City Logistics Research: A Transatlantic Perspective (2013)

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.

63 APPENDIX A: COMMISSIONED WHITE PAPERS Approaches to Managing Freight in Metropolitan Areas Genevieve Giuliano, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA Laetitia Dablanc, Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development, and Networks (IFSTTAR), France 1. IntroductIon The flow of freight in metropolitan areas has emerged as a major urban planning challenge. Most urban freight is moved in trucks. Although trucks make up a rela- tively small share of all vehicle traffic, they generate a disproportionate share of many externalities, including congestion on local streets and highways, infrastructure damage, vehicle emissions, greenhouse gases, and noise. The purpose of this paper is to examine strategies, poli- cies, and practices that have been implemented in differ- ent countries to manage freight impacts on metropolitan areas and assess their effectiveness and potential for transferability. Researchers and local stakeholders have explored a broad range of measures aimed at reducing truck travel, emissions, or carbon consumption. Examples include freight partnerships, smaller or newer trucks, better routing algorithms, consolidated local delivery stations, alternative modes, off-peak deliveries, and low-emission zones (LEZs). These efforts have had varying levels of success. On the basis of an extensive review of the literature,1 an assessment of the most effective strate- gies for solving urban freight problems is presented. The authors find that policy strategies and outcomes are quite different between the United States and the 1 This paper is based in part on NCFRP Report 23: Synthesis of Freight Research in Urban Transportation Planning (NCFRP Project 36[05]) (Giuliano et al. 2013). It provides a review of international literature including journal publications, government reports, consul- tant reports, and unpublished papers and materials, resulting in 261 references, of which 108 are academic papers and scientific books. European Union and explain these differences as a func- tion of local context, including political and regulatory structures. They conclude that experimentation is exten- sive and that there appear to be many possibilities for addressing urban freight externalities. More research and more careful and comprehensive evaluations of pol- icy experiments are suggested by the authors to improve the understanding of urban freight problems. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the nature of the urban freight problem and the chal- lenges of effectively addressing freight problems. Section 3 provides an overview of policies and strategies orga- nized around four major urban freight areas: 1. Freight flows in the metropolitan core, 2. Emissions, 3. Metropolitanwide truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and 4. Freight hubs. Section 4 presents conclusions, and Section 5 offers sug- gestions for EU-U.S. collaborative research. 2. the urbAn FreIght probleM Freight has been key to the functioning of cities from ancient times, yet only recently has urban freight been identified as an essential element in urban transport plan- ning and policy, as well as a major source of environmen- tal externalities. Managing urban freight is challenging for several reasons. First, the current approach to urban

64 city logistics research: a transatlantic perspective sustainability takes little account of freight. There is broad consensus that urban sustainability is enhanced by increasing density, mixing population and economic ac- tivity, promoting public transportation and nonmotor- ized modes of transportation, and reducing automobile use (e.g., Newman and Kenworthy 1999; Duany and Speck 2010). Thus, cities are investing in public transport rather than in highways and roads, and reducing road and parking space in favor of pedestrians and transit. There is a tension between freight and such prac- tices. Scale economies make larger shipments, warehou- sing, and distribution more efficient; hence, there is an increase in the decentralization of logistics activities to large facilities at the periphery of metro areas. Dense urban areas have limited road capacity and are incom- patible with large trucks. Efforts to reduce road capa- city to enhance pedestrian circulation or prioritize public transport flows create more compatibility problems. Existing freight facilities in urban areas are often seen as undesirable. Efforts to remove them (e.g., for smart growth urban development projects) actually contri- bute to more truck miles on regional highways (Dablanc and Rakotonarivo 2010). The challenge is how to best accommodate freight and other critical urban functions. Second, urban freight is extremely diverse from one economic sector to another and across urban areas. Such diversity makes it difficult to identify common technolo- gies and strategies that fit many unique markets. Solu- tions developed to address the specific problems of one industry or metropolitan area are not necessarily trans- ferable to other industries and areas. Third, freight famously “has no borders” as opposed to passenger transportation, which tends to be con- tained within a commuting area. Metro areas are not economically self-sufficient; they are part of a global network of economic flows. Local firms may produce goods for global markets, and local residents consume many goods coming from global markets. The largest metro areas serve as global and national trade nodes via ports, airports, distribution centers, and intermodal hubs; these activities become notable elements in the urban landscape, often generate significant externalities, and are important contributors to local economies. The volume and pattern of freight flows is the result of mar- ket demand, supply chain organization, relative prices of inputs, and government policies such as trade agree- ments and currency policy (Dicken 2007). Local gov- ernments have little influence on these basic drivers of freight flows, yet local communities bear many of the associated externalities. Fourth, the ability to “act locally” is further con- strained by jurisdictional authority. National govern- ments negotiate trade liberalization conditions within their borders. Highways, railroads, and waterways are either owned by state or national governments or sub- ject to regulation. In most countries, environmental and operating standards are set by state or national govern- ments. Local government authority, such as limiting access on the basis of truck weight or setting rules for truck loading, has limited effect (and may actually inten- sify local impacts) because such policies do not affect the underlying demand for freight movements. Local authority is also hampered by the fragmenta- tion of local governance. Large metro areas—where freight problems are most severe—include many cities and other government units, such as public transit opera- tors, port authorities, and planning agencies. Addressing freight problems more often than not crosses jurisdic- tional boundaries. In Europe, metropolitan-level author- ity is generally stronger than that in North America, but metropolitan authorities often disregard freight issues and neglect the use of regional planning or truck traffic coordination, even when these options are available. Finally, the complexity and flexibility of supply chains make the outcomes of policy interventions uncertain. The “new distribution economy” as described by Cidell (2010), Hesse and Rodrigue (2004), and others is heavily depen- dent upon efficient and increasingly globalized networks of goods distribution and just-in-time operations. This has led to a reduction in large inventories of intermediate and final products but also to a concomitant rise in hub distribution centers. Global supply chains require more logistics facilities, and the way these facilities are spatially organized has become a key feature of a logistics network. The efficiency of goods distribution depends on the opti- mal location and sizing of freight terminals rather than directly on transportation costs, which have decreased over the past decades. Downstream logistics are driven by consumer demand. In cities, store inventory levels have shrunk and businesses are increasingly supplied on a just- in-time basis. The number of different products sold has increased considerably, and product ranges change sev- eral times a year. With the rise of the service economy, the demand for express transport and courier services is also soaring. These factors have made urban economies more dependent on efficient transportation systems, with more frequent and customized deliveries. The result is greater frequency of urban freight distribution. The supply chain is a difficult target for local policy efforts. Because of the interdependencies within the chain, policies to address a problem generated by one part of the chain affect other links. Controls on delivery hours, for example, affect the upstream operations of warehouses and the downstream operations of receivers. 3. strAtegIes In response to growing urban freight problems, cities around the world have engaged in extensive experi-

