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.
19 Learning from Goods-Movement Stakeholders Issues of goods movement, whether related to urban or long-haul deliveries, are inherently complex and vary dramatically by specific industry and by geographic and political constraints. As is the case for any planning activity, engaging with stakeholders is invaluable. Freight-related stakeholders possess a level of expertise and a nuanced view of their daily operations otherwise opaque to researchers and practitioners. For example, while it might be generally understood that trucks climb hills more slowly than passenger vehicles, truck drivers can augment this knowledge with particular, location-specific information that illuminates issues of conflict between transportation modes, landscaping, or street design. Drivers, operators, and logistics managers, among others, involved with moving goods in the urban context, may participate in stakeholder processes for a variety of reasons. Although some stakeholders may participate with concern for parochial interests (e.g., to improve a roadway or to resolve a conflict that is of particular concern for their firm), others might do so out of a sense of corporate citizenship. In any case, they do not engage in a planning process for the sake of the process itself but rather from a more action-oriented viewpoint about generally improving conditions for goods movement that will facilitate future operations (Plumeau and Jones 1998). Over the last several decades, the freight community has been asked to participate in a num- ber of academic studies to provide better understanding of their interests and perspective. Pivo et al. (2002) directly considered goods movement in urban settings. Among other findings, they learned of a hierarchy in preference for locations to park a truck, with internal loading docks being preferred over alleys, which in turn are favored over on-street options. In addition, they learned about potential conflicts between modes and about driver frustrations with bicyclists and pedestrians. Pivo et al.âs study is the closest and only direct parallel to the work described in this report. Not surprisingly, little has changed in terms of preferences or potential conflicts. Several studies have engaged with the freight community to consider issues of cost and con- gestion pricing. Golob and Regan (2000) worked with trucking firms in California to determine perceptions related to congestion-relief policies, for example, tolling and truck arterials. In a follow-up to this survey, Golob and Regan (2001) identified five factors that most concern the freight community in relation to congestionââslower average speeds, unreliable travel times, increased driver frustration and morale, higher fuel and maintenance costs, and higher costs of accidents and insurance.â Finally, HolguÃn-Veras and Wang (2011) worked with the freight community to better understand their perceptions of electronic toll collection in New York and New Jersey. These studies highlight several important factors and indicate that freight-related users of the transportation system have unique needs and perspectives. Because goods movement is vital to C H A P T E R 5
20 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement the well-being of economies and cities, careful attention should be given to addressing issues raised by these constituents. Although multiple objectives can be met by adopting smart-growth principlesâfor example, cleaner air, more active lifestyles, shorter commute tripsâthe more that areas densify, the more goods that will be demanded in those areas and the more changes that will be required in the method and design of goods-movement systems. Careful attention must be paid to ensuring that goods movement can thrive in dense urban areas to truly achieve the outcomes desired by smart-growth and growth-management principles. 5.1 Intent of Focus Groups To further understand the relationship between smart-growth principles and urban goods movement, this study team consulted the actors most responsible for such movement. Six focus groups were conducted in May 2011âthree in Seattle, Washington, and three in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In each metropolitan area, there was one for truck drivers, one for logistics man- agers, and one for planners, public officials, and developers. The participants included the peo- ple who drive the trucks and deal with the effects of public policy and the built environment, the logistics managers and schedulers responsible for organizing the distribution of goods and ensuring timely and cost-effective delivery, and the planners, developers, architects, and policy- makers who design and regulate the built environment in which goods must move. The under- lying assumption was that the stakeholders most directly involved with goods movement would have important insights about the topic. The focus groups were separated into three groups in each city to keep the relative size of the group small (8 to 12 people is an ideal size for a focus group) and to allow discussion of slightly different questions (detailed further in this section) in each of the groups. 5.1.1 Study Areas Philadelphia and Seattle were chosen as the study areas for several reasons. The study team is led by the Puget Sound Regional Council, a sophisticated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) with an established history of incorporating freight movement into its regional plans and funding allocations. It operates in one of the dozen growth-management states, in which the guiding policies are essentially smart-growth policies. In their study Learning from Truck- ers, Pivo and Carlson et al. (1997) conducted focus groups with Seattle-area truck drivers about goods movement in dense urban environments, and their results provide a baseline point of comparison of responses from 15 years ago. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission represents a sister metropolitan planning organization in another region of the country, also with advanced involvement in freight movement. A better understanding of what the more generalized or localized concerns and issues may be can be gained by holding focus groups in more than one metropolitan area of the country. 5.1.2 What Did We Ask of the Three Different Groups? The following questions broadly describe the types of topics addressed within the focus groups. Truck drivers. What is it like to deliver in dense urban environments? What about road and curb space allocation to various modes? Does truck size matter? What makes for better or worse delivery situations? Logistics managers from the transportation industry and related sectors. On the operational/logistics side, how do you accommodate denser urban environments and public
