Goods Movement for Planning Commissioners

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. 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. 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

5. What is Goods Movement?

6. 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

7. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. “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

14. FAF-2 Truck Flow and Highway Congestion: 2002
and 2035

15. Rail Freight Flow

16. 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

17. Rail Right-of-Way
n Losing RoW is critical. Once lost it is
nearly impossible to regain.

18. 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

19. FAF-2 Truck Flow: 2002

20. 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

21. Intermodal Capacity Constraints
Changing Technology
Functional Obsolescence
Safety/Security

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

28. Traffic Headache?

29. Community Impacts

30. San Pedro Bay Port Facilities

32. GOODS MOVEMENT GOALS/DESIRED
OUTCOMES
n Improve goods movement mobility
n Enhance environmental quality
n Facilitate economic development
n Increase public safety and security

33. 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);

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Land Use Connections
Industrial
Zone

39. 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

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. Planning Considerations
Road geometry and impediments to
traffic flow are other considerations.
Some communities have imposed
temporal restrictions on deliveries.

43. 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.

44. 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

45. 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.

46. 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

47. 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.

48. 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;

49. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. Thank You

55. 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

56. 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 http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/mcgmap/default.htm
n http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/
n http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/freightplanning/jul19transcript06.htm