65appendix a Giuliano and dablanc mentation. Here, discussion of urban freight mitigation strategies is organized around four categories of prob- lems: freight flows within the metropolitan core, vehicle emissions, metropolitan truck travel, and freight hubs. Effectiveness is assessed on the basis of the literature, the authors’ own research, and their professional judgement. Table 1 (pages 66–67) presents specific examples of each type of strategy. 3.1 Freight Flows in the Metropolitan Core: Last Mile Strategies Competition for road and parking space is particularly serious in the cores of metropolitan areas, where traffic is congested, accommodates multiple modes (including nonmotorized), and where the density of activity gener- ates high demand for both freight and passenger flows. The first pickup or final delivery of a product is com- monly known as the “last mile” problem. Last mile pick- ups and deliveries are inherently inefficient because they are typically composed of very small lots. Additional inefficiencies are generated by multiple daily deliveries in some industry sectors. Small deliveries across many desti- nations generate complex routing problems. Restrictions on night deliveries or the reluctance of urban business owners to change delivery schedules forces more trips to take place during peak hours, adding to congestion. Home delivery is particularly inefficient because of the small size of deliveries, spatial dispersion of residences, competition within the local delivery industry, and the frequency of failed deliveries. While all last mile deliver- ies have these characteristics, high density and limited road capacity make the problem particularly challenging in metro core areas. 3.1.1 Traffic and Parking Regulations City efforts to manage last mile problems have tradi- tionally focused on local traffic and parking regulations because these tools are clearly within local authority. In theory, traffic and parking regulations are effective as long as they are enforced. However, cities have no con- trol over demand for pickups and deliveries, and con- sequently traffic and parking regulations have limited effectiveness. In practice, highly restrictive regulations are costly to enforce and may lead to other problems. Restricting truck parking areas may result in trucks dou- ble-parking in the roadway or using curb space reserved for other purposes. When the demand for truck pickup and delivery greatly exceeds the supply of loading and parking areas, enforcement becomes costly and increas- ingly difficult, as the risk of being fined becomes less costly than the delays incurred in waiting for a parking spot. Another related strategy is the prohibition of large trucks in core areas. Allowing access only to vans and small trucks can lead to an increase in the total number of vehicles and vehicle miles for deliveries, again because such policies have no effect on demand. Traffic and parking regulations have a mixed record of success. Restrictions on truck access or limiting truck deliveries to certain days of the week tend to shift truck traffic to smaller vehicles (generating a net increase in truck VMT) or concentrate traffic into shorter time peri- ods (generating more congestion). Regulations that seek to use road resources as efficiently as possible tend to be successful. Barcelona’s policy of allowing use of traffic lanes for pickup and delivery during off-peak hours is an example. San Francisco’s recent implementation of dynamic parking charges is another. The lesson drawn from these examples is that local freight demand must be accommodated; hence, strategies that manage rather than restrict freight deliveries tend to be more effective. 3.1.2 Local Planning Policy Local jurisdictions have land use planning authority and hence may set policies and guidelines for incorpo- rating freight deliveries into new developments, for the design of loading docks, and for parking and loading standards. New development or redevelopment offers the opportunity to implement planning standards for on-site freight facilities, freeing up curb space for other purposes. Examples include Tokyo’s and New York’s requirements for new commercial developments. Barce- lona goes further, adding a requirement for minimum storage areas for new restaurants and bars specifically to reduce the frequency of deliveries. On-site facilities lessen the need for on-street loading zones, reducing con- flicts with passenger demands. On-site facilities also add to building costs and hence may be resisted by the devel- opment community. Cities may also develop freight loading and parking standards for off-site activities (e.g., in a public right-of- way). There are more opportunities in developing areas where the road infrastructure is still being constructed. However, standards can have an impact over time, even in already developed areas, if they are tied to future development and redevelopment. Experiences with on-site planning policies have been largely positive. Although such requirements add to development costs, they also add to commercial prop- erty value by assuring that freight deliveries are accom- modated. Shippers and truck drivers clearly benefit from having reliably available loading facilities. These policies are a good fit in cities where the authority of local govern- ments to develop and implement planning and building guidelines is clearly established. The ability to negotiate

