Synthesis of Freight Research in Urban Transportation Planning (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.

23 This section is organized around strategies for managing three general issues in urban freight transportation: local last- mile delivery/first-mile pick-up, environmental impacts, and trade node problems. Last-mile/first-mile strategies address local deliveries and pick-ups to or from businesses or resi- dences. Strategies that reduce environmental impacts include reducing emissions by regulation or offering incentives to use vehicles that pollute less. Strategies related to trade nodes (i.e., cities that are hubs for national and international trade) address locations with the largest flows to and from ports, air- ports, or intermodal facilities. Although these three issues are distinct, there is overlap among them. Most efforts to manage truck traffic are intended to reduce environmental impacts in some way, along with reducing congestion and other objec- tives. For example, an increase in truck loading zones intended to reduce delays from trucks parking illegally (classified herein as a last-mile strategy) may also reduce idling emissions. The Clean Truck Program at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports is classified as trade node strategy, even though the program’s primary purpose is emissions reduction, because the program is operated by the ports and applies only to vehicles serving the ports. 2.1 The Local Last-Mile Problem 2.1.1 Introduction The last mile (or miles) represents the final haul of a ship- ment to its end receiver, be it a shop, a business, a facility, or a home (in the case of home deliveries). Cities also experience first mile(s), as one-third of urban truck traffic is goods pick- ups. (In this report, both first-mile and last-mile trips will be referred to collectively as the “last mile.”) Serving local busi- nesses and homes in cities is inefficient for several reasons. First, products are often delivered from a vendor to an establishment, so a given establishment (say a department store) may receive multiple deliveries each day. Small deliveries to many destina- tions generate complex routing problems. If deliveries could be consolidated across vendors, more efficient routing and fewer trips would be possible (OECD, 2003). Second, deliveries may be restricted to certain routes or time periods, adding addi- tional constraints on routing and scheduling. Restrictions on night deliveries, or the reluctance of urban business owners to use night delivery, force more trips to take place during peak hours, adding to congestion. Third, home delivery is inefficient due to the small size of the products, the spatial dispersion of residences, competition within the local delivery industry, and the frequency of failed deliveries (Xing et al., 2010). North American cities do not face as many delivery ineffi- ciencies as their European counterparts. The greater urban freight efficiency in North American cities stems from (1) a more recent history, (2) the lower densities and more open spatial form of North American cities, and (3) the smaller share of small and independent businesses. Kawamura and Lu (2007) note that the U.S. distribution system is rational from an industry perspective although not necessarily optimal from a system perspective. They note that densely populated cities in the United States, particularly in the Northeast, share simi- lar concerns with Europe regarding inefficient urban freight operations and the need for consolidation. FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and Operations developed Urban Freight Case Studies as a way to document notable practices in urban goods movement. These case studies provide information on freight-related initiatives that mitigate congestion and improve the safety and efficiency of commercial vehicle travel in Wash- ington, D.C., Los Angeles, Orlando, and New York City (Bomar, Becker, and Stollof, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d). Faced with more acute last-mile challenges than most U.S. cities, European cities have developed more urban freight policy initiatives; therefore, most of the examples provided in this section are European (and Japanese). Nonetheless, these examples can shed light on U.S. urban freight transport pol- icy. Panero, Shin, and Polo Lopez (2011), looking at European last-mile delivery strategies, note that European local govern- ments and citizens are “more likely to accept interventions S e c t i o n 2 Urban Freight Problems and Strategies

to solve environmental externalities,” while “policy interven- tions in the United States [are more] likely to be motivated by the need to address traffic congestion or inefficiencies such as the lack of space for loading/unloading and/or for parking” (p. 24). Rhodes et al. (2012) suggest that local policies in the United States “that will make a difference” in the efficiency of urban freight transport include the following: design stan- dards, land use and zoning, urban truck regulations, parking and loading zones, delivery windows/time of day restrictions, and truck size and weight regulations. The following subsec- tions discuss the many strategies and approaches that have been considered and, in many cases, implemented to improve local and last-mile delivery practices. 2.1.2 Initiatives and Strategies: What Has Proved Efficient? The research team has identified areas where local com- munities and private stakeholders have been active and rather successful in last-mile issues. In this context, “successful” means implementing policies that have had an impact on the city’s economy and/or the environment at a reasonable cost for the stakeholders and that have become permanent or at least have lasted a significant amount of time. These policies include the following: • Consultation processes and certification schemes. For- malized partnership initiatives in cities have raised aware- ness among freight transport companies and helped policies targeted at freight transport meet their goals. Awarding specific labels to sustainable delivery companies (compa- nies using clean vehicles for example) has proved useful in some cities. • Traffic, access, and parking regulations and delivery windows. These measures can be quite basic, yet have significant positive environmental impacts, provided that enforcement is sufficient. Measures such as congestion charges or low emission zones have appeared recently. Low emission zones and other strategies clearly targeted at environmental mitigation, such as delivery noise reduc- tion, are examined in Section 2.2.4 • Intelligent transport systems. These systems are not yet widely used for the management of freight transport in cit- ies (although many carriers are already using various kinds of routing software based on GPS locations and current traffic), but some identified practices have proved efficient. ITS use to better manage goods transport may develop in the future, as costs decrease, and may prove crucial in data collection and real-time information on urban conditions for truck drivers. • Planning strategies. Integrating freight into city planning documents and building codes can have both short- and long-term effects. • Consolidation schemes and measures that target urban supply chains. Setting up urban consolidation centers and urban logistics spaces may help to reduce truck VMT. 2.1.3 Consultation Processes and Labeling Schemes Formalized consultation processes with the freight industry, often called “Freight Forums,” constitute one of the most successful strategies to deal with last-mile deliv- ery issues. The urban distribution of goods is organized by private stakeholders (producers, carriers, retailers, and final consumers) operating in an environment, the urban space, which is under close scrutiny from public authorities. There- fore, partnerships among stakeholders can lead to a better understanding of the constraints of each party and allow the development of concerted actions. Consultation processes in urban freight provide unique collaborative opportunities for private companies that otherwise would not be willing to work together. Participants in consultation processes are commonly local governments’ representatives, freight business organizations, shippers’ organizations, and trade groups. Some stakehold- ers are not always well represented. Small operators usually do not have a representative organization. Large transport and logistics companies or their representative organizations are not willing to participate in local consultations in cities other than major or capital cities because of a lack of interest, insufficient staff, or lack of perceived last-mile problems (in smaller cities). Local shopkeepers’ organizations tend not to be interested in freight groups mostly because many retailers are not directly involved in the way deliveries are organized or are satisfied with their deliveries and not willing to experi- ence a change such as off-hour delivery times or less frequent deliveries (Holguín-Veras, 2008). Consultation processes can lead directly to initiatives such as certification or labeling schemes in which freight opera- tors that demonstrate environmentally responsible behav- ior are recognized. Certification is an incentive offered by local governments to promote greener deliveries. These schemes are often organized following a negotiation between the municipality and representatives of the freight industry. Certification confers privileges, such as extended delivery hours or the use of designated loading/unloading facilities. It may also provide operators with a competitive advantage 24 4 In order to reduce the risk of overlaps and repetitions, the research team chose to categorize best practices based on their primary objective (i.e., strategies aiming primarily at better air quality are examined in Section 2.2 (Emissions and Other Environmental Problems and Strategies) rather than 2.1 (The Local Last-Mile Problem).

when bidding for contracts, as clients are increasingly com- mitted to selecting bidders that offer the best environmental guarantees. Labeling can also target cities, vehicles, equip- ment or even processes. Labels can indicate that a city or company has achieved a specific level of sustainability and efficiency in urban freight operation. Labeling has become a common way of promoting urban freight strategies. Cities that are members of specific networks such as CIVITAS (www.civitas-initiative.org) or SUGAR (www.sugarlogistics.eu) (SUGAR, 2011) in Europe are labeled urban freight cities. Vehicles or handling equipment receiving the PIEK label in the Netherlands (see Section 2.1.3.2) and in a growing number of European cities can deliver at night. 2.1.3.1 Examples of Formalized Freight Forums The United Kingdom has a long-established history of collaboration with the transport industry, and major poli- cies are developed with broad participation of stakeholders. It took 3 years of consultation with freight organizations in order to produce a mutually acceptable London Freight Plan of 2007 (Transport for London, 2007). Two years of discussion were necessary to agree on the fee for commer- cial vehicles that was applied within the congestion pricing scheme implemented in 2003 in central London. Before set- ting up a LEZ (see Section 2.2) in London, a 3-year period of discussion was required, first among the different local gov- ernments, then with the private stakeholders and the general public. A campaign targeted at more than 800 organizations was launched, and general information was disseminated through the media. More generally, U.K. cities—and London in particular—have established Freight Quality Partnerships (FQPs) (SUGAR, 2011). In June 2006, the city of Paris and the most important carriers’ and shippers’ associations signed an urban freight transport “charter,” in which they committed to several points on the environment, drivers’ working conditions, and the productivity of urban delivery activities. In fall 2009, the partners conducted an assessment of the urban freight charter and concluded the following (Dablanc, Diziain, and Levifve, 2011): • Dialogue is important; it defuses conflicts before they break out. • Public authorities and the private sector do not function on the same time scale; the private sector is accustomed to setting plans into motion rapidly and finds public decision- making processes very slow. • Private companies demand better enforcement of truck and delivery regulations, as this is the only way to distin- guish complying transport companies from less scrupu- lous ones. • The municipality must take measures regarding logistics land scarcity, in Paris as well as in the inner suburbs. • Large professional federations and large carriers are over- represented relative to small businesses. • The relevant territory for policies or experimentation is larger than the city of Paris. Some of these conclusions constitute, today, the basis of the current reformulation of the Paris freight consultation pro- cess, which is now included in a region-wide collaboration effort (Dablanc, Diziain, and Levifve, 2011). This reformula- tion led to the identification of new freight projects outside of the boundaries of the city of Paris using former freight rail yards to develop urban logistics terminals. These projects are not yet implemented. The city of Toulouse in southern France also signed a “delivery charter” setting the rules of good practices for last- mile deliveries. The objectives were to improve sharing of the urban road network among all users, to decrease vehicular traffic, and to reorganize urban deliveries. One tool was the implementation of more efficient and better-located deliv- ery spaces. The delivery charter was signed by 50 different stakeholders. 2.1.3.2 Examples of Labeling Schemes and Incentive-Based Initiatives Labels can be given to freight companies. The Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) in London provides a performance benchmark for the trucking industry by cer- tifying operators that comply with a list of efficiency, safety, and environmental impact criteria (such as drivers and driver management, vehicle maintenance and fleet management, transport operations, and performance management) at bronze, silver, and gold levels. FORS is free, voluntary, and open to any company operating vans or trucks in London. Labels are awarded after a formal company assessment carried out by an independent FORS assessor (a private contractor). As of July 2011, more than 300 companies, representing more than 40 percent of the freight vehicle fleet in London, have a bronze label; about 50 have the silver label; and none have yet achieved the gold label.5 A FORS label provides companies with access to data, benchmark information, and training programs for their drivers. One of the main benefits is access to a program of benchmarking in which truck companies can compare their performance in accidents, fuel consumption, traffic penalties, and CO2 emissions to the average perfor- mance of the trucking industry. Companies also benefit from 25 5 See SUGAR (2011) as well as the lists of current members on www.tfl.gov.uk/ microsites/fors/downloads/bronze-fors-members-list.pdf.

26 a reduced tariff for road assistance, free training seminars for their drivers, as well as more technical services such as driver license checks and driver profiling.6 Certified companies can advertise their FORS status to the general public (by placing the official FORS logo on their vehicles), as well as to their cli- ents or potential clients (such as a shipper or another truck- ing company). Silver and gold levels provide the same direct benefits, but a higher level of public recognition. Another labeling program is PIEK, in the Netherlands. The program identifies vehicles and equipment that are allowed to be used for night deliveries. Certified trucks and handling equipment are used by companies willing to reduce noise emissions while delivering and happy to advertise these efforts directly on the vehicles they use (with a PIEK logo painted on their trucks). Another type of incentive-based policy involves a public administration providing a direct service for organizations that increase the efficiency of their urban deliveries. This type of strategy has been implemented successfully in London in the Delivery and Servicing Plans (DSP) program, an optimiz- ing process for any organization willing to reduce the number of its deliveries. Participants can be a company, a hospital, or an administration. Through the DSP program, Transport for London actually offers a direct (and free) logistics consulting service to committed organizations. Transport for London initiated a DSP for its own building in Southwark in south- east London in 2009–2010. This reduced the number of deliv- eries by 20 percent. Other outcomes of DSP plans have been the following (Dack, 2010): • Use of low- or no-emission vehicles (electric and hybrid vehicles used by James McNaughton, a paper group). • Wider use of legal loading/unloading bays (Pret a Manger, a catering chain). • Reduction in the frequency of deliveries and trash collec- tion (London Borough of Hackney). • Increased deliveries outside of peak or normal working hours (Almo, an office supplies and stationery company). Experiments with DSPs are now discussed in the Trail- blazer European network (www.trailblazer.eu). 2.1.4 Traffic, Access, and Parking Regulations and Delivery Windows Cities are in charge of local traffic and parking regulations, including all regulations that relate to delivery vehicles. Because they belong to the common expertise of municipal administrations, these are the easiest measures any local gov- ernment can take on last-mile deliveries. Enforcement is very effective, but can represent a significant financial burden for a municipality. Local public policies regarding freight are quite modest. Historically, most traffic and parking regulations have been aimed at solving local problems at the level of a street or a neighborhood. Rules are generally very parochial and can be conflicting. In the Lyon metropolitan area (France), as many as 30 different rules on trucks’ access regulations exist (based on weight and size), forcing truck drivers to decide which rules they will comply with and which ones they will disre- gard. However, some recent innovative policies on freight traffic and parking provide solutions. 2.1.4.1 Truck Access Regulation Truck access restrictions have been used for many years, generating various degrees of inefficiency (e.g., reduction in access for large trucks has multiplied the number of small com- mercial vehicles in city streets). Also, truck restrictions tend to be heterogeneous, differing from one locality to another within the same metropolitan area, creating a patchwork of rules that truck drivers find difficult to understand. Truck access restrictions can apply to routes (some trucks are limited to certain routes) or whole areas (such as a city cen- ter). The restrictions are based on various criteria (used alone or in combination) such as time windows; weight (total or per axle); size (length, height, surface); and, more recently, noise emission, air pollution, loading factor, and type of goods (haz- ardous or voluminous). Restrictions can be permanent (24/7) or limited to certain hours of the day, or days of the week. For example, the London Lorry Ban, in place since 1975, prohibits heavy goods vehicles weighing more than 18 tons from travel- ing at night and weekends on a delimited network. In contrast, Paris bans large trucks (larger than 29 square meters) during daytime hours. In Tokyo, trucks over 3 tons are prohibited in many neighborhoods. In Seoul, trucks have been banned from central areas during working hours since 1979 (Castro and Kuse, 2005). In Sao Paulo, to alleviate congestion, access is based on the plate number, with 2 days per week allowed per vehicle, including freight vehicles. Truck access rules based on weight or size tend to promote use of small-capacity vehicles (vans, light trucks), increasing total congestion and reducing the efficiency of freight trans- port (although there is a lack of specific studies that assess the degree of negative impacts). One recent and interesting trend in access restrictions is LEZs (introducing environmental standards that apply to trucks operating in specific urban areas). This trend is described in Section 2.2. 6 Driver profiling is an online application that produces specific data on individual drivers by monitoring driving skills and behavior and measuring and analyzing maneuvers that affect safe driving, fuel efficiency, and emissions (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/fors/53.aspx accessed on December 28, 2011).

27 2.1.4.2 Off-Peak Deliveries The promotion of off-peak deliveries in cities is a promis- ing strategy for offsetting the traffic impacts of urban freight. Trial studies were performed in the United Kingdom to test off-peak delivery methods and showed positive results in relation to decreasing vehicle miles and CO2 emissions (Palmer and Piecyk, 2010). A 3-month night-time delivery trial under- taken at Sainsbury’s supermarket in Wandsworth, England, in cooperation with the Freight Transport Association and the Noise Abatement Society, resulted in reduced trip times (60 minutes per trip), delivery costs (£16,000 per year) and CO2 emissions (68 tons per year) while no noise-related complaints were reported (FTA, 2009). As reported in Palmer and Piecyk (2010), Fisher, McKinnon, and Palmer (2010) estimate that in the United Kingdom a 1 percent increase in out-of-hours deliveries would generate £18 million savings per year in exter- nal costs associated with congestion, accidents, and noise. According to National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve Freight Mobility, off-hour deliveries “[have] the potential to reduce peak hour congestion by giving delivery drivers a wider delivery window and avoiding traffic delays” (GAO, 2008). Palmer and Piecyk (2010) mention, how- ever, that operating trucks during off-peak hours, especially at night, may result in higher driving speeds, with adverse effects on environmental performance: “When vehicle speeds increase above a certain level (i.e., around 75 km per hour for a 44 tonne lorry), fuel efficiency and environmental perfor- mance deteriorate rapidly” (p. 8). In Manhattan, a detailed research experiment was con- ducted in 2009–2010 by the Renssaeler Polytechnic Institute and New York City’s Office of Freight Mobility (with fund- ing from U.S. DOT) to examine the conditions under which carriers and receivers are susceptible to switching to off-peak delivery hours. Twenty Manhattan retailers agreed to shift their delivery windows to between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. Assess- ment studies found that fewer deliveries during normal business hours allowed [receivers] to focus more on their customers and that their staff was more productive because they waited around less for deliveries that were tied up in traffic. Carriers found that their trucks could make more deliveries in the same amount of time; they saved money on fuel costs and could use a smaller fleet by balancing daytime and night-time deliveries, and that legal parking was more readily available. Their drivers reported feeling safer and less stressed (NYCDOT c.2011). The monthly reduction in parking tickets for participating truck companies exceeded $1,000 per truck. Delivery routes were completed 48 minutes faster on average. Holguín-Veras (2010, 2011) concludes that off-hour deliveries in Manhattan are more efficient. They require fewer vehicle miles and, on the whole, are cheaper than deliveries during the day, as the benefit of better traffic conditions offsets the disadvantage of higher salaries for night truck drivers. A second conclu- sion is that promoting night deliveries requires that receiv- ers accept off-hour deliveries. A third conclusion relates to policy: the provision of financial incentives to receivers is recommended in order to achieve a change in the receivers’ behaviors. Previous studies (Holguín-Veras et al., 2006) have shown, for example, that a $10,000 tax deduction to restau- rants accepting off-hour deliveries would lead to 20 percent of them switching to off-hour deliveries. Following further studies (Holguín-Veras, 2010, 2011), the total cost to tax- payers was estimated: “according to the Census Bureau there are approximately 6,500 restaurants and drinking places in Manhattan; each of them receiving between 6 to 8 deliveries per day. Assuming that each truck is able to serve two restau- rants in the same stop, this translates into a total truck traffic reduction in the day hours of 1.3 million trucks/year in the New York City network at a total cost to taxpayers of $13 million/ year” (Holguín-Veras, 2010, p. 6376). According to Holguín- Veras (2010, 2011), such subsidies to receivers could be financed via an urban freight road-pricing scheme. New York City today (2012) keeps promoting off-hour deliveries by asking additional carriers and receivers poten- tially interested, and advertising this opportunity on the city’s website. The city has created an advisory group and provided truck companies organizations and other business groups with outreach material to send to their members promoting the program and asking them to contact the project team for more information (information provided by Stacey Hodge, Director of the Office of Freight Mobility). No data are avail- able on the shift to off-hour deliveries. 2.1.4.3 Efficient Loading/Unloading Areas, Curbside Management Loading/unloading spaces, also called delivery bays, are a common local policy to organize last-mile delivery opera- tions. These dedicated areas are much needed in dense city cores where a huge variety of street users compete for very limited space, and where patterns were not designed for today’s trucks. Insufficient delivery spaces shift delivery oper- ations to traffic lanes or sidewalks and lead to congestion and potentially hazardous situations for other street users. Addi- tionally, the design and location of loading/unloading areas in many cities are often inadequate. Many bays are unable to accommodate trucks with their handling equipment, and sometimes bays are sited in a piecemeal approach, following the demand of a local shopkeeper, for example, without large- scale planning. Recent initiatives have generated more efficient approaches. In Paris, before 2004, the 10,000 existing delivery bays were more often used for car parking than for delivery operations.

