011). Benefits of Public Roadside Safety Rest Areas in Texas. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1114440
Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development. (2009). Megaregions: Delineating Existing and Emerging Megaregions (No. FHWA-BAA-HEPP-02-2007).
Chatterjee, A., & Wegmann, F. J. (2000). Overnight truck parking along Tennessee's Interstate highways and rest areas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1734(1), 6468.
ConnDOT. (2008). CT Statewide Rest Area and Service Plaza Study (Administrative Report No. 170-2533).
195

References
Copeland, L. (2011, February 10). U.S. Ports Racing to Get Ready for Bigger Ships. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-0930/ports-bigger-ships/50637090/1
Costa, R., & Rosson, P. (2012). The Impacts Of The Panama Canal Expansion On World Cotton Trade (No. 145244). Texas A&M University. Retrieved from http://www.trforum.org/forum/downloads/2012_55_Panama_Canal_Expansion_Cotton.p df
Dablanc, L., & Ross, C. (2012). Atlanta: a mega logistics center in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion (PAM). Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 432442.
Davis, R. E. (1997). Commercial driver rest and parking requirements: Making space for safety. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1595(1), 4652.
De Monie, G., Rodrigue, J.-P., & Notteboom, T. E. (2009). Economic cycles in maritime shipping and ports: The path to the crisis of 2008. In International Workshop on Integrating Maritime Transport in Value Chains, Montreal (pp. 912). Retrieved from http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/248197.pdf
Diamond State Port Corporation. (n.d.). Port of Wilmington - Our State. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.portofwilmington.com/
Drewry. (2008). US Transpacific Intermodal Today and Tomorrow (White Paper).
FAF3. (2011). Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool. Freight Analysis Framework 3. Retrieved from http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction3.aspx
Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Freight Analysis Framework 3 User Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf3/userguide/index.htm
Federal Highway Administration. (2013). Freight Analysis Framework. Retrieved from http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf
Federal Highway Administration. (2014, January 31). National Freight Network. Retrieved June 11, 2014, from http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/nfn/
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2006). Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (No. MC-R/MC-RRA). Retrieved from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/ltccs-2006.htm
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2013). Motor Carrier Safety Progress Report (as of September 30, 2013). Retrieved from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/artsafety-progress-report.htm
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (n.d.). Interstate Truck Driver's Guide to Hours of Service. Retrieved from http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregulations/truck/driver/hos/fmcsa-guide-to-hos.pdf
Fleger, S. A., Haas, R. P., Trombly, J. W., Cross III, R. H., Noltenius, J. E., Pecheux, K. K., & Chen, K. J. (2002). Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities-Technical Report. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=719591
Fossey, J. (2010). A larger market share. Retrieved from http://www.nxtbook.com/nxteu/informa/ci_201005/index.php?startid=81
196

