Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

UCLA Planning Workshop


Published on

Goods Movement for Planning Commissioners

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

UCLA Planning Workshop

  1. 1. CALIFORNIA FREIGHT ISSUES: HOW DO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FIT IN? University of California, Los Angeles June 2008 Jeffrey L. Spencer Maritime/Trucking Specialist Division of Transportation Planning, Office of Goods Movement California Department of Transportation
  2. 2. Introduction n California is facing a significant infrastructure shortfall. l Today, I will be sharing information about California’s approach as we address current and future impacts of dramatic increases in trade to and through the state. l It is about focused planning, a State vision, innovative financial approaches, and collaborative partnerships. Planners—such as yourselves—are uniquely positioned to play a key role.
  3. 3. So Who Cares About Freight? Very, Very Few People! n Today’s freight issues are approaching crisis levels n Congestion is driving up prices, but affects each commodity differently n Other issues are much more visible and more urgent to the public – especially urban areas n Using great marketing and facilitating skills in unison may be the key to advancing a critical freight agenda
  4. 4. What is Goods Movement?
  5. 5. What Do We Need? Private Sector Leadership Political Leadership Federal Involvement and Support 1. Promote pollution reductions from locomotives, ocean going vessels and other goods movement sources 2. Planning/Land use decisions that do not induce negative impacts 3. Tax Credits and Federal assistance for Public/Private Partnerships
  6. 6. US is Becoming a Trading Nation US Imports & Exports as Percent of GDP 21% 18% 15% 12% 9% 6% 3% 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Imports Exports Source: Global Insight
  7. 7. Top 10 U.S. Container Ports in 2006 LOS ANGELES 8.47 LONG BEACH 7.29 New York 5.13 Oakland 2.39 Vancouver (Canada) 2.21 Savannah 2.16 Tacoma 2.07 Hampton Roads 2.05 East Coast of North America Seattle 1.99 West Coast of North America Charleston 1.97 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEU) (millions) Source: AAPA
  8. 8. Container Traffic at California Ports 1984-2006 (Millions of TEUs) 9.5 Long Beach 8.5 Los Angeles 7.5 Oakland 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20
  9. 9. The Recipe • Federal policy supports global trade • Export manufacturing jobs to overseas sources of cheap labor • Import manufactured goods from overseas • Price of imported goods fails to internalize transportation, environmental and social costs
  10. 10. Value of Containerized Trade & Jobs Related to Trade Flowing Through the Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach in 2005 7 Northwest 6 Great Plains 2 Great Lakes 5 Atlantic Seaboard $3.2B, 1% $19.3B, 8% $53.7B, 21% $25.9B, 10% 39,900 Jobs 243,200 Jobs 681,800 Jobs 275,300 Jobs Int’l Trade Total: $256 Billion z 3.3 million jobs 1 Southwest 3 Southeast $82.0B, 32% 4 South Central 1,114,700 Jobs # Rank $37.7B, 15% $32.5B, 13% 498,900 Jobs 435,700 Jobs Note: AK/HI not shown
  11. 11. “The Perfect Storm” n Cargo growth n Population growth n Air and noise pollution n Traffic congestion n Community concerns (“How much is enough?) n Safety and security n Capacity constraints n Funding limitations n Equipment/labor shortages n Spiraling fuel prices n Hours of service rules
  12. 12. FAF-2 Truck Flow and Highway Congestion: 2002 and 2035
  13. 13. Rail Freight Flow
  14. 14. Rail Issue: Size Capacity n Railroads l Singlestack = ~250 TEUs l Doublestack = ~800-900 TEUs l Carloads – 220,000 to 263,000 lb load limit n Ocean Carriers l Early loads, 3,000 to 6,000 TEUs l Latest loads, 8,000 to 12,000 TEUs
  15. 15. Rail Right-of-Way n Losing RoW is critical. Once lost it is nearly impossible to regain.
  16. 16. Rail Network Today Today’s rail network has been rationalized and downsized to a core network that is descended directly from the 19th Century design 400,000 Class I Railroads Track-Miles Owned 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010 Sources: L. Thompson/World Bank and American Association of Railroads
  17. 17. FAF-2 Truck Flow: 2002
  18. 18. Trucking Issue: Deteriorating Trip Reliability n Delivery/Receiving l Local capacity l Temporal restrictions l STAA connectivity – terminal access n Infrastructure l STAA approved routes l 80,000 lb load limit l Mixed-flow congestion l Parking supply
  19. 19. Intermodal Capacity Constraints Changing Technology Functional Obsolescence Safety/Security