28 In 2004, the city of Paris took a series of measures to improve the use of delivery bays: • Improvement of delivery bay supply and location. A method was set up to quantify the number of delivery bays needed (depending on the type and quantity of shops). A technical guide was written by the city’s technical services in charge of street design. The guide imposed a minimum of one delivery space every 100 meters in the city streets. Delivery areas must be at least 10 meters long, in order to facilitate trucks’ maneuvers and the accommodation of platform lifts. • Limitation of the stopping time for delivery to a maximum of 30 minutes. The time limit is controlled using a time disc on which delivery drivers must indicate their arrival time. • Sharing of delivery spaces with parking. In September 2010, 80 percent of the delivery bays were opened to gen- eral parking during the night (from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The remaining 20 percent have been identified as spaces commonly used by delivery trucks early in the morning (before 7:00 a.m.). A 2008 survey showed that the new policies had a positive impact on supply and maximum stopping times. Delivery spaces are more available during the day, as car parking has decreased. As calculated by the municipality, enforcement has increased considerably, with 13 percent of illegal stops fined in 2008 versus only 1 percent in 2004. This has not yet trans- ferred into an increased use of delivery bays by delivery truck drivers, but it has laid the necessary conditions for a more efficient use of the Paris delivery bays. Similarly, New York City’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Plan recommended providing additional curbside spaces for commercial vehicles, reducing the amount of time these spaces are occupied, and increasing enforcement: “By improving the management of loading/unloading zones in the Midtown area, NYCDOT decreased the number of double-parked vehicles, which resulted in a reduction in congestion” (Bomar, Becker, and Stollof, 2009a, p. 6). A detailed description of commercial vehicle parking rules is provided online by New York City’s Office of Freight Mobility (NYCDOT, 2012). As an example, a diagram shows how trucks can park along bicycle lanes. Conditions for double parking or parking at an angle to the curb are also described. Alternative designs exist, such as loading bays positioned at an angle to the curb. Attention is always paid to removing obstacles around the loading bay, such as humps and posts, which prevent drivers from operating on-board handling equipment. In Paris, some bus lanes are shared with delivery vehicles. Other layouts exist in other cities including dedi- cating entire sections of a parking lane to deliveries during certain time windows (Toulouse, France). Roadway time sharing has been implemented successfully in Barcelona, Spain. The municipality introduced an innova- tive time-sharing scheme on some of its main boulevards by devoting the two lateral lanes to traffic during peak hours, deliv- eries during off-peak hours, and residential parking during the night. Also, Barcelona formed a dedicated mobility motor squad consisting of 300 officers circulating on motorbikes to control all on-street parking activities including loading/ unloading zones. The crackdown prevents illegal, long-term parking and has made these zones much more available to delivery truck drivers. In downtown Los Angeles, “Tiger Teams,” which are traf- fic control officers supplemented with tow trucks, have been deployed on designated corridors with a high level of loading/ unloading activities during peak hours. This enforcement effort, paired with the addition and reorganization of on-street loading areas, has had good results for downtown deliveries and general traffic conditions (Bomar, Becker, and Stollof, 2009b). The program is not a major financial burden as there are only 15 new traffic control officers (and 10 new tow trucks), but the benefits of the new policy were immediate. The 2008 Chicago Downtown Freight Study made 60 rec- ommendations, focusing on one immediate priority related to curbside management: to create a loading zone plan and inventory supported by a parking violation fine program during peak times and an enforcement campaign to prevent alley obstruction. The study also proposed providing floor area ratio bonuses for additional dock facilities and adding loading zone information to a geographic information system database. One of the main partners for the municipality was the Building Owners and Managers Association. 2.1.5 Intelligent Transport Systems In the near future, ITS will be a crucial element of an urban freight strategy. Today, use of ITS applications at the municipal traffic-management level or for interfacing with local truck drivers is still rather uncommon. There are different categories of ITS applications for trans- port supervision in an urban environment. The most common applications are automatic road enforcement (plate-reading cameras); real-time information provided by variable mes- sage signs; traffic-light management; and electronic toll col- lection.7 Many other types of applications exist but are not widely used yet, such as car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communications. Application of ITS to urban freight movement seems to have a lot of potential, but, so far, very few ITS applications 7 There are other ITS applications in use or in development for intercity freight (e.g., passes for compliant vehicles to bypass checkpoints and virtual weigh stations). These are beyond the scope of this report.

29 are specific to (dedicated to) urban freight. Several highly anticipated solutions include real-time, detailed traffic infor- mation customized to meet truck drivers’ needs (with more detailed incident reporting than is currently available on navigation systems); online reservation of loading/unloading areas; and systems for consolidation of urban deliveries. Previous attempts at providing online reservations for truck delivery spaces (such as in Barcelona 2000–2004) failed due to the cost and complexity of the systems as well as their perceived rigidity. Truck drivers were reluctant to use the online reservation system because they were not certain they could arrive at the dedicated spot in the reserved timeframe. Other innovative ITS technologies specifically for urban freight applications were tested in the past, but were aban- doned. In Barcelona, an automated enforcement of loading/ unloading parking provisions by cameras was also attempted, but it proved too costly. The city of Rouen, in France, had an ambitious strategy for developing real-time information on traffic conditions for truck drivers. The project was never implemented because of legal issues and also because there did not appear to be much truck driver demand for the dedi- cated information. A consortium of cities cooperating in the European SMART- FREIGHT project (finished in June 20118) has explored differ- ent categories of urban freight ITS. The main objectives of the project were “to develop new traffic-management measures towards individual freight vehicles through open ICT [Infor- mation and Communication Technology] services, on-board equipment and integrated wireless communication infra- structure”; to “improve the interoperability between traffic management and freight distribution systems”; and (very ambitiously) to “coordinate all freight distribution operations within a city by means of open ICT services, on-board equip- ment, wireless communication infrastructure and CALM9 MAIL implementation in on-board and on-cargo units, for all freight vehicles” (www.smartfreight.com). Among the partner cities, Trondheim (Norway) was the main test site,10 while Winchester (United Kingdom) and Bologna (Italy) per- formed simulations, and Dublin (Ireland) carried out desk- top studies. In Winchester, studies focused on retail waste and returns management strategies. Other efforts included iden- tification of suitable waiting areas to hold vehicles before they enter the city center and shared freight-bus lanes. Bologna used a satellite positioning system to improve the efficiency of its projected urban freight consolidation scheme (Stoffel, 2008). In Dublin, a user needs assessment was made regard- ing ITS and urban freight. Although the project per se is fin- ished, some SMARTFREIGHT experiments are still ongoing. In another European project, Cooperative Vehicle- Infrastructure Systems11 (finished in June 2010), some work was dedicated to urban freight transport. One sub-project looked at commercial parking, loading zone booking, and vehicle access control to sensitive areas, as well as the man- agement of the transport of hazardous goods.12 More common are technologies that are used by municipal- ities in support of policies on urban freight. In European and Asian cities, new enforcement technologies have increased the efficiency of truck access restriction policies. Automatic con- trol systems such as automatic number plate recognition cam- eras, mobile enforcement, vehicle positioning, and on-board equipment have been introduced. The enforcement of access rules through license plate recognition cameras is the best example of an efficient support provided by an ITS technol- ogy. This type of automatic control is used in congestion pric- ing zones or LEZs in many European cities (especially in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy). This technology comes at a cost; for example, in London, installation and monitor- ing of cameras costs £30,000 per traffic-enforcement camera. Although license-plate-reading cameras are expensive, they provide an efficient enforcement system. Truck license plates are registered with the city. License-plate-reading cameras then distinguish between complying and non-complying vehicles. The latter are fined when trying to access a restricted zone. In contrast, in 2007, the city of Paris implemented an environmental regulation (for afternoon deliveries only), but because enforcement agents lack training regarding delivery regulations, the rule is not enforced. Too many small inde- pendent carriers, with very old trucks, continue circulating in the city streets. In London, the LEZ (see Section 2.2) could not have been effective without a system of automated con- trol by cameras. Providing information to truck drivers represents another potentially important use of ITS in cities. A freight web- site organized by Transport for London (www.tfl.gov.uk/ microsites/freight/) provides information to truck drivers such as the location of incidents and works; maps; and advice on safe driving, abnormal loads, and regulations (truck ban, etc.). The portal is connected to other websites of interest such as the congestion pricing scheme (to pay online for example). In other cities, so far, freight transport operators have not been targeted as specific users of information on traffic conditions. Truck routes are mostly identified by traditional signing. Vari- able message signs do not yet provide much specific infor- mation on freight issues; although there are some exceptions, 8 See final report http://trg1.civil.soton.ac.uk/sf/D1.2%20-%20SMART FREIGHT%20Final%20?Report?.pdf. 9 Communications Access for Land Mobiles - ISO 15628:2007 10 In Trondheim, the “Wireless Trondheim Network Lab” already offered a city-wide, high-capacity communication network, helping to test transport services connected to the CALM standard. 11 www.cvisproject.org (European Commission, Information Society and Media). 12 See test site results on www.cvisproject.org/download/Deliverables/DEL_ CVIS_5.2_Test%20Site%20Results_V1.0.pdf.

30 such as the variable message signs that display real-time access regulations on the multiuse lanes in Barcelona. Few of the currently marketed software programs designed for the freight industry (i.e., tour or delivery route planning) are connected to municipal sources that provide informa- tion on traffic conditions or access and parking regulations. Even quite widespread systems of logistics network optimiza- tion are not as common as one would expect in urban areas. Freight operators using some kind of ITS for pick-up and delivery services in cities are still a minority, and there is little investment in new technologies. This situation could change quite rapidly as the cost of these technologies decreases. GPS is now used routinely in private and commercial vehicles for route guidance, but it is not yet a very efficient tool for densely built urban areas because the precision of identification is not yet perfect (a higher precision requires expensive technologies). There is extensive use of GPS for vehicle tracking among large delivery services such as FedEx or UPS, but not for any form of system management beyond individual fleets. Information and communication technologies are very important for some rapidly developing sectors of the urban freight industry, such as B2C (business-to-consumer trade) and C2C (consumer-to-consumer) deliveries. The increase of e-commerce requires new logistics arrangements in city centers, such as space for reception boxes, terminals concen- trated on providing logistics operations tailored to the needs of e-commerce, and new traffic arrangements and informa- tion services. The examples of Packstation in Germany and Kiala in France and Belgium (discussed in Section 2.1.7.2) show the development of pick-up points as a means of avoiding direct deliveries to customer homes. These new organizations are based on information technologies. ITS should become an increasingly important part of an urban freight policy. In one way or another, most current local traffic measures already include new technologies. The research team foresees that these technologies will become better tailored to meet the different needs of urban activi- ties and that ITS applications will become an important component of managing the transport of freight in urban areas. ITS applications are also important for urban freight policies in that these applications could prove interesting for data collection. Despite processing challenges and pri- vacy issues, GPS provides a potentially powerful method to enrich commercial vehicle data collection (Greaves and Figliozzi, 2008). 2.1.6 Zoning and Building Requirements for Off-Street Deliveries Policies and regulations using zoning and building ordinances with a direct impact on freight and deliveries are a potentially powerful way to decrease the number of on-street deliveries, therefore reducing congestion in central neighborhoods. The compulsory building of off-street delivery areas within companies’ premises is a common urban planning policy that can prevent truck parking on sidewalk areas or double park- ing. These measures apply to new buildings or buildings sub- jected to important transformations or new activities. Many economic sectors can be included in the regulations: offices, small businesses, industry, hotels, warehouses, cinemas, etc. City planning ordinances and building codes requiring off- street delivery bays for large buildings represent a very effective strategy for limiting the congestion of roads due to on-street deliveries in dense urban areas, provided they are sufficiently enforced. In Europe, many cities that have imposed the imple- mentation of off-street delivery bays have failed to inspect the effectiveness of these bays after the new buildings began operations. This follows a rather common European pattern of poor enforcement of municipal regulations because of a lack of funding for additional enforcement staff or insufficient train- ing of enforcement agents. Consequently, delivery bays are eas- ily transformed into car parking areas, trash collection zones, or storage areas; when this happens, truck drivers cannot use them anymore for deliveries. The Tokyo off-street parking ordinance of 2002 is rather stan- dard for many cities around the world. It compels all depart- ment stores, offices, or warehouses to provide for loading/ unloading facilities when they have a floor area of more than 2,000 square meters. European cities’ regulations are generally stricter, as buildings of 400 to 1,000 square meters are subjected to the off-street loading zone regulations. This stricter limit is more in line with the objective of freeing street space from delivery operations, as it targets many more buildings. The Zoning Resolution of the City of New York includes detailed rules for off-street deliveries. It imposes loading berths for most commercial, manufacturing, and storage uses. These requirements vary according to the district, the size of the establishment, and the type of use. For most retail uses, for example, a loading berth is required for facilities with over 8,000 square feet of floor area, and additional berths are required for each additional 15,000 or 20,000 square feet (NYC, 2011). In addition, the size, design, and location of the berths are regulated. The objective is to “provide needed space off public streets for loading and unloading activities, to restrict the use of the streets for such activities, to help relieve traffic congestion in commercial areas within the City, and thus to promote and protect public health, safety and general welfare.” In Paris, the measures requiring loading and unloading areas in private buildings (commercial, industrial, and office buildings) rely on tools imposed by national legislation. Interestingly, the 2006 Paris Local Land Use Plan defines several global orientations for the transportation of goods:

31 (1) implementing logistic spaces in some urban areas, (2) giving priority to the setting up of logistic activities in areas with a rail or waterway connection, and (3) requiring the main generators of freight (supermarkets, warehouses, hotels, large office areas, etc.) to integrate delivery areas within their premises proportional to the freight volume they gen- erate. However, in this regard, the building prescriptions are vague, obliging only the “accommodation of adequate zones required to ensure common loading or unloading tasks” (article UG12-2 of the Paris Local Land Use Plan, version of October 4, 2012). Barcelona implemented a local measure on its own initia- tive. A municipal ordinance of February 1999, Ordenança Municipal de Previsió d’espais per a càrrega i descàrrega als edificis (municipal ordinance for off-street loading/unloading spaces), lists the compulsory provisions for loading/unloading spaces in new buildings, as well as other measures for freight and deliveries. The regulations are precise, imposing a num- ber of loading bays according to the number of square meters of built floor area. There are also two uncommon but rather clever requirements: • All new bars and restaurants must accommodate storage areas for bottles and drinks. Storage must have a minimal size of 5 square meters within the premises. The rationale behind this rule is that restaurants will not need a daily sup- ply of beverages if they store a sufficient volume, thereby reducing the need for frequent deliveries. This measure has proven to be very effective in reducing the number of daily deliveries to these businesses (interview with Luis Cerda, freight project manager for the city of Barcelona). • Under certain conditions, collective delivery bays (shared delivery bays) can be arranged by several businesses. Deliv- ery bays can be built in adjacent buildings and do not have to be built in each individual building. 2.1.7 Consolidation Schemes, “City Logistics” Some cities (mostly in Europe) believe that they need to go further than just regulating truck traffic or establishing a freight forum. Their strategy is oriented towards “city logistics,” which aims to organize urban goods movements in a manner that promotes economic and environmental standards and is adequate to the demand for new logistics services. City logis- tics includes physical operations such as order preparation, shipments consolidation, transport (including home deliver- ies), short- or medium-term storage of goods, management of drop-off/pick-up boxes for parcels, and return of pallets and empty packages. Different levels of initiatives coexist, involving various stakeholders—large transport operators and logistics pro- viders, real estate developers, major retailers, and many start- up companies. Initiatives include urban logistics spaces and urban consolidation centers (UCCs). UCCs are a kind of city logistics that provides a specific service of bundled and coor- dinated deliveries, often requiring public subsidies. Such consolidation schemes aim at reducing the number of delivery vehicles and the distances they travel and increasing each vehicle’s load factor. While these initiatives have garnered a lot of media and academic attention, these schemes have had mixed results. Many initiatives have proven too costly or ill-adapted to urban delivery operations. Many have been abandoned, but in some cases an adequate business model was found. 2.1.7.1 Urban Logistics Spaces Some cities promote the development of urban logistics spaces, such as small terminals located in dense urban areas providing logistics services to neighborhood businesses and residents. These strategies can be costly, but they represent a very efficient way of promoting innovative delivery schemes. These logistics spaces (of about 5,000 to 20,000 square feet) can be provided directly by public authorities on public prop- erties, such as underground parking lots. The municipality of Paris organizes requests for proposals so that freight opera- tors demonstrating best practices with regard to environ- mental, social, and economic objectives can use the facilities at low rental cost (see the example of Chronopost in the fol- lowing paragraphs). Underground parking lots in city centers are often used for this purpose because they are well located in relation to zones of high commercial density and they often belong to municipalities and are managed by private compa- nies that try to make the space profitable with added-value activities. The reduction of car traffic in city centers (effective in many cities around the world) has opened new opportu- nities for logistics activities within underground parking. An additional advantage of underground consolidation centers in cities is that they are secured, so truck drivers feel safe for their loading/unloading operations. In Paris, the Chronopost Concorde facility located in the Concorde underground parking lot, below the Place de la Concorde (an upscale area), is a good example of an urban logistics space. Before 2004, the space was used to collect coins from on-street parking meters. In September 2004, Chrono- post (an express parcel transport company dominant in the French market) won the bid organized by the city of Paris and developed a new protocol for delivering parcels in the seventh and eighth boroughs of Paris, the busiest neighbor- hoods of Paris in terms of offices, shops, and administration. The protocol involves a main transport haul from a hub out- side of Paris to the Concorde terminal and short hauls from the Concorde terminal, using a fleet of 16 electric vehicles,

32 for final deliveries to clients. All Chronopost parcels destined for (or originating from) the seventh and eight boroughs are included in the new organization. The municipality paid for the renovation of the underground facility and the invest- ments that were needed to conform to safety standards and accommodate the use of electric vehicles. Chronopost pays a subsidized rent for the use of the facility, but has to buy and maintain the electric vehicles used for the final deliveries. An assessment study performed by Grant Thornton in 2008 (information provided courtesy of the city of Paris, also quoted in TURBLOG, 2011) provided the following results. From a strictly operational point of view, the Concorde urban logistics space gives Chronopost the advantage of being very close to its clients. This means higher productivity (70 addresses per route instead of 56 addresses when the route started from a hub out- side of the city limits). Delivery times were not affected by the new organization. The total cost per parcel delivered has not changed significantly. Annual CO2 emissions have decreased by about 60 percent (see Figure 7, which shows the 6-month decrease from 27.9 tons to 11.42 tons). Two-thirds of the reduction is due to the use of an electric fleet for final deliveries; one-third is due to the new logistics organization (there is only one consolidated shuttle a day between the urban terminal and the external hub instead of five or six small trucks before). The total distance traveled by traditional vans decreased by 75 percent. Local emissions of NOx decreased (compared to the previous year) from 192 to 48 kilograms, and PM10 emis- sions decreased from 12 to 3 kilograms. Employees work- ing for the urban logistics space now reach their workplace by public transport, which was not possible before. The use of electric vehicles replaced noisy vehicles with silent ones. The implementation of the terminal has located 19 new jobs within Paris (mainly low-skilled jobs). The impact assess- ment study showed that employees who relocated to the Paris premises were quite satisfied to work in the Concorde logis- tics terminal. Employees provided the following reasons for their satisfaction during interviews: less time spent in conges- tion; driving electric vehicles is more comfortable; and the starting hour for the delivery runs is later than previously, when employees started their work in the suburban terminal. 2.1.7.2 Pick-Up Points On a smaller scale, urban logistics spaces also include pick- up points. In recent years, the number of these local depots in urban and suburban areas has grown rapidly (Augereau and Dablanc, 2008). The first experiments with pick-up points took place in the 1990s and were quite unsuccessful. How- ever, since 2003 and the rapid increase in e-commerce, the development of pick-up points, drop boxes, and relay points has been remarkable. Pick-up points are local collection and distribution depots, or boxes, from which consumers can pick up goods that they have ordered via mail order or on the Internet. Pick-up points provide an innovative and technology-intensive alternative to home deliveries and generate considerable savings for delivery companies. Pick-up points eliminate failed delivery attempts to residential addresses and consolidate many stops in a neighborhood to a few. Some of the most developed networks of pick-up points in Europe today are in the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France. In Germany, Hermes Group has an extended relay-point network. The Kiala net- work in France and Benelux and the Packstation network in Germany are well known. These two systems differ in many ways: Packstations are automated locker banks designed for Source: data courtesy of the City of Paris 27.9 11.42 10.93 5.54 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Without ULS Concorde With ULS Concorde Greenhouse gases (in tons of equivalent CO2) GHG savings due to logistics reorganisation GHG savings due to clean delivery vehicles Figure 7. Inventory of CO2 emissions before and after the new Chronopost Concorde organization (assessment made for a 6-month study).

