Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E F R E I G H T R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCFRP REPORT 33 Subscriber Categories Freight Transportation â¢ Operations and Traffic Management â¢ Planning and Forecasting Improving Freight System Performance in Metropolitan Areas: A Planning Guide JosÃ© HolguÃn-Veras Johanna Amaya-Leal Jeffrey Wojtowicz Miguel Jaller Carlos GonzÃ¡lez-CalderÃ³n IvÃ¡n SÃ¡nchez-DÃaz Xiaokun Wang RensselaeR Polytechnic institute Troy, NY Daniel G. Haake Suzann S. Rhodes cDM sMith Columbus, OH Stacey Darville Hodge new yoRk city DePaRtMent of tRansPoRtation New York, NY Robert J. Frazier Molly K. Nick Joseph Dack Luigi Casinelli hDR New York, NY Michael Browne London, United Kingdom TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE FREIGHT RESEARCH PROGRAM Americaâs freight transportation system makes critical contributions to the nationâs economy, security, and quality of life. The freight transportation system in the United States is a complex, decentralized, and dynamic network of private and public entities, involving all modes of transportationâtrucking, rail, waterways, air, and pipelines. In recent years, the demand for freight transportation service has been increasing fueled by growth in international trade; however, bottlenecks or congestion points in the system are exposing the inadequacies of current infrastructure and operations to meet the growing demand for freight. Strategic operational and investment de- cisions by governments at all levels will be necessary to maintain freight system performance, and will in turn require sound technical guidance based on research. The National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) is a cooperative research program sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology under Grant No. DTOS59- 06-G-00039 and administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The program was authorized in 2005 with the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). On September 6, 2006, a contract to begin work was executed between the Research and Innovative Technology Admin- istration, which is now the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, and The National Academies. The NCFRP will carry out applied research on problems facing the freight industry that are not being adequately addressed by existing research programs. Program guidance is provided by an Oversight Committee comprised of a representative cross section of freight stakeholders appointed by the National Research Council of The National Academies. The NCFRP Oversight Committee meets annually to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Research problem statements recommending research needs for consideration by the Oversight Committee are solicited annually, but may be submitted to TRB at any time. Each selected project is assigned to a panel, appointed by TRB, which provides technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. Heavy emphasis is placed on including members representing the intended users of the research products. The NCFRP will produce a series of research reports and other products such as guidebooks for practitioners. Primary emphasis will be placed on disseminating NCFRP results to the intended end-users of the research: freight shippers and carriers, service providers, suppliers, and public officials. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE FREIGHT RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCFRP REPORT 33 Project NCFRP-38 ISSN 1947-5659 ISBN 978-0-309-30857-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2015936268 Â© 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, or PHMSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Freight Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Freight Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported was supported by NCFRP Project 38, âImproving Freight System Performance in Metropolitan Areas.â The team is grateful to the NCFRP program officer, to the members of the panel, and to the participants of the project workshop who provided insightful remarks that helped shape the final version of the Planning Guide. Throughout, the team was fortunate enough to have close interactions with staff at several public-sector agencies that provided candid remarks on the Planning Guide, including: Michael Franchini, David Jukins, Chris OâNeil, Sree Nampoothiri, and Leah Mosall at the Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) in Albany, New York; Roseann OâLaughlin at the Oregon Department of Transportation; Trevor Brydon at the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments; Christine Connell at the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments; and R. Todd Ashby at the Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Additionally, the team is grateful for the support they received with the case studies from the following agencies: New York City Department of Transportation, Air Resources Board, Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, Mid-America Regional Council, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Norfolk Southern Railroad, Intermodal Transportation Institute at the University of Toledo, Inland Empire Economic Partnership, Puget Sound Regional Coun- cil, Atlanta Regional Council, Southern California Association of Governments, and California Truck- ing Association. Lastly, the team would like to thank other colleagues who provided valuable assistance throughout the project: Lokesh Kalahasthi and Sai Vikas from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and Erin Dean, Paul Bingham, Joe Foster, Rob Wayson, and Lauri McGill from CDM Smith. In the end, a report of this breadth is always a joint effort; the RPI team would like to acknowledge and thank all of those who contributed to NCFRP Project 38 with feedback and support. CRP STAFF FOR NCFRP REPORT 33 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs William C. Rogers, Senior Program Officer Charlotte Thomas, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sharon Lamberton, Editor NCFRP PROJECT 38 PANEL Freight Research Projects Chad T. Baker, California DOT, Sacramento, CA (Chair) Kenneth Allen, San Antonio, TX Michelle S. Cohen, Brooklyn, NY John A. Gentle, John A. Gentle & Associates, LLC, Toledo, OH Joseph Lee Hutchins, Jr., AECOM Transportation, Chicago, IL Rebekah Karasko, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Fort Collins, CO Jennifer L. Moczygemba, Hatch Mott MacDonald, Dallas, TX Thomas OâBrien, California State University - Long Beach, Long Beach, CA Patrick Thrasher, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New York, NY Caesar Singh, RITA Liaison Scott Babcock, TRB Liaison W. Scott Brotemarkle, TRB Liaison