  20. 20. The California Story n California has 11 public ports, three megaports (Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland), and eight smaller, niche ports (Humboldt, San Francisco, Redwood City, Richmond, Hueneme, San Diego, Stockton, and Sacramento). n California is facing a significant goods movement transportation infrastructure shortfall, as international and domestic freight/trade volumes continue to increase. n The good news is California is strategically addressing this issue, through various innovative approaches.
  21. 21. Mobility Demands in California n 280 Billion Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) each year, and growing n State Highway System: 52,000 lane-miles l 10% of the roadways in California l Carries 60% of the VMT l It is the Lifeline of our economy n 560,000 hours of delay on avg. each day n 30% of this delay is caused by incidents n Total Cost: more than $21 Billion per year
  22. 22. Emerging Freight Themes n Shift of truck-intensive uses (e.g. warehousing, distribution facilities) to Inland Ports l Impacts on freeways – primary access to the interstate system l Available rail capacity for short haul options n Air cargo is fastest growing freight mode l Air cargo market in CA – critical to regional high tech and perishable food industries
  23. 23. Total LA/Long Beach Container Growth Projected to Triple in 25 Years 44.7 Revised In Million TEU’s Estimate (20’ Equivalent Units) 36.0 23.4 25.2 18.3 9.5 13.2 12.3 Original 9.0 6.9 Estimate 1999 2005 2010 2020 2030 Source: POLA, POLB
  24. 24. Traffic Headache?
  25. 25. Community Impacts
  26. 26. San Pedro Bay Port Facilities
  27. 27. GOODS MOVEMENT GOALS/DESIRED OUTCOMES n Improve goods movement mobility n Enhance environmental quality n Facilitate economic development n Increase public safety and security
  28. 28. Goods Movement Planning n Develop/enhance goods movement stakeholder partnerships and dialogues – infrastructure providers, users, and impacted communities. n Develop goods movement system studies/analyses, including the identification of: l Goods movement transportation network, including major generators/receivers; l Performance of that network (i.e., including design, operational, safety, maintenance, access and capacity deficiencies and other issues);
  29. 29. Goods Movement Planning l Factors/variables that are driving system performance changes (e.g, international trade growth, truck/rail industry changes, goods movement land-use development); l System deficiencies; and l Improvement alternatives, including project evaluation and selection. n Develop goods movement improvement project lists, priorities, and program.
  30. 30. Planning Program Elements n Work with local planning agencies to consider goods movement requirements and advocate study and project programming in OWPs, RTPs, and RTIPs. n Monitor land-use and system changes that may impact system performance. n Expand goods movement data resources, information and expertise.
  31. 31. Performance Measurement n Proposed freight performance measures: l Travel time reliability (% on-time performance; variance in travel times for interregional and intraregional trips); l Modal facilities inventory; l Truck volumes by axle/percent of corridor capacity; l Total emissions and rates (by ton-mile) measured at statewide and regional air basin levels; l Percent increase in goods movement over baseline.
  32. 32. n Goods Movement Planning includes: l Public concern regarding community, health and environmental impacts of goods movement. l Importance of goods movement to the State’s economy and global competitiveness.
  33. 33. Land Use Connections Industrial Zone
  34. 34. Land Use Connections Published Truck Routes: The single biggest factor causing damage to our road network § State system is overloading. üStatewide Highway System § Local üCity of Roseville üCity of Sacramento üCounty of Sacramento üCity of Stockton üCounty of San Joaquin üCity of Woodland
  35. 35. Planning Considerations Truck routes use an engineering analysis that focuses on safety. Trucks turn differently than cars due to a characteristic referred to as quot;off-tracking.“ quot;Off-trackingquot; is a condition of a turning movement where the rear tires follow a shorter tracking path than the front tires. This off-tracking, the primary safety concern, may cause the rear wheels to go onto sidewalks, knock down signs, encroach onto shoulders, bike paths, walkways, or cross into the opposing/adjacent lane.
  36. 36. Planning Considerations Turn radius and height restrictions are often overlooked, and should be a first consideration when planning how goods are delivered to a proposed use.
  37. 37. Planning Considerations Road geometry and impediments to traffic flow are other considerations. Some communities have imposed temporal restrictions on deliveries.