66 city logistics research: a transatlantic perspective TABLE 1 Freight Mitigation Strategies 1. Freight Flows in the Urban Core Location Description Consultation processes London (UK) Freight Quality Partnership and certification London Freight Operator Recognition Scheme schemes Paris (France) Delivery charter Netherlands, 25 cities PIEK label program Traffic and parking Paris Daytime hours truck ban (>29 square meters) regulations São Paulo (Brazil) Access 2 days/week/vehicle New York City Commercial vehicle parking plan Barcelona (Spain) Off-peak hours use of roadways for unloading–loading Los Angeles downtown Increased enforcement of use of loading bays (U.S.) Intelligent Several European and Automatic control systems for truck access regulation (plate-reading cameras) transportation Asian cities systems (ITS) London Transport for London freight website Europe DHL Packstation in Germany, French Cityssimo: automated self-service parcel delivery lockers (see also USPS Gopost in the United States) Planning strategies, Tokyo (Japan) Loading–unloading facilities requirements for new commercial of >2,000 square meters building requirements New York loading–unloading requirements for new commercial of >8,000 square feet Barcelona Minimum 5-square-meter storage for new bars, restaurants Paris Technical guidelines to on-street delivery bays for the City of Paris Consolidation schemes Paris Urban Logistics Spaces: subsidized rental rates for small freight facilities in municipal car and measures targeted parks toward urban supply Europe Pickup points networks for home deliveries (Hermes, Kiala, Pickup services) chains Bristol (UK), Urban consolidation centers Motomachi (Japan), Cityporto (Italy), Elcidis (France) London Construction consolidation center Off-hours deliveries New York City 2009–2010 experiment, focus on receivers Los Angeles– PierPASS off-peak program Long Beach Dublin (Ireland), Tests for early morning deliveries in partnership with urban grocery retailers Barcelona, Paris 2. Environment Location Description Truck fleet emission California (U.S.) CARB truck, diesel particulate filter standards standards United States EPA 2011 truck CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency standards Low-emission zones Greater London LEZ: Access restrictions on old trucks and large vans (LEZs) Milan (Italy) Area C: Historic center truck regulations Swedish, Dutch, and Truck access regulations based on Euro standards Danish cities Alternative fuels, London, Milan Congestion charge exemption for alternative-fuel vehicles electric delivery vehicles U.S. cities Delivery company use of alternative-fuel trucks and vans European cities Electrically assisted cargocycles France Program to group purchases of electric vans for commercial fleets for public administrations Los Angeles– CAAP Technology Advancement Program Long Beach ports Promotion of United States U.S. Department of Transportation (MARAD) Marine Highways–Short Sea Shipping Grant alternative modes, program cargo diversion San Francisco Bay FedEx BART pilot program Area (U.S.) Paris Cargotram, large retailers using Monoprix rail, Franprix waterway deliveries Dresden (Germany) CargoTram for Volkswagen plant Restriction on California 5-minute limit on diesel truck idling truck idling United States Truckstop electrification Delivery noise reduction Netherlands PIEK research, development, and regulation program Atlanta (U.S.) ASTROMAP, strategic truck route master plan Environmental justice, Greater Los Angeles SCAG Toolkit for Goods Movements community mitigation County of Riverside Truck Routing and Parking Study measures (U.S.) New York City Truck Route Management and Community Impact Reduction Study Baltimore (U.S.) Maritime Industrial Zone Overlay District Europe Freight villages, logistics parks Atlanta Regional Commission’s freight studies United States Environmental justice guidelines publications (NCHRP 320, NCFRP 13 and 14)

67appendix a Giuliano and dablanc 3. Metropolitanwide Truck VMT Location Description Congestion pricing, New York City Proposed pricing for New York City bridges road pricing Switzerland Truck VMT pricing, based on weight, emissions standard, and peak time, on all roads and streets Germany Truck VMT pricing, based on weight, Euro standard, and peak time, on major highways France (start only October 2013) Truck-only lanes Georgia Statewide truck-only lanes (proposed) South Boston, Short distance, truck-only access roads Southern California, Port of New Orleans Truck traffic United States PrePass weigh station bypass system management Driverless truck convoys Tokyo (test) Driverless trucks connected to each other and to the infrastructure Trolley trucks Long Beach– Siemens proposal: hybrid trucks powered by electricity supplied by overhead wires on Los Angeles (proposed congested corridors pilot project) Elimination of at-grade Los Angeles Alameda Corridor crossings Greater Los Angeles Alameda Corridor East Chicago CREATE Seattle FAST program 4. Freight Hubs, Port Management Location Description Regional logistics– Toronto (and others) Freight-supportive land use guidelines freight plans (Canada) Development of logistics parks, intermodal facilities integrated to the regional master plan Region of Ile de France (Paris) (and others) Building requirements U.S. and EU cities Zoning codes, conditional use permits, building codes for loading–unloading bays Facilitating accommo- Tokyo Freight facilities located in city centers, well accepted by municipality dation of urban Paris Sogaris projects: Chapelle International, Beaugrenelle (Paris) freight terminals Port congestion pricing: Los Angeles– PierPASS off-peak program Marine terminal gates Long Beach ports Vancouver (Canada) Off-peak gate program Busan (South Korea) Evening gate program Truck reservation and Ports of Los Angeles, AB 2650 gate appointment mandate appointment system Long Beach, and Oakland Port of Vancouver Reservation system U.S.–Mexico border Pilot program crossing Accelerated emissions Los Angeles– Clean Air Action Plan; Clean Trucks Program reduction Long Beach ports Port of Vancouver Truck Licensing System New York and New Voluntary truck emissions programs Jersey, Seattle, Oakland Equipment management New York and New Virtual container yards Jersey, Oakland Worldwide Industry-driven chassis pools

68 city logistics research: a transatlantic perspective through the zoning and approval process allows for flex- ibility in enforcement and is widely accepted. 3.1.3 Off-Hours Deliveries Off-hours (outside regular hours) deliveries seek to shift truck activity out of the peak traffic periods and hence reduce congestion and emissions, yet few examples of off-hours delivery programs exist. Off-hours deliveries affect the end of the supply chain, and hence affect ship- per and final receiver. Constraints on the trucking side include regulatory hours of service requirements2 and late-shift premium pay for unionized drivers. Constraints on receivers include having to open receiving facilities early and to operate loading terminals more hours of the day, late-shift premium pay for terminal workers, and local zoning codes that prohibit after-hours truck activi- ties in residential neighborhoods. Examples in Europe, where shippers and trucking organizations generally support off-hours deliveries, include the cities of Dublin, Barcelona, and Paris. These cities benefit from the results of the Dutch national PIEK program, which provided research and development efforts for quieter delivery trucks and handling equipment. PIEK equipment is used, with PIEK labels made visible on the trucks operating at night. There is only one permanent off-hours program in the United States, the PierPass program at the Los Angeles–Long Beach ports. It was implemented under unique circumstances that do not exist in other U.S. metropolitan areas. A New York City demonstration was the first and only in-city program. It has resulted in reduced congestion, energy consumption, and emissions and thus demonstrates the potential benefits of such pro- grams (Holguín-Veras et al. 2006). The New York City research indicates that shippers and receivers are willing to support off-hours deliveries if they are compensated for the additional costs incurred. Off-hours delivery may have potential as a voluntary or negotiated program. 3.1.4 Negotiated Programs When their regulatory authority is weak or absent, many local governments have implemented voluntary programs to mitigate freight impacts. Termed volun- tary regulation, these are typically the result of a nego- tiation between the public sector and private industry to develop a set of voluntary targets or operating rules that confer either recognition or special benefits such as flexible delivery hours. Examples include the vari- 2 U.S. federal law and EU laws limit the total number of hours of driv- ing per shift and the elapsed time between driving shifts. ous “green” certification programs that promote use of cleaner vehicles or operations during less congested periods of the day. Voluntary programs are not confined to last mile problems. Many ports have voluntary pro- grams to reduce ocean vessel emissions, and many city programs are aimed at reducing truck emissions. Effec- tiveness depends on how much these agreements change behavior. Certification programs that allow access to loading facilities or extended delivery hours offer a sig- nificant benefit to shippers, and therefore make it easier to justify the purchase of new compliant vehicles. Certi- fication programs are often the result of freight forums or participatory processes that include public and private stakeholders. The certification programs reviewed by the authors were perceived as very successful, both by the public sponsors and private participants. One potential prob- lem is the buy-in and participation of all industry seg- ments; for example, large shippers are more capable of negotiating program conditions with public sponsors, so programs may be designed to their advantage. Certifica- tion programs may increase trust and foster more collab- orative relationships between industry and government. Shippers may also enjoy a competitive advantage when bidding for contracts because more clients place value in doing business with “green” firms. Finally, certifica- tion programs are relatively low cost, with most of the costs in the form of transactions costs—establishing and maintaining public–private relationships. They may also evolve: as targets are reached, new targets are negotiated, leading to significant improvements over time. There are many examples of voluntary programs in Europe and the United States. Two well-known freight forums, called freight quality partnerships in the United Kingdom, were established in London and Paris in the early 2000s and are still active today. Trade organiza- tions meet with local decision makers and practitioners on a regular basis, negotiating the content of municipal policies. In London, for example, the Congestion Pricing scheme was discussed prior to its implementation in 2003. In Paris, the freight partnership discussed the deployment of on-street delivery bays. Voluntary regulation is a par- ticularly good fit within the U.S. context of decentralized governance and dispersed regulatory authority. In cases where direct regulation is either impossible (because of a lack of authority) or infeasible, voluntary regulation may be the best available alternative. 3.1.5 City Logistics and Consolidation Programs The goal of consolidation programs is to reduce truck traffic by finding ways to combine pickups and deliver- ies of different shippers or different receivers. Such pro-