33 the needs of one transport operator (Deutsche Post/DHL), whereas Kiala provides a network of pick-up services in local businesses to many different transport operators. Kiala points are managed by local businesses (flower shops, grocery shops, etc.) as an additional service provided to customers. They handle products from all retailing companies that have a partnership with Kiala. Although the establishment of pick-up points has been rather successful, it has been expensive: in addition to requir- ing investments in ITS and in safety equipment, there have been costs related to pick-up point location. In Germany, the success of Packstation is linked to two factors: the partnership with the Deutsche Post/DHL, which provides freight volume, and the ability to set up lockers in public places and on the street. In some countries, for safety or aesthetic reasons, such implementations are forbidden. 2.1.7.3 Urban Consolidation Centers UCCs are one of the most popular urban logistics con- cepts among municipal decision-makers. UCCs provide bun- dled and coordinated deliveries. A UCC is a logistics facility located in close proximity to the city center (or any kind of dense commercial area), from which consolidated (across multiple and competing vendors) deliveries are carried out and in which a range of other value-added logistics and retail services can be provided (BESTUFS, 2007). The objective is to serve a city with fewer vehicles that are better loaded and make less frequent deliveries to each recipient, reducing the overall vehicle miles needed for last-mile deliveries. Often, vehicles used in a UCC run on natural gas or electricity in order to further increase the environmental benefits of the new system. UCCs usually (but not necessarily) require finan- cial support from public authorities to operate. Many such terminals (up to 150) existed in European cities over a decade ago, but due to operating costs, most of them closed down when municipalities could no longer subsidize them. Today, a few UCCs are operating, mostly in medium- sized cities: Bristol in the United Kingdom, many Italian cities, La Rochelle in France, and Motomachi in Japan. Some UCCs are dedicated to specific economic sectors, such as commercial streets’ retail (Bristol UCC, Cityporto in Padua and Vicenza), airport retail (Heathrow), or building sites (London and Stock- holm). Panero, Shin, and Polo Lopez (2011) provide details on several UCCs in Europe and Japan. The London Construction Consolidation Center (LCCC) was implemented in 2006 with funds from Transport for London and private investors, with the aim of consolidat- ing and organizing all deliveries of construction materials to major construction sites in the city. Transport for London reported a 68 percent reduction in the number of vehicles delivering to or picking up material at the building sites served by the LCCC, an average reduction in delivery time of 2 hours (including loading/unloading) for building sup- plies, a 75 percent reduction in CO2 emissions, a 15 percent reduction in wasted material, and a 30-minute increase in workforce productivity per day (SUGAR, 2011). Despite these achievements, the LCCC was closed after 3 years of opera- tion due to financial problems. Although the LCCC reduced collective costs, the allocation of investment and operating expenses of the terminal could not be settled. Transport for London was expecting that the LCCC would eventually oper- ate at a profit, which did not happen. This is a common case of positive net social benefits (the reduction of truck traffic on and around construction sites) without the savings being passed on to the parties incurring the costs. The LCCC experience, however, benefitted the management of the London 2012 Olympics Games’ con- struction sites (interview with Ian Wainwright, Transport for London). About six urban consolidation terminals are currently in existence in Italy. All share the purpose of protecting historic centers with rich architectural heritage. Also, Italy is charac- terized by many self-supplied shop owners and small truck companies (“padroncini”) who do a small number of truck trips per week or haul less than truckload on poorly orga- nized routes. This explains why Italian local officials attempt to impose more efficient freight transport strategies in city centers. In Parma, only accredited carriers can deliver within the historic center; others have to use the services of Ecolo- gistics, the municipal UCC. To receive accreditation, vehicles must meet the Euro III standard, they must be fully loaded (at least to 70 percent of capacity in volume or weight), and they must possess a geo-positioning system that allows tracking. Motomachi is an upscale retail area of Yokohama in Japan. In 2004, a consolidated delivery scheme was implemented and has proved successful since then (SUGAR, 2011). It is managed by a shopkeepers’ association and serves most of the stores in the area. Retailers’ associations have been key players in the implementation of the scheme. A consolidation termi- nal of 330 square meters is located a few hundred meters away from the retailing area. On an average day, 22 truck com- panies use the facility. Sagawa, one of the most important Japanese parcel and B2C transport companies, represents 60 percent of all UCC activity. The UCC and its 14 employees process about 350,000 parcels per year. Three low-emission, compressed natural gas (CNG) trucks make delivery rounds from the consolidation center to the shops. The scheme has managed to break even financially. The operating budget is ¥55 million (about €412,000), 95 percent of which comes from the revenue generated by the fees (¥150 or about €1.25 per parcel delivered) paid by the freight carriers using the UCC. A subsidy from the shopkeepers’ association covers the remaining operational deficit.

34 UCCs have been popular because they generate impor- tant savings in vehicle-kilometers and CO2 and local pol- lutant emissions, as many local impact assessment studies have demonstrated. However, because of their central loca- tions, UCCs often require significant real estate expendi- tures. They often require electric or gas vehicles, which are much more expensive than regular vehicles and can have maintenance or depreciation problems. The allocation of a UCC’s operating costs is often complex, generating gov- ernance issues. Past UCCs have run up against difficulties related to municipalities’ hesitancy to continue subsidizing experiments. UCCs can also lead to legal complications and risks for municipalities and the UCC operators. To ensure a UCC’s effectiveness, many municipalities implement strict vehicle access rules for the zone covered by the UCC and provide reg- ulatory or financial benefits to UCC operators (for example, in La Rochelle, only UCC electric vehicles can use the city’s bus lanes). The question then emerges as to how far authori- ties can carry regulations before they risk legal challenges. In Vicenza, Italy, a local regulation favoring a municipal UCC led to litigation by an association of freight transport carri- ers. Court rulings were needed in 2006 and 2009 to allow the city to go forward with its regulation (Ville, Gonzalez-Feliu, and Dablanc, 2012). Many other cities, observing these dif- ficulties, are now reluctant to promote similar concepts. Some UCCs were established by private initiatives because of an expected increase in the difficulties of serving city centers. However, in many European cities, this has not proven true, as stricter control of private car traffic has actually made access to the center easier for commercial vehicles. This was the case in Basel, Switzerland, where the UCC had to close down after a few years of operation due to better traf- fic conditions in the city center (Dablanc, 1998). Panero, Shin, and Polo Lopez (2011) report the same issue for the oldest UCC worldwide, that of Fukuoka in Japan, which was established in 1978. The municipality’s recent policy of adding underground parking spaces in the city center has actually reduced the natural advantages of the UCC for trucks bound for inner city destinations. Among the recently established UCCs, Motomachi, Bristol, Lucca, and Padua have engaged in practices that have contrib- uted to (limited) success: • Local authorities elaborated a specific regulation giving priority city center access to the carriers using the UCC (but there have been legal issues). • The operation of the final deliveries (from the consolida- tion center to the shopkeepers) was not given to a com- petitor but to a logistics provider not previously involved in local trucking activities, which made it more acceptable to the UCC users. • The definition of the consolidation scheme has been based on a profitable business plan that allows the municipality to decrease its subsidies in proportion with the consolida- tion center’s development. • Most of the consolidation center experiments were under- taken through public–private partnerships. The feasibility studies were often financed by the government (particu- larly in France) and impact assessments were carried out by consultants and financed partially by the government. However, in most cases, local subsidies remain necessary. There are no UCCs in the United States today. In compari - son with Asian and European countries, “the United States has been slow to adopt truck demand management strategies” (Kawamura and Lu, 2007, p. 34). Panero, Shin, and Polo Lopez (2011) examine the potential transferability of the UCC con- cept to the New York City case. According to these authors, the probability of New York City adopting such a scheme is rather low. The authors agree that there is a need for more efficient urban freight operations in the United States: “con- solidation and economies of scale are harder to obtain at the ‘last mile’ of the journey, mostly because urban distribution tackles small orders. Hence, opportunities for further freight consolidation still exist at the city freight level” (Panero, Shin, and Polo Lopez, 2011, p. 23). Nonetheless, UCCs may not be the most appropriate tools for U.S. cities, due to two main factors: (1) the physical layout of American cities (few U.S. cities have a historical street grid that requires specific protec- tion from trucks) and (2) the reluctance of most American municipalities to provide regulatory or financial support to UCC schemes. Kawamura and Lu (2007) also show that to offset the costs of an urban terminal (mostly land costs), a UCC needs to operate in very dense areas. Compared with European and Asian cities, American cities lack the denser urban situations and stricter limits on the use of large trucks that would make the cost of consolidation schemes attrac- tive to U.S. industry. Kawamura and Lu (2007) conclude, however, that U.S. cities do have the legal power, if not the political opportunity, to pursue such policies. If they do so, they should do that by favoring private initiatives or at least very active participation from private stakeholders. 2.1.8 Conclusion Strategies for handling last-mile deliveries are diverse, from routine policies related to truck access restrictions and delivery time windows, to more sophisticated consolidation schemes and city logistics initiatives. Sophisticated strate- gies have not always been the most successful, and the cities that have succeeded in implementing effective policies have focused on traditional measures while also modernizing them: for instance, basing truck restrictions on the age of the

35 vehicle instead of its weight and size; ensuring that there are a sufficient number of on-street loading spaces and that they are big enough to accommodate trucks with handling equip- ment; instituting innovative traffic management in lanes accommodating traffic, parking, and deliveries at different times of the day; implementing enforcement tools that use ITS; and providing specific training to enforcement agents. Off-hour deliveries have showed large gains in speed and reliability as well as decreases in vehicle miles when receivers of goods (e.g., retailers and restaurants) agreed to reorganize their deliveries. What makes a city implement an urban freight strategy? Why are some cities more willing to engage in these kinds of policies than others? First, large, congested cities with dense urban cores must deal with truck traffic and deliveries, and this is increasingly the case as traffic is—in relative as well as absolute terms—growing. London, Paris, New York, and Tokyo are quite naturally advanced in designing and imple- menting urban freight strategies. Historic cities with an architectural heritage have also been very active. Spanish and Italian cities are at the forefront in designing innovative urban freight schemes, sometimes in rather radical ways, such as in Vicenza where all parcel and express transport companies have been banned from the city center, or in Barcelona where the municipal zoning ordinance obliges restaurants and cafes to build storage areas within their premises. Other types of cities stand out because their transport policy’s priority is sustainability and the reduction of environmental impacts. This is the case for northern European cities (Gothenburg, Copenhagen, and Stockholm) and, in a very different way, for the megacities (such as Mexico City, Shanghai, or Manila) of more recently industrialized countries that are faced with overwhelming challenges in managing emissions and conges- tion (Dablanc, 2009). At a finer level of analysis, the best strategies that the research team has identified also reveal the crucial role of a project leader. The project leader can be an elected official or a technician or (as was the case in Paris and London from 2000 to 2005) a combination of both. The appointments of a freight team in London and, more modestly, a “Mr. Freight” in Paris were critical to the completion of the many urban freight initiatives that followed. A freight project leader has a key role in the success of urban freight projects; a change in project leadership can result in abandonment of a project (or significant delays). In some cases where there has been no designated project leader, private stakeholders have been crucial in raising awareness and promoting innovative strat- egies, but this role could also be played by a freight industry leader, representatives of a chamber of commerce, or a retail- ers’ local group. What is then needed is an adequate response from the local government, and this is often secured through the establishment of a freight forum. Conversely, the active and highly visible involvement of a public body such as a municipality can deter transport operators from participat- ing, and, in this case, a careful dialogue among all stakehold- ers is crucial. Some other conditions must be met for a successful imple- mentation of a last-mile strategy (SUGAR, 2011). It is impor- tant to conduct an analysis before the implementation of the project (ex-ante analysis) and to implement a follow-up with regular assessment surveys using relevant indicators in order to be able to draw comparisons between the ex-ante and ex-post situations. When designing a local solution to an urban freight problem, the whole supply chain involved must be taken into account, not just the segment that is being reorganized. It is also important to recognize that the pre- paratory phase of an urban freight strategy is often longer than planned and that legal analyses at different steps of the project implementation, sometimes leading to useful modi- fications, must often be undertaken. One of the critical suc- cess factors is achieving a transition phase from the feasibility study to the actual implementation, and then to the perpetu- ation of the measure. 2.2 Emissions and Other Environmental Problems and Strategies Trucks are a significant source of air pollution in metro- politan areas. “There is a need to significantly reduce freight transportation emissions in major [U.S.] metropolitan areas” (Ang-Olson and Ostria, 2005). In European cities, a large share of transportation-related PM, NOx, and ozone come from freight traffic (see Section 1). Trucks operating in urban areas tend to be older and hence more polluting than those operating in the long-haul sector. Urban congestion adds to the problem due to idling, stops, and starts. Of particular concern are particulate emissions. The particulate emissions problem is especially severe in major trade centers. While truck emissions are the most visible externality in most U.S. cities, many very dense cities experience serious noise problems from truck activity. To address delivery noise problems, innovative European programs combining the devel- opment of silent equipment, regulations favoring silent opera- tions, and training programs have been implemented. Other important environmental externalities include the impacts of major truck traffic generators (e.g., warehousing/distribution) on local neighborhoods, truck parking in residential areas, the impacts of rail traffic on local traffic circulation and residential neighborhoods, and so forth. Finally, urban freight may generate environmental jus- tice and livability issues. Residential neighborhoods located near intermodal or distribution facilities or near major

36 transport corridors tend to be low income and include disproportionate numbers of minority populations. Efforts to develop higher density, walkable neighborhoods may pose challenges for the associated freight activities. This section will include a review of strategies to address envi- ronmental and livability issues. 2.2.1 Reducing Truck Emissions The major strategies for reducing truck emissions in urban areas include (1) accelerated achievement of existing stan- dards or increasing the stringency of emissions standards, (2) mandating alternative fuels and electric delivery vehicles, (3) restricting idling or other detrimental operational activi- ties, and (4) creating truck-free zones, LEZs, or other spatial restrictions. The following explores strategies for reducing truck emissions, assessing the effectiveness of these strategies, costs and benefits, and feasibility. All levels of government can take actions that decrease the urban air quality impacts of trucking activities, from setting limits on truck idling to influencing the location and design of new facilities for goods movement to voluntary agree- ments with vehicle owners to reduce emissions. As an exam- ple, Table 7, from MIG, ICF International, and UltraSystems (2009), provides a useful overview of jurisdictional authori- ties involved in urban truck movements and air quality in Southern California. 2.2.1.1 Accelerated Achievement of Existing Standards or Increasing the Stringency of Emissions Standards Local Pollutants’ Emissions. For the past 20 to 30 years in the United States and other regions such as the European Union, emissions standards have been used to reduce vehicle emissions. NOx and PM are among the pollutants commonly targeted. PM2.5 has been a more recent addition to targeted pollutants. NOx and PM are closely related to diesel vehicles and are specifically detrimental to human health (see Sec- tion 1). Emissions standards have only partially offset the increase in the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled in urban areas, as the concentration of NOx and PM in the air have tended to decrease much more slowly than other pollut- ants, remain stable, or even increase (see below). Emissions standards for vehicle construction in the Euro- pean Union follow designated “Euro standards.” For trucks, the current standard is Euro V13 (trucks manufactured after October 2009) with the more stringent Euro VI standard due at the end of 2013. In the United States, the current standards started applying in 2007 and 2010.14 Source: MIG, ICF International, and UltraSystems (2009), p. 1-10, Table 1-1. Table 7. Jurisdictional authority related to goods movement air quality impacts in Southern California. 13 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. 14 For 2010, medium- and heavy-duty engines must emit no more than 0.01 g/bhp-hr (grams per brake horsepower per hour) of PM and no more than 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx (the PM standard took effect in 2007).

37 In addition to the federal standards for new trucks, some states have reinforced rules for existing trucks. California is the only state that is permitted to set stricter standards, because it is the only state that had a regulatory agency before the passage of the federal Clean Air Act. The authority to regulate California’s emissions comes from the California Health and Safety Codes, which provide authority to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to find feasible and cost-effective strategies to reduce emissions from all mobile source categories. CARB’s regulation applies to in-use trucks and requires owners to upgrade their vehicles and equipment. Other states are permitted to follow CARB standards, but not set their own. Consequently, Cali- fornia has the most stringent truck emissions regulations in the United States. Comparably, in Europe, the European Union sets vehicle emissions standards and deadlines of application, and member nations can impose additional retrofit systems to circulating trucks. In California, new emissions-reducing regulations went into effect on January 1, 2012. They target heavy trucks and buses, which are defined as those with a GVWR over 26,000 pounds. Engines must be retrofitted with a diesel PM filter. Owners can also opt for a flexible phase-in option that requires any 30 percent of vehicles in the fleet to have a PM filter. Owners of small fleets (one to three trucks) can postpone the compliance requirement until 2014, but must report their fleet information to CARB in order to receive the extension. Lighter diesel trucks with a GVWR of 14,001 to 26,000 pounds have no compliance requirements until 2015. CO2 Emissions and Climate Change. The regulation of trucks’ CO2 emissions is a rather recent idea, and gov- ernments are more reluctant to impose it.15 The European Parliament and Council have recently decided to postpone until 2017 the implementation of the standard of 175 grams per kilometer of CO2 for new vans sold within the European Union. The objective for 2020 has been set at 147 grams per kilometer, instead of 135 as previously proposed. Heavy-duty trucks (defined as commercial vehicles weighing more than 3,500 kilograms) are not subject to CO2 regulations yet. In the United States, in May 2010, President Obama ordered the EPA and the U.S. DOT to develop GHG standards for medium and heavy trucks (combination tractors, heavy-duty pick-up trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles including refuse or utility trucks) for model years 2014 to 2018. The move followed the release of a study by the National Research Council that found that despite some progress on the part of manufacturers, trucks could still be made 50 percent more fuel-efficient over the next 10 years (TRB, 2002). The State of California and major automobile and truck manufacturers expressed support for a national heavy-duty GHG and fuel efficiency program as well as further light-duty GHG and cor- porate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. A final agree- ment was signed in August 2011 for heavy trucks (see Table 8 for standards applying to semi-trailers. For other trucks, stan- dards are more variable. The standards represent an average of 15 percent reduction of fuel consumption for diesel vehicles). Regarding light-duty trucks, an agreement was announced in July 2011 among EPA, NHTSA, automakers, and the State of California on GHG and fuel economy standards for model years 2017 to 2025. According to the EPA, standards could achieve, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, 163 grams per mile (101 grams per kilometer) of CO2 in model year 2025. California is actively involved in developing the new measures. This follows the state’s actions related to climate change. In 2006, AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, set 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals into law. It directed CARB to develop early actions to reduce GHGs while also preparing a plan for the 2020 limit (http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm). The Sustainable Commu- nities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, SB 375, required CARB to develop regional emissions-reduction targets. In February 2011, CARB published its automobile and light 15 This is not to say that GHG reduction strategies do not exist at the local level. Lutsey and Sperling (2008) record 684 cities that have taken GHG emissions- reduction target initiatives in the United States, together with multiple regional or state initiatives. Lutsey and Sperling actually view the local level as the most effective level for climate change initiatives in the United States. However, they note that the most common targets of these GHG initiatives are light-duty vehicles and renewable electricity; freight traffic is rarely targeted (2008). EPA Emissions Standards (g CO2/ton-mile) NHTSA Fuel Consumption Standards (gal/1,000 ton-mile) Low Roof Mid Roof High Roof Low Roof Mid Roof High Roof Day Cab Class 7 104 115 120 10.2 11.3 11.8 Day Cab Class 8 80 86 89 7.8 8.4 8.7 Sleeper Cab Class 8 66 73 72 6.5 7.2 7.1 Source: EPA (2011), p.5 Table 8. Fuel consumption reduction standards for semi-trailer trucks.