  38. 38. GOVERNOR’S STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN n Strategic Growth Plan (SGP) comprehensive plan to address critical infrastructure needs . n Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP) focused strategic plan to address these needs. n Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) early delivery of critical projects. n Additional Resources- public investments and public/private joint ventures will be needed over the long term.
  39. 39. GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN n Joint Effort California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, and the California Environmental Protection Agency. n Policy Objectives l Generate jobs l Increase mobility/reduce traffic congestion l Improve air quality/protect public health l Enhance public and port safety l Improve California’s quality of life
  40. 40. GMAP Background n The Action Plan is a response to: l Severe Congestion at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. l Public concern regarding community, health and environmental impacts of goods movement. l Importance of goods movement to the State’s economy and global competitiveness.
  41. 41. Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) Proposition 1B, $2 billion. n Highway, freight rail, seaport, and airport and border access improvement projects. n Key allocation principles: l Most urgent needs l Partnership with public & private sector l Balancing both the needs of large and small ports, and providing reasonable geographic balance l Concurrent mobility improvement and emissions reductions l Deliverability, maximum benefit and optimum performance
  42. 42. GMAP and the Emissions Reductions Plan (ERP) California Air Resources Board (ARB) developed the ERP n Assess public health impacts of freight movement n Recommends mitigation strategies including; reduction of diesel emissions from trucks, locomotives, ships, and cargo handling equipment. n Addresses implementation challenges include diverse dray truck fleet, and limited regulatory authority over international shipping and rail locomotives.
  43. 43. ERP Emission Reduction Strategies n Key strategies include: l On-shore power for docked ships (“cold ironing”); l Emission reduction programs for commercial harbor craft and cargo handling equipment; l Truck modernization programs and idling controls;
  44. 44. ERP Emission Reduction Strategies n Key strategies (continued): l Alternative locomotive technology and idling limits; and l Alternative fuels and electrification – ships, cargo handling equipment, trucks, locomotives. n Mitigation cost: At a minimum $6 to $10 billion. n Mitigation benefit: $3-8 for each $1 spent on controls.
  45. 45. Summary n The GMAP is just a first stage, more work is needed n The TCIF process is still evolving as the Legislature, the Administration, regional and local agencies, environmental and health communities, the private sector and other interests weigh in. n Improving goods movement mobility and protecting our quality-of-life is dependent on effective involvement of all stakeholders.
  46. 46. Future Directions n Greater recognition of goods movement planning as separate, distinct, planning subject and discipline. n Significantly expanded focus on environmental, community and public health impacts and mitigation measures. n Increased multimodal policy, planning and funding analysis and commitment. n More creative funding partnerships and arrangements.
  47. 47. Conclusions California has major goods movement challenges. But, we are addressing them through a dynamic process that includes a State vision, focused planning, diverse joint ventures and other governmental investments, and collaborative partnerships. Local leadership and planning is essential to meet the detailed needs that support local and regional economies.
  48. 48. Thank You
  49. 49. References n Goods Movement Action Plan, January 2007, California Dept. of Transportation n Growth of California Ports: Opportunities and Challenges, April 2008, California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council n Trade Impact Study Final Report, March 2007, Ports of LA/LB/BST Associates n Guide to Quantifying the Economic Impacts of Federal Investments in Large-Scale Freight Transportation Projects, April 2006, US DOT/Cambridge Systematics n The West Coast National Freight Gateway, 2005, Los Angeles Economic Development Center
  50. 50. References n Global Gateways Development Program, January 2002, California Dept. of Transportation n HIGHWAY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT, Truck Parking, May 2000, National Transportation Safety Board, Report NTSB/SIR-00/01 n Partners for Adequate Parking Facilities Initiative (California), January 18, 2001, California Dept. of Transportation, n n n