References
Garber, N. J., & Wang, H. (2004). Estimation of the Demand for Commercial Truck Parking on Interstate Highways in Virginia. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=697996
Georgia Department of Transportation. (2012). Rest Areas & Welcome Centers. Retrieved November 4, 2013, from http://www.dot.ga.gov/travelingingeorgia/pages/RestAreas.aspx
Georgia Department of Transportation. (2013a). Fact Book. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ga.gov/informationcenter/pressroom/Documents/publications/FactBook/G eorgiaDOT-FactBook.pdf
Georgia Department of Transportation. (2013b). Georgia Freight. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ga.gov/Projects/programs/georgiafreight/Pages/default.aspx
Georgia Department of Transportation. (2013c). Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan, 2010-2050: Truck Modal Profile. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ga.gov/Projects/programs/georgiafreight/logisticsplan/Documents/Plan/Tr uckModal-Task3.pdf
Gifford, J., Chen, Z., Li, J., Kelekar, U., Zebrowski, N., & Zhou, X. (2010). Mega-regions and Freight: Evidence from Commodity Flow Survey and Freight Analysis Framework. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=987388
Government Accountability Office. (2008). Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve Freight Mobility (No. GAO-08-287). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-287
Hapag-Lloyd. (2014, April 28). Services from Asia to North America. Retrieved from http://www.hapaglloyd.com/en/products_and_services/services_between_asia_and_north_america.html# NCE_east
Harrington, L. (2012, March). Nearshoring Latin America: a closer look. Inbound Logistics. Retrieved from http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/nearshoring-latin-america-acloser-look
IHS Global Insights. (2009). An Evaluation of Maritime Policy in Meeting the Commercial and Security Needs of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/gcpath/MARADPolicyStudy.pdf
IMPLAN Group. (2013). IMPLAN. Retrieved from http://implan.com/
Institute for Water Resources. (2012). U.S. Port and Inland Waterways Modernization Preparing for Post-Panamax Vessels. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved from http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/portswaterways/rpt/June_20_U.S._Port_a nd_Inland_Waterways_Preparing_for_Post_Panamax_Vessels.pdf
Jacksonville Port Authority. (2013). The Jacksonville Port Authority (JAXPORT). Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.jaxport.com/
Jones Lang LaSalle. (2011). The Panama Canal's Impact on U.S. Industrial Real Estate (White Paper). Retrieved from http://www.us.jll.com/united-states/en-us/research/3592/thepanama-canal-s-impact-on-u-s-industrial-real-estate
Kendall, W., Shaw, J., & Kendall, L. (2012). http://www.atlanticmarketingassociation.com/Resources/Kendall,%20Shaw,%20%26%2 0Kendall.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.atlanticmarketingassociation.com/Resources/Kendall,%20Shaw,%20%26%2 0Kendall.pdf
197

References
Knight, K. (2008). The Implications of Panama Canal Expansion to U.S. Ports and Coastal Navigation Economic Analysis (White Paper). Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved from http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/WhitePaperPanamaCanal.pdf
Knipling, R. R., Waller, P., Peck, R. C., Pfefer, R., Neuman, T. R., Slack, K. L., & Hardy, K. K. (2004). GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AASHTO STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN. VOLUME 13: A GUIDE FOR REDUCING COLLISIONS INVOLVING HEAVY TRUCKS. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=704165
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. (2003). Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan. Retrieved from http://wwwsp.dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Transportation_Plan/Pag es/2003_Statewide_Plan.aspx
Maersk Lines. (2012, February 6). Transpacific 3 (TP3) - Eastbound. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from http://www.maerskline.com/en-us/shipping-services/routenet/maersk-linenetwork/transpacific/transpacific-3-eastbound
Maritime Administration. (2013). Maritime Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics. htm
Martin, E. W., & Shaheen, S. A. (2013). Truck Parking and Traffic on I-5 in California: Analysis of a Clipboard Survey and Annual Average Daily Traffic Data. In Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1243103
Maryland Department of Transportation. (2009). Maryland Statewide Freight Plan. Retrieved from http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/Freight_P lanning/Documents/Freight_Plan_Final.pdf
Maryland Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Maryland Department of Transportation; Port Administration. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.mpa.maryland.gov/
Masson, R. (2013, August 9). Port of N.O. could spend $450M to prepare for wider Panama Canal - FOX 8 WVUE New Orleans News, Weather, Sports. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.fox8live.com/story/23033519/port-of-no-could-spend-450-millionto-prepare-for-panama-canal-widening
Miami-Dade County. (2012). PortMiami - - Miami-Dade County. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.miamidade.gov/portmiami/
Miami-Dade County. (2013). Port of Miami - Deep Dredge. Retrieved from http://www.miamidade.gov/portmiami/deep-dredge.asp
Mitchell, C. (2011). Impact of the expansion of the Panama Canal: an engineering analysis. Retrieved from http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Mitchell-Impact-of-theExpansion-of-the-Panama-Canal-FINAL-with-Chapters.pdf
Moore, M. (2013, July 30). Chinese entrepreneur reveals route for Nicaraguan canal Telegraph. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10212169/Chinese-entrepreneurreveals-route-for-Nicaraguan-canal.html
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, U.S.C. 134-135 (2012). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4348enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4348enr.pdf
198