38 truck emissions targets for 2020 and 2035 for each of the state’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).16 Wygonik and Goodchild (2011) considered strategies to reduce truck CO2 emissions and their potentially negative impacts on the cost of urban freight deliveries. These researchers concluded that reducing CO2 emissions is complementary with increasing the cost-effectiveness of urban delivery operations. Air Quality Attainment Areas. The EPA as well as the European Commission set standards for cities’ ambient air quality. The standards cover various pollutants coming from diesel engines and other pollutants. Different limits can be set, such as compulsory values or informative values and alert thresholds.17 The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six principal pollutants, which are called “crite- ria” pollutants. Regulations require that areas in violation of standards improve air quality and reach the standards by spe- cific dates. Member states in Europe “shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the limit values,” includ- ing a strict regulation on motor traffic (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe). In the United States, areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are designated “nonattainment” (see Figure 8 for PM2.5-related nonattainment areas) and must design and implement a plan to reach the standards. At the regional or metropolitan level, many agencies have jurisdiction over air quality issues, which can be overlapping. In Southern California, primary jurisdiction belongs to the South Coast AQMD, which works with CARB to implement air quality regulations and incentives. Additionally, the South Coast AQMD is responsible for bringing the Southern Cali- fornia region into compliance with federal and state clean air standards (O’Brien and Giuliano, 2012). Despite vans’ and trucks’ significant share in urban emis- sions, local and regional strategies to reach attainment status rarely include specific actions on freight movements (Dablanc, 2008). An exception in Europe is the Netherlands, where standards on air quality (notably the limit values for particulates) have prompted the Dutch Supreme Court to make decisions leading to a freeze on infrastructure projects in cities where limit values were not respected. Conversely, in December 2011, the Paris administrative tribunal turned down a request from environmental organizations accusing the administration of a lack of action on traffic limitation to reduce PM and NOx concentration. The regional Atmo- spheric Protection Plan for the Paris region is now obsolete (it ran until 2010), and the new plan is not due for several years. The tribunal ruled, however, that the plaintiffs were not specific enough in establishing how actions on traffic would contribute to attainment. In the United States, freight traffic related to port activities is often a primary target for litigation and for cleaner air actions (O’Brien and Giuliano, 2012). The example of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Clean Truck Program is provided in Section 2.3. 2.2.1.2 Alternative Fuels A variety of alternative fuels can be used in freight vehicles and equipment. Some, such as emulsified diesel or biodiesel, require little or no modification to the engine while others, such as natural gas, require engine conversion or replacement (Ang-Olson and Ostria, 2005). Environmental advocates, policy-makers, and the trucking industry have great expecta- tions for use of hybrid and electric commercial vehicles in specifically urban applications. Urban freight, because of its “stop-and-go” patterns, has been viewed as a natural market for electric vehicle operations. The distance range of today’s batteries (up to 100 miles) is not an obstacle for most urban delivery routes. Source: EPA Green Book (http://epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/mappm25_2006.html) Figure 8. PM2.5 nonattainment areas (2006 standard) in the United States as of April 2011. 16 As an example, the SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) region has to reduce its per capita greenhouse emissions relative to 2005 by 7 percent in 2020 and 13 percent in 2035. All 18 MPOs’ targets can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/final_targets.pdf (last accessed on January 10, 2012). In November 2011, SANDAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy was formally approved by CARB, which found it able to achieve (“if imple- mented”) the 2020 and 2035 emissions reduction targets. 17 The EU regulations include limit values, target values, and alert thresholds. A limit value is a level fixed with the aim of avoiding, preventing, or reducing harmful effects on human health and/or the environment as a whole, to be attained within a given period and not to be exceeded once attained. A target value is a level fixed with the aim of avoiding more long-term harmful effects on human health and/or the environment as a whole, to be attained where possible over a given period. An alert threshold is a level beyond which there is a risk to human health from brief exposure and at which immediate steps shall be taken. European Council Directive 2008/50/CE, in particular, targets the pollutants NO2, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, which are closely linked to transporta- tion activities.

39 Because of these improvements, and despite many draw- backs (see below), various incentives to use alternative fuel vehicles have been implemented, such as access privileges in urban areas (e.g., extended time windows and lower tolls) or subsidies to buy vehicles. In London, alternative fuel vehicles do not pay the congestion charging fee that is applied in cen- tral London. Clean Cities is a U.S. network of nearly 100 city coalitions sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy that promotes alternative and renewable fuels in transportation. A guidebook for heavy-duty and commercial fleet managers (from municipalities to freight operators) was published in 2010 (USDOE, 2010). A National Clean Fleets Partnership was established with the Clean Cities network to work with companies operating large fleets to reduce petroleum use. The program provides technical expertise and some financial support. Some of the program’s main initiatives related to delivery vehicles are presented in Table 9. Despite the promotion of alternative fuel vehicles, so far their overall use remains extremely limited, especially use of natural gas and electric delivery vehicles. Today, the vast majority of trucks and vans operating in urban areas are fueled by diesel or gasoline. The main reasons for the very slow introduction of natural gas and electric vehicles are their initial cost (an electric truck is two to three times more expensive than a diesel equivalent), higher operating costs, a lack of available expertise in maintenance of these vehicles, a lack of refueling stations, and difficulty in setting the vehicle’s depreciation value and value for the second-hand market (Dablanc, 2008). Another reason is the negative impact on fleet routing and logistics of the limited driving range before recharging (although progress has been made in recent years). In London, as of June 2010, despite strong financial incentives (electric vehicles receive a 100 percent discount on the con- gestion charge), only 1,700 vehicles were registered as electric vehicles, of which 50 percent were trucks and vans (information provided by Ian Wainright, Transport for London). Electric delivery vehicles are used in niche markets, espe- cially in the city centers of large cities, because they contribute Location (Company and City) of Experiment Alternative Technology Used Results from Evaluation Studies FedEx Express Los Angeles and Sacramento, CA 20 gasoline hybrid electric delivery trucks Compared with diesel hybrid trucks: • Considerable difference in tailpipe emissions • No difference in fuel cost or maintenance cost per milea UPS Phoenix, AZ Six Class 4 hybrid electric delivery vans (diesel) Compared with traditional diesel vans: • 29% higher fuel economy • Less reliability (because of prototype components) • 8% lower maintenance costsb Staples Nationwide, partnership with Massachusetts Clean Cities Introduction of 53 all-electric trucks in high-density urban delivery areas Electronic speed control device on medium-duty diesel delivery trucks to limit speed to 60 miles per hour Limit of truck idling to 3 minutes Speed limit saves 1 million gallons of fuel per year (equivalent to about 10,000 tons of CO2) Coca-Cola Bottling New Orleans, LA Eight hybrid electric delivery trucks Detailed study not available Golden Eagle Distributorsc Tucson, AZ Entire Tucson heavy-duty fleet converted to CNG First vehicle (from Ryder) received in Sept 2011, remaining 22 trucks being converted Detailed study not available a Barnitt (2011). b http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/47327.pdf and Lammert (2009) c Golden Eagle Distributors is a carrier of alcoholic beverages. Source: Alternative Fuels Data Center Case Studies (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fleets/delivery_experiences.html) Table 9. Alternative delivery vehicle experiments from the National Clean Fleets Partnership.

40 strongly to the “green” image of trucking companies operating in urban areas. In Europe and the United States, electric delivery vehicles are being tested by prominent companies such as DHL whose GoGreen worldwide program includes the use of electric vehicles. In March 2011, 30 electric vehicles and 60 hybrid vehicles were introduced in Manhattan. The company is also testing electric vehicles for deliveries in the Paris region. France’s largest freight carrier, Geodis, uses electric vehicles for deliveries in city centers for its program called “Distripo- lis” (see photo in Figure 9). FedEx operates the largest fleet of hybrid commercial vehicles in North America and has intro- duced all-electric delivery vehicles in large cities (see Table 9). As of January 2012, the company operates 365 hybrid elec- tric trucks and 43 all-electric trucks in Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, and New York City, as well as in London and Paris (information from www.fedex.com). Some start-up delivery companies have made a name for themselves because of their use of innovative delivery vehicles such as cargocycles. The French delivery operator and deliv- ery tricycle manufacturer, La Petite Reine, has contributed to the creation of a niche market of electrically assisted cargo- cycles running in large cities in France and the United King- dom (see Figure 10). These vehicles are being operated for major companies such as Office Depot in London’s Regent Street (see Figure 11) or DHL in Paris. In 2010, the French government grouped all electric com- mercial vehicle requirements from all governmental admin- istrations and public agencies (including the national postal service) so that manufacturers might be interested in respond- ing to a bid involving more than 50,000 electric vehicles, of which one-third was commercial. In October 2011, different lots were allocated to different automakers. The largest lot was won by Renault for 15,000 Kangoo Z.E. vans (pictured in Figure 12). Photographed by L. Dablanc Figure 9. Electric van from Geodis-Distripolis program in Paris, France. Photographed by L. Dablanc Figure 10. Electrically assisted cargocycle, La Petite Reine, in a Paris street. Photographed by L. Dablanc Figure 11. Cargocycle for Office Depot, Regent Street terminal. Source: © Renault, used with permission. Figure 12. A Kangoo Z.E. van from Renault.

41 Low-Carbon Fuels. A low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) was enacted in California in 2007 with the objective of a reduction of at least 10 percent in the carbon intensity of Cal- ifornia’s transportation fuels by 2020. The full cycle of pro- duction and distribution of the fuel is to be integrated in the evaluation of carbon intensity. A ranking of fuels according to their carbon intensity was proposed by CARB.18 This was con- troversial and gave rise to lawsuits. In December 2011, a federal judge ruled that the low-carbon fuel regulations discriminated against crude oil and biofuel producers located outside Cali- fornia (Cart, 2011). The state will appeal the ruling. 2.2.1.3 Idling, Speed or Other Operational Restrictions Ang-Olson and Ostria (2005) estimate that “reducing all overnight idling by 50 percent would reduce NOx emissions by 156 tons per year in the Dallas–Fort Worth area and 524 tons per year in the Houston area [representing] 0.3 and 0.8 per- cent of the on-road heavy-duty vehicle emission inventories in these regions, respectively.” According to the American Truck- ing Associations, using EPA studies, options available to fleets to minimize discretionary idling have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions “by an estimated 61.1 million tons over the next ten years” (ATA, 2013). One important step toward the reduction of idling is truck-stop electrification. Truck-stop owners are installing equipment that allows truck drivers to get power for truck heating, air conditioning, and appliances without keeping the engine running. The Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center provides a list of truck electrified parking spaces in the United States by state and city.19 There are about 60, a tiny share of the total truck parking locations in the coun- try. Some companies such as Shorepower Technologies and IdleAir (see Figure 13) are developing the equipment of truck stops with charging stations throughout the country. Some trucks can use truck-stop electrification through a simple extension cord. Installing an additional adapter can provide better ventilation and air conditioning services. Government can promote reduced idling through regula- tion. The CARB implemented a 5-minute limitation on diesel truck idling in January 2005, which applies to commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds. Since 2008, even sleeper berth trucks must comply with the law, which provides for exemp- tions only in cases of emergency. A violation of the provi- sion can lead to a fine of at least $100. In New Jersey, idling has also been outlawed after 3 minutes, but drivers of trucks manufactured after 2007, or correctly retrofitted, can use an extended time of idling for cooling or heating before sleeping in their trucks in non-residential areas. Since February 2009, a municipal law in New York City has reduced the amount of time the engine of a motor vehicle is permitted to idle from 3 minutes to 1 minute when adjacent to a school. The impact of these regulations on idling is unknown; the research team has found no studies of the effectiveness of these regulations on reducing emissions. The reduction of speed is an efficient way of reducing fuel consumption of trucks. Freight operators will generally go as fast as speed limits allow. While this may make sense from a time perspective, fuel economy and GHG emissions generally worsen at high speeds (Cambridge Systematics, 2010). Fuel efficiency can be improved and GHGs reduced by increas- ing the time that trucks operate at the most fuel-efficient speeds. Gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 18 A table is presented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbon_fuel_standard showing values of midwest ethanol at 105 grams of CO2 equivalent per mega- joule of energy produced, to compressed natural gas coming from landfills at 11 grams. This table is made from various CARB sources. 19 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/progs/tse_listings.php (last accessed January 6, 2012). Source: © IdleAir, used with permission Figure 13. IdleAir charging station for trucks.

42 60 miles per hour. A recent DOE evaluation estimated that a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit implemented at the national level could result in a fuel consumption savings of between 175,000 and 275,000 barrels of oil per day, or about 27 to 43 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. This amount is equal to approximately 1.6 to 2.4 percent of on- road vehicle fuel consumption and emissions (Cambridge Systematics, 2010). Many trucking companies have adopted a maximum speed policy for their drivers as a way to limit fuel expenses. Staples found that by imposing an electronic speed control device on all its medium-duty diesel delivery trucks to limit speed to 60 miles per hour, it saved 1 million gallons of fuel, equivalent to about 10,000 tons of CO2 per year (see Table 9). However, other companies value speed over fuel sav- ings because longer travel times add costs for both the shipper and the cargo owner. Express transport companies have had a hard time complying with the 2007 French law (based on safety issues, not on environmental consideration) reducing the maximum speed from 100 to 90 kilometers/hour on high- ways for vehicles between 3.5 and 12 tons of GVWR because it disturbed their whole organization. Chronopost, a major parcel and express carrier in France, estimated that by reduc- ing average speed and conflicting with working hour rules, the new regulation increased their haul times by an average of 22 percent. Some state and local agencies have considered highway speed reductions as a way to reduce emissions. As reported by Ang-Olson and Ostria (2005), the Tennessee Department of Transportation reduced the truck speed limit in Shelby County to 55 miles per hour as a way to help the region attain ozone standards. In general, measures related to drivers’ training can lead to substantial fuel savings, especially in urban areas (BESTUFS, 2007). The FORS in London (see Section 2.1) includes truck drivers’ training as one of its main targets. 2.2.1.4 Truck-Free Zones or Other Spatial Restrictions Europe’s LEZs. Europe has seen a surge in specifically designated urban areas with stricter access rules for trucks, preventing access for trucks that pollute most. These LEZs apply truck restrictions based on environmental criteria— only recent trucks20 are permitted to enter the city center. In a few cases (Copenhagen), access is allowed for clean as well as “fully loaded trucks,” that is, only trucks with most of their destinations in the restricted zone that meet a minimum load factor (60 percent of authorized tonnage in the case of Copenhagen) can access the zone. The regulation is enforced through regular reporting from the truck companies to the municipality (Geroliminis and Daganzo, 2005). London has the most stringent and largest LEZ in Europe. Since 2008, trucks older than the Euro III standard (trucks manufactured after 2001) and, since January 2012, trucks older than the Euro IV standard (trucks manufactured after 2006) are prohibited from the Greater London area, i.e., the area sur- rounded by the M25 highway, which totals 1,580 square kilome- ters. Also, since January 2012, large vans (weighing more than 1.205 tons GVWR) must follow the Euro 3 standard (newer than 2002) to get into the zone. From 2008 to 2011, the number of Euro II, I and 0 trucks (when they are not retrofitted) went from 20 percent of all trucks before implementation of the LEZ to nearly zero today. Transport for London, the Greater Lon- don DOT, calculated that the scheme has directly produced a yearly reduction of 28 tons of PM10, 26 tons of PM2.5, and 529 tons of NOx (Transport for London, 2008b), represent- ing a 3.6 percent reduction in road traffic exhaust emissions for PM10, a 3.7 percent reduction in PM2.5, and a 2 percent reduction in NOx (Transport for London, 2008b). According to Transport for London, “the latest measurements suggest that London is likely to comply successfully with the limit value for PM10 by 2011, and LEZ will have played an important part in making this possible” (2008b). Interestingly, NO2 con- centrations have failed to decrease; average concentrations in 2009 in London are similar to average concentrations in 2004. According to Transport for London, this could reflect the increased emission of “primary NO2” from newer diesel- engine vehicles and abatement equipment designed to reduce emissions of PM10. Replacing old trucks and vans with newer types of vehicles benefits the environment because old trucks and vans emit a large amount of current air pollutants (NOx and particu- lates). See the example of Gothenburg, Sweden, in Table 10. An LEZ can be combined with road pricing, as is the case for the London congestion charge (the perimeter of which is much smaller than the LEZ). Most urban tolls apply to all vehicles, while many LEZs apply only to commercial vehicles. In London’s congestion charge perimeter, green vehicles (defined as emitting 100 grams per kilometer or less of CO2 20 Defined by age or by their Euro standard. Most regulations apply an age limit of 8 to 9 years or the equivalent Euro III standard (Euro IV becoming more common 2011–2012). Trucks PM10 (kg/year) < 16 tons with regulation 187 < 16 tons without regulation 566 > 16 tons with regulation 3312 > 16 tons without regulation 4531 Data from City of Gothenburg, May 2006, after 4 years of implementation. Table 10. Effects of truck environmental regulations in Gothenburg, Sweden (trucks more than 7 years old prohibited).