Learning from Goods-Movement Stakeholders 21 policies that restrict freight movement? Do you change delivery times, patterns, places, and/ or equipment? What strategies do you employ to deal with congestion and competition from other modes? How do you deal with time-sensitive deliveries as opposed to others? What types of equipment do you use in various environments? On the business location side, why does your business locate in or ship to dense urban environments? Would you change your location if you could? Why? Where would you go? What is the relationship between your location and your ability to attract the kinds of workers you need? What about land cost and availability of space? Developers, urban planners and designers, architects, and building managers. Are you thinking about moving goods? How do you know about freight needs? How do you design for them? What policies are in place to accommodate goods movement (1) in public rights of way and spaces and (2) around new and old buildings? How are policies enforced and by whom? What would you like to see in the future? The list of focus group participants and the complete focus group guides are attached in Appendices A and B. 5.2 Findings from the Focus Groups This section summarizes the findings of the six focus groups held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Seattle, Washington, in May 2011. The section is divided into multiple categories beginning with the demand for goods movement and a discussion of areas perceived as delivery desirable. The section then continues with a set of issues related to the difficulties of moving goods in a dense urban environmentâparking, noise considerations, and modal conflicts. The remaining issues focus on potential solutions to alleviate these problems. Stakeholders with divergent views participated in the focus groups. While truck drivers and logistics managers generally shared the same perceptions, drivers were focused on immediate issuesâthose outside their windshieldâwhile managers were more concerned with cost and systemwide needs. Urban planners and city officials generally held different opinions and per- spectives than those held by freight professionals, probably because this group is responsible for changing and managing infrastructure rather than using it. Although the focus groups were carried out in different settings, the views of similar groups were nearly identical, that is, truck drivers in Philadelphia appear to confront the same issues as those in Seattle. Nonetheless, dif- ferences were also apparent, largely because of different circumstances. For example, a set of parking restrictions has been implemented in Philadelphia through the parking authority, while such a tool is not in use in Seattle. The narrative for each of the topic areas attempts to capture the perceptions and insights of all the groups. Where agreement did not appear, multiple viewpoints are discussed. This section concludes with implications for jurisdictions, urban-planning professionals, and travel-demand modeling. The questions posed in the focus groups are included in Appendix B. âWithout trucks, America stops.â Focus group participants who were engaged directly in goods movement generally conveyed frustration over a lack of consideration for, and accommo- dation of, trucks, both from the public at large and from the public sector with regard to land use and infrastructure decisions. At the same time, public-sector participants felt that they considered freight-related issues in their processes and that they were making significant accommodations for goods movement given the constraints of allocating limited right-of-way space and financial resources. Further, public-sector participants must consider other modes and attempt to improve the system for all users by improving traffic signal timing, considering speed limits, and so forth, in addition to considering the right of way. If you bought it, a truck brought it. (Logistics manager)
22 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement Despite whatever conflicts there may be between various stakeholders, all agreed that smart- growth principles and particularly the mixing of uses were useful strategies for cities to pursue. Indeed, one logistics manager noted that âMixed use is a good strategy to get single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) off the roadâand give us more parking spots.