1 / 23

DETERMINATION OF FREIGHT CORRIDORS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DETERMINATION OF FREIGHT CORRIDORS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Texas A&M University Civil Engineering Department CVEN 689-600 April 28, 2003. ADHARA CASTELBLANCO. Outline. Introduction Objective Background Methodology Results Sensitivity Analysis Conclusion and Recommendations.

taylor-berger
Télécharger la présentation

DETERMINATION OF FREIGHT CORRIDORS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DETERMINATION OF FREIGHT CORRIDORS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Texas A&M University Civil Engineering Department CVEN 689-600 April 28, 2003 ADHARA CASTELBLANCO

  2. Outline • Introduction • Objective • Background • Methodology • Results • Sensitivity Analysis • Conclusion and Recommendations

  3. Intro: Problem Description • U.S. urban highways (congestion) • Traffic growth > road capacity • Cost: delays, contamination and fuel consumption • ITS Vs. new construction

  4. Importance • Identify strategic roadways that should be considered in, for ITS deployment. • Allocate resources in high priority routes that interconnect the most economically significant counties in the State of California • Promote economic growth and maximum regional trade opportunities

  5. Objective • Identify the SFC in the state of California • Analyze results through a sensitivity test

  6. Background Ohio DOT: • Economic and non-economic criteria • Major production and distribution centers Ohio (nodes) • Link-node Approach (highway network) Shieh: • Min highway network for LCV • High Standard highways • No circuits

  7. 1. Data Processing • Economic Criteria (75%) • Intermodal Facilities (15%) • Border Crossing (10%)

  8. Economic Criteria (1-10) • Based on the Gross State Product - Income of major industries (REIS) * Whole Sale * Retail * Manufacturing * Farming * Construction

  9. Existence of Intermodal facilities • Marine Port: Major marine ports (U.S. Marine Port Authority) • Airport: Major cargo airports (FAA) • Rail / Truck: Transfers (FHWA)

  10. Border Crossing • Location of international commercial border crossings: U.S. – Mexico (Customs and Border Protection)

  11. Some Examples of Categories

  12. Aggregation of Results • Add weighted scores of different categories and summarize into 3 classes: • Rank 1: 8-10 • Rank 2: 6-8 (16%) • Not eligible: <6

  13. Assumptions • Access-controlled • High standards of design • Geometry • Bridge clearance • Turning radius

  14. 2. Network Analysis • Overlay of road map on aggregated map: • Select Best Route • “Virtual Cost” based on road type

  15. Network Analysis Cont’d • Connect high economic counties first • Perform two more network analyses for the other counties in the north and south respectively

  16. Route Development

  17. Analysis of the Freight Corridor • Exclude stops that were generating circuits or were redundant • Only the County of Contra Costa was excluded from the corridor

  18. Buffer zones Multiple rings with 10 miles in between were drawn in order to check proximity of principle sites to SFC

  19. Sensitivity Test Five more Counties were included by lessening the economy activity weight by 30% and increasing the weight of the transportation facilities.

  20. New Freight Corridor • I - 15 • I - 10 • I - 40 • US 101 • I – 80 • I - 5 • Fresno Co. was left out from the SFC

  21. Buffer Zone: Radii of 10 miles

  22. Conclusion and Recommendation • The assignation of the freight corridor is susceptible to the weights assigned to criteria • Better approach: Number of truck trips to and from each production and distribution center • Better cost: average velocity

  23. Do you have any Questions

More Related