CALIFORNIA FREIGHT ISSUES: HOW DO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FIT IN?

CALIFORNIA FREIGHT ISSUES: HOW DO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FIT IN?

Jeffrey L. SpencerMaritime/Trucking Specialist

Division of Transportation Planning, Office of Goods Movement

California Department of Transportation

University of California, Los AngelesJune 2008

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.

Introduction

So Who Cares About Freight?Very, Very Few People!

n Today’s freight issues are approaching crisis levelsn Congestion is driving up prices, but

affects each commodity differentlynOther issues are much more visible and

more urgent to the public – especially urban areasn Using great marketing and facilitating

skills in unison may be the key to advancing a critical freight agenda

What is Goods Movement?

What Do We Need?

Federal Involvement and Support

Private Sector Leadership

Political Leadership

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

US is Becoming a Trading NationUS Imports & Exports as Percent of GDP

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Imports Exports

Source: Global Insight

Top 10 U.S. ContainerPorts in 2006

1.99

2.07

2.21

2.39

7.29

8.47

1.97

2.05

2.16

5.13

Charleston

Seattle

Hampton Roads

Tacoma

Savannah

Vancouver (Canada)

Oakland

New York

LONG BEACH

LOS ANGELES

Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units (TEU) (millions)

East Coast of North America

West Coast of North America

Source: AAPA

Container Traffic at California Ports 1984-2006 (Millions of TEUs)

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Long Beach

Los Angeles

Oakland

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

z

Value of Containerized Trade & Jobs Related to Trade Flowing Through the Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach in 2005

Int’l Trade Total: $256 BillionInt’l Trade Total: $256 Billion3.3 million jobs3.3 million jobs

Northwest $3.2B, 1%39,900 Jobs

Great Plains$19.3B, 8%243,200 Jobs

Great Lakes$53.7B, 21%681,800 Jobs

Atlantic Seaboard$25.9B, 10%275,300 Jobs

Southwest$82.0B, 32%1,114,700 Jobs

South Central$32.5B, 13%435,700 Jobs

Southeast$37.7B, 15%498,900 Jobs

1

7 6 2 5

34 Rank#

Note: AK/HI not shown

“The Perfect Storm”

n Cargo growthn Population growthn Air and noise pollutionn Traffic congestionn Community concerns (“How much is enough?)n Safety and securityn Capacity constraints n Funding limitationsn Equipment/labor shortagesn Spiraling fuel pricesn Hours of service rules

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

Rail Freight Flow

Rail Issue: Size Capacity

n Railroadsl Singlestack = ~250 TEUsl Doublestack = ~800-900

TEUsl Carloads – 220,000

to 263,000 lb load limit

n Ocean Carriersl Early loads, 3,000 to

6,000 TEUsl Latest loads, 8,000 to

12,000 TEUs

Rail Right-of-Way

n Losing RoW is critical. Once lost it is nearly impossible to regain.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

Class I Railroads Track-Miles Owned

Sources: L. Thompson/World Bank and American Association of Railroads

Rail Network TodayRail Network TodayToday’s rail network has been rationalized and downsized to a

core network that is descended directly from the 19th Century design

FAF-2 Truck Flow: 2002

Trucking Issue: Deteriorating Trip Reliability

n Delivery/Receivingl Local capacityl Temporal restrictionsl STAA

connectivity –terminal access

n Infrastructurel STAA approved routesl 80,000 lb load limitl Mixed-flow congestionl Parking supply

Intermodal Capacity Constraints

Changing Technology

Functional Obsolescence

Safety/Security

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.

The California Story

Mobility Demands in California

n 280 Billion Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) each year, and growingn State Highway System: 52,000 lane-milesl10% of the roadways in CalifornialCarries 60% of the VMTl It is the Lifeline of our economy

n 560,000 hours of delay on avg. each dayn 30% of this delay is caused by incidentsn Total Cost: more than $21 Billion per year

n Shift of truck-intensive uses (e.g. warehousing, distribution facilities) to Inland Portsl Impacts on freeways – primary

access to the interstate systeml Available rail capacity for short

haul options

n Air cargo is fastest growing freight model Air cargo market in CA – critical to

regional high tech and perishable food industries

Emerging Freight Themes

9.5 13.2

18.3

36.0

44.7 RevisedEstimate

1999 2005 2010 2020 2030

6.99.0

12.3

23.4

Original Estimate

In Million TEU’s(20’ Equivalent Units)

Source: POLA, POLB

Total LA/Long Beach Container GrowthProjected to Triple in 25 Years

25.2

Traffic Headache?

Community Impacts

San Pedro Bay Port Facilities

GOODS MOVEMENT GOALS/DESIRED GOODS MOVEMENT GOALS/DESIRED OUTCOMESOUTCOMES

n Improve goods movement mobility n Enhance environmental quality n Facilitate economic development n Increase public safety and security

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);

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; andl Improvement alternatives, including project

evaluation and selection.n Develop goods movement improvement project lists,

priorities, and program.

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.

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.

nGoods Movement Planning includes:lPublic concern regarding community, health and

environmental impacts of goods movement.

l Importance of goods movement to the State’s economy and global competitiveness.

Land Use Connections

IndustrialZone

Land Use Connections

Published Truck Routes:

§ State üStatewide Highway

System§ Local üCity of RosevilleüCity of SacramentoüCounty of SacramentoüCity of StocktonüCounty of San JoaquinüCity of Woodland

The single biggest factor causing damage to our road network system is overloading.

Planning Considerations

Truck routes use an engineering analysis that focuses on safety.Trucks turn differently than cars due to a characteristic referred to as "off-tracking.“ "Off-tracking" 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.

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.

Planning Considerations

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

GOVERNOR’S STRATEGIC GROWTH PLANGOVERNOR’S STRATEGIC GROWTH PLAN

n Strategic Growth Plan (SGP) comprehensive plan to address critical infrastructure needs.nGoods 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.

GOODS MOVEMENT ACTION PLAN

n Joint EffortCalifornia Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, and the California Environmental Protection Agency.

n Policy Objectivesl Generate jobsl Increase mobility/reduce traffic congestionl Improve air quality/protect public healthl Enhance public and port safetyl Improve California’s quality of life

GMAP BackgroundGMAP Background

n The Action Plan is a response to:l Severe Congestion at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

l Public concern regardingcommunity, health and environmental impacts of goods movement.

l Importance of goods movement to the State’s economy and global competitiveness.

Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF)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 sectorl Balancing both the needs of large and small ports, and

providing reasonable geographic balancel Concurrent mobility improvement and emissions

reductionsl Deliverability, maximum benefit and optimum

performance

GMAP and the Emissions Reductions Plan (ERP)GMAP and the Emissions Reductions Plan (ERP)

California Air Resources Board (ARB) developed the ERP

n Assess public health impacts of freight movementn 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.

ERP Emission Reduction StrategiesERP Emission Reduction Strategies

n Key strategies include:lOn-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;

n Key strategies (continued):l Alternative locomotive

technology and idling limits; andl 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.

ERP Emission Reduction StrategiesERP Emission Reduction Strategies

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.

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.

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.

Thank YouThank You

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

References

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