Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 11
Chapter 2: Evaluating Freight
Facility Impacts and Benefits
Freight facilities change the flow of traffic, bring jobs, impact land use
development patterns, and may or may not bring other development
opportunities. They may represent desired investment in the
community, actively sought by economic developers and planners
alike. Alternatively, these facilities may be seen as a mixed blessing,
with both wanted and unwanted consequences.
Public officials need to understand these potential changes before
considering how to attract or plan for freight facilities. Only by
understanding and evaluating these costs and benefits can public
officials properly evaluate how freight facilities match community
goals and prepare accordingly.
While cost reduction and productivity improvements drive most
private freight facility location decisions, the public sector experiences
the benefits and drawbacks of freight facilities differently. The
transportation, economic, and societal effects of freight facilities will
vary depending on the type of facility, the modes used at the facility,
and the geographic perspective of stakeholders (local, regional,
state, and national).
Significant research exists on the topic of economic impacts, benefits,
and costs of freight and more detail can be found in NCFRP Project 23
final research report available as NCFRP Web-Only Document 1
(http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165743.aspx) as well as U.S.
Department of Transportation reports such as the Guide to Quantifying
the Economic Impacts of Federal Investments in Large-Scale Freight
Transportation Projects from 2006. Impacts thus fall into several
different categories and not all of them will apply to each type of
logistics center, but the principal broad categories are:
· Economic Effects including construction impacts, direct
economic activity, multiplier effects, and economic
development/business attraction and
Freight Facility Location Selection: A Guide for Public Officials 11
OCR for page 12
· Transportation Effects including mode choice and traffic
volumes, direct travel impacts, supply chain logistics impacts,
environmental impacts, and safety/security impacts.
The following table illustrates a range of effects from several case
studies of specific freight logistics facilities.
Table 2. Facility Impact by Case Study
Facility Case Study Direct and Indirect Freight Volume Transportation Impacts
Type Jobs
Inland Port Virginia Inland Port 17 direct jobs, over 8,000 33,600 containers 5.4 million VMT reduction, $105,000
(Front Royal, VA) indirect jobs (2008) greenhouse gas emission savings
Intermodal Rickenbacker Approximately 150 direct 250,000 annual 49 million fewer truck miles in Ohio
Terminal Intermodal Terminal jobs at Intermodal facility, container movements in 10 years $2 M in pavement
(Columbus, OH) projection of 20,000 jobs maintenance savings, $2.45 million
at freight industrial park in accident reductions
Bulk or Savage Safe Handling 100 direct jobs 500,000 tons per year $619,500 accident reduction,
Transload (Auburn, ME) 5,000 railcars per year $506,000 pavement maintenance
Terminal from using rail over truck
Distribution Family Dollar 515 direct jobs; catalyst 90 trucks/day 32,000 16.2 million in truck VMT per year
Center (Marianna, FL) to another 155 DC jobs trucks per year
Warehouse Murphy Warehouses 20 direct jobs (per 10,000+ carloads per 1.3 million VMT reduced annually.
warehouse facility) year 6,730 fewer greenhouse gas tons
emitted
Integrated Alliance Texas (Fort 28,000 direct jobs; 600,000 intermodal rail N/A
Logistics Worth, TX) 63,388 indirect jobs lifts per year
Center
Hub Old Dominion 750 direct jobs 75 to 90 trucks per day 21.5 million to 25.9 million truck VMT
Terminal (Morristown, TN) per year
Note: VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
Private sector investment in buildings and equipment and permanent
jobs at a facility represents very real local and regional economic
gains that need to be balanced with the potential traffic or other
impacts that might result from such a location decision. For example,
a warehouse located in a specific area may result in potential jobs
and employment, additional traffic servicing the warehouse with the
inbound goods necessary for inventory, and the outbound transport of
goods to receivers and final users.
The broader regional picture should also be considered. In keeping
with the example above, the region or metropolitan area surrounding
the new warehouse site might also experience increased traffic and
job gains, but could also benefit from better access to goods through
the distribution center.
12 Freight Facility Location Selection: A Guide for Public Officials