43 and meeting the Euro V standard) do not pay the £10 charge that other vehicles pay to enter. In Milan, Italy, an urban toll with fees varying according to vehicles’ Euro standards was implemented in 2008. The scheme was called Ecopass until a new scheme was intro- duced on January 16, 2012, called Area C. Ecopass had a com- plex range of fees. For freight vehicles, all Euro IV vehicles had a full exemption from the fee; for Euro III, the fee was €5 per day; and for older trucks, it was €10 per day. According to Rotaris et al. (2009), the results of Ecopass were rather sub- stantial. The number of freight vehicles daily in the Ecopass zone was 13,174 before the introduction of the scheme, and 10,500 after. This means that the goods supply of Milan’s busi- nesses and residents was provided with nearly 20 percent fewer freight vehicles. Rotaris et al. calculated the financial costs and benefits of Ecopass over 1 year of operation. They estimated that the financial value of emissions reduction was a gain of €1.8 million for NOx and PM10 reduction and €0.6 million for CO2. Freight vehicles saved an estimated €2.2 million in reduced trip time and increased travel reliability, but at a cost of €5.2 million in toll fees or investments in new vehicles. Overall, Rotaris et al. consider that freight operators were the biggest “losers” in the scheme, while the municipality gained the most, primarily because of the new revenues (especially through violation notices and fines rather than through the toll revenues). No financial aid was provided to the trucking companies to cope with the new rules. Starting in January 2012, Ecopass was replaced with Area C, a simplified scheme. Vans and trucks that are not at least Euro IV cannot access the zone anymore. Eligible vehicles pay €5 a day to enter the zone, except electric vehicles. Until December 2012, hybrid and natural gas vehicles also have an exemption. Many other European cities, especially the largest ones, have established LEZs. Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Copenhagen (Denmark), and Swedish cities initiated these types of ordi- nances in the early 2000s. All major European cities now have similar rules, including cities in Spain, Italy, and Germany. Energy consumption and the related CO2 emissions could well be targets of LEZ or toll differentiation policies for the future, i.e., only trucks reaching a specified level of fuel efficiency or CO2 emissions would be allowed to enter a city center or other specified zone. This was mentioned for the city of Gothenburg, but has not yet been implemented (SUGAR, 2011). In the United States, no LEZ (with the exception of the San Pedro ports discussed below) or urban cordon pricing scheme exists. New York City proposed a congestion pricing plan for the Manhattan area (south of 60th Street) that would have established a high daily fee for trucks ($21) and a lower fee ($8) for private cars. The fee was to be reduced for clean trucks. Announced in 2007 as part of the Mayor’s Greener Greater New York initiative, the plan was never implemented due to political opposition (despite support expressed by New Yorkers in polls). In 2008, the state assembly did not vote in favor of the plan, which was then abandoned with a subsequent loss of federal grants. New types of truck access regulations such as the San Pedro ports’ Clean Trucks Program or the European LEZs and urban tolls have a positive additional outcome to cleaner air. As old trucks cannot access a city anymore, small truck operators need to adapt their fleet. One way to do so is to grow bigger: very small companies are therefore replaced by medium-sized truck com- panies. Because they can bundle shipments and organize routes better, medium-sized trucking companies have been associated with increased operational efficiency. They have more ability to secure funding for investing in newer vehicles and modern equipment than owner-drivers or very small truck companies. This can contribute to the restructuring of the urban freight market (Dablanc, 2007). Nonetheless, these schemes for truck access regulation have been criticized. After reviewing several assessment studies, Maes, Vanelslander, and Sys (2011) estimate that LEZ benefits are not high enough. An LEZ would need to target all traffic to significantly reduce emissions. According to Browne et al. (2010), who are looking at both LEZ and congestion charging schemes, restricted areas often fail to have a significant effect on congestion and pollution because light goods vehicles (LGVs) are not targeted. These schemes fail in promoting a more effi- cient use of LGVs or a switch to larger and more fully loaded vehicles. As Brown et al. (2010) note, In principle, [congestion] charging could discourage frequent, small-sized deliveries by LGVs. However charges would have to be set sufficiently high to have such an effect and would need to reflect the number of vehicle movements. Experience with congestion charging in London does not indicate a switch in use from LGVs to HGVs [heavy goods vehicles], but given the current charges in force and the fact that a single payment allows the vehicle to enter and leave the charging zone as many times as desired in a day this is not unexpected. Also, it can be argued that companies operating both within and outside of a restricted area can relocate all their old vehicles to the non-restricted area, resulting in additional emissions in the non-restricted area, which can offset the benefits to the central area. Other Truck Restrictions, Designated Truck Routes. Perhaps the most common regulation of urban truck traffic is route and parking restrictions. European cities have used this kind of regulation since the Roman Empire.21 In recent 21 Julius Caesar initiated a series of municipal ordinances known as the Law of Caesar on Municipalities (44 B.C.), of which Number 14 restricts the hours when a wagon can be driven through Rome and its residential suburbs. See Allan Chester Johnson, Paul Robinson Coleman-Norton, Frank Card Bourne, Ancient Roman Statutes, Clyde Pharr (general editor), University of Texas Press, 1961.

44 history, the most famous truck ban in Europe is the London Lorry Ban, in place since 1975. Heavy goods vehicles weighting more than 18 tons cannot circulate at night and on weekends within a delimited area. Paris has banned trucks (over 29 square meters) during the day time. All trucks in Seoul have been banned from the central areas during working hours. This ban has been in place since 1979. In Sao Paulo, to alleviate congestion, access is based on the plate number, with 2 days allowed per vehicle (including freight vehicles). In Mexico City, since 2008, the following rules apply: (1) trucks over 3.5 tons are forbid- den between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. in the historical center, and (2) trucks over 3.5 tons or over 7.5 meters in length are forbidden on one segment of the city’s main boulevard (Eje Central between Churubusco and Consulado) from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. In both cases, there are exceptions for trucks delivering mail, construction material, and perishable and frozen products. Heavy-duty vehicles can be restricted to designated routes by local jurisdictions based on their size and weight. Most cit- ies have truck routes made up of major arterials, with trucks allowed to deviate from these routes only for pick-up and deliv- ery stops. The justification for limiting heavy-duty vehicles to certain routes is based on roadway wear, lane width and clear- ances, adequacy of intersections for turning movements, and noise impacts in residential areas. Large, dense cities tend to have the most serious problems because of competition for scarce road space. Older cities have a local physical geography that was never designed for large trucks. New York City provides an example. The city has identified a truck route system of about 1,000 miles: 172 miles in the Bronx, 298 miles in Brooklyn, 243 miles in Queens, 130 miles in Manhattan, and 194 in Staten Island (Hodge, 2009), distinguishing between local routes and through routes. In its most recent update, the truck route network is available online (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2011_ truck_route_map.pdf), and the map can also be sent to truck- ing companies on demand. A 2008 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) publication (GAO, 2008, p. 27) notes the following: Recognizing that New York City is heavily dependent on trucks for goods movement, the New York City Department of Transportation initiated the Truck Route Management and Community Impact Reduction Study. This study revealed sever- al negative effects of truck traffic on local communities, includ- ing traffic congestion, damage to residences and roads, and safety concerns for pedestrians and passenger traffic. In response to these findings, the New York City Department of Transporta- tion has started to implement a number of solutions to mitigate these negative effects. For example, in some areas of the city, routing changes were implemented that improved access into the area by taking truck traffic off of some residential streets and putting it onto wider streets. Truck route restrictions have both positive and negative impacts on emissions. Route restrictions reduce the network on which trucks may travel and may generate more truck VMT than use of all routes. On the other hand, route restric- tions may reduce the overall level of congestion, leading to reduced emissions. To the research team’s knowledge, no study has made a global assessment of the effects of truck routes. 2.2.2 Reducing Noise from Deliveries While truck emissions represent the most recognized impacts of urban freight operations, many dense cities expe- rience noise problems from truck activity. As seen in Section 1, noise is often mentioned by local communities as the num- ber one perceived environmental nuisance. Freight traffic has a large share of responsibility for noise, especially close to freight corridors or freight facilities (logistics parks and warehousing districts) or in dense city centers where resi- dential neighborhoods are also commercial and retail areas (see Table 6 in Section 1 for common delivery noise levels). Truck parking in residential areas and rail traffic in local areas also have important impacts on residential neighborhoods. Governments implement different strategies to address delivery noise problems. In Healthy Economies and Healthy Communities: A Toolkit for Goods Movement, MIG, ICF Inter- national, and UltraSystems (2009) report that the city of South Gate, in Southern California, has installed rubberized asphalt material on some city streets, leading to “noticeable decreases in noise impacts.” European programs have been implemented combining the development of silent equip- ment, regulations favoring silent operations, and training plans (see below for more discussion). In the United States, federal standards set the maximum level of noise that can be caused by transportation projects when federal funds are used. In California, Caltrans (the state DOT) sets similar standards at the state level for freeways and other state high- ways. For land and building projects, criteria have been set to evaluate the severity of noise impacts. Local city and county governments can set noise limits for specific activities (Los Angeles County’s Health Code prohibits loading and unload- ing operations at night). Local governments can also establish criteria to judge the severity of noise impacts on various land uses and encourage noise barriers or buffers on new local development projects. The reduction of noise generated by deliveries is especially crucial when night (or early morning/late evening) deliver- ies are promoted. Night deliveries represent a new target of urban freight policies (see Section 2.1.4). Some cities combine the promotion of silent equipment and noise regulations. An interesting initiative from the Netherlands is the PIEK pro- gram. In 1998, legislation on “Retail Trade Environmental Protection” came into effect regulating noise emission levels.

45 Noise emissions generated when loading and unloading goods at night must comply with strict peak noise standards. Maximum noise levels for a night delivery operation were set: directly above a building (7.5 meters), the limit is 65 decibels from 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. and 60 decibels from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. A PIEK certification is given to operations respect - ing these standards. The certification applies to the vehicle, machines, and all the equipment and processes such as slamming a door, starting up, using forklifts, unloading, and using refrig- erating units (these operations typically emit from 70 to 92 deci - bels, as seen in Table 6). A research and development program was set up to develop silent delivery vehicles and handling equipment. Four areas of development were implemented: low-noise truck bodies, low-noise engines, low-noise handling equipment, and staff training (Goevaers, 2011). In 25 pilot cit- ies, the national government provided financial help for opera - tors investing in PIEK vehicles and handling equipment to be used for night deliveries at supermarkets. As an example, Albert Heijn, a major retailer, purchased 1,000 PIEK-certified trucks. Assessment surveys were carried out by the company involving 10 shops in 9 cities, totaling 1,000 evening deliveries (Goevaers, 2008). The surveys were carried out for 3 months. Deliveries were made between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. or between 7 p.m. and 2 a.m. the following day. For the same distances and the same type of vehicle, the benefits of the scheme were (for one vehicle doing one delivery round): 1 hour time savings for each delivery round, 10 liters of fuel saved, and a total reduction in labor costs of €12,600. This represents a savings of 30 percent in delivery costs and 25 percent in diesel consumption (SUGAR, 2011; Goevaers, 2011). On a 1-year basis, environmental benefits were reductions of 57 tons in CO2 emissions, 147 kilograms in NOx emissions, and 3 kilograms in PM10 emissions. Interestingly, an agency is in charge of the development of PIEK standards domestically as well as the coordination of initiatives in Europe, where other national agencies are intro- ducing the PIEK standard. Experiments have been conducted in cities such as Barcelona, Dublin, and Paris. The delivery company LR Services, a supplier of McDonald’s restaurants in Paris, uses PIEK-certified equipment. In Barcelona, Spain, the retailer Mercadona replaced seven daytime trucks with two PIEK-certified night trucks. The benefits were estimated to be €6,000 a month, which balanced out the initial investment in 2 to 3 years. Noise measures were made and compared to ambient noise levels on nights without deliveries. No major difference in noise levels was recorded (NICHES, 2010). 2.2.3 Environmental Justice, Land Use Issues As seen in Section 1, the concentration of freight termi- nals in urban residential neighborhoods generates significant impacts on local communities. Cities have engaged in various strategies to minimize these negative consequences. In Healthy Economies and Healthy Communities: A Tool- kit for Goods Movement, MIG, ICF International, and Ultra- Systems (2009) give the example of the Mira Loma community in Riverside County in Southern California. The area experi- enced significant impacts from goods movement facilities. Community members and activists participated in quantifying the health impacts from situating sensitive land uses, particu- larly schools and residential areas, near freight facilities. With regard to this community activity, MIG, ICF International, and UltraSystems (2009, p. A-15) note, Specifically, they have identified significant health dispari- ties related to air quality from the railyard and supporting truck operations including premature deaths, reduced lung develop- ment and capacity, and cancer rates. Additionally, community members and activists have worked to gain more influence over land use decision-making in their community, which they believe is central to creating a safer and healthier community for residents. MIG, ICF International, and UltraSystems (2009, p. 3-8) also note, Local communities can reduce exposure to truck emissions through land use policies and development regulations. Such policies move residents away from sources of truck pollu- tion, protect residents from nearby emissions, and discourage new development near truck routes. Land use siting policies typically focus on the location of community services, such as schools and day care centers. The State of California recom- mends that schools be set back 500 feet from major roadways, to reduce exposure to exhaust. Local governments may be able to re-route truck traffic from sensitive areas by designating truck routes. The County of Riverside Truck Routing and Parking Study (Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, 2005) was undertaken as a way to identify truck intrusions (including parking and idling) and impacts on neighborhoods. A toolbox of potential solu- tions was developed to alleviate identified problems. One of the main recommendations was to coordinate the different truck routes (usually defined at city levels) at the scale of the county, so that truck drivers find the network easier to understand and to comply with. Another recommendation was for the county to start discussions with the main local maps pro- vider (Thomas Brothers22) to introduce truck route and restrictions information. Since 2003, the New York City Department of Transporta- tion has been engaged in a Truck Route Management and Community Impact Reduction Study (Edwards and Kelcey, 2007). With this initiative, the city “seeks to coordinate engi- neering, education, information and enforcement efforts to mitigate the negative impacts relating to truck traffic, as well 22 Today, the targets would also include car navigation system providers.

46 as improve the overall truck management framework that exists in the City of New York.” 2.2.3.1 Protecting Logistics Land Uses in Cities, Buffering Logistics Facilities Logistics decentralization is the location of freight ter- minals and warehouses in increasingly suburban locations (see Section 1). For some cities, this movement has gener- ated additional vehicle miles in urban areas (Dablanc and Rakotonarivo, 2010). Some cities have therefore considered providing incentives to retain freight and logistics activities within the urban core, while protecting the adjacent areas from freight activity impacts. In Baltimore, a “maritime industrial zone overlay district” (MIZOD) has helped port activities, especially private marine terminals, to remain in the urban area. Several actions have been taken, as described at www.mdot.maryland.gov. The underlying zoning of the area is “Heavy Industrial,” preventing activities such as res- taurants, hotels, and commercial uses to be implemented in the zone, unless as an accessory use. The MIZOD is to be in effect until 2024. Weisbrod et al. (2002) look at the European concept of freight villages23 to explore its relevancy for congested U.S. urban areas. Freight villages are master-planned clusters of freight and logistics facilities with collective amenities and support services such as security, catering, and truck main- tenance. Weisbrod et al. argue that implementing such a concept in the United States could lead to substantial envi- ronmental and economic benefits. It would also require avail- able land adequate for logistics activities. One way to find that kind of land is to redevelop brownfield spaces and implement freight-dedicated planned unit developments, which Weis- brod et al. define as planned clusters of modern warehouses and freight facilities with value-added logistics activities such as picking and order preparation and conditioning and pack- aging of goods. 2.2.3.2 Metropolitan Level Freight Planning and the Role of MPOs There are many challenges to metropolitan-level freight planning. First, the transportation models used in forecast- ing are based on passenger flows and take freight into account only in rudimentary ways. Second, reliable models for fore- casting freight flows at the sub-metropolitan level have yet to be developed. Third, intercity freight flows make up a much larger share of traffic than is the case for passenger flows, and freight flows are largely out of the control of metropolitan decision-makers. Fourth, rail infrastructure is private, and hence outside the domain of public planning. Finally, with a few exceptions (e.g., Portland, OR), MPOs do not have authority over land use decisions, which limits their ability to plan for future demand (Rhodes et al., 2012). Six publications from the Transportation Research Board demonstrate an increasing consideration given to freight plan- ning and land use issues. The first publication was released in 1996 and the most recent one released in April 2012. These publications are the following: • NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 230: Freight Transpor- tation Planning Practices in the Public Sector (Coogan, 1996). • NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 320: Integrating Freight Facilities and Operations with Community Goals (Strauss-Wieder, 2003). • NCHRP Report 594: Guidebook for Integrating Freight into Transportation Planning and Project Selection Processes (Cambridge Systematics et al., 2007b). • NCHRP Report 570: Guidebook for Freight Policy, Planning, and Programming in Small- and Medium-Sized Metropolitan Areas (Cambridge Systematics et al., 2007a). • NCFRP Report 13: Freight Facility Location Selection: A Guide for Public Officials (Steele et al., 2011). • NCFRP Report 14: Guidebook for Understanding Urban Goods Movement (Rhodes et al., 2012). Presented as an extended outreach to local practitioners and experts, NCFRP Report 13: Freight Facility Location Selec- tion: A Guide for Public Officials (Steele et al., 2011) provides a comprehensive set of recommendations to local governments regarding the integration of freight facilities. The overall purpose of the guidelines is “to provide insight on loca- tion decisions for freight facilities and suggest best practices for transportation, land use, economic development, and regional partnerships to public sector agencies and officials considering and responding to freight facility development and location decisions.” Interestingly, what the guidebook insists on is the support that public agencies can and should provide in order to retain and develop logistics activities. De Lara (2011) discusses this orientation, arguing that “many regional development forces created a discourse of development that posits the logistics industry as a viable replacement for disappearing manufac- turing jobs. As a result, billions of public and private funds have been invested in expanding a national distribution 23 Freight villages are rather popular in Europe, where governments have been promoting them through public projects or public–private initiatives. Many freight villages provide access to rail or waterway services. They are not directly related to urban freight, although part of their traffic is for the urban markets adjacent to where they are located. The most developed freight village concepts are the interporti in Italy, the Güterverkehrszentrums in Germany, and the plates-formes logistiques in France. See, for example, the website of the German association of freight villages: http://www.gvz-org.de.

47 infrastructure.” According to De Lara, while the freight indus- try offers some access to good job opportunities, it is also “a source of low wages and economic insecurity for a growing legion of contingent logistics workers.” How do recommendations on freight guidelines trans- late into actual metropolitan-level freight planning? In Orlando, the Freight, Goods, and Services Mobility Strategy Plan serves as the foundation for transportation planning and the development of long-range strategies to guide future infrastructure decisions that balance goods move- ment with passenger travel. Two elements of the plan are (1) freight villages (see definition in Section 2.2.3.1) and (2) truck treatment in the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review process (Bomar, Becker, and Stollof, 2009c). Not surprisingly, MPOs in areas with major trade nodes are more likely to include freight elements in the regional transportation planning process. Examples include the Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Seattle, and Atlanta metro- politan areas. However, even in these regions, freight issues do not always translate into strategies. A recent study (Dablanc and Ross, 2012) looked at five MPO transporta- tion plans24 from the Piedmont Atlantic region, an urban corridor extending from Birmingham, Alabama, to Raleigh, North Carolina. In the Charlotte area, the Mecklenburg– Union MPO’s long-range transportation plan of 2010 includes 12 pages on freight, covering all modes of transport from air cargo to road and rail. Freight is recognized as an element of growth: “Freight handling and transit capacity has become an important platform for regional economic growth.” However, the document is very descriptive and few propositions for actual policies are made, with the excep- tion of the implementation of a regional freight forum. In the Birmingham area (under the Regional Planning Com- mission of Greater Birmingham), a recently formed Freight Advisory Committee is responsible for a freight-planning program that aims at collecting data, identifying specific freight needs, developing related planning solutions, and reaching a regional consensus on ranking freight projects. The 2035 long-range transportation plan of Raleigh’s MPO (i.e., the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) mentions (p. 67) that a commercial vehicle survey is under way, which will include the location of distribution centers throughout the region. Raleigh’s MPO and the Durham– Chapel Hill–Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization have included a freight plan in their unified planning work pro- gram. The Charleston MPO (i.e., the Berkeley–Charleston– Dorchester Council of Governments) takes a wider view on freight: because of the port, “the region serves as a major inter modal link between the southeastern U.S. and the world” (Chapter 8.1). Freight is recognized as a major economic asset for the region. The plan then establishes a list of freight issues, described as relatively minor, such as the differences in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida regarding truck weight restrictions. A metropolitan area quite involved in freight is Atlanta. A freight advisory task force was established in 2003 by the Atlanta Regional Commission and two freight studies have been conducted in the last 4 years. A Freight Improve- ment Program of more than $75 million has been set aside for the 2014 to 2017 period with 80 percent of the funds coming from federal programs. 2.2.4 Alternative Modes Urban freight is carried almost exclusively by trucks and vans. In the past, trains and barges were common features in goods’ supply in the heart of cities. Rail and waterborne transportation made a valid combination in New York harbor with floating bridges active until the 1960s (Dablanc, 2009). Barge transport remains in cities with waterways, such as Paris, Amsterdam, and Brussels. For example, barge accounts for about 7 percent of the tonnage arriving in or departing from the city of Paris. Rail is not competitive with trucks for short hauls; how- ever, rail is an important mode for regional import/export traffic associated with ports. In many European cities, land use pressures, passenger rail demand, and local opposition to rail freight have contributed to eliminating rail as a mode for freight transport. Recent years have seen some new projects. They fall into three categories: (1) reuse of traditional rail freight terminals, such as in Rome, Munich, and Paris (one example, the Mono- prix experiment, is described below); (2) use of underground rail facilities for freight (e.g., projected within the renova- tion of Les Halles commercial center in Paris, a “flower train” project in Amsterdam/Schiphol, and a mail train in Lon- don), although no project yet has been implemented; and (3) cargo-tram services, using existing tramway infrastruc- ture. In Dresden, Germany, a cargo-tram that supplies parts to a Volkswagen plant has been in operation since 2000. Cargo-tram services are used in Zurich, Switzerland, for voluminous refuse. A major project, called Amsterdam City- Cargo project, went bankrupt in early 2009. 24 MPO plans are the following: - Mecklenburg–Union Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, adopted March 24, 2010. - Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and Durham–Chapel Hill–Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans, adopted March 20, 2009. - Berkeley–Charleston–Dorchester Council of Governments Long Range Transportation Plan, April 2005. - Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan Final Report, February 2008. - Atlanta Regional Commission, ASTROMAP: Atlanta Strategic Truck Route Master Plan, 2010.