References
National Association of Truck Stop Owners. (2013a, March 1). Trends And Priorities Affecting The Truckstop And Travel Plaza Industry. Retrieved from http://www.natso.com/articles/articles/view/trends-and-priorities-affecting-the-truckstopand-travel-plaza-industry-2
National Association of Truck Stop Owners. (2013b, August 5). FHWA Should Strategically Tackle Truck Parking Needs. Retrieved from http://www.natso.com/articles/articles/view/fhwa-should-strategically-target-truckparking-needs
North Carolina Department of Transportation. (2008). Governor's Logistics Task Force (Final Report). Retrieved from http://www.ncdot.gov/download/business/committees/logistics/GovernorsReport_Jun201 2.pdf
North Carolina State Ports Authority. (2012). Port of Wilmington -- NC Ports. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.ncports.com/port-of-wilmington/
On the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3080, Water Resources Development Act of 2013: Roll Vote No. 163. (2014, May 22). Congressional Record Daily Digest. Retrieved from http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-record/2014/5/22/daily-digest
Panama Canal Authority. (2006). Proposal for the Expansion of the Panama Canal: Third Set of Locks Project. Retrieved from http://www.pancanal.com/eng/plan/documentos/propuesta/acp-expansion-proposal.pdf
Panama Canal Authority. (2012). Press Releases: 2012. Retrieved from http://www.pancanal.com/eng/pr/press-releases/2012/index.html
Panama Canal Authority. (2013a). Commodity Movement through the Panama Canal by Country of Origin and Destination -- Principal Trade Routes, Pacific to Atlantic (Long Tons). Statistics and Models Administration Unit (MEEM). Retrieved from http://www.pancanal.com/eng/op/transit-stats/
Panama Canal Authority. (2013b). Transit Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.pancanal.com/eng/op/transit-stats/
Panama Canal Authority. (2014). Press Releases: 2014. Retrieved from http://www.pancanal.com/eng/pr/press-releases/2014/index.html
Payer, H. (2005). Adequacy of Selected Lock Size Parameters for Expanded Panama Canal. Retrieved from http://www.pancanal.com/esp/plan/estudios/0286.pdf
Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. (2013). Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.philaport.com/
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. (2013). Port of New York and New Jersey - The Port Authority of NY & NJ. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.panynj.gov/port/
Port of Houston Authority. (2013). The Port of Houston Authority. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.portofhouston.com/
Port of New Orleans. (n.d.). Port of New Orleans - Home. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.portno.com/
Puentes, R. (2008). A Bridge to Somewhere: Rethinking American Transportation for the 21st Century. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=863713
199

References
Regional Plan Association. (2014a). Piedmont Atlantic. America 2050. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://www.america2050.org/piedmont_atlantic.html
Regional Plan Association. (2014b). Texas Triangle. America 2050. Retrieved January 31, 2014, from http://www.america2050.org/texas_triangle.html
Rodigue, J. P., & Ashar, A. (2012). Evolution of Containerships. Retrieved June 19, 2014, from https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/containerships.html
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2010). Factors impacting North American freight distribution in view of the Panama Canal expansion. Van Horne Institute. Retrieved from http://people.hofstra.edu/jeanpaul_rodrigue/downloads/Panama%20Canal%20Study%202011%20Final.pdf
Rodrigue, J.-P., & Notteboom, T. (2010). Comparative North American and European gateway logistics: the regionalism of freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4), 497507.
Ross, C., Barringer, J., Yang, J., Woo, M., Doyle, J., West, H., ... Meyer, M. (2008). Megaregions: Literature review of the implications for US infrastructure investment and transportation planning. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from http://fhwicsint01.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/publications/megaregions_report/index.cfm/meg aregions.pdf
Ross, C., Woo, M., West, H., Meyer, M., & Amekudzi, A. (2011). Megaregions: Literature Review of Organizational Structures and Finance of Multi-jurisdictional Initiatives and the Implications for Megaregion Transportation Planning in the U.S. (Deliverable 1) (No. DTFH61-11-C-00003). Center For Quality Growth and Regional Development. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/megaregions/reports/megaregions_report_2011/
Salin, D. L. (2010). Impact of Panama Canal Expansion on the US Intermodal System. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uamstr/147032.html
Seedah, D., & Harrison, R. (2011). Megaregion Freight Movements: A Case Study of the Texas Triangle. Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/45000/45400/45420/476660-00075-1.pdf
Smith, L. C., & Stephenson, S. R. (2013). New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(13), E1191E1195.
South Carolina Department of Transportation. (2013). Multimodal Transportation Plan. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://www.scdot.org/Multimodal/
South Carolina Ports Authority. (n.d.). South Carolina Ports Authority. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.port-of-charleston.com/
Tennessee Department of Transportation. (2014). Long Range Planning Division - Freight Planning. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/longrange/freightplanning.htm
Texas Department of Transportation. (2014). Texas Freight Mobility Plan. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.tx.us/move-texas-freight/freight_plan.htm
The Economist. (2013, January 19). Reshoring manufacturing: Coming home | The Economist. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.economist.com/news/special-
200