â Although the motivations may be different, all focus-group participants widely agreed that goods movement is vitally important to cities, that cities and the demand for goods were going to continue to grow, and that consider- able effort should be given to addressing this topic. Although truck drivers noted many challenges related to goods movement in dense urban environments, some preferred delivering to these locations. Driving a truck and making route decisions was often described as a puzzle, which drivers were proud to solve. As such, the chal- lenges of urban delivery may outweigh the difficulty of delivering to dispersed locations with long distances between stops. Deliveries benefit from proximityâa consequence of smart growth. The best places to deliver (from the perspective of the focus-group participants) have good access for trucks in terms of the ease of arriving at a destination and the availability of park- ing. Locations with loading docks internal to a building are most favored, especially when the loading docks are easily accessible, for example, through a lift that adjusts the height of the dock and through the thoughtful angling of the entrance into the roadway. In general, newer cities and neighborhoods are favored over established ones because they have wider streets that allow for more space away from parked vehicles and generally include grade separations that remove conflicts with trains and other traffic. The worst places to deliver (from the perspective of the focus-group participants) are ones where one or more conflicts arise. In general, considerable frustration was expressed over issues related to truck parking. Given the limited space for trucks to load and unload goods, locations where passenger vehicles repeatedly occupy a loading area are problematic. At the same time, trucks are considered a nuisance when they double park or unload products in a right of way, when no alternative is available to them (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Delivery truck parked in bicycle lane. (Source: Brian Porter) Weâre the bad guys because we double park. (Truck driver)
Learning from Goods-Movement Stakeholders 23 The issue of parking is predominantly related to commercial areas, and particularly to retail. While shopping malls were described as having been easy to access in the past, there was wide- spread agreement that currently trucks are not welcome at shopping centers and are considered a visual blight or a noise concern. Driver safety was also brought up as a concern. In addition to locations that are generally unsafe in terms of crime, delivery locations where it is difficult to offload goods were of concern to drivers and managers alike due to potential disability claims. In more crowded urban envi- ronments with narrower streets, automated equipment cannot always be used, forcing drivers to carry more of the physical burden for moving goods. Parking is limited. The biggest concerns raised by truck drivers and logistics managers were related to the lack of parking, time restrictions for parking, and poor design of loading docks and zones. Newer environments, suburban areas without congestion issues, and newer build- ings are reported to be considerably easier to deliver to than older, more established urban areas with older buildings. In older locations, there is a need to retrofit, induce market interventions, and reduce conflicts with goods movement. Conversely, newer areas should be built right from the start and properly consider goods movement. Nonetheless, design issues persist. Although planners, engineers, and architects report considering truck loading areas early in their design processes, those considerations seem limited to a decision of where trucks should go to load and unload, that is, how to separate the goods movement from other activities. Truck drivers and logistics managers believed that more direct consideration by these groups for the specific design of the docks themselves (angles of entry, height, clearance, etc.) would better facilitate the loading and unloading of goods. Design of truck loading facilities is particularly important in new buildings, and internal load- ing docks in buildings, if properly designed, are clearly favored by drivers. The internal docks save time in terms of delivery, reduce fears of theft, are indoors and thus protect drivers from adverse weather, and diminish the distance drivers must hand-truck goods, which potentially reduces driver injuries. In addition, internal docks allow trucks to avoid on-street conflicts with bicycles and allow drivers to avoid conflicting with pedestrians on sidewalks while using a hand-truck. When internal loading docks are not available, alleys are generally favored over on-street parking options. However, alleys also present challenges because large trucks have difficulties navigating them. Competition for alley loading time exacerbates the size issue when another vehicle needs the space and one vehicle must wait for the other to finish unloading. While mobil- ity within alleys and space for parking can be mitigated by the use of smaller vehicles, these vehicles have lower capacities and may have different capabilities, which reduce efficiency and increase delivery cost. Another potential difficulty in using alleyways for deliveries is that in some locations alleyways are targeted for pedestrian uses through alley activation projects. On-street loading areas are essential, but there was animated discussion about their place- ment, the number of them available, time restrictions, and enforcement. Generally, participants stated that there are not enough of these areas, that non-delivery vehicles often park in them illegally, and that they are not located near where a truck must deliver. Although truck drivers and logistics managers believe that there is insufficient space, planners must ensure that road space it maximally utilized. The issue is one of optimizationâhow to provide sufficient truck loading areas when trucks need them, and what to do with that space when they do not. Jurisdic- tions are often under pressure from businesses and residents to provide more passenger-vehicle parking. As one city official noted, âeveryone wants curb space, and they want it for free.â In instances when curb space is not available for truck loading, planners and city officials recognize that loading might have to occur in a travel lane, though there is widespread agreement that this Common courtesy doesnât exist in the streets; people look at trucks as a nuisance. (Truck driver) When William Penn designed Philadelphia, he wasnât thinking about 50-foot trailers. (Logistics manager) Goods donât vote, and goods donât buy. (City official)