69appendix a Giuliano and dablanc grams often focus on changing the supply chain rather than on the final (or initial) step of the chain. The sim- plest (from a supply chain perspective) consolidation schemes are those that focus on final delivery or pickup; for example, on the end of the chain, such as pickup cen- ters for online purchases. These common pickup points reduce home deliveries (truck trips), but their impact on private vehicle trips is unknown and depends on how consumers access the centers. Another version of consolidation is shared logistics spaces, where multiple shippers use an in-town facility to consolidate loads (typically from different out-of-town logistics facilities) before final deliveries. The intent is to reduce truck VMT by more efficient routing of final deliveries (or initial pickups). The most ambitious ver- sion is the urban consolidation center, where goods from multiple shippers or vendors are combined and deliv- ered by third-party trucking firms. These consolidation centers can be found in large integrated shopping malls (especially in the United Kingdom), but they are much less common for local shops in central areas. Although shippers may benefit from the lower costs of consoli- dated deliveries, whether these benefits offset the rental and added labor costs of transloading is unclear. In many European experiments, consolidation centers were not feasible without public subsidies, and many have since closed. Consolidation experiments are observed almost exclu- sively in Europe. In the United States, there are a few examples of voluntary consolidation programs within an industry segment (e.g., central city hospitals in Orlando, Florida, and Atlanta, Georgia, established a suburban warehouse to receive deliveries, with third-party truck- ers making final deliveries to ensure reliable access to critical supplies). European-style consolidation centers are unlikely to appear in the United States. Subsidies to freight operators would be politically difficult, even if local jurisdictions had the funding to provide. Any effort to force consolidation in the United States via regulation (as in several European cities) would be very difficult because of interstate commerce laws. 3.2 Environmental Issues: Strategies to Reduce Trucks’ Impacts There are many externalities associated with freight in metropolitan areas. The most serious, from a public health perspective, is particulate emissions. Research has shown that fine particulates are associated with increased incidence of morbidity and mortality from asthma, lung cancer, and other respiratory diseases (Peters 2004). Freight movement is a significant source of both ozone precursers and particulate matter (PM). Table 2 (page 70) gives examples of contributions of PM-10 emissions from the freight sector for six U.S. metro areas. Trucks contribute the largest share in every case, but in the port regions of Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles, California, a large portion comes from marine freight. To provide some context on freight contributions to pollution, when PM-10 emissions from the entire transport sector are considered (air, rail, marine, onroad), freight accounts for about 56% of the total.3 Related to vehicle emissions is the long-term problem of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. Energy efficiency improvements in transport—particu- larly in freight transport—are challenging in part because of the need for high-energy and high-density fuels (Greene 2004) and partly because of less aggressive regulation rel- ative to passenger cars. Livability impacts, notably noise in dense European cities and around major intermodal facilities, are also of concern to urban residents. Strategies to reduce emissions and energy consump- tion include the following: • Efficiencies in routing (more fully loaded trucks, optimized delivery routes), • More efficient or cleaner diesel engines, • Use of alternative fuels, or • Shifts to more energy-efficient modes. 3.2.1 Truck Fuel Efficiency and Emissions Standards Truck fuel and efficiency standards have been demon- strated to be among the most effective tools for reducing emissions. The recent changes in U.S. light-truck CAFE standards will have a significant impact on the light- truck portion of the freight vehicle fleet. The shift to cleaner diesel engines and fuels is having a similar impact on heavy-duty trucks. In the European Union, emission standards for vehicle manufacturing follow designated “Euro standards.” For trucks, the current standard is Euro V4 (trucks manufactured after October 2009), with the more stringent Euro VI standard due at the end of 2013.5 The authors expect fuel efficiency and emissions regulations to continue to be one of the most effective tools for reducing air pollution and carbon dioxide emis- sions in metro areas in Europe and the United States. 3 Calculated by the authors from the 2008 U.S. National Emis- sions Inventory Data, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ net/2008inventory.html. 4 By convention, the Euro name is followed by arabic numerals when it applies to light-duty vehicles, and roman numerals when it applies to heavy-duty vehicles. 5 These standards target emissions of local air pollutants, not CO2. In some cases the introduction of technologies to reduce pollutant emissions results in increased fuel consumption. Efforts today aim at achieving both a reduction in local pollutants and in CO2 emissions.