References report/21569570-growing-number-american-companies-are-moving-their-manufacturingback-united
The Port of Virginia. (2013). VPA 2040 Master Plan: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.portofvirginia.com/media/11163/vpamasterplan052113.pdf
The White House. (2012, July 19). We Can't Wait: Obama Administration Announces 5 Major Port Projects to Be Expedited. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2012/07/19/we-can-t-wait-obama-administration-announces-5-major-port-projectsbe-ex
Trombly, J. W. (2003). Dealing with truck parking demands (Vol. 317). Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2bbqswwUTk0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=De aling+with+truck+parking+demands+&ots=SibUw8dARx&sig=6rX7soIhBjSsjhmUdG7OAN3o9w
TruckStopGuide.com. (2013). Truck Stop Guide. Retrieved November 3, 2013, from http://www.truckstopguide.com/Default.aspx
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center. (2014). Retrieved March 14, 2014, from http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). 2012 NAICS Definition. North American Industry Classification System. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from https://www.census.gov/cgibin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=493&search=2012%20NAICS%20Search
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2012). The Logistics and Transportation Industry in the United States. Retrieved from http://selectusa.commerce.gov/industry-snapshots/logistics-andtransportation-industry-united-states
U.S. Maritime Administration. (n.d.). MARAD. Retrieved from www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls
Van Dongen, H., Jackson, M., & Belenky, G. (2010). Duration of Restart Period Needed to Recycle with Optimal Performance: Phase II (No. FMCSA-MC-RRR-10-062). Sleep and Performance Research Center.
Virginia Department of Transportation. (2013). Virginia Multimodal Freight Plan (Draft). Retrieved from http://www.vtrans.org/resources/Virginia_Multimodal_Freight_Plan_11.01.13_Draft_Final _with_appendices.pdf
Virginia Port Authority. (2013). The Port of Virginia - Home. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.portofvirginia.com/
Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Aug. 17, 1999. Water Resources Reform & Development Act of 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr3080eas/pdf/BILLS-113hr3080eas.pdf
201

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology
Two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
Provided by the U.S. Census Bureau (2012)
NAICS 11: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting. The Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting sector comprises establishments primarily engaged in growing crops, raising animals, harvesting timber, and harvesting fish and other animals from a farm, ranch, or their natural habitats.
NAICS 21: Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction. The Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction sector comprises establishments that extract naturally occurring mineral solids, such as coal and ores; liquid minerals, such as crude petroleum; and gases, such as natural gas.
NAICS 22: Utilities. The Utilities sector comprises establishments engaged in the provision of the following utility services: electric power, natural gas, steam supply, water supply, and sewage removal.
NAICS 23: Construction. The Construction sector comprises establishments primarily engaged in the construction of buildings or engineering projects (e.g., highways and utility systems).
NAICS 31-33: Manufacturing. The Manufacturing sector comprises establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products.
NAICS 42: Wholesale Trade. The Wholesale Trade sector comprises establishments engaged in wholesaling merchandise, generally without transformation, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise.
NAICS 44-45: Retail Trade. The Retail Trade sector comprises establishments engaged in retailing merchandise, generally without transformation, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise.
NAICS 48-49: Transportation and Warehousing. The Transportation and Warehousing sector includes industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo, warehousing and storage for goods, scenic and sightseeing transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation.
NAICS 51: Information. The Information sector comprises establishments engaged in the following processes: (a) producing and distributing information and cultural products, (b) providing the means to transmit or distribute these products as well as data or communications, and (c) processing data.
NAICS 52: Finance and Insurance. The Finance and Insurance sector comprises establishments primarily engaged in financial transactions (transactions involving the creation, liquidation, or change in ownership of financial assets) and/or in facilitating financial transactions.
NAICS 53: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing. The Real Estate and Rental and Leasing sector comprises establishments primarily engaged in renting, leasing, or