48 The Monoprix train experiment in Paris has been in oper- ation since November 2007. Monoprix is a chain of super- markets with 90 stores located in and around Paris. These stores receive nonfood products and nonalcoholic beverages by rail. A 20-car train arrives in Paris Bercy station (in the east- ern part of Paris) every evening. Pallets are then transferred to CNG-operated trucks, which deliver to the stores early in the morning. The train, which is assembled at a terminal 30 kilo- meters south of Paris, uses regional and urban passenger train tracks to reach the Bercy terminal. This project distributes 210,000 pallets per year this way, with a yearly savings of 10,000 diesel trucks, 280 tons of CO2, and 19 tons of NOx. The city of Paris has invested €11 million in the project, mainly to renovate the inner city freight terminal. The Monoprix rail project is technically satisfactory, but its operation is quite expensive. Monoprix covers the additional cost of 26 percent per pallet carried compared to the former all-road solution. 2.2.5 Conclusion Trucks are a very significant source of air pollution and also contribute to CO2 emissions, noise, congestion, and traffic accidents. Different strategies to reduce the environ- mental impacts of freight have been identified and imple- mented at various levels of government. The research team has examined the key role of higher levels of government such as the federal level in the United States and the Euro- pean Union level in Europe in setting standards for new vehicles’ emissions of targeted pollutants. California has a special mandate and can define standards for existing vehi- cles (other states can adopt Californian standards or remain under federal ones). In California, new regulations went into effect in 2012 for trucks over 26,000 pounds. Engines must be retrofitted with a diesel PM filter. Owners of small fleets (one to three trucks) have until 2014 to comply; lighter trucks have until 2015. Despite vans’ and trucks’ significant share in urban emis- sions, local and regional strategies to reduce traffic-related emissions rarely include specific actions on freight move- ments, with one significant exception: the new LEZs in several European cities. Only recent trucks are permitted to access an LEZ. London has the most stringent and larg- est LEZ in Europe. Trucks manufactured after 2006 (and large vans manufactured after 2002) are prohibited from the Greater London area. In 2008, the ban led to a reduction of 2 to 4 percent of total traffic-based PM10, PM2.5 and NOx, contributing to London’s efforts to become an attainment area for European Union air quality standards. The only comparable experience in the United States is the Clean Truck Program in the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (see Section 2.3). While the ports are legally considered private entities, U.S. municipalities could have interstate commerce issues if they attempted to implement an LEZ modeled after those of London, Milan, and other cities in Europe. Many cities promote the use of alternative delivery vehicles (hybrid, electric, or natural gas). However, the vast majority of trucks and vans operating in urban areas remain diesel or gasoline because of initial cost (an electric truck is between two to three times more expensive than a diesel equivalent), higher operating costs, lack of expertise in maintenance, lack of refueling stations, and difficulty in setting the vehicle’s depreciation value. The limited driving range before recharg- ing can also be a problem although progress has been made in recent years, with better batteries and a higher number of recharging stations. While truck emissions represent the most recognized impacts of urban freight operations, many cities experience noise problems from truck activity. As night deliveries rep- resent a new target of urban freight policies (to decrease congestion), recent strategies have included the promotion of silent vehicles and loading/unloading equipment. The research team has examined the Dutch program PIEK, a leader in research and development in this area, as well as a promoter of municipal regulations requiring the use of silent delivery equipment. Urban and regional goods movements also raise environ- mental justice issues. The number of warehouses and dis- tribution centers has increased dramatically in many large metropolitan areas of the United States and other parts of the world, following the rise in global trade and imports of man- ufactured goods. In many cities today, industrial land uses are essentially oriented towards logistics activities. This gen- erates jobs and revenues for local communities, but today’s mega-distribution centers concentrate truck traffic and sub- sequent environmental impacts on neighboring communi- ties. Strategies to mitigate these impacts range from buffer zones to strict architectural and landscaping requirements to better access to a transportation network. A very important first (and permanent) step is to establish a freight group at a metropolitan level where different local governments, the MPO(s), and business and freight groups can meet, exchange information, and discuss the role of freight in planning and investments. Finally, the research team has examined the use of non- road modes of transport to carry urban freight. While some experiments have been tested and remain in operation today, such as a train in Paris supplying the retailer Monoprix and a cargo-tram in Dresden supplying a Volkswagen factory, very few non-road urban freight operations exist today in cities in Europe and the United States, due to the costs and organiza- tional complexity.

49 2.3 Trade Nodes: Problems and Strategies This section assesses the unique problems related to truck, van, and rail traffic engaged in interregional trade. The focus is on trade hubs and gateways (places with significant ports and airports, intermodal transfer points, and border cross- ings) as well as the ancillary facilities that serve logistics and intermodal operations and that also generate trade-related traffic. These include distribution and warehousing. Trade hubs share the same “last-mile” issues addressed in previous sections such as truck and van delivery and access issues, evening and weekend vehicle movements, and incom- patible land uses. However, trade 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 volumes, 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 its way from ports and airports to markets outside the region. Addressing trade-related externalities at this level can prove problematic for a number of reasons. While local com- munities and their elected officials welcome the economic benefit of the activity that comes from the presence of a hub or gateway, they recognize that the benefits of pass-through freight are widespread while the negative impacts are much more localized. This can often result in policies and strate- gies designed to internalize those costs through strategies like cargo fees and congestion pricing. However, the discretionary cargo that does not stay in the region is much more sensitive to fees and other changes in pricing. The challenge is to mitigate the impacts while mini- mizing the potential for cargo diversion to avoid job losses and other negative economic consequences for the region as a whole. This is made more difficult by the number of juris- dictional authorities involved at the regional level as well as the diversity of services that operate as part of a complex and sometimes fragmented supply chain. The section begins by defining the trade node problem, i.e., identifying the issues that result from the presence of trade hubs and what this means for local communities in and around the hub, the region as a whole, and across regions. The literature is then reviewed for the strategies that have been developed and tested to respond to the unique problems of interregional trade. These include mobility-related strategies like peak pricing and tolling. The discussion also reviews the experience of the Southern California region with off-peak truck access at the ports. Like urban goods movement, interregional trade also has significant environmental impacts. Solutions designed for local trade activity however will differ from those that address pass-through traffic. The research team considers how both industry and decision-makers have attempted to mitigate hub-related trade activity and reviews strategies that respond to the problems of trade that cross regional and, in some cases, international boundaries. This literature review includes North America, Europe, and Asia. Particular attention is paid to the lessons learned in Southern California that have influenced policy and program development in other places. Reducing the impact of freight in metropolitan areas often requires substantial infrastruc- ture investment. As a result, the section concludes with four cases of infrastructure projects intended to reduce congestion and pollution impacts. 2.3.1 Defining the Problem Improved transport contributes to more efficient supply chains. As transportation becomes more efficient, its cost— relative to the total cost of a finished good—is reduced. Lower transport costs allow major transporters and retailers to take advantage of more affordable labor in overseas production centers. This increases the distances over which trade occurs. Global trade is also made possible by technology-based services that help to coordinate and process the increased flow of goods, particularly when the transactions involve various stakeholders in numerous countries. These services include finance, insurance, research and development, and international maritime law. 2.3.1.1 Growth in International Trade and Global Services Trade in both manufactured goods and services has increased since the post-World War II period (World Trade Organization, 2011b). The volume of world exports has outpaced growth in gross domestic product (GDP) in every decade since the 1950s. Despite negative growth in 2009, the volume of world exports increased 14.5 percent in 2010, the single largest annual increase since the data were first tracked in 1950. The World Trade Orga- nization projected positive growth would continue in 2011, with export growth figures estimated to be 6.5 percent versus approximately 4 percent for world GDP growth (World Trade Organization, 2011a). Trade-related services are also increasing as a percentage of GDP in places like the United States, the world’s largest exporter of commercial services, as well as in developing countries, with India being the prime example (James, 2009; De, 2006). In the United States, the value of trade-related ser- vices rivals cargo trade and helps improve the balance of trade with other nations (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of

50 Economic Analysis, 2008). Between 2005 and 2006, the sur- plus of cross-border trade in private services in the United States increased 12 percent, to nearly $97 billion (Koncz and Flatness, 2007). The United States has also benefitted from the emer- gence of Asia, China in particular, as a low(er) cost center of production and manufacturing. The Southern California gateway—with its proximity to Asia’s production centers; well-developed network of (air)ports, roads, and railways; and large local market—has accommodated a large share of this growth in trade. In 2010, two-way trade through the Los Angeles County Customs District—the nation’s largest— totaled $346.9 billion. This was a 22.6 percent increase over 2009 figures (Los Angeles Economic Development Corpora- tion, 2011). The increase in global trade has created a demand for a vari- ety of transport services including those, like ocean transport, that provide the supply chain with a low-cost, high-volume option for moving bulky, heavy, or large items. Ocean trans- port is also appropriate for items with a value that does not merit transport via higher cost options, such as air freight. 2.3.1.2 Scale Economies in International Freight Transport and the Emergence of Trade Hubs Shipping containers are measured in 20-feet equivalent units (TEUs), and today the largest ships carry upwards of 12,000 TEUs. New 18,000-TEU vessels, dubbed the Triple E class (for economy of scale, energy efficiency, and environ- mental design), will come on line in 2014. Larger ships are part of the current economics of ocean shipping, which is driven by the desire to gain economies of scale on trade lanes throughout the world. The result has been a vertical concen- tration in liner service. A relatively small number of ocean carriers now control significant goods flows on major routes (Heaver, Meersman, and Van de Voorde, 2001). Furthermore, as container ships grow in size, the number of port complexes that can accommodate the largest ships decreases. Many of these ports are located in countries that are also home to the major ocean carriers, reinforcing the shift in the geography of the supply chain to places like Asia (United Nations Confer- ence on Trade and Development, 2008). Many of the larger vessels in service today (not to mention the new Triple E class of ships) are post-Panamax vessels—i.e., vessels too large to pass through the Panama Canal. 25 Instead, these larger ships depend upon a vast network of roads, rail- ways, warehouses, distribution centers, and transfer facilities to move goods across entire continents. Mega-ships encour- age the growth of mega-ports, which not only receive goods for local markets, but serve as global gateways and trans- shipment centers for goods destined for markets all over the world. These gateways are often at the heart of major urban cen- ters that have developed at the interface of transportation networks and systems of global commerce. Their popula- tions are large, diverse, and often densely located in proxim- ity to trade-related activity at ports, airports, manufacturing centers, distribution centers, rail yards, and border crossings. These gateways serve extensive inland/hinterland regions while at the same time connecting the community and the region with the broader global system. They contain a wide array of transportation systems and are major points of trans-shipment for both goods and people. Global gate- ways have an international orientation that contributes to a diverse economy that involves not only trade but impor- tant trade-related services—legal, financial, and insurance, for example. They are also marked by jurisdictional and regulatory complexity, reflecting the scale and sheer vol- ume of activity that passes through them (Woudsma, Hall, and O’Brien, 2009). Transport costs, organization of the supply chain, the transactional environment (including accelerated informa- tion flows), and the physical environment all have an impact on the amount of trade and goods flowing through a gateway region and are interdependent in a way that blurs the distinc- tion between physical distribution and other aspects of the supply chain (Hesse and Rodrigue, 2004). This interdepen- dence facilitates interregional trade with responsibility for the distribution function shared by manufacturers, whole- salers, and retailers, all in different locations. These partners depend upon a regionally and nationally (if not globally) designed network in order to secure cost reductions through economies of scale. The hub provides access to both con- sumer markets and, in Hesse’s and Rodrigue’s terminology, “the interfaces of trade.” 2.3.1.3 Dynamic Nature of Supply Chains and Impacts on Regional Freight Flows Hesse and Rodrigue (2004) call the multidimensional nature of integrated freight transport demand the logis- tical friction. It is one of the reasons why both mapping trade flows within regions and assessing their impacts is problematic. Cidell (2010) argues that the changing geography of trade interfaces benefits suburbs/hinterlands as well as core coun- ties. While ports and airports tend to be located near urban centers, in recent decades the warehousing and distribution 25 The Panama Canal is being expanded to accommodate the largest vessels; it is scheduled to open in 2015.

51 activity that supports the gateway activity has become more decentralized. This is true in both North America (Cidell, 2010; Bowen, 2008; Husing, 2012) and Europe (Dablanc and Rakotonarivo, 2010). The ability to develop large warehouses with a large number of truck bays that are flexible enough to accommodate a wide range of products stacked to maximum height necessitates lower cost land outside of urban cores. Ideally, these facilities also have good access to highways and rail networks. The decentralization of freight-related activity is likely to continue as long as lower suburban and exurban land costs can help reduce the total logistics cost. The total cost of logis- tics includes inventory, transportation, warehousing and materials handling, and facility networks (Bowersox, Closs, and Cooper, 2010). The freight rate is a function of a number of variables, including the location and cost of distribution services (Li, Hensher, and Rose, 2011). As discussed in Section 1, this decentralization of activity (or logistics sprawl) poses significant problems for metro- politan regions. A portion of the goods that are sorted, trans- loaded, or cross-docked at inland or hinterland sites travels to the urbanized core for final delivery. Regional truck trips also involve different metropolitan regions. The economics of logistics management dictates that rail is only feasible for trips of more than 500 miles. For the United States, only around 5 percent of intermodal rail traffic covers distances of less than 750 miles (Rodrigue, Comtois, and Slack, 2009). As a result, large distribution centers in one region may serve markets in another. Distribution centers in northeast Atlanta, for example, commonly serve Florida’s markets (Dablanc and Ross, 2012). These intercity trips impose significant costs including accidents, emissions, and noise as well as unre- covered costs associated with the provision, operation, and maintenance of facilities. Forkenbrock (1999) determined that these external social costs are more than 13 percent of private costs. 2.3.2 Trade Nodes: Balancing Local Economic Benefits and Costs The large trade volumes that confer a special status upon trade nodes also carry heavy social costs that include vehicle operations, congestion, increased accidents, environmental costs (including air and noise pollution), and increased infra- structure development and maintenance costs (Berechman, 2007). As has been discussed in previous sections, however, juris- dictional complexity and the structure of the goods move- ment industry pose a problem for the regulatory agencies that are charged with controlling the more negative impacts of trade. Governmental agencies at the regional and local level have a combination of policymaking and fiscal author- ity that can influence certain aspects of freight movement. This authority can include the ability of counties to generate revenue for transportation projects, including infrastructure development, through sales taxes. Municipal authorities maintain local zoning and land use controls that regulate truck access and parking and hours of operation for trade- related services like warehousing and distribution. Through the environmental review process, local governments, as well as other stakeholders, have the option of using the courts to influence trade-related operations. At the regional level, however, there may be conflicts between different local governments that hinder the develop- ment of region-wide solutions to trade-related problems. The sheer number of stakeholders adds another layer of complex- ity. This does not negate the need for solutions, and, in the absence of mitigation plans that cover the gateway region as a whole, a combination of efforts by government and indus- try has filled the gap. The remainder of this section reviews those efforts. 2.3.2.1 Gateway Strategies: Ports and Airports Congestion at trade hubs, including ports and airports, means congestion for the road and rail networks that carry goods to transfer points and to the store shelf. Truck activ- ity at ports is concentrated at peak period hours when roads are also congested with passenger vehicles. Attempts to elimi- nate bottlenecks at marine terminals have included both the use of appointment windows and road pricing strategies. There have also been efforts to mitigate the environmental impacts of truck and rail traffic at trade hubs by overhauling the fleet of vehicles granted access to port facilities. Many of these efforts have started in California, the location of North America’s two largest container ports (in Los Angeles and Long Beach) and LAX, the fifth largest air cargo airport in the United States (Airports Council International, 2011). Appointments and Pricing Strategies at Ports. In Southern California, recent attempts to increase operating time (and thus minimize truck queuing and delays) at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach came about in response to the threat of legislative action. California Assembly Bill (AB) 2650 (the Lowenthal Bill) was passed in August of 2002 by a 75-2 vote and signed by Governor Gray Davis. The bill encouraged off-peak operations. It imposed a penalty of $250 on terminal operators for each truck delayed more than 30 minutes waiting to enter a terminal gate at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland. Terminals that oper- ated gates 70 hours per week or offered trucks an appoint- ment system to pick-up or deliver cargo were exempt. Both

52 options were, however, voluntary; consequently, the means of implementation differed greatly. According to Giuliano and O’Brien (2008a) the legislation had limited impact. No terminal at either port extended its hours of operation because of AB 2650. Appointments to enter the terminal gate are not appointments for cargo loading and unloading on the docks, and no terminal used appointment information to set aside containers for a trucker in advance. Once inside the terminal, all drivers must wait for a container to be removed from the stacks before being loaded onto a chassis. As such, where appointment systems have been implemented, there is as of yet no record of improved terminal operating efficiency. An extended hours of operation program known as Pier- PASS began at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in July 2005. Terminal operators at both ports jointly developed the program in response to the threat of legislation introduced by Assembly member Alan Lowenthal in 2004 to mandate off-peak hours at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Lowenthal agreed to withdraw the legislation in response to the terminal operators’ proposal (Giuliano and O’Brien, 2008b). PierPASS assesses a Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF) on cer- tain containers moved in and out of the San Pedro Bay ports between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The program is run by the termi- nal operators, and the fees are intended to defray the costs of extended operations at the ports. Under PierPASS, terminals initially agreed to offer complete off-peak services; that is, duplicating the daytime truck handling capacity of the ter- minals at night and during weekends. However, the reduc- tion in cargo volumes brought about by the global recession has resulted in a reduction in the number of off-peak gates offered by marine terminals. In March 2009, terminals eliminated either one night or one weekend gate. To date, the PierPASS program has shifted almost 30 percent of truck traffic to evenings and weekends, an increase from 10 percent in 2005 to almost 40 percent of the total port truck traffic in 2007 according to figures reported at the PierPASS website (pierpass.org). PierPASS has been suc- cessful in reducing the number of truck trips made during peak hours and in relieving rush hour cargo congestion along urban commercial corridors. It has shifted freight traffic to off-peak hours, but has not reduced the aggregate number of truck trips. As a result, the program has not entirely elimi- nated the environmental and social impacts associated with these truck trips (Le-Griffin and Moore, 2007; Giuliano and O’Brien, 2008b). Steimetz et al. (2007) used PierPASS as a model for investi- gating the feasibility of a uniform congestion fee levied on all truck trips made during peak gate hours at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The authors argued that because gate delays are only a small part of peak period congestion costs and because all truck trips generate externalities, a fee of $18.25 assessed on each TEU (as opposed to the $50 PierPASS fee charged for a select number of transactions at the ports) over a wider class of trucks, loaded or empty, and balanced across peak and off-peak would be optimal. There are few other examples of extended gate opera- tions in the United States. Marine terminals do not typically accommodate cargo pick-up and delivery outside of weekday hours because of longshore labor costs (Giuliano and O’Brien, 2008b). Section 2 of the Pacific Coast longshore labor contract provides for differential shift pay, overtime pay, minimum hour guarantees, and minimum size of labor work units (Pacific Maritime Association, 2009). The International Longshore- men’s Association contract, which covers ports on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States, has similar provisions (International Longshoremen’s Association, 2004). Termi- nal operators seek to maximize longshore labor productiv- ity and, therefore, restrict cargo pick-up/delivery activities to a single day shift. Evening and weekend operating hours are typically limited to a special arrangement with an ocean carrier or preferred customers moving large numbers of containers. Another reason for the absence of extended gate hours is resistance from truck drivers and customers, as discussed in Section 1. For drayage truck drivers, off-peak work means either an extended work day or a shift in schedule to a less family-friendly night shift. For owner-operators, neither comes with a guaranteed pay increase. Warehouses, distribu- tion centers, manufacturers, and other entities must also be available to process cargo during off-peak hours. This may involve additional labor shifts. In some areas, local zoning prohibits night or weekend deliveries. Research on off-peak operations at ports from other parts of the world is limited. Davies (2009) included the Port of Long Beach as part of a study of appointment (reservation) systems that also included Sydney, Australia; Vancouver, British Columbia; and Southampton in the United King- dom. Davies found that appointments had no influence on turn times—which is what is needed to incentivize drivers to participate—and that appointments and peak period pricing appear to be competing solutions. In addition, Lam (2007) has argued that accurate measurements of truck queuing and flow times both outside and inside terminal gates are needed to assess the impacts of appointment systems and peak period strategies. Shibasaki and Watanabe (2010) conducted a cross-sectional traffic volume survey of semi-trailers with international mar- itime containers at the port districts and hinterland areas in Japan and South Korea. They estimated the ratio of express- way use of semi-trailers, investigated the breakdown accord- ing to container sizes and transport patterns, and considered daily traffic flow patterns on the basis of time period distribu- tions according to distance from city centers and according to district. Due to various contributing factors, the container