70 city logistics research: a transatlantic perspective 3.2.2 Low-Emission Zones LEZs limit the types of vehicles that may enter a given part of the city. The limitation is based on emissions and energy consumption characteristics. LEZs have been established in several European cities; examples include London, Copen- hagen, and Milan. The London scheme is the largest and most stringent. It has progressively extended application to more vehicle types (including vans) and raised engine stan- dards. Transport for London (2008) reports significant reductions in PM and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Impacts on shipping costs, businesses, or the trucking industry are not yet known. LEZs have some obvious advantages: to the extent that performance standards are imposed on all trucks, the entire urban fleet is affected, and emissions reductions could be large. LEZs may generate secondary benefits by forcing the reorganization of the local trucking industry into larger and hence more efficient operations (there is uncertainty that LEZs will generate net benefits because the elimination of small operators would eliminate jobs and small businesses). The authors are unaware of any central city–oriented LEZ program in the United States. A few ports have implemented clean truck programs, which either restrict access to trucks that meet certain standards or charge fees on trucks that do not meet the standard. The most ambitious program is the clean truck program implemented at California’s Los Angeles and Long Beach ports in 2006, which required the use of 2007 or newer trucks phased in over a 2-year period. The U.S. regulatory environment (the national government is vested with regu- lation of interstate commerce) requires such programs to be implemented on a voluntary basis. 3.2.3 Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) have been widely promoted in Europe and the United States but have achieved little market penetration because of higher capital and operat- ing costs, the complexities of operating diverse fleets, lim- ited range, lack of fueling infrastructure, and uncertainties regarding the long-term promise of different fuel alterna- tives.6 In Europe, even large subsidies have not prompted adoption of AFVs on any significant scale. AFVs are not yet sufficiently competitive with heavy-duty diesel engines, and the progress being made in reducing diesel emissions may make it more difficult for AFVs to compete. However, the largest private delivery firms—FedEx, DHL, and UPS—are all experimenting with AFVs and have small numbers of electric and hybrid electric trucks operating in various cities. In Europe, already noted are experiments with smaller AFVs, such as small vans and cargo cycles for local deliv- eries. Niche markets may exist in the most dense U.S. city centers (New York, Chicago, Boston), depending on the costs (labor and new vehicles) relative to conventional vans or small trucks, but such experiments have not yet appeared. Lack of a potentially large market suggests that these strategies, focused on city centers only, would have little impact on emissions reductions. 3.2.4 Community Environmental Mitigation The United States has taken the lead in the incorporation of environmental justice as a performance measure for new freight projects. In part, this can be explained by the sociogeography of U.S. cities, where poor and minority populations tend to be concentrated near major freight facilities. The environmental review process provides a venue for environmental justice concerns. More recent research on the relationship between emissions and health has created an imperative for industry to find solutions to problems that might otherwise prevent them from secur- ing the needed support from elected officials and regula- tory agencies. Environmental justice considerations are therefore widely institutionalized in the transportation planning process and often involve industry–government partnerships. Examples include the Southern California Association of Government’s Toolkit for Goods Move- ment, New York City’s truck impact study, and Balti- more’s industrial overlay zone study. 6 A discussion of the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of the various alternative fuels is beyond the scope of this paper. TABLE 2 Contribution of PM-10 Emissions by Mode of Freight Transport Trucking Rail Freight Marine Freight Air Freight Freight Total Region PM-10 tons % PM-10 tons % PM-10 tons % PM-10 tons % PM-10 tons % Baltimore 734 74 71 7 190 19 1 .01 996 100 Chicago 2,541 73 792 22 173 5 10 0.3 3,616 100 Dallas-Ft. Worth 884 88 113 11 0 0 4 0.4 1,002 100 Detroit 2,382 96 58 2 27 1 2 0.1 2,469 100 Houston 1,256 54 141 6 915 40 2 0.1 2,314 100 Los Angeles 2,210 54 345 8 1,521 37 14 0.3 4,091 100 Source: FHWA 2005, Table ES-3.

71appendix a Giuliano and dablanc U.S. ports have been particularly proactive in address- ing environmental justice concerns. In addition to the extreme case of Southern California, clean truck pro- grams, freight rail investments, and elimination of at-grade rail crossings are part of programs in New York–New Jersey, Seattle, and Oakland, as well as Chi- cago and Atlanta (two major intermodal hub cities). 3.2.5 Alternative Modes Efforts to shift truck freight to slower but more energy- efficient and cleaner modes in urban areas have not been successful (there are examples of successful interregional programs, such as the European Union’s Marco Polo program). In addition to general problems related to rail versus trucking,7 moving freight by rail in urban areas requires infrastructure capacity that is scarce because of conflicts with regional and urban passenger trains. Rail freight is also commonly opposed by urban resi- dents, especially for nighttime operations. Experiments in Europe that use the regional rail system to ship goods to central areas for delivery show that large public sub- sidies are required. Studies of using commuter rail for package delivery failed to result in demonstrations or experiments. Efforts to shift freight to water have been similarly unsuccessful, both in the case of coastal ship- ping and river transport. Recent operations using barges on the Seine for deliveries in Paris City Center were successfully implemented (technically), but at a high cost. The most promising segments for mode shifting are through freight traffic (port or airport imports and exports) in large volumes, as, for example, increasing on- dock rail facilities to eliminate short drayage trips; or large-volume, longer-distance deliveries (say to distant distribution and warehouse centers) where rail is close to competitive with trucking. 3.3 Freight Flows in Metropolitan Regions: Reducing Congestion and Truck VMT In addition to the concentrated last mile problems described in Section 3.1, truck traffic affects the entire metropolitan transport system. Large trucks contribute more than pro- portionately to traffic congestion; they account for about 7% of all urban travel, but 22% of all urban congestion cost (Texas Transportation Institute 2012). These costs— estimated as the value of delay and wasted fuel—amounted 7 To use a slower mode, cargo owners must hold the inventory longer, and these inventory costs tend to exceed the higher costs of using faster modes. Mixing modes adds to the number of times ship- ments must be handled, further increasing labor and facility costs. In Europe, rail transport is usually more expensive than trucking. Thus shifting to slower modes adds both time and money costs. to approximately $27 billion in 2011 for 439 U.S. urban areas (Texas Transportation Institute 2012). The growth in freight rail traffic in the United States has also contrib- uted to congestion by blocking at-grade rail–road intersec- tions more frequently and for longer periods of time. These problems have motivated efforts to reduce truck-related congestion and truck VMT. 3.3.1 Road Pricing and Dedicated Truck Lanes8 Road pricing is an efficient method for managing truck- related congestion, damage to roadways, or emissions. There is an increasing use of pricing strategies in Europe and Asia; whereas, in the United States, pricing strategies continue to be difficult to implement. The most notable European examples (not primarily urban oriented) are the pollution–weight–distance fees in Switzerland, Aus- tria, and Germany, and—in urban areas—the cordon pricing scheme in London. The Swiss example stands out because all types of roads are included in the pric- ing scheme, including urban and local roads. The Swiss truck fee has contributed to a decrease in truck kilometers together with an increase in truck tons since its introduc- tion in 2001 (Confédération Suisse 2012). Studies have shown that trucks inflict large externalities on regional and local roads, but few toll schemes target these. In Ger- many, only national highways are included in the pricing scheme, generating an incentive to divert to nonpriced roads. The Paris region is famous for an entirely free-of- charge network of regional highways and roads, while truck tolls are very high on nonmetropolitan highways, which are actually much less congested. There are numer- ous proposals for truck tolls in the United States, especially in metropolitan areas, including the New York bridge toll plan, and proposed tolled truck lanes in Atlanta and Los Angeles, but none of them have even reached the stage of being part of an accepted project. Truck pricing may be more difficult than pricing pas- senger cars because of the competition between truck- ing and rail, a limited understanding of truck value of time, and the complexity of devising pricing schemes that would address multiple externalities. Uncertainty regarding truck value of time makes it more difficult to establish efficient prices. For example, road pricing to reduce congestion should promote less VMT via more full loads and use of larger trucks, but more use of larger trucks would increase road damage. Hence, efficient pricing would need to take into account these expected shifts and incorporate road damage costs. A second strategy (often linked with tolls to offer a funding mechanism) is truck-only lanes on highways. 8 Adapted from a section of Giuliano et al. (2013) authored by Thomas O’Brien.

