UCLA Planning Workshop

Download UCLA Planning Workshop

Post on 05-Dec-2014




0 download

Embed Size (px)


Goods Movement for Planning Commissioners


<ul><li> 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 </li> <li> 2. Introduction n California is facing a significant infrastructure shortfall. l Today, I will be sharing information about Californias 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. Plannerssuch as yourselvesare uniquely positioned to play a key role. </li> <li> 3. So Who Cares About Freight? Very, Very Few People! n Todays 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 </li> <li> 4. What is Goods Movement? </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 6. US is Becoming a Trading Nation US Imports &amp; 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 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 10. Value of Containerized Trade &amp; Jobs Related to Trade Flowing Through the Ports of Los Angeles &amp; 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 Intl 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 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 12. FAF-2 Truck Flow and Highway Congestion: 2002 and 2035 </li> <li> 13. Rail Freight Flow </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 15. Rail Right-of-Way n Losing RoW is critical. Once lost it is nearly impossible to regain. </li> <li> 16. Rail Network Today Todays 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 </li> <li> 17. FAF-2 Truck Flow: 2002 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 19. Intermodal Capacity Constraints Changing Technology Functional Obsolescence Safety/Security </li> <li> 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. </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 23. Total LA/Long Beach Container Growth Projected to Triple in 25 Years 44.7 Revised In Million TEUs 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 </li> <li> 24. Traffic Headache? </li> <li> 25. Community Impacts </li> <li> 26. San Pedro Bay Port Facilities </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> 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); </li> <li> 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. </li> <li> 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, informatio...</li></ul>