Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement (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.

31 Considerations for Smart Growth and Goods Movement 6.1 Policy and Planning Considerations The responses garnered from the focus groups present the views of those involved in goods movement about the interaction between smart growth and urban goods movement. Great care has been taken to present the focus-group participants’ views as their own, without embellish- ment. The following discussion revisits several of the topics covered in the focus groups and offers some direction in terms of policy issues, research areas, and general considerations. 6.1.1 Noise and Time Restrictions Though serving a legitimate purpose and being well-intended, noise ordinances and other restrictions may have the unintended consequence of causing truck congestion. Noise ordi- nances and specific delivery-time windows do not allow truck deliveries to be spaced throughout the day. Instead, multiple trucks must attempt to deliver during the same time window. With limited parking accommodation for trucks, multiple drivers vie for the same parking locations in the loading dock space. In turn, the lack of parking forces drivers to double-park, circle the block for an available parking location, idle while they wait, or use hand trucks to deliver goods from a parking location that is further away than would otherwise be desirable. As cities con- tinue to implement smart-growth principles, innovative solutions—for example, centralized warehousing or quieter vehicles—will ameliorate some of these issues. Although there may be a successful business case for a central urban distribution model, one does not exist in this format in the United States today. For such a proposal to be successful, it would likely rely on support from a jurisdiction that is willing to implement a pilot project. Regardless, clarity is needed for private freight carriers to be able to understand their working environment and develop solutions tailored to their delivery requirements. For example, as a city implements parking restrictions, clarity of location of commercial parking and enforcement of parking limitations for on-street loading docks allow the individual firms and trucks drivers to adjust and make efficient decisions about their operations. Beyond efficiency considerations, large- scale changes to a firm’s operations require investment, and the benefits must clearly outweigh the costs, given the often small profit margins involved. 6.1.2 Right-Sizing Vehicles The destination of goods impacts the choice of whether to use large or small vehicles. For example, a fully loaded truck may go to only one customer or it may make multiple stops along a route, delivering to an assortment of customers. Given the complexity involved in decisions about truck routing, in some cases smaller delivery vehicles would necessitate additional truck trips. A move to smaller delivery trucks may require more trucks and more drivers, putting a greater burden on the transportation system. As the cost to delivery firms increases, so will the cost to the businesses that receive the goods, and ultimately to the consumers who purchase them. C H A P T E R 6

32 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement Any jurisdiction considering limiting the use of large vehicles, or requiring the use of smaller ones, should be aware of the potential implications. Some larger retail outlets may choose to keep consumer costs low while transport costs increase; the smaller profit margins may be offset by the larger volume of sales possible in dense urban areas. However, the same may not be true for smaller businesses that may have to raise prices. If a truck restriction policy were only implemented in one specific area—for example, a down- town core—the relative attractiveness (in terms of cost) of shopping in that area may be reduced compared with other retail areas that do not have such a restriction. Indeed, such a restriction may be similar to cordon or congestion tolling, which is effective either in specific locations or under system wide implementation. Were there to be a shift away from shopping or other activities in dense urban areas, such a result would be counterproductive to the desired outcomes of smart-growth or growth-management principles. In other words, great care should be given to ensure that goods can be moved into dense urban areas, rather than imposing additional costs on those movements. 6.1.3 Modal Conflicts In allocating street space and considering freight, there is a need to be flexible and innovative. Working under the current paradigm, cities continue to attempt to make dense urban environ- ments fit suburban standards, that is, wider streets that make goods movement simpler—that do not accommodate all modes of travel. Greater care should be given to identifying context- sensitive solutions. For example, an all-way crossing, which accommodates pedestrian travel and improves safety and reliability for trucks, may only be feasible in areas with a high demand for pedestrian crossings. The tension among freight stakeholders, planners, and non-motorized transportation users is not unique to the persons engaged in the focus groups discussed in this report, nor is it insur- mountable. In essence, there is a false dichotomy pitting trucks against bicycles. The difficulty in improving this situation is that best practices for bicycle facility and truck facility design are sometimes at odds with each other. As such, a single set of design guidelines will likely fail in multiple locations where these modes come in conflict, that is, there is no silver bullet. To fully address these issues, context-sensitive and site-specific solutions are necessary rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. All the relevant stakeholders need to clearly identify their needs and priorities and be able to discuss ways to best address issues in specific locations. Although there are likely many cyclists who do not currently obey the rules of the road, the reasons may be well founded. Ensuring that there are regulations that make reasonable sense to a bicyclist—for example, in some locations a stop might be warranted for motor vehicles, while a yield to pedestrians may be sufficient for cyclists—would reduce the conflict and potential conflicts between various travel modes. Similarly, ensuring that there are sufficient, reasonable, and attractive bicycle facilities would allow for a separation of modes where appropriate and clearer demarcation of the road space in others. Although cyclists are obviously allowed to use any part of the road they choose, attractive facilities, be they bicycle boulevards or roads with shared lane marking (sharrows), would incentivize a reduction in potential conflict. It is well worth noting that many truckers do not obey the rules of the road: double parking, parking in the middle of the road. However, their reasons may be well founded, requiring, for example, additional allocation of space for parking. As more jurisdictions, particularly in smart-growth and dense urban environments, consider complete streets, it is necessary to do so from the perspective of serving all users, not just improv- ing conditions for some. While general guidelines may be effective in accomplishing this task, the difficultly is considering site-specific requirements and treating every block and intersection for its specific needs. While jurisdictions consider appropriate guidelines, it is crucial to increase safety by enforcing whatever regulations are currently in place.