72 city logistics research: a transatlantic perspective They have been proposed in major metropolitan areas (most notably Atlanta) and included in regional trans- portation plans. With the exception of short segments to manage specific conditions (e.g., climbing lanes in steep terrain or lanes for port-access facilities), no examples of truck-only lanes on metropolitan highways in the United States or Europe can be found. U.S. proposals have to date not been implemented because of a lack of funding (Atlanta) or local community opposition (Los Angeles). 3.3.2 Real-Time Traffic Information, Smart Truck–Road Interfaces Intelligent transportation system (ITS) applications hold promise for better managing urban freight. The authors distinguish between ITS technologies applied within companies and ITS technologies aimed at connecting vehicles with transport system information and manage- ment. The focus here is on the latter, which requires pub- lic involvement. Very few traffic management techniques are actually specific to (dedicated to) commercial vehicles. Examples include various forms of ID tags automatically read to monitor access or charge fees, weigh-in-motion technology, and truck parking reservation systems. ITS research and development is moving quickly; there are major efforts in progress in both the United States and Europe. Examples are the U.S. CVISN (commercial vehicle information systems and networks) program and the SMARTFREIGHT project in Europe. Among the most anticipated solutions are real-time detailed traffic information focused on truck drivers (with more details on incidents than currently used navigation systems) and online reservation of loading–unloading areas. Innova- tive longer-term solutions are currently being tested, such as driverless convoys of trucks, tested at real scale on a Tokyo suburban highway in March 2013. Only the first truck of a convoy of four has a driver. Onboard computers and cameras recognize lane markers, com- municate with the other trucks, and control speed. The test proved successful in reducing total energy consump- tion of the trucks. To date, ITS technologies have led to incremental improvements. Whether automation or fully implemented vehicle–infrastructure systems lead to significant system efficiencies remains to be seen. 3.3.3 Better Accommodation of Rail in Metropolitan Areas9 High-volume rail corridors conflict with surface road traffic at at-grade rail crossings and with passenger com- 9 Adapted from a section of Giuliano et al. (2013) authored by Thomas O’Brien. muter rail traffic. The main city strategy to address these problems is capital investment to increase rail capacity and to eliminate at-grade rail crossings. The Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles remains the showcase project in the United States. A partnership of the ports, railroads, and various public agencies, the 20-mile cargo express- way was built on time and within budget. Other major rail–road infrastructure projects have proven more dif- ficult; these include the CREATE project in Chicago and the Alameda Corridor East project in Los Angeles. The major challenge to capital investment strategies is the lack of an obvious funding source. Local jurisdictions have no authority to force railroads to incur these costs, and they also have little incentive to pay because they view the rail traffic as a national responsibility. At the national level there is no specific funding source for such projects. 3.4 Freight Hubs: Reducing Impacts of Major Freight Facilities and Clusters Freight hubs are locations where freight flows are large and geographically concentrated. They include ports, airports, intermodal transfer points, border crossings, or large logistics clusters. Freight hubs are associated with national and international trade, and they also serve an important local market. Freight hubs are further defined by the scale and scope of operations that take place within them, particularly in the port, warehousing, and distribution sectors. A combination of rising trade vol- umes, demand for larger facilities, and the cost of land has pushed distribution centers and warehouses to the periphery of metropolitan areas. These facilities generate freight-related activity that may pass through the urban core on the way to and from ports and airports to mar- kets outside the region. 3.4.1 Logistics Land Uses In large metropolitan areas, logistics activities are both growing and decentralizing (i.e., moving away from the central city) (Dablanc and Ross 2012; Cidell 2010), which can generate more truck traffic on the regional roads (Dablanc and Rakotonarivo 2010). This shift is market driven by land prices and scale economies, and policy strategies are often ineffective. The fragmentation of local governments makes things worse. Planners con- fronted with the development of freight facilities make land use, zoning, and permitting decisions based on local issues and do not take the regional impacts of warehouse locations into consideration. Some examples of a more careful attention given to freight facilities in the planning process can be found.