53 terminal gate open time at most ports in Japan, including the five major ports, is between 8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. (with a 1-hour lunch break). The authors argue, based on survey responses, that there is a lack of demand for evening gates because the basic flow patterns for the transport of cargo in Japan include one round trip per day. Drivers responded that if they were going to drive overnight, they would prefer to load the cargo in the late afternoon so that they could drive all night to make an early morning delivery. The gate at the Port of Busan in Korea is open 24 hours. There is heavy utilization at night (6:00 p.m. to midnight) despite the fact that the port imposes a 50-percent surcharge to pick up cargo between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Evening pick-ups allow drivers more flexibility, particularly for the half-day trip between Busan and Seoul. Shibasaki and Wata- nabe (2010) argue that in Japan, where container terminal gates are located in the urban core, better use of evening and weekend gates could help reduce congestion. Appointments have also been the subject of simulation studies. Jula, Dessouky, and Ioannou (2006) developed a ter- minal simulator, referred to as TermSim, to study the poten- tial effects of a time window appointment system on various terminal operations. Based on data collected on truck arriv- als, several simulation scenarios were created that compared current practices to use of an appointment system. The simulations indicated that when an appointment system is used, the queues at the inbound and outbound gates become smaller, and the import and export yards are serviced more efficiently. Road Pricing and Related Strategies to Manage Hub- Generated Truck Traffic. Palmer and Piecyk (2010) exam- ined the opportunities that companies have to mitigate the adverse effects of congestion on their road freight transport operations by rescheduling more of their traffic to off-peak times. Based on 56 sample journeys in the United Kingdom, Palmer and Piecyk demonstrated that significant time, cost, and CO2 savings can be achieved by increasing the percent- age of vehicles operating at off-peak times. For journeys up to 100 kilometers, early morning (around 5:00 a.m.) start times are best. For journeys between 100 and 200 kilometers, the best start times are either early in the morning or around midnight, and, for distances over 200 kilometers, night-time operation is most time-effective. Morning and evening peak times are the worst start times for trips up to 250 kilometers and late afternoon start times are the worst for journeys that involve a greater distance. Since the average distance traveled by trucks in the United Kingdom is currently 87 kilometers, Palmer and Piecyk argue that their research suggests that companies would experience minimum transit times and increased reliability of deliveries by scheduling more road freight traffic for early morning hours. There is also little research on congestion pricing in trade hubs. As seen in more detail in Section 1, a study on the potential for off-peak freight deliveries in the Manhattan and Brooklyn areas considered how operational changes would impact costs for shippers and receivers (Holguín-Veras et al., 2005; Holguín-Veras, 2010). Quak and van Duin (2010) examined, based on in-depth interviews with carriers, the expected effect of a proposed Dutch road pricing scheme (abandoned following the 2011 general elections) on logistics decisions to supply stores in urban areas. The goal of the program was to have road users pay for using the road infrastructure instead of paying a fee for owning a car. The price per kilometer would have varied by the time of the day and location. The government would charge more for crowded locations and peak hours. The authors derived the expected impact of the scheme for urban goods transport. The expected reactions differed for for-hire carriers, shippers, and private carriers. In the short term, car- riers were expected to try to limit logistics charges by passing on extra costs. Roorda et al. (2007) investigated the potential for high- way lanes specifically designed for trucks in Canada. The research was intended in part to develop a microscopic traf- fic simulation model of alternative truckway configurations for conducting detailed operational analysis and measuring congestion and other identified performance indicators. The work did not focus on road pricing strategies, but underscored the limited number of truck-only lanes in operation in North America. The authors identified case studies in Boston (the 1.5-mile South Boston Haul Road for commercial vehicles), the I-5 truck bypass lanes in Los Angeles, and the Clarence Henry Truckway providing truck-only access to Mississippi River terminals in New Orleans. They also included the New Jersey Turnpike, which provides an automobile-only inner road and a general-purpose outer road. The research identified a greater number of cases of proposed truck-only lanes under study, but not actually implemented. These include the I-710 and SR-60 projects in Southern California, I-81 in Virginia, the TransTexas Corridor, the I-4 Crosstown in Tampa, and proposed truck lanes in metropolitan Atlanta and Dallas. Outside of pricing mechanisms, much of the literature on improving mobility is focused on strategies to optimize trucking operations. These include strategies using simula- tion to attempt to minimize departure times for outgoing trucks in a cross-dock operation (Wang, Regan, and Tsai, 2007). The strategies also include the use of statistical models (Liu and Kaiser, 2006) to forecast the truck VMT growth of four facility categories at the county and state levels. These models incorporate both socioeconomic and transporta- tion system supply variables. The model results show that local socioeconomic variables alone explain a considerable

54 amount of truck VMT variance, particularly for urban Inter- state and non-Interstate facilities. A number of simulation studies have shown that tolls can be used to optimize the truck arrival pattern at terminals (Zhou, List, and Li, 2007; Chen, Zhou, and List, 2011). Ruan, Lin, and Kawamura (2009) used data from the Texas commercial vehicle survey to study the efficiency of commer- cial vehicle daily tours in different chain patterns. They iden- tified a loop-like pattern for vehicles running one round trip and a star-like pattern for vehicles making multiple round trips as part of a daily tour. Other studies on vehicle routing optimization include one by Xu, Yan, and Li (2011) that focuses on minimizing travel cost and maximizing customer satisfaction; another by Quat- trone and Vitetta (2011), who tested a route choice model for freight transport on a test road network in Italy; and another by Escudero et al. (2010), who developed a dynamic optimiza- tion model that uses real-time knowledge of a fleet’s position, enabling the route planner to reallocate tasks as conditions change. Using Osaka, Japan, as a test bed, Nakamura et al. (2010) found that the performance of vehicle routing and scheduling in delivery simulations is influenced by charac- teristics of travel time information. Nemoto, Hayashi, and Hashimoto (2010), in a case study on Japanese automobile manufacturers in Thailand, demonstrated that by introduc- ing milk-run logistics—even under heavily congested traf- fic conditions—manufacturers can have full control of the procurement process, resulting in a reduction of the number of trucks dispatched and improvements in traffic conditions to some extent in urban areas. Milk runs are an example of a delivery method accommodating mixed loads from different suppliers. Instead of each of several suppliers sending a vehicle every week to meet the demands of a customer, one vehicle visits each supplier on a daily basis and picks up deliveries for that customer. Similar research has also been conducted by Qureshi, Taniguchi, and Yamada (2010) and Sungur, Ordonez, and Dessouky (2008). The Clean Air Action Plan and Other Clean Truck Programs. In the fall of 2006, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach jointly adopted the Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). The CAAP was an attempt by the ports to get ahead of state-mandated environmental mitigation. The CAAP consolidated many of the existing measures that the two ports had previously adopted individually, including vessel speed reduction programs. The Clean Trucks Program (CTP), a component of the CAAP, progressively bans older vehicles with engines that have not been appropriately retrofitted from accessing the port complex. As part of this program, grants and financial incentives were created to encourage trucking companies to accelerate the replacement of older, high-polluting vehicles with newer, cleaner trucks. Subsidies also encourage the use of alternative fuels. The CTP is mod- eled on a much smaller 2002 truck replacement program that was jointly sponsored by the ports and the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, a coalition of 27 cities in the vicin- ity of the ports. The CTP banned all pre-2007 model trucks as of Janu- ary 1, 2012. The ports expected that the CTP would reduce air pollution from harbor trucks by nearly 80 percent as of January 1, 2010 (Wilson and White, 2007). More than 9,000 compliant trucks entered port service between the fall of 2008 and the summer of 2011. These trucks reduced emissions by more than 80 percent in 3 years, 2 years ahead of sched- ule (Mongelluzzo, 2011a). Approximately one-third of these vehicles were financed in part through the support of the ports or the CARB (Mongelluzzo, 2011b). The CAAP includes a Technology Advancement Program that initially identified $15 million over a 5-year period to be spent on accelerating the verification and commercial avail- ability of new, clean technologies in four main areas: control measurements, green container transport, emissions invento- ries, and emerging technology demonstrations. Recent tech- nology investments have supported the conversion of rubber tire gantry cranes to run on electricity at a container terminal and the development and testing of the world’s first hybrid tugboat (Cocker III et al., 2011). In the summer of 2009, the ports jointly released a Request for Qualifications to develop and demonstrate a zero-emissions container mover system. This is being done in conjunction with the Alameda Corri- dor Transportation Authority, the joint powers authority that runs the 20-mile grade-separated rail link between the ports and rail yards around downtown Los Angeles. There are a number of other U.S. ports in various stages of implementing a clean trucks plan. In the spring of 2010, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced a clean trucks program that borrows somewhat from the plans adopted by the San Pedro Bay ports. The centerpiece is a truck replacement program, with pre-1994 trucks banned as part of the first phase of a multiyear program. The Ports of New York and New Jersey also require registration and use of 1994 model year or newer trucks, with all pre-2007 trucks to be phased out by 2017 (compared to 2012 in Los Angeles and Long Beach). No other East Coast port has undertaken a similar approach although there are examples from the West Coast. The Seattle truck program requires registration and use of 1994 model year trucks or newer. However, neither Seattle nor New York has a clean truck fee like the one in Southern California. Los Angeles and Long Beach are in a better position to impose fees without diverting cargo to other ports because of the large local market of consumers. Trade through a discretion- ary port like Seattle is much more sensitive to changes in port-related fees.

55 Vancouver has a truck program similar to the CAAP’s but with more stringent driver employment restrictions as a result of a previous strike settlement (Woudsma, Hall, and O’Brien, 2009). The Vancouver Truck Licensing System (TLS) has its origins in disputes involving owner-operator port truckers in 1999 and 2005. While compensation was a central focus of those disputes, supporters argued that a wider regulatory apparatus would help to stabilize the industry. As part of the resolution of those disputes, port authorities were required to establish a TLS and dispute resolution program. The TLS has provided a mechanism whereby the port is able to impose stricter emission requirements on trucks that enter port land. Currently, the TLS requires that 1993 model year trucks and older be prohibited from entering the port, and trucks that are 10 years or older must pass an opacity test. By 2017, only 2010 model year trucks or newer will be allowed on port land. Vancouver has also developed other environmental pro- grams that target truck and rail operations, particularly those tied to the port. These include enviroTruck, an incentive- based program designed to reduce truck emissions. Qualifying tractor-trailers must meet or exceed 2007 model year emis- sions standards, travel at reduced speeds, and be fitted with a series of emissions-reducing, add-on devices. Operators may choose from a list of approved add-on devices, with incen- tives linked to estimated emissions reductions. The program is run by Green Fleets BC, a partnership-based program led by the Fraser Basin Council and funded by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment as part of its Air Protection program. enviroTruck itself is a partnership between Green Fleets and the BC Trucking Association. The Vancouver efforts are part of the Northwest Ports Clean Air Strategy of 2007, which aims to reduce maritime, port-related emissions that affect air quality and climate change in the Pacific Northwest. The strategy is an interna- tional joint effort among the ports of Vancouver, Seattle, and Tacoma; Environment Canada; the EPA; and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. The Vancouver Chamber of Shipping was a partner designing elements of the strategy, including a Harbour Dues Program that provides incentives for ships to reduce their in-port emissions. Equipment Management Problems and Strategies. Because of the U.S. trade imbalance with Asia, around half of all containers imported to the United States are returned to Asia empty. This requires the repositioning of empty contain- ers from import drop-off areas (distribution centers, ware- houses, railyards, etc.) back to marine terminals and container depots once the imported goods have been unloaded. This occurs on surface roads, which can exacerbate already serious congestion and pollution problems. Inefficient use of the container can also mean inefficient use of the chassis on which the container rests. In the U.S. context, where ocean carriers own both the container and the chassis, these problems are exacerbated by equipment man- agement practices that require truckers to make additional trips between distribution centers and ports to reposition the carrier-owned equipment (Le-Griffin and Murphy, 2006). Carrier-owned chassis are a legacy of containerization. By controlling the chassis, ocean carriers had access to other por- tions of the U.S. domestic market. As containerization spread into Europe and Asia however, trucking companies or ship- pers provided the container chassis (Prince, 2006). Thus the practice of shipping lines owning the chassis is unique to the United States (Le, 2003). Once containers are drayed to intermodal facilities, most bare chassis need to be brought back (i.e., repositioned) to the marine terminal, mostly due to a lack of demand for reuse by local exporters (Le, 2003). In addition, dozens of acres of land at terminals and rail yards are currently used to store thousands of bare chassis needed for the operations of differ- ent steamship lines within a terminal. If a truck arrives at a terminal with a loaded export container carried on a chassis that does not belong to that terminal and intends to pick-up an import container at the same terminal, then the driver will be required to return the chassis to its owner first. Operational changes that are designed to address these problems include the use of “virtual” container yards or VCYs (Chang et al., 2006; Davies, 2006). VCYs allow truckers to locate an empty container close to the site where they have an import drop-off, thereby eliminating a non-revenue trip to a terminal where empties are typically stored. The equipment owner- ship structure outlined above has proved an impediment to virtual container yards (Theofanis and Boile, 2007). Chassis pools are another strategy for better equipment management. A chassis pool is simply a group of chassis that two or more shipping lines agree to share when moving their containers. The operation of chassis pools can be set up in different ways. One common method is to have different car- riers contribute their own chassis to the pool on slow days for “pool credit” and then use this credit to pay for the times when they need to borrow extra chassis from the pool on busy days (Brennan, 1997). If carriers do not want to contribute any of their chassis to the fleet, they also have the option of simply paying a fee for using a chassis from the pool (Brennan, 1997). Another option is to use all “neutral chassis” in which a leasing company—considered the “neutral” third party—provides all of the chassis in the chassis pool. O’Brien and Le-Griffin (2011) find that current chassis management practices at Southern California ports, which do not provide for a cooperative chassis pool, have a nega- tive impact on overall container terminal performance in terms of effective capacity, system operation times, and air

56 emissions. Their research indicates that effective and sensible mitigation policies should focus on emissions generated by container handling equipment inside the terminal gate in addition to the emissions created by trucks outside the termi- nal gates. Failing to do so works to diminish the effectiveness of policies designed to make overall port operations more “green” and efficient. Accordingly, measuring and improving performance both within a terminal and beyond the terminal gate should be included in efforts to measure the effectiveness of mitigation policies. 2.3.2.2 Rail Strategies Freight rail impacts metropolitan areas in a number of ways. Rail cargo leaving trade gateways is destined for places outside the region. On its way, it intersects with routes trav- eled by passenger vehicles and may delay passenger rail traffic by using its right-of-way. There are environmental concerns related to diesel emissions and noise- and safety-related con- cerns at grade crossings. While decision-makers have focused their efforts on truck or ocean-going vessel emissions, 2012 will see the introduction of cleaner Tier 3 locomotives as railroads introduce them into their fleets in response to federal or state regulations. In California, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) signed a memorandum of understanding with the CARB to phase in new locomo- tives on an expedited schedule. Lawsuits could bring about more aggressive changes at rail yards. In the fall of 2011, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the two Class I railroads in order to force them to implement new technologies like electric gantry cranes, alternative fuel yard equipment, and pollution reduction measures for switcher engines at 12 existing rail facilities. BNSF and UP are already planning to implement the new technolo- gies at two intermodal facilities being planned in Southern California. The literature on strategies to improve interregional rail traffic is largely drawn from the engineering disciplines and focuses on optimization of rail scheduling. Mu and Dessouky (2011) address the limited capacity of freight rail through an optimization approach for scheduling trains assuming track segments. There is also a developing literature on dynamic scheduling and routing that is a response to the need to opti- mize complex systems not only within fleets but across fleets as well. Mu and Dessouky (2011) developed algorithms for static and dynamic scheduling of freight trains for small and large networks. This dynamic algorithm is able to reduce delay by at least 40 percent compared to existing algorithms on representative rail scenarios. Dessouky et al. (2010) devel- oped a model designed to accept, defer, or reject shipments on a railroad, with decisions based on an accurate representa- tion of the delays the shipments cause and the possibility of real-time rerouting of trains to alternative tracks. While there appears to be tremendous interest in shifting truck traffic to rail as a means of mitigating the impacts of freight operations, there are few examples of this occurring and, as a result, not much in the literature that addresses the topic. As previously stated, shifting freight from truck to rail is difficult because rail is competitive only for long-distance trips (500 miles or more). Agarwal, Giuliano, and Redfearn (2004) assessed the Alameda Corridor, a 20-mile-long rail cargo expressway link- ing the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcon- tinental rail lines near downtown Los Angeles. The Alameda Corridor is a series of bridges, underpasses, overpasses, and street improvements that separate freight trains from street traffic and passenger trains. The project’s centerpiece is the Mid-Corridor Trench which carries freight trains in an open trench that is 10 miles long, 33 feet deep and 50 feet wide. The purpose of the Alameda Corridor was to consolidate train traffic and eliminate grade crossings, not to shift truck traffic to rail. You et al. (2010) used microscopic simulation to capture emissions resulting from stop-and-go traffic on the freeways leading into and out of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. They determined that emissions of both NOx and PM2.5 can be significantly reduced by switching container moves from truck to train, despite the increased train emis- sions along the Alameda Corridor. From a policy perspective, the authors argued that a modal shift should be encouraged, particularly if there is unused train capacity, but they recog- nized that a shift might conflict with shippers’ interests. Maes and Vanelslander (2009) assessed a program designed to test the feasibility of incorporating the regional rail (RER) system in metropolitan Paris into local freight deliveries. Lu et al. (2007) investigated the possible use of BART subway cars in the San Francisco Bay Area to deliver FedEx freight packages. The proposed system would use modified cars and flatcars. Costs and institutional issues keep these programs largely conceptual. Other strategies include the diversion of truck freight to rail or barge, also known as short sea shipping or marine highways. Research indicates that while these kinds of freight diversion programs are feasible, they are not competitive with trucking because of the high cost of cargo handling at ports. Sustained short sea shipping efforts would depend upon more and better cooperation among ports, increased congestion at gateway ports to drive traffic elsewhere, and regulations that encourage use of barges (Le-Griffin and Moore, 2006, 2007; Banister and Berechman, 1999). Researchers warn, however, that from an environmental perspective, the use of vessels on rivers and along coasts may only shift emissions from trucks to ships and not reduce them.