24 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement is less than optimal. Even so, some goods movement activity must occur in alleyways and not at the curb. âBack doorâ services, such as waste management, must go to where the goods are. A large portion of the problems associated with on-street loading relates to regulation and will be discussed in another section of this chapter. The main concerns include the high cost of parking, including tickets, that trucking firms must bear as well as illegal use of loading areas by other vehi- cles. When drivers have no option but to use on-street facilities, they rely on familiarity with other drivers and their routes and attempt to deliver when they do not expect others to require the space. Parking fines in particular were mentioned as heavily burdensome to companies. One company reported spending $5,500 every 6 weeks on parking fines, and there was a general sentiment by the logistics firms that participated in the focus groups that the city ticketed the companies that paid. However, while acknowledging that the city charges heavy fines for park- ing violations and is familiar with all of the delivery companies and their concerns, city repre- sentatives believed that some deliveries had to be made from further away than a driver would like. The rationale from the cityâs perspective was that the streets had to accommodate multiple purposes, that the freight community is continuously consulted on time of day restrictions, and that delivery drivers had to abide by them. Due to limited parking, trucking companies are willing to bear the cost of fines as long as the drivers do not park near fire hydrants, lift gates, or handicapped zones, which the companies consider to be serious offenses. Nonetheless, logistics managers were quite cognizant of the impli- cations of providing sufficient loading zones, particularly as it is related to the provision of bicycle facilities, because the use of space for one activity precludes another. Among the potential solu- tions offered was to incentivize early morning deliveries and implement time-of-day restrictions. Customers drive the demand. Early morning and nighttime deliveries are often considered a solution to a set of problems associated with truck deliveries. Were trucks able to deliver in off-peak hours, there would be less competition for on-street loading areas, less roadway congestion, and less conflict between modes of transportation. In turn, off-peak-hour deliveries would improve air quality, reduce costs for trucking firms (and ultimately consumers), and allow for a transportation network that can better cater to active-living transportation modes. However, the time for deliveries is limited to, and dependent on, times when customers can accept the deliveries. Distribution centers, often located away from residential areas, may be able to operate 24 hours per day, but most retailers do not have the ability to receive deliveries around the clock. If a business does not normally operate at night, accepting deliveries during the nighttime hours would require an employee (or employees) to be available during a par- ticular delivery windowâsomeone needs to unlock the door and accept the delivery. Creating new working hours for employees raises the costs for individual retailers. Even businesses that are open 24 hours per day (e.g., some grocery stores) generally only accept deliveries during the day. In addition, for businesses that do operate during the night, accepting deliveries may be inappropriate or infeasible due to noise or safety. As an illustration, many bars and restaurants open for lunch and remain open late into the evening. These businesses generally do not accept morning deliveries because they do not yet have staff at the establishment. They also generally do not accept deliveries during the busy lunch and dinner hours, especially when the deliveries must come through the front door and not directly to a stock room. Because many establishments must, at the very least, verify that an order arrived complete and sign for the order, they cannot devote staff effort to these activities during busy times. During late-evening hours, limited staff resources to accept deliveries are further compounded. For example, were a delivery to be made close to a businessâs closing time, the delivery driver would Weâre working around our customersâ economy; your freight dictates your travel time. (Logistics manager)
Learning from Goods-Movement Stakeholders 25 likely have to navigate through customers with a hand truck. This type of delivery may become particularly problematic at crowded bars. This illustration could be extended to a small corner store, where the limited staff of a mom-and-pop operation requires delivery during specific hours. Nonetheless, drivers and logistics managers alike were in favor of more early deliveriesâthe earlier the better, in fact. For truck drivers, an early start means being able to get home to their families in the evening. If the proper incentives are in placeâfor example, sufficient parking for trucksâthe trucking companies would support it. However, such incentives alone cannot over- come the reality of businesses that cannot or will not accept deliveries in the early hours, and many trucks cannot make all of their daily deliveries within a short time period (morning or otherwise). Truck deliveries are noisy. In some instances, it may be possible for deliveries to be made in the nighttime hours, but for this to be feasible, a relationship needs be established between the business and the trucking firm, and keys or a secure external drop-off location must be provided. Assuming that such a relationship is feasible, noise concerns related to the deliveries must be overcome to allow a shift from daytime to nighttime deliveries. In places where businesses