73appendix a Giuliano and dablanc They include looking at accessibility, the provision of adequate infrastructure, and the minimization of impacts of freight facilities in the surrounding commu- nities; see, for example, the Freight Supportive Land Use Guidelines for the Greater Toronto Area. Some also include promoting the local employment base and offering training programs for warehousing jobs. At the metropolitan–regional level, successful planning pro- cesses include the studies of freight flows and (such as is common in Europe) the promotion of logistics clus- ters; that is, the concentration of logistics facilities in one zone sharing services such as safety, catering, and truck maintenance. In the United States, since 1996 six publications of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies have demonstrated the increas- ing consideration of freight planning. The 2011 Freight Facility Location Selection: A Guide for Public Offi- cials (NCFRP 2011) provides a comprehensive set of recommendations to local governments regarding the integration of freight facilities. In the literature on smart growth and sustainable transport, little is said about freight. Some of the smart growth ideas that include freight also include urban con- solidation centers, freight facilities that are geographi- cally much closer to final–original destinations. Their implementation faces important difficulties, as presented in Section 3.1. By contributing to a better coordination of infrastructure planning and land use decisions, logis- tics planning can lead to interesting strategies, but the authors believe that it requires supplementary strategies such as truck pricing on regional roads (see Section 3.3) to be effective. For the European case, Hesse (2004) identifies the rise of specialized global players in logistics real estate as another challenge for land use planning. He argues that the influence of global players results in poorly sited distribution centers with limited attention to local considerations such as public transport access for employees or access routes to the site. 3.4.2 Better Management of Port Operations Ports are particularly large truck and train traffic gen- erators. Large ports generate many thousands of truck trips per day, imposing traffic impacts, noise, and pol- lution on local residents. As a result, ports are a target for interventions to reduce these impacts. Examples of strategies to reduce or better manage truck traffic are appointment systems and pricing. Appointment sys- tems offer definite pickup times or deliveries arranged in advance. They are intended to both increase efficiency of dock operations and reduce truck queuing. Appoint- ments have been implemented at several ports, including Vancouver, Southampton (UK); Sydney, Australia; Los Angeles, and Long Beach. To date there is little evidence that such efficiencies are being realized. Appointments require operational changes by terminal operators, so they are likely to be used effectively only when yard con- gestion makes it worthwhile. The sole example of pricing-based terminal gate oper- ations is the PierPASS program in Southern California. PierPASS charges a traffic mitigation fee (currently $123 per 40-foot container) on certain containers moved into and out of the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. The program has shifted about 30% of truck traffic to evenings and week- ends and has been successful in reducing the number of peak-period drayage trips and reducing congestion on major highway routes linked with the ports (Giuliano and O’Brien 2008). No other U.S. metropolitan area has the severity of congestion and air pollution to motivate use of peak fees, and no other port is inclined to take the risk of losing business in response to a fee. Shifting truck traffic at the ports generates changes along the rest of the supply chain. The net benefits at the system level are not yet known. 3.4.3 Reducing Port-Related Emissions Ocean vessels are the largest contributors to PM emis- sions (in the case of Los Angeles–Long Beach, they account for 59% of port-related PM emissions). Ports use various incentive programs to reduce emissions by reducing speed or using cleaner fuels, because ocean vessels are not subject to national regulation. Examples include the European Seaport Association’s recognition program for lower-emissions ships, the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy (Vancouver, Seattle, Tacoma) that offers reduced harbor dues for reduced emissions, and the vessel speed reduction program, which offers recog- nition, time-definite berthing, and sometimes reduced berthing fees in exchange for vessels slowing down on approach to the port (Los Angeles and Long Beach). The vessel speed reduction program has achieved a compli- ance rate of about 90% and has resulted in a nearly 50% reduction in PM emissions (compared with no program base case), demonstrating the potential of voluntary incentive programs to achieve mitigation goals (Linder 2010). Several U.S. ports have clean truck programs that are intended to accelerate the use of cleaner diesel beyond existing regulatory requirements and promote AFVs in drayage trucking. The most aggressive effort is the clean truck program at the Los Angeles–Long Beach ports, dis- cussed in Section 3.2 above. Seattle, Oakland, and New York–New Jersey have programs with more flexibility and less aggressive targets. These programs are examples of voluntary regulation: the targets are reached via nego- tiation and are beyond regulatory requirements.

74 city logistics research: a transatlantic perspective 4. What Works, What Doesn’t, anD Why In the introduction to this paper, the authors noted that efforts to manage urban freight and mitigate its impacts have been diverse and widespread. Strategies organized around four urban freight problems have been discussed. Throughout the discussion, the differences between the European Union and United States have been noted with respect to policy approach, strategies implemented, and outcomes. Table 3 (below) seeks to synthesize all of this information. Strategies used or proposed to address the four problem areas have been listed. The authors give their assessment of effectiveness in addressing those problems based on the available literature. Effectiveness depends on whether the strategy generates anticipated outcomes (or solves the targeted problem). The remaining text provides the authors’ assessment of applicability (defined potential for broad implemen- tation) in the United States and the European Union. It is an assessment that is their own and is preliminary. Sufficient research has not yet been conducted to under- stand why some strategies appear more frequently in the European Union than in the United States. Applicability depends on institutional arrangements, regulatory struc- tures, policy perspectives, and geography. Differences that affect applicability include the following: 1. U.S. interstate commerce protections, which limit the ability of state and local governments to regulate urban freight; 2. Greater acceptance of subsidies to and regulation of private firms in the European Union; 3. The challenging geography of historic cores of European cities, which physically limit circulation and motivate more aggressive solutions to truck traffic prob- lems; and 4. The relatively more fragmented and complex gov- ernance environment in U.S. metropolitan areas, which makes region-level strategies more difficult to develop and implement. Table 3 shows that despite these differences our appli- cability assessment is rather consistent across the United States and European Union. Very generally, it would seem that the EU environment is more amenable to a broader array of strategy choices as a consequence of a more supportive institutional and political environment. 5. Future research Following are some of the authors’ suggestions for EU- U.S. collaborative research. One of the priorities for TABLE 3 Summary of Strategies: Effectiveness and Applicability to the United States and the European Union Strategy Effectiveness U.S. Applicability EU Applicability M et ro C or e Traffic and parking regulations Medium High High Local planning policy High High High Off-hours deliveries High Medium Medium Negotiated programs High High High City logistics and consolidation programs Low Low Medium E nv ir on m en t Truck fuel efficiency and emissions standards High High High Low-emission zones (LEZs) High Low High Alternative fuels and vehicles Low Medium Medium Alternative modes Low Low Low Community environmental mitigation Medium High Medium M et ro F lo w s Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) Medium Medium Medium Road pricing High Low Medium Dedicated truck lanes Low Low Low Mitigating rail impacts High Medium Medium Fr ei gh t H ub s Logistics land uses Medium Medium Medium Port appointment systems Medium High High Port pricing High Low Low Equipment management Medium Medium Medium Accelerated truck emissions reduction programs High Medium High Ocean vessel emissions reduction programs High High High