57 2.3.2.3 Border Crossings Border crossing regions are a unique subset of trade nodes. Like port regions, border crossings generate truck traffic des- tined for local distribution or transfer facilities as well as mar- kets beyond the immediate metropolitan area. This means “last-mile” impacts as well as the pass-through impacts previ- ously discussed. Border crossings provide a unique challenge with regard to managing regional freight capacity, however, because of the international context. Both assessing and miti- gating the negative impact of freight flows can be problematic and data collection can be difficult. The literature on cross- border freight management is decidedly underdeveloped [the Washington State Fast Action Strategy (FAST) for the Everett– Seattle–Tacoma Corridor is an exception and the subject of a case study in Section 2.3.3]. The focus instead is on delays at the border crossing itself and the use of technology to eliminate border crossing bottlenecks. The U.S.–Canadian border has provided a useful test bed for researchers investigating both the institutional and technolog- ical framework for freight flows across borders. The literature includes attempts to profile freight flows. Goodchild, Albrecht, and Leung (2009a) used five data sources, including a probe vehicle border crossing time data set, a border operations survey data set, and loop detector volume counts to describe commercial vehicle delay, transportation patterns, and com- modity flows across the British Columbia–Washington State border. The same authors (2010, 2009b) used commercial vehicle crossing time data from the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation as well as GPS technology to investigate the relationship between border crossing time and arrival volume. Their findings indicate that border delays can be attributed to a number of factors in addition to delay at the inspection booth. These factors include a lack of driver preparedness and the need for trusted traveler programs. The same British Columbia–Washington State crossing has been used to study the economic impacts of trade across the U.S.–Canadian border. Goodchild, Globerman, and Albrecht (2009) conducted interviews with regional carriers as part of an investigation of service time variability at the border and its impacts on regional supply chains. They determined that increased buffer times reduce carrier productivity, but with negligible impacts because of the current nature of the mar- ket. Taylor (2010) researched increased border-related costs (like those tied to security) since 2001 and reports that declines in both truck and passenger vehicle traffic exceed what would be expected from broader economic changes such as changes in GDP and industrial production. Miller (2011a) supports the notion that fleets seek more uniformity of inspections in shipments crossing the U.S.–Canadian border. There appears to be less research on other U.S.–Canadian border crossings, including Detroit–Windsor even though Detroit is the largest land freight gateway (measured in value) in the United States. One reason may be the smaller percentage— relative to Washington State—of freight-related employment in the region. Belzer and Howlett (2009), in examining the potential for increased goods handling in Michigan, show that location quotients for freight-related industries and occupa- tions in greater Detroit are less than the national average. They conclude that freight volumes in Michigan have not translated into a concentrated goods movement industry. U.S.–Mexican border crossings, in many ways, operate in a more complex and uncertain environment. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other institu- tional and regulatory reforms have been designed to improve cross-border freight flows for the United States, Canada, and Mexico. A recent agreement between Washington and Ottawa has further harmonized regulations and will allow customs clearance in Canada at locations other than crossing stations as a way to relieve congestion (Edmonson, 2011). The U.S.–Mexican border is not as open as the U.S.– Canadian border. The United States has limited the number of Mexican trucks that can access this country (apart from a narrow border region) through a cross-border trucking pilot program. As a result, the Mexican government has imple- mented retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods (Miller, 2011b). The lack of a truly open border, therefore, results in further delays at crossings as goods are unloaded and reloaded onto different vehicles on opposite sides of the gate. This has created a demand for technology-based solutions. Rajbhandari and Villa (2010) conducted interviews with stakeholders from the freight and government sectors in the El Paso–Ciudad Juarez region and found an urgent need for ITS deployment at the border to measure, relay, and archive crossing times for both commercial and passenger vehicles. State and federal agencies have in fact begun to implement a series of ITS deployment projects that measure border delay and crossing times (Villa and Solari-Terra, 2008) including radio frequency identifica- tion (RFID; Rajbhandari and Villa, 2011) at Mexican border crossings. As major gateways, and therefore potential bottlenecks, bor- der crossings are also potential locations for congestion pric- ing strategies. The El Paso region is the subject of a research case study on the potential implementation of pricing based on freight value, but researchers (Baker, Ungemah, and Boyd, 2008) have acknowledged the obstacles to such a strategy in the form of limited infrastructure, rigid staffing practices, antiquated technology, competing information technology systems, and lack of coordinated planning between U.S. and Mexican officials. A study in the U.S.–Canadian context (Springer, 2010) looked at the potential costs and benefits of a congestion pricing strategy on the southbound Pacific Highway crossing. The focus of the study was on excess capacity on Washington

58 State’s FAST lane corridors, opening them up to trucks that do not initially qualify for FAST access. The study determined that the approach has the potential to reduce overall waiting times at the border. 2.3.3 Case Studies Reducing the impact of freight in metropolitan areas often requires substantial infrastructure investment. Impacts in gateway cities are particularly significant. In Sections 2.3.3.1 through 2.3.3.4, four cases of infrastructure projects intended to reduce congestion and pollution impacts are presented. In Section 2.3.3.1, the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency program (CREATE) is discussed. This program seeks to reduce the time trucks and trains spend in traffic. Section 2.3.3.2 discusses proposed truck lanes in Atlanta. Section 2.3.3.3 reviews the under-construction tun- nel connecting the Port of Miami to I-395 and I-95. Finally, in Section 2.3.3.4, the FAST Corridor program in Seattle is con- sidered. Each of these brief case studies explains the urban freight problem, the way the city or region tackled the prob- lem, and any evaluation or future prospects for the project or program. 2.3.3.1 Chicago—CREATE Problem. More than one-quarter of all domestic rail freight by weight originates, terminates, or passes through Chicago, Illinois. Congestion is estimated to cost the region $11 billion per year in travel delays, air pollution, safety impacts, and interference with passenger trains. Freight transport is a significant contributor to the delays and bottle- necks that characterize the region and is estimated to cause approximately 17 percent of all commuter delays (DiJohn and Tenebrini, 2010, pp. 1–2). Trucks move $572 billion in goods each year through Chicago, a figure that is projected to nearly double over the next 25 years, accounting for two- thirds of the overall increase in traffic in the region. By con- trast, trains move $350 billion over the same time period (Chicago Metropolis 2020, 2004, p. 8). Suburban truck traffic is of particular concern in Chicago because of an inefficient and uncoordinated network of sub- urban truck routes, with gaps as large as 12 miles between the routes. Trucks traveling on the Illinois Tollway, for example, are often forced to travel miles out of their way on surface streets due to mismatches between designated routes and interchanges (Chicago Metropolis 2020, 2004, p. 11). Solution. The State of Illinois, City of Chicago, all six Class I North American railroads serving Chicago, Amtrak, Metra Commuter Rail, and the U.S. DOT formed a public– private partnership to create, fund, and execute a freight traffic improvement program with the goal of eliminating bottlenecks and reducing travel delays by investing in trans- portation infrastructure. Specifically, the partnership plans to improve rail/highway at-grade crossings, viaducts, and trans- portation infrastructure throughout the region. The partner- ship issued its formal plan of action, titled the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency program, or CREATE, in 2003 (DiJohn and Tenebrini, 2010, p. 5). Projects are to be funded by both the public and private sec- tors. The legislature of the State of Illinois approved an invest- ment of $332 million (Conkey and Roth, 2009, p. A8), private rail contributed a total of $100 million, and the U.S. DOT com- mitted $233 million in funding (FRA, 2012, p. 1). The original plan detailed 78 projects to be completed, including 35 rail proj- ects and 25 grade-separation projects (FRA, 2012). The part- nership subsequently divided these projects into three phases. Phase I was to run from 2007 to 2009, with 32 projects identified for completion. At year-end 2010, 11 were complete, 14 were in progress, and 17 were in the environmental impact report stage (Stagl, 2010, p. 1). The 11 completed projects include improved rail connections, installation of computerized signal systems and automated interlocking, and remote tower control (DiJohn and Tenebrini, 2010, p. 7). Evaluation. The project, so far, does not appear to have made a significant impact on regional congestion. Although 25 (one-third) of the proposed projects were grade-separation projects, only 1 of the 11 completed projects was in this group, and none have addressed the gaps in truck routes. The remain- ing 10 completed projects were rail corridor improvements, designed to increase average train speed and enhance safety, rather than directly affect truck congestion (CREATE, 2012). The program has sound intentions, but progress has con- tinued to be delayed by funding setbacks. Phase I projects are expected to continue through construction. Phase II has yet to be finalized, and future funding for CREATE is uncertain (Stagl, 2010, p. 1). 2.3.3.2 Atlanta—Statewide Truck Lanes Problem. Atlanta ranks twelfth in the nation in over- all congestion and fourth in overall freight activity (INRIX, 2012). From 2005 to 2035, freight tonnage transported to Georgia is projected to increase at a rate of 3 percent per year to a total of 1.7 billion tons per year (Cambridge Sys- tematics, 2006, p. 2). Trucks are a particular concern because they carry approximately 93 percent of the freight traveling through Atlanta (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005, p. vi), 86 per- cent of all freight transported in Georgia, and 97 percent of intrastate freight (HNTB, 2008, p. ES-2). Trucks also account for over 12 percent of VMT on Georgia state highways. Three- quarters of freight tonnage travels less than 500 miles from

59 the state borders, making rail travel inefficient for most of the state’s freight movement demands (Cambridge Systematics, 2006, p. 2). Truck traffic is not only increasing, but at a rate 50 percent faster than general traffic (GDOT, 2012). Despite the fact that 60 percent of metro Atlanta truck travel occurs outside of peak-travel periods, trucks have a significant nega- tive impact on Georgia’s roadways, much more than that of passenger automobiles. Each truck traveling in Georgia is estimated to cause the operational impact of 2.5 cars and the wear of 10,000 cars (HNTB, 2008, p. ES-3). Solution. Georgia’s State Road and Transportation Authority commissioned a study of the potential for imple- mentation of truck-only toll roads (TOTs) in Atlanta and received the results in 2005 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005). The study concluded that TOTs provided significant benefits to both the trucking industry and the general public in terms of improved mobility (Meyer, 2006, p. 5). In 2006, Bechtel and a team consisting of Goldman Sachs, McGuire Woods, and PBSJ submitted public–private partnership proposals to the Georgia Department of Transportation to develop 15-mile truck-only toll lanes (TOTLs) along several Atlanta highways and free- ways (eTrucker, 2007, p. 1; TollroadsNews, 2006, p. 1). At the same time, the Georgia Department of Transportation commissioned a study to investigate the feasibility of TOTLs statewide and published the final results in 2008 (HNTB, 2008). The study concluded that 60 percent of the truck mar- ket would choose the TOTLs, freeing up some capacity. How- ever, much of this capacity would be consumed by motorists changing routes and availing themselves of the newly created space. Assuming the TOTLs were built and despite this modal shift, volumes in the general-purpose lanes were expected to decrease 5 percent overall. Although the proposed TOTLs would mainly benefit the trucking community, the study con- cluded that transportation user benefits would exceed project costs overall by a factor of two or more (HNTB, 2008, p. ES-7). Despite awarding initial contracts, as a result of economic conditions and government budget limitations, the proposed TOTLs were cut from the Atlanta Regional Commission’s long-range plans in late 2011. 2.3.3.3 Miami—The Tunnel of Miami Problem. The Port of Miami is recognized as both the cruise capital of the world and cargo gateway of the Americas, and both functions contribute to congestion in and around Miami. The port handled over 7 million tons or almost 150,000 TEUs of cargo in Fiscal Year 2009/2010, amounts that are projected to increase by more than 50 percent over the next 5 years. The Port of Miami ranks first in trade value of Florida’s 13 ports, with a 2010 total of $21 billion, rela- tively evenly distributed between imports and exports. The Port of Miami also ranks first in the state in seaport container movements, with almost 850,000 movements in Fiscal Year 2009/2010. This number is projected to increase to 1.3 mil- lion in the next 5 years (FSTAEDC, 2011, pp. 24–30). An estimated 16,000 vehicles travel to and from the port through downtown Miami streets, and trucks account for 28 percent of this traffic. Downtown congestion restricts port growth, increases port user costs, and causes safety concerns (POMT, 2011). There are plans to rebuild a connecting rail line (Chardy, 2011, p. 1), but with only 11 percent of the cargo leaving South Florida, most port-related freight is not a can- didate for rail transport. Even with completion of this rail line, 95 percent of port-generated, overall roadway traffic and 98 percent of port-generated downtown traffic will remain (Fagenson, 2011, p. 1; Tompkins, 2007, p. 1). Solution. The Florida Metropolitan Planning Organi- zation established a task force in 1981 to find a solution to port-generated roadway traffic. After consideration of several alternatives, in 1984, its proposed Port of Miami Transporta- tion Improvement Plan was approved by both the city and county. The Plan centers on construction of a four-lane, toll- free, underwater tunnel connecting the port to adjacent free- ways 395 and 95, bypassing downtown Miami surface streets. Over the next two decades, the port, the city, the county, the state and FHWA, as well as industry and citizen groups, con- sidered specific specifications for the design, financing, and operation of the tunnel. In late 2005, the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation (FDOT) hosted an industry forum to present public–private partnership opportunities for the tunnel and issued a Request for Qualifications in early 2006 for proposers to design, build, finance, operate and main- tain (DBFOM) the tunnel project. A private firm was selected for this purpose in mid-2007. Construction began in May of 2010, and the tunnel is expected to open to the public in 2014 at an estimated capital cost of $607 million. Half of the capital costs and all of the operation and maintenance costs will be paid for by the state of Florida. The remaining capital costs will be covered by the city and county (POMT, 2011). Evaluation. The public–private partnership transferred DBFOM responsibility to the private sector, allowing the public agencies to direct their efforts toward generating the necessary start-up and ongoing capital for the project. Eighty percent of passenger car traffic and all but hazardous- freight-carrying truck traffic is projected to use the tunnel to access the port. The project is on schedule for completion as planned, and the tunnel will be returned to the FDOT at the end of the DBFOM contract in late 2014. Not only is the tunnel projected to successfully alleviate most of the local impacts of port-related traffic, but the pro- cess was heralded by FDOT as merging the strengths of the

60 public and private partners. The public sector brings the legal authority to acquire and commission, and the private sector brings efficiency and optimal technology and therefore better value for taxpayer money (Martinez, 2005, p. 20). 2.3.3.4 Seattle—FAST Corridor Problem. The Seattle metropolitan area, or Puget Sound region, is home to three seaports: Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett. These three ports combine to form the third largest container port complex in the United States—the Seattle–Tacoma Ports. The complex peaked in freight volume at 4 million TEUs in 2005, a doubling from 1990. Despite moderate recession-related decreases, projections point to another doubling in freight volume by the year 2020 (Giuliano, 2011b, p. 10). The Puget Sound region is congested. The 135,000 average daily truck trips in the region make up 3 to 9 percent of vehicle volume on Seattle freeways. These trucks are not only a con- cern due to their numbers. The size, relative weight, and slower speeds of these trucks (with average speeds up to 12 miles per hour slower than cars) make them a significant contributor to regional congestion (PSRC, 2011, p. 27). In 1994, the Seattle metropolitan planning organization, the Economic Development Council of Seattle and King Counties, and Seattle-area private industry freight stake- holders formed a public–private partnership known as the Freight Mobility Roundtable. The Roundtable, designed to address this expected growth, wanted to ensure that the Puget Sound area remained competitive with Los Angeles. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach were of particular concern to Seattle in light of Los Angeles’ Alameda Cor- ridor project, which was expected to reduce congestion and more efficiently carry freight to and from these ports (PSRC, 2012). Solution. In 1998, in an effort to facilitate freight and passenger traffic mobility and mitigate the environmental impacts of the expected growth in freight transport, the part- nership proposed the FAST for the Everett–Seattle–Tacoma Corridor (FAST Corridor). The FAST Corridor was designed and supported by the U.S. DOT, the state of Washington, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the 3 ports, 3 private freight carriers, 12 local cities, and 3 counties (Giuliano, 2011b, p. 11; PSRC, 2012) The FAST Corridor members identified highway/rail crossings as the most pressing concern and proposed a first phase of 15 projects: 12 grade separations and 3 truck access projects totaling $470 million (Giuliano, 2011b, p. 12). Funding sources for this initial phase included $119 mil- lion from federal, state, and local funds and $58 million from the ports and railroads. A good portion of the state funding comes from tax revenue, including state fuel and weight taxes (Giuliano, 2011b, p. 14). Evaluation. To date, the partners have generated $568 million in public and private funding, including voter- approved taxes, a good indication of public support. Sixteen projects have been completed, and five are funded, in design, and/or under construction (PSRC, 2012). 2.3.4 Conclusion Gateway regions and trade nodes provide unique challenges for the urban areas in which they are located. The new geog- raphy of international trade and global services, together with scale economies, concentrate trade-related activity in a fewer number of larger gateways. These gateways, many of which are home to mega-ports, also offer a wide range of value-added services that include distribution and warehousing as well as rail and road connections to markets outside of the region. As a result, the gateway experiences both “last-mile” impacts as well as impacts tied to pass-through traffic. Mitigating the negative impacts of trade activity resulting from operations at ports, distribution centers, and rail yards is difficult because of the scale and scope of operations and the institutional complexity that comes with multiple stakeholders who often have poorly defined areas of responsibility. Appointments, reservation systems, and peak period pric- ing at terminal gates were implemented at ports in Southern California and in Vancouver, where a combination of trade volumes and regulatory pressures forced terminal operators to act. In the Southern California context, terminal opera- tors were able to identify an economic benefit from off-peak gates, particularly when compared with a government-driven alternative. The inability of stakeholders to identify similar benefits has limited the number of pricing-based strategies in other regions. The New York example of road pricing to manage the flow of goods through a hub region is one unique case, but it is largely focused on last-mile impacts. Expanding the scope of this kind of program throughout the gateway region requires the cooperation and approval of a much greater number of stakeholders, including carriers and jurisdictional authorities. The lack of economic incentive has also prevented more widespread use of equipment management practices that could result in more efficient regional trade flows and in the diversion of cargo from truck to rail and/or barge. The lat- ter has the potential to improve air quality and reduce noise and truck trips, but adds cost in diverting cargo from trucks (particularly when those trips will still end up on a truck for

61 The case studies presented suggest the conditions that are needed for more widespread solutions to work. Financ- ing availability is first and foremost. This includes the ability of stakeholders to recognize the benefits of participation. A smaller number of more targeted solutions benefitted the FAST Corridor, while the number of proposed solutions, their cost, and the number of stakeholders involved have limited the impact of the CREATE project in Chicago. Simi- larly, while both Miami and Atlanta focused on a single mode (i.e., trucking), only Miami’s tunnel was implemented. The Atlanta effort, which covered a much wider geographic area, was unable to overcome the obstacles of poor economic con- ditions and budget constraints. last-mile delivery) and, therefore, has limited application in real-world settings. More efficient operations are needed at border crossings, but institutional impediments have pre- vented all but tests of technology to reduce or eliminate delays at the check-in gate. Technology plays a key role in many gateway-level strate- gies. For example, use of RFID and GPS has the potential to solve some of the data collection issues that prevent the adop- tion of pricing programs in large metropolitan areas. There are examples from the literature that demonstrate the effec- tiveness of technology-based scheduling algorithms and route optimization, but there are fewer examples where this research has been translated into practice.