are located near residences (a positive outcome of a mixed-use built environment), noise ordinances may prevent delivery of goods in the nighttime hours due to the noise generated by the trucks or by the movement of goods. For safety reasons, trucks are equipped with a back-up beeper to alert nearby motorists and pedestrians that a vehicle is reversing. Such devices could potentially be turned off in the night- time, assuming regulations would allow for this to occur. However, even if trucks were made much quieter (through electric engines, for example) and alarms could be silenced, the move- ment of some goods would still produce noise. For example, while a garbage truck may be made to be close to silent, the act of picking up, putting down, and emptying trash receptacles would still produce noise. On the other hand, trash receptacles could be manufactured from materials other than metal and thus could be less noisy. The issues above highlight the variety and complexity of factors that need to be considered in a smart-growth world. Competition. Retail businesses and trucking firms alike operate with tight profit margins. Given the difficulty of operating in the nighttime and off-peak hours, trucking firms must deliver when their customers are willing to accept the deliveries and when they are not barred from doing so by noise or other restrictions. Further, trucking firms must make a tradeoff between accepting the constraints placed on them and not conducting the delivery at all. Since there is considerable competition among trucking firms, if one is not willing to conduct the delivery, another one would take the business. Because retailers also often face tight profit margins, they are unlikely to be willing to accept any innovation or change to the delivery structure that would require them to incur additional costs. The private sector has to create solutions. Given the limitations placed on trucking firms and truck drivers, each firm must find a way to innovate and find context-sensitive solutions for any particular delivery task they are charged with. Solutions for the varying problems may be small in scale and involve maintaining relationships with customers, other drivers, and parking enforce- ment officers. For example, some smaller deliveries might be made in an alleyway but require a special relationship and arrangement between the driver and the customer. Some drivers might choose to call or text message a customer. If a particular employee is available at the customer end to pick up the delivery (as opposed to requiring it inside), quicker deliveries may be possible. In other words, all the people involved must share ideas to overcome infrastructure problems. In dense urban environments, relationships between customers and drivers are key since the drivers serve as the information conduit for the final mile. Weâre not in the trucking industry; weâre in the people business. (Truck driver) Over time, you get to know police officers and other drivers. If you canât figure out how to make your job easier, youâre just stupid; if youâre not flexible in transportation, you might as well get out. (Truck driver)
26 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement Potential solutions might also be large in scope and could include completely reconsidering a firmâs logistics operations. Aside from the well-established use of communications devices, a variety of ideas were raised about urban distribution centers. Centers within urban areas could be operated to accept all deliveries for a specific business or for multiple businesses; deliveries of the last mile could be handled through electric vehicles, bicycles, or hand trucks. The intent of such approaches would be to allow trucks to deliver to centralized locations at off-peak hours. Right-sizing vehicles. In dense urban environments, there are multiple concerns related to trucks: congestion, air quality, noise, and conflict with other transportation modes. Electric and hybrid vehicles have been offered as one potential solution to alleviate air quality and noise con- cerns. Given todayâs engine technology, electric and hybrid vehicles are very effective for small delivery vehicles. However, multiple trucking firms noted that given the weight of larger trucks, the electric and hybrid engine technology is not currently advanced enough to provide sufficient power, over long enough distances, for large delivery vehicles (longer than 20 feet). In situations in which space is limited for deliveries by large trucks and there is a desire to reduce potential conflicts among large vehicles, small ones, and non-motorized modes, it may be desirable to convert part or all of the delivery fleet to smaller, hybrid, or electric vehicles. For example, when considering designing or retrofitting a roadway to a âcomplete streetââone that accommodates multiple modesâa smaller truck is considerably easier to accommodate due to the smaller necessary lane width and turning radius. However, a switch to smaller trucks comes at a cost. A small truck can carry only a portion of what a larger vehicle is capable of carrying. The amount varies depending on the types of vehicles and the types of goods transported. In addition, the amount may vary based on the logistics decisions of individual firms, that is, a large truck that previously traveled half full can now be replaced by a smaller one, while a large truck that operates fully loaded would require more than one vehicle. One recycler parks a large vehicle at the central business district (CBD) periphery and picks up product in the dense urban center with a smaller truck, which then shuttles back and forth to the mobile depot for offloading. While truck drivers need to negotiate small city streets with ever larger vehicles, there are (from a logistics perspective) multiple issues involved with a move to smaller vehicles. The demand for goods movement changes on a daily basis, which makes owning