75appendix a Giuliano and dablanc research in urban freight is data collection. Data accessi- ble to planners and researchers on delivery characteristics, operators, truck movements, impacts, and externalities are almost nonexistent. Although progress has been made in the last decade, especially in Europe, survey methods remain heterogeneous, making it difficult to compare results from one city to another. Without urban freight data, it is hard to confirm or refute claims that the den- sity of deliveries in cities has increased over time, or that e-commerce has led to more truck VMT (and less car traffic). A sustained effort in freight data collection and modeling is merited on both sides of the Atlantic. A thorough understanding of the urban mobility of freight in European and North American cities will make it possible to go further and engage in comparative analyses. An important comparative research objective is to identify relationships within the urban freight system. For example, French urban freight surveys identified a ratio of one deliv- ery per week per job in large metropolitan areas. Is this a valid estimate for other countries or regions? Another rela- tionship observed for European cities is a decrease in the size of trucking firms, increase in the rate of subcontract- ing for final deliveries, and increase in the size of cities. Are these changes observed in other regions? A third research need is a careful and systematic evaluation of existing policies and experiments. With few exceptions, lacking is a careful, systematic analy- sis of the impacts of certification schemes, truck access restrictions, and requirements for alternative fuel trucks. Ongoing experimentation provides a rich resource for discovering whether these efforts have the expected results or have unintended consequences that reduce their benefits. For example, there is limited information on the relative benefits and costs of LEZs. Research is needed to better understand their effectiveness: What are the costs associated with an LEZ, both in terms of the government and logistics firms? What is the impact on the trucking industry? Where do evicted trucks go? What is the global impact of an LEZ once all consequences are taken into account, such as the relocation of a trucking company using old trucks to another city with no LEZ? A fourth proposed research topic is the effect of the decentralization of logistics facilities away from city cen- ters (logistics sprawl) on truck traffic and VMT. Because many urban areas are watching their logistics industry simultaneously decentralize and consolidate, studying the effect of this phenomenon on total VMT is criti- cal. It may be that the efficiency gains of consolidation outweigh the increase in VMT attributable to decen- tralization. If so, cities may wish to facilitate or even encourage these shifts. With regard to consolidation, do dense freight centers generate more—or less—total truck VMTs than multiple, smaller, dispersed facilities? Finally, comparative research on voluntary and nego- tiated freight mitigation strategies is suggested. Faced with multiple and diverse local government partners and limited jurisdictional authority, metropolitan areas appear to be benefitting from collaboration, consensus building, and engagement with industry to solve urban freight problems. Under what circumstances are such agreements most likely? What is their effectiveness? Do they establish a structure that allows for progressive improvements and change? Urban freight problems are pervasive around the world. There is much to be gained from international collaborative research. reFerences Cidell, J. Concentration and Decentralization: The New Geog- raphy of Freight Distribution in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2010, pp. 363–371. Confédération Suisse. Equitable et efficiente, la redevance sur le trafic des poids lourds liée aux prestations (RPLP) en Suisse. Report. 2012. http://www.are.admin.ch/themen/ verkehr/00250/00461/index.html?lang=fr. Accessed April 15, 2013. Dablanc, L., and D. Rakotonarivo. The Impacts of Logistic Sprawl: How Does the Location of Parcel Transport Termi- nals Affect the Energy Efficiency of Goods’ Movements in Paris and What Can We Do About It? Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sixth International Conference on City Logistics (E. Tanguchi and R. G. Thompson, eds.), Vol. 2, No. 3, 2010, pp. 6087–6096. Dablanc, L., and C. Ross. Atlanta: A Mega Logistics Center in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 24, 2012, pp. 432–442. Dicken, P. Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 5th ed. Sage Publications, London, 2007. Duany, A., and J. Speck The Smart Growth Manual. McGraw- Hill, New York, 2010. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Assessing the Effects of Freight Movement on Air Quality at the National and Regional Level. 2005. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/envi ronment/air_quality/publications/effects_of_freight_move ment/chapter08.cfm#s1. Accessed October 29, 2013. Giuliano, G., and T. O’Brien. Extended Gate Operations at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach: A Preliminary Assessment. Journal of Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2008, pp. 215–235. Giuliano, G., T. O’Brien, L. Dablanc, and K. Holliday. NCFRP Report 23: Synthesis of Freight Research in Urban Trans- portation Planning. NCFRP Project 36(05). Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013. Greene, D. Transportation and Energy. In The Geography of Urban Transportation (S. Hanson and G. Giuliano, eds.), Guilford Press, New York, 2004, pp. 274–293. Hesse, M. Land for Logistics: Locational Dynamics, Real Estate Markets and Political Regulation of Regional Distribution

76 city logistics research: a transatlantic perspective Complexes. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geog- raphie, Vol. 95, No. 2, 2004, pp. 162–173. Hesse, M., and J.-P. Rodrigue. The Transport Geography of Logistics and Freight Distribution. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 12, No. 30, 2004, pp. 171–184. Holguín-Veras, J., Q. Wang, N. Xu, K. Ozbay, and J. Polimeni. The Impacts of Time of Day Pricing on the Behavior of Carri- ers in a Congested Urban Area: Implications to Road Pricing. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 40, 2006, pp. 744–766. Linder, A. Linking Participation, Program Design and Out- comes: Voluntary Air Quality Programs at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. PhD dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 2010. National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP). NCFRP Report 13: Freight Facility Location Selection: A Guide for Public Officials. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011. Newman, P., and J. Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Island Press, New York, 1999. Peters, J. M. Epidemiologic Investigation to Identify Chronic Effects of Ambient Air Pollutants In Southern California. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency, May 2004. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/94-331a.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2013. Texas Transportation Institute. Urban Mobility Report. 2012. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/. Accessed May 16, 2013. Transport for London (TfL). London Freight Data Report. 2008. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/documents/ publications/tfl-freight-data-report-2008.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2013.