Considerations for Smart Growth and Goods Movement 33 6.2 Research Gaps Varied development patterns cause freight and passenger traffic to behave differently. How- ever, while today’s urban planners emphasize the topic of smart-growth development, and all stakeholders agree that goods movement must be explicitly considered within the planning sphere, a significant research gap exists in understanding how these two areas relate. As more resources are directed toward fostering smart-growth development, its impacts on urban goods movement, which is directly related to economic well-being, cannot be ignored. This report has identified five key areas and the existing gaps in the research that should be filled and considered by researchers and jurisdictions when addressing the intersection of smart growth and urban goods movement. Table 3 summarizes these findings. While little research has examined the relationship between smart growth and urban goods movement, this report has identified a number of research topics that, if pursued, would signifi- cantly increase the knowledge base for this issue. This work has the potential to improve the livability of cities and reduce environmental impacts while maintaining or increasing economic vitality. Research Area Example of Exisng Gap(s) Focus Group Support Access, parking, and loading zones What is the appropriate amount of parking or size and number of loading zones to dedicate to goods movement vehicles? Can me of day changes relieve demand for space? What is the opmal balance of parking space and me regulaons? There is a clear tension between truck drivers, who claim a need for addional parking and loading space, and planners, who claim to balance that desire with other compeng interests. Road channelizaon, bicycle, and pedestrian facilies Does the number of crashes between goods movement vehicles and non motorized modes increase when these vehicles coexist more frequently? What are appropriate tools or configuraons to reduce modal conflicts? The potenal for conflicts between trucks and non motorized modes is a primary concern for urban goods movement in smart growth environments. Land use mix How do the environmental benefits of passenger trip reducons associated with mixed uses balance against the environmental costs of me restricons on goods movement vehicles necessitated by their impacts on residences and other businesses? Can vehicle sizes be changed? What incenves encourage freight trip consolidaon? Does density affect truck trip generaon? Do mixed land uses change truck trip generaon rates? How can trip reducon and associated environmental gains fostered by mixed use development be balanced with the lifestyle conflicts of having differing uses in close proximity? Some methods of achieving these types of gains—including off hours deliveries or larger, more efficient vehicles—have specific impacts (air quality or noise polluon) that make them undesirable in mixed use environments. Logiscs Because of the risks associated with innovave distribuon methods, addional research is needed to illustrate their benefit and to idenfy ways to remove some of the exisng barriers, including the potenal offer of government subsidies. Network system management How can we best extend real-me informaon and metered access to goods- movement vehicles? Can transportaon demand-management methods apply to urban goods movement? Efforts to manage the transportaon system through real me informaon and metered access are promising soluons to reducing congeson and thus reducing costs and environmental impacts, and they merit further tesng and evaluaon. Table 3. Five key areas and examples of their existing gaps.