and operating a larger fleet of smaller trucks more expensive than a smaller fleet of large trucks, especially if a company may not need all the small trucks (and drivers) every day. The smaller vehicles require considerably more handling of goods, and with more trucks fighting over the same limited load- ing zones additional costs are created for tolls, fuel, and parking fines. Nonetheless, logistics managers and truck drivers report that companies do use a variety of vehicles, depending on the location to which they are delivering. In some areas, large trucks cannot traverse the streets, which may be too narrow, and customers are unable to change the buildings in which they operate. Although trucking firms do adapt to the demands of their cus- tomers, the choice to use smaller vehicles is purely based on an inability to use larger ones and not their preference or economic advantage. Consolidation. Among many potential solutions for alleviating issues related to congestion and truck parking is the idea of having small distribution centers within urban cores. This con- cept was presented to logistics managers, and they were asked to respond as to whether or not it would be effective. Distribution centers in urban cores may take the form of a single business (e.g., FedEx) having an office in a building, having a daily delivery to that office, and distributing the packages to the building from that office rather than from one or more trucks. Alternatively, the distribution center could take a different form in which multiple companies deliver to one The more you touch freight, the more you break it. (Logistics manager)
Learning from Goods-Movement Stakeholders 27 central location and local deliveries are made by either smaller vehicles or hand trucks to nearby businesses. One final approach offered would be for merchants to band together to establish a small delivery hub near their businesses. The merchants would then do their own final delivery (pick up), gathering the goods from the distribution center and bringing them to their retail stores. When queried on the potential for such an approach, logistics managers felt that, while it is novel, there are multiple potential hurdles to overcome for such an approach to be successful. First, and most important, logistics managers felt that they provided a service, and that custom- ers wanted the goods delivered directly to them. The major technical issue to resolve would be determining which agent is responsible for the goods once they are no longer on the truck and until they are picked up or delivered to their final destination. Retail stores would need to agree to such an arrangement. Protect industrial areas. As some land uses shift from industrial and warehousing to resi- dential and commercial, multiple freight-related business owners and operators believed that it creates tension for the businesses that remain. For the businesses that are left in what were once predominantly truck-dependent activities, new issues of competition for rights-of-way space, modal conflict, pollution, and noise restrictions emerge. Although this situation may happen whenever freight-dependent activities are proximate to other uses, the effects are particularly pronounced in locations that contain a cluster of freight activities and are close to major urban activity centers. For trucking firms that primarily move goods to urban areas, shifts in location choices are likely, and generally involve relocation to industrial areas further from an urban core. Similarly, manufacturing-related businesses, even in the absence of relocation, have to devote more time to traversing the transportation system to pick up or deliver their products. In either case, the end result of non-freight land uses being allowed (through zoning) to coexist with freight uses creates multiple issues that include land speculation, a mix of the wrong (from the point of view of the focus-group participants) land uses, longer transport distances, and additional delivery vehicles. These potential conflicts occur through the following process: 1. Speculation on potential development drives up the price of land in industrial areas. 2. A mix of land uses, if it is not an appropriate mix (again, appropriate defined by the focus- group participants), may drive some warehousing and industrial activities away from urban cores. For example, if a warehouse is turned into condominiums, the adjacent warehouse may begin to receive noise complaints about early morning activities that it had been conducting prior to the condominium development. 3. Longer transport distances for goods increase the cost of delivery. The initial costs (e.g., addi- tional drivers and fuel) are borne by trucking firms, but the costs may in turn be passed on to firms that receive the goods and ultimately to consumers. 4. More delivery vehicles, driving longer distances, create more pollution and noise, and may conflict with other transportation modes. Congestion. Like other vehicles, trucks have to deal with congested roadways. While the same problems of wasted fuel and additional pollution apply to trucks, due to a high value of time and the time-sensitive nature of deliveries, trucking service is more greatly impacted by congestion than passenger vehicles. Truck drivers often face few route choices when moving goodsâthey cannot change where they go because the distribution center is located in a specific location, as is the customer to whom they are delivering. Changing the time of day of operations, where feasible, was offered as one potential solution to removing trucks from congested roadway networks. For example, the Seattle Times news- paper switched to morning paper delivery so that delivery of the newspaper to outlets and car- riers could be done at night. Other solutions of interest to both planners and trucking-related professionals include providing truck lanes or allowing trucks to use bus lanes. If you (a jurisdic- tion) want this (industrial area) to be something else, just tell us and weâll leave. If you do it slowly, itâs just death by a thousand cuts. (Freight business owner) If what weâre worried about is carbon footprint, weâd better start thinking about freight movement. (Truck driver)