Appendix 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology
otherwise allowing the use of tangible or intangible assets, and establishments providing related services. NAICS 54: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. The Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector comprises establishments that specialize in performing professional, scientific, and technical activities for others." "Activities performed include: legal advice and representation; accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services; architectural, engineering, and specialized design services; computer services; consulting services; research services; advertising services; photographic services; translation and interpretation services; veterinary services; and other professional, scientific, and technical services. NAICS 55: Management of Companies and Enterprises. The Management of Companies and Enterprises sector comprises (1) establishments that hold the securities of (or other equity interests in) companies and enterprises for the purpose of owning a controlling interest or influencing management decisions or (2) establishments (except government establishments) that administer, oversee, and manage establishments of the company or enterprise and that normally undertake the strategic or organizational planning and decision making role of the company or enterprise. NAICS 56: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services. The Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services sector comprises establishments performing routine support activities for the day-to-day operations of other organizations." "Activities performed include: office administration, hiring and placing of personnel, document preparation and similar clerical services, solicitation, collection, security and surveillance services, cleaning, and waste disposal services. NAICS 61: Educational Services. The Educational Services sector comprises establishments that provide instruction and training in a wide variety of subjects. This instruction and training is provided by specialized establishments, such as schools, colleges, universities, and training centers. NAICS 62: Health Care and Social Assistance. The Health Care and Social Assistance sector comprises establishments providing health care and social assistance for individuals. NAICS 71: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation. The Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation sector includes a wide range of establishments that operate facilities or provide services to meet varied cultural, entertainment, and recreational interests of their patrons. NAICS 72: Accommodation and Food Services. The Accommodation and Food Services sector comprises establishments providing customers with lodging and/or preparing meals, snacks, and beverages for immediate consumption. NAICS 81: Other Services (except Public Administration). The Other Services (except Public Administration) sector comprises establishments engaged in providing services not specifically provided for elsewhere in the classification system. Establishments in this sector are primarily engaged in activities such as equipment and machinery repairing, promoting or administering religious activities, grant making, advocacy, and providing dry cleaning and laundry services, personal care services,
203

Appendix 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology death care services, pet care services, photofinishing services, temporary parking services, and dating services.
NAICS 92: Public Administration. The Public Administration sector consists of establishments of federal, state, and local government agencies that administer, oversee, and manage public programs and have executive, legislative, or judicial authority over other institutions within a given area.
204

Appendix 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology Industry Clustering in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
Figure 94: Location Quotient for NAICS 11 / Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
Figure 95: Location Quotient for NAICS 48-49 / Transportation and Warehousing
205

Appendix 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology
Figure 96: Location Quotient for NAICS 22 / Utilities
Figure 97: Location Quotient for NAICS 44-45 / Retail Trade
206

Appendix 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology Industry Clustering in Texas Triangle Megaregion
Figure 98: Location Quotient for NAICS 23 Activity in the Texas Triangle
Figure 99: Location Quotient for NAICS 53 Activity in the Texas Triangle
207

Appendix 1: Industrial Clustering Methodology Industry Clustering in DC-VA Megaregion
Figure 100: Location Quotient for NAICS 61 / Educational Services
Figure 101: Location Quotient for NAICS 23 / Construction
208

APPENDIX 2: Trip Algorithm

APPENDIX 3: Distribution Centers

Table 65: Distribution Centers in Piedmont Atlantic

City
Atlanta Charlotte Nashville Spartanburg Raleigh Chattanooga Birmingham Columbia

