E-C158 Cover1 - Center for Transportation Analysis - Oak Ridge ...

T
What Is New with the 2007 Commodity Flow Survey?
RONALD DUYCH
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, RITA
he 2005 TRB CFS (1) conference provided many excellent ideas for enhancing the 2007
CFS. Several creative and practical ways to leverage the data and information were
presented and a variety of observations were offered for immediate short-term actions while
others were more strategic. Suggestions were divided into three general categories; coverage,
survey methods, and data products. The following sections summarize the suggestions that were
implemented and the results of those implementations.
COVERAGE
First and foremost, the sample size was increased to 102,000 out of approximately 754,000
establishments that were considered shippers. Although an attempt was made to capture thirdparty
logistics providers (3PL), the survey captured only about 12%. Similarly, an effort was
made through precanvassing to identify auxiliaries resulting in an estimated universe of 14,800
establishments. Reporting of hazardous materials was substantially improved through the
precanvass and a focus on six groupings: ammonium nitrate, ethanol, explosives, hydrogen,
toxic–inhalation, and all other. Even with changes to the survey that attempted to clarify
containerized–intermodal movements, the CFS did not capture this category well.
SURVEY METHODS
Suggestions regarding use of advanced technologies and providing a continuous survey were not
practical for the 2007 CFS nor was the use of the Internet for respondent reporting. However,
work has begun to provide the latter for the 2012 survey. Several activities were undertaken to
improve response rate including a precanvass operation and a detailed study using a presurvey of
75 establishments. The precanvass covered 80,000 establishments and was used to eliminate
nonshippers and to verify contact information. The presurvey study was performed to understand
steps taken by responders, identify problems that responders had in completing the survey,
understand how responders interpreted instructions, and evaluate their ability to provide
additional information such as costs. Based on a detailed postsurvey evaluation, the top reasons
for nonresponse included inability to recall information, information sensitivity, inability to
readily access needed information, and awkward question format. Figure 1 provides a graph of
the most common nonresponse items from this study.
7