28 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement Of particular concern to drivers and logistics managers in the focus groups were issues of staging and communications. For example, large events at a convention center or at a ballpark occurring on the same day that large-scale lane closures and construction begin can cause sig- nificant delays that could be avoided by careful consideration of the timing of construction activities. Truckers are especially sensitive to congestion and to event-related delays due to the limitations of time-sensitive delivery and hours-of-service laws. Because truck drivers can only drive for a limited number of hours during a shift, they must conclude their deliveries or alterna- tively find an adequate place to pull over. Similar to the issue of parking to make deliveries, it was generally believed that there are not sufficient, convenient locations for truck parking, especially overnight parking close to where truck drivers need to deliver. Education. Direct communication among truck drivers, logistic managers, and public entities would be beneficial for all involved. There are two distinct issues that would benefit from col- laborative decision making: (1) the allocation of street space (either for rights of way or for truck parking) and (2) enforcement of regulations. The truck drivers and logistics managers in the focus groups all believed that planners, engi- neers, public officials, and the public in general did not understand the difficulties of and issues involved with operating a large vehicle. A general consensus formed around the notion that it was impossible for anyone to understand driversâ issues in detail until one is sitting in the cab of a truck. Drivers particularly noted that their sight was quite limited. Broadly, the issues revolve around truck sightlines, blind spots, stopping distances, and turning radii, especially for larger trucks. On a small scale, even under potentially ideal conditions, in which a truck has the ability to access a building through an internal loading dock, if a passenger vehicle (or another truck) is parked too close to the entrance of the building, the driver will have difficulty entering the loading zone. This type of problem could be resolved by demarcating the appropriate amount of curb space that is not to be used for parking and also enforcing that regulation by ticketing vehicles that do not adhere to the regulation. Many of the truckers interviewed voiced the opin- ion that it would be beneficial to educate the public, perhaps through licensing requirements, on these sorts of issues. On a larger scale, those involved with goods movement believed that the allocation of rights of way was generally done without proper consideration for the requirements of trucks. Particu- lar concerns involved complete streets, where trucks may come in conflict with other modes, especially bicycles. Among the issues raised, the width of lanes, which are sometimes considered too narrow for trucks, and turning radii, which sometimes come in conflict with pedestrian curb bulbs or traffic-calming circles, were described as examples of how planners and engineers favored other modes over trucking activities. Conversely, urban planners described a basic challenge of having to allocate street space for multiple users and for multiple purposes. From a planning perspective, the task is to make places people friendly, with the problem of how trucks get there being secondary. To that end, as people are encouraged to walk, there is a need for curb bulbs to provide safety. Similarly, bicycle facili- ties are necessary to promote that mode of travel. Planners also believed that it was unreasonable for trucking firms to expect local streets to accommodate high-speed trucks or interstate-size rigs, that is, not every vehicle needs to go everywhere. However, planners were cognizant that trucks should be able to get in somehow. In other words, fire and garbage trucks need to be able to traverse all parts of the road network, but perhaps large trucks need not be accommodated everywhere. Further, there was general sentiment by planners and public officials that, if necessary, trucking firms could use several smaller vehicles. They (planners) donât stop and think about how to handle freight; get it in their heads, everything comes by truck. (Logistics manager)
Learning from Goods-Movement Stakeholders 29 Enforce the right regulations. Enforcement of regulations was a topic of considerable discus- sion surrounding both the cost to trucking firms and issues of safety. For public officials, it was clear that ticketing trucks for illegal parking was a major source of revenue and for trucking firms a major expense. Trucking firms viewed this issue as one in which they had to bear the cost of insufficient or improper space allocation for their needs, while public officials viewed the issue as a failure of the trucking firms, and the private sector in general, to fully comprehend the need for space for other users, to appreciate the cityâs limitations for street space, and to fully innovate and consider ways in which they could improve their loading and unloading activities. In other words, public officials believed that trucking firms disregarded the needs of other system users and simply parked wherever they wished. The issue of truck parking in general requires further consideration and collaborative decision making in terms of developing solutions that will be successful for all stakeholders. There was a general sentiment among truck drivers and logistics firms that they would be willing to trade off costs (a charge or time restriction) for reliability