Piedmont Atlantic

25 Miles

50 Miles

329

398

141

185

111

146

94

177

82

131

72

104

67

86

34

64

100 Miles
561 459 205 404 299 588 184 389

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
Table 66: Distribution Center Density in Piedmont Atlantic

Piedmont Atlantic

(Distribution Centers per 100 Square Miles)

25 Miles

50 Miles

100 Miles

16.76

5.07

1.79

7.18

2.36

1.46

5.65

1.86

0.65

4.79

2.25

1.29

4.18

1.67

0.95

3.67

1.32

1.87

3.41

1.09

0.59

1.73

0.81

1.24

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
Table 67: Distribution Centers in Texas Triangle

City
Dallas Houston San Antonio Austin

Texas Triangle 25 Miles
340 245
66 48

50 Miles
356 259 71 74

100 Miles
410 296 200 160

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011

Appendix 3: Distribution Centers Table 68: Distribution Center Density in Texas Triangle

Texas Triangle (Distribution Centers per 100 Square Miles)

25 Miles

50 Miles

100 Miles

17.32

4.53

1.31

12.48

3.30

0.94

3.36

0.90

0.64

2.44

0.94

0.51

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
Table 69: Distribution Centers in DC-Virginia

City
Baltimore Washington Norfolk Richmond Martinsburg

DC-Virginia

25 Miles

50 Miles

188

374

152

286

85

96

79

97

73

194

100 Miles
849 635 224 403 500

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011
Table 70: Distribution Center Density in DC-Virginia

DC-Virginia

(Distribution Centers per 100 Square Miles)

25 Miles

50 Miles

100 Miles

9.57

4.76

2.70

7.74

3.64

2.02

4.33

1.22

0.71

4.02

1.24

1.28

3.72

2.47

1.59

Source: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2011

211

APPENDIX 4: Major Truck Corridors
Figure 102: 2040 Truck Volume per Day per Route in the Texas Triangle Figure 103: 2040 Volume to Capacity Ratio Along Routes in the Texas Triangle

Appendix 4: Major Truck Corridors
Figure 104: Average Travel Speed Along the Routes in Texas Triangle in 2040
213

Appendix 4: Major Truck Corridors
Figure 105: Peak Hour Delay in Minutes along the Routes in the Texas Triangle in 2040
Figure 106: Major Corridors and Truck Volumes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2040
214

Appendix 4: Major Truck Corridors
Figure 107: Volume to Capacity Ratio Along routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion
Figure 108: Average Travel Speed Along the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2040
215

Appendix 4: Major Truck Corridors
Figure 109: Peak Hour Delay on the Routes in Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion in 2040
Figure 110: Forecasted Major Corridors and Truck Volumes in DC-Virginia 2040
216

Appendix 4: Major Truck Corridors
Figure 111: Volume to Capacity Ratio of the Routes in DC-Virginia Megaregion
Figure 112: Forecasted Average Travel Speed along the Routes in DC-Virginia Megaregion
217

Appendix 4: Major Truck Corridors
Figure 113: Forecasted Peak Hour Delay in DC-Virginia Megaregion
218

APPENDIX 5: Truck Volumes in Destination Counties
Figure 114: Differences in 2040 Truck Volume per Day between Scenarios for New Orleans

Appendix 5: Truck Volumes in Destination Counties
Figure 115: Differences in 2040 Truck Volume per Day between Scenarios for Norfolk
220

APPENDIX 6: Truck Volumes on Major Corridors
Figure 116: Differences in 2040 Corridor Level Truck Volume per Day between Scenarios for Norfolk Difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 (top), 1 and 3 (middle) and 1 and 4 (bottom)

Appendix 5: Truck Volumes in Destination Counties
Figure 117: Differences in 2040 Corridor Level Truck Volume per Day Between Scenarios for New Orleans Difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 (top), 1 and 3 (middle) and 1 and 4 (bottom)
222

Appendix 5: Truck Volumes in Destination Counties
Figure 118: Differences in 2040 Corridor Level Truck Volume per Day Between Scenarios for Savannah Difference between Scenarios 1 and 2 (top), 1 and 3 (middle) and 1 and 4 (bottom)
223