NCFRP Report 33: Improving Freight System Performance in Metropolitan Areas: A Plan- ning Guide provides a regional public planning guide that identifies potential strategies and practical solutions for public and private stakeholders to improve freight movement system performance in diverse metropolitan areas. The Guide is intended to serve as a comprehen- sive reference for all portions of a metropolitan area, from the urban core to more suburban and exurban areas (urban fringe). The Guide includes an Initiative Selector tool to aid in the selection of possible alternatives for various problems, and Freight Trip Generation (FTG) software that planners can use to identify main locations where freight is an issue based on freight trips produced and attracted. Links to access the Initiative Selector and FTG software appear in this report. Many of the challenges affecting the freight system, from congestion to land use conflicts to community acceptance, arise in metropolitan areas. Often hubs in the supply chain and intermodal operations, metropolitan areas also frequently present higher costs and elevated risks to the provision of service. The lack of knowledge and experience with freight in metro- politan planning agencies has often precluded an effective response to the challenges, despite the direct economic importance of freight systems to the metropolitan areas and their sensi- tive positions in the global supply chains. These challenges require practical solutions, some of which need to be newly developed, and all of which must be effective for the community and governing organizations, and benefit the freight system. In NCFRP Project 38, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) was asked to (1) synthesize the results of applicable NCFRP and NCHRP research that are applicable to regional metropolitan freight planning; (2) identify and summarize strategies (e.g., operations and maintenance, capital investment, policy and regulatory, and funding) that have been developed to enhance efficient and effective freight movement by any mode in metropolitan areas; (3) identify the obstacles encountered and successes achieved during the planning and implementation of the strategies and describe any unintended consequences, both positive and negative, that can be attributed to the strategies that were implemented; (4) identify stakeholders and discuss their roles, their impact on the success of the strategies, and how they measure success; and (5) develop a guide that identifies potential strategies and practical solutions for public and private stakeholders to improve freight movement system performance in diverse metropolitan areas, as well as a plan for users to maintain the relevance of the guide that includes application of sensitivity analysis (e.g., fuel cost, labor availability and cost, demographics, environmental, trade agreements, changes in supply chains), and how the guide can be adapted as conditions change. F O R E W O R D By William C. Rogers Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
The Initiative Selector is an HTML webpage developed by RPI that can be accessed from a link in this report. The FTG software is a three-module program that applies models developed by RPI at the zip-code and 2-digit NAICS code levels. The Appendix to NCFRP Report 33 provides the user manual for the software, which can be downloaded from the link provided in the report.
1 Summary 4 Section 1 Urban Freight Transportation Decision-Making Process 7 Definition of Freight Issue to Be Addressed 7 Identification of Root Cause(s) 8 Definition of Goals and Objectives to Be Achieved 10 Definition of Performance Measures 11 Preliminary Identification of Potential Initiatives 13 Formulation and Performance Analysis of Solution Alternatives 14 Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative(s) 15 Creation of Action Plan 15 Pilot Testing and Implementation 16 Follow-up: Reassessment and Modification 17 Section 2 Overview of Public-Sector Initiatives 19 Planning Considerations 20 Operational Considerations 21 Stakeholder Engagement 21 Risk Management and Integration with Other Transportation Policies 22 Infrastructure Management 22 Major Improvements 25 Minor Improvements 37 Parking/Loading Areas Management 37 On-Street Parking and Loading 38 Off-Street Parking and Loading 51 Vehicle-Related Strategies 51 Technologies and Programs 55 Traffic Management 55 Access and Vehicle-Related Restrictions 58 Time Access Restrictions 60 Traffic Control and Lane Management 73 Pricing, Incentives, and Taxation 73 Pricing 74 Incentives 75 Taxation 81 Logistical Management 81 Cargo Consolidation 82 Intelligent Transportation Systems 84 Last-Mile Delivery Practices 95 Freight Demand/Land Use Management 95 Demand Management 99 Land Use Policy 108 Stakeholder Engagement C O N T E N T S
119 Section 3 Case Studies 120 Atlanta, Georgia 122 Case Study 1: 1996 Summer Olympics Delivery Experiment 124 Case Study 2: Regional Truck Routing 127 Kansas City Metropolitan Area 130 Case Study 3: Freight Rail Bottlenecks 135 Los Angeles, California 138 Case Study 4: Corridor Development 145 New York, New York 148 Case Study 5: Church Avenue Project Corridor, Brooklyn, New York 154 Case Study 6: Columbus Avenue, First and Second Avenues, Manhattan, New York 161 Case Study 7: Maspeth Truck Route Redesignation, Maspeth, New York 167 Seattle, Washington 168 Case Study 8: Everett-Seattle-Tacoma Corridor 173 Toledo, Ohio 174 Case Study 9: Airline Junction Yard 180 References A-1 Appendix Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.