and certainty. In other words, if a space was always available in a reasonable location for their loading and unloading purposes, they would be willing to pay and/or adjust their practices to work within that framework. A corollary to the issue of truck parking is the issue of parking for all other vehicles. Regardless of the allocation of curbside space, (e.g., taxi, 30-minute load), truck drivers and logistics firms believed that there was not enough enforcement and ticketing of vehicles that either parked illegally or remained in a parking space beyond the time allowed. This is in contrast to the fact that some trucking companies accepted ticket fines, highlighting each partyâs parochial inter- ests. In some instances, the cause of this phenomenon might be due to the high cost of parking elsewhere, that is, the threat of a parking fine is not sufficiently high to dissuade vehicle opera- tors from parking illegally. In other instances, the issue is who should be allowed to park in specific locations. For example, in 30-minute truck loading zones, the space might be used by a truck making deliveries or by a service vehicle (e.g., computer and printer repair) that has the appropriate license to utilize the space but does not require the proximity to a business to deliver goods. In either case, more clarity on the regulation and enforcement of those regulations would better facilitate the movement of goods. Finally, considerable discussion centered on the issue of conflict between modes. Truck drivers were very concerned about safety and avoiding accidents, particularly with bicyclists, due to visibility issues and to cyclists behaving erratically or not following the rules of the road. Similarly, logistics managers detailed multiple measures by which their companies were con- sidering safety, for example, installing multiple cameras on trucks. Potential solutions, such as using all-way walk at intersections that remove the possibility of pedestrians crossing the street while a truck makes a right turn, were viewed favorably. The larger concern, then, is with bicyclists and pedestrians who may not abide by regula- tions. Specific examples include bicyclists traveling through red lights or the wrong way on one-way streets. Despite the evident tension between the trucking and bicycling communities, these modes of travel have more in common than might be immediately evident. Bicyclists, like trucks, are slow to climb hills and require greater effort than passenger vehicles to start and stop and start again. In general, freight-related professionals felt positively about bicycling, noting that they would prefer to see more people riding bicycles or buses in order to get more cars off of the roadââthere would be more space for the people who need it.â However, truck drivers generally believed that there was a need for separation of roadway users to reduce conflicts. One final regulatory issue raised in the focus groups was anti-idling legislation. While truck drivers and logistics companies acknowledged the utility of such laws, they were concerned about the implications. Some companies even install automatic shut-off devices that turn off
30 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement the engine after a few minutes. In cold weather, turning an engine off to avoid idling may force a driver to sit in the cold. There are some mechanisms that allow for an override of this situa- tion, for example, equipment that can override the automatic shut-off at temperatures below 32 degrees, but for this to be truly effective and reduce noise and pollution, loading areas and parking facilities need to be equipped with plug-in facilities so that drivers can stay warm and utilize some equipment while turning off engines. Additional innovations. While the focus groups catalogued grievances and dysfunctions of the current system, they also generated proposals for innovation and possible solutions to mov- ing goods in smart-growth environments. Bicycle delivery was raised as a potential tool for lighter deliveries. Companies such as Phila- delphiaâs Pedal Co-Op1 can perform some of the goods movement functions currently done by trucks. For example, Pedal Co-Op offers recycling services in which materials are hauled by bicycle. Similarly, Portland, Oregon, based Soupcycle2 delivers soups by bicycle throughout the city. In addition to specific businesses, there was a general belief that bicycles (similar to what bike messengers do currently) could assist with the final-mile delivery of small packages, par- ticularly if a business established small urban distribution hubs. Another potential approach for alleviating truck traffic within urban areas is to use existing rail transit facilities when they are not utilized for passenger travel, as has been tested in San Francisco (Lu et al. 2007). For example, if a passenger rail line does not operate for some hours at night, the trains could be used to move goods into a central area. Once there, the goods could be delivered by small vehicles or bicycles. There are multiple issues that would need to be resolved, including whether a transit facility funded by transit dollars could operate for a freight purpose, but this remains an interesting possibility. Finally, it was suggested that park-and-ride lots that operate at less than capacity could be used for consolidation purposes. Similar to delivering with passenger transit lines, the intent would be to reduce trip lengths for trucks. For example, if one truck serves to one neighborhood, it could meet another truck at some consolidation area and pick up more goods for locations that it would be traveling to anyway, thus saving the second truck unnecessary travel. We are more re active than any- thing else; we are about manage- ment, not imple- menting new ideas. (City official) 1 Pedal Co-Op: http://pedalcoop.org/ Accessed July 4, 2011. 2 Soupcycle: http://www.soupcycle.com/ Accessed July 4, 2011.
