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.
12 This section of the guide summarizes the current practice of integrating freight into the highway planning process. The information was developed through three research activities: (1) a review of the existing body of literature, guides, and studies; (2) inter- views with national transportation agencies and associations; and (3) case studies conducted throughout the United States. EXISTING LITERATURE As part of the research for this guide, the existing literature was reviewed and in- terviews were conducted with industry leaders and organizations involved in freight and transportation planning to inventory existing planning practice and explore the perception of how well that guidance is being applied. The literature included guides, studies, and plans that provide a cross section of available resources and reflect exist- ing planning practice. The following sections show the written resources reviewed for the preparation of this guide, many of which may be of interest to guide readers. Library of Background Research Sources TRB These sources include the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, or NCHRP; National Cooperative Freight Research Program, or NCFRP; and the Strate- gic Highway Research Program or SHRP. ⢠NCHRP Report 594: Guidebook for Integrating Freight into Transportation Plan- ning and Project Selection Processes ⢠NCHRP Report 570: Guidebook for Freight Policy, Planning, and Programming in Small- and Medium-Sized MPOs 2 CURRENT PRACTICE
13 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS ⢠NCHRP Report 618: Cost-Effective Methods and Planning Procedures for Travel Time, Delay, and Reliability ⢠NCHRP Report 606: Forecasting Statewide Freight Toolkit ⢠Special Report 297: Funding Options for Freight Transportation Projects ⢠NCFRP Report 1: Public and Private Sector Interdependence in Freight Transpor- tation Markets ⢠NCFRP Report 2: Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems ⢠NCFRP Report 12: Framework and Tools for Estimating Benefits of Specific Freight Network Investments ⢠NCFRP Report 7: Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints ⢠NCFRP Report 8: Freight-Demand Modeling to Support Public-Sector Decision Making ⢠NCFRP Report 14: Guidebook for Understanding Urban Goods Movement AASHTO ⢠AASHTO: Freight Bottom Line Report series ⢠AASHTO: State Rail Planning Best Practices FHWA ⢠FHWA: Freight Cross-Cutting Resource Guide (ongoing) ⢠National Highway Institute (NHI) Course 139006: Integrating Freight into the Transportation Planning Process ⢠NHI Course 129003: Advanced Freight Planning ⢠NHI Course 139002: Multimodal Freight Forecasting in Transportation Planning ⢠NHI Course 139001: Freight Planning Course ⢠NHI Course 139005: Freight Planning and Environmental Considerations ⢠NHI Course 139009: Engaging the Private Sector in Freight Planning ⢠U.S. DOT: Guide to Quantifying the Economic Impact of Federal Investments in Large-Scale Freight Transportation Projects ⢠FHWA: Building Capacity Between Public and Private Sectors in the Freight Com- munity: A Resource Manual ⢠FHWA: Quick Response Freight Manual Update ⢠FHWA: Resource Center Training on Engaging the Private Sector in Freight Planning ⢠FHWA: Guidebook for Engaging the Private Sector in Freight Transportation Planning
14 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS State Freight-Planning Studies ⢠Maryland Statewide Freight Plan ⢠Kansas Statewide Freight Study ⢠Minnesota Statewide Freight Plan ⢠Indiana Multimodal Freight and Mobility Plan Metropolitan and Regional Freight Planning ⢠Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments: Enhancing Consideration of Freight in Regional Transportation Planning ⢠Puget Sound Regional Council: Integrating the Evaluation of Freight Corridor Projects into the Congestion Management Process, and Long-Range Transporta- tion Planning The available guides, planning guides, and processes provide useful strategies to maintain freightâs presence and voice throughout the planning process, many directly applicable to the decision-making process for highway capacity additions. The lit- erature highlights three major elements that are critical for effective freight-planning efforts and promoting efficient engagement with the freight community during the long-range planning, project programming, corridor planning, and NEPA processes: 1. Freight self-assessment. This process generally involves needs identification, devel- opment of freight policy objectives, evaluation of commodity flows and industry logistics patterns, an assessment of quality of freight service, and identification of bottlenecks and other physical and operational deficiencies and impediments. A freight self-assessment also generally includes an identification of staff or freight experts within an agency to shepherd freight matters through the planning process. 2. Stakeholder outreach. Existing resources provide clear strategies to recognize freight stakeholder needs and promote early involvement of both public and pri- vate freight stakeholder groups throughout the planning process. The literature supports the formation of freight advisory committees or councils for ongoing collaboration and discussion. (State freight advisory committees were also codified in MAP-21 Section 117.) Recommended stakeholder roles within these commit- tees include assisting in the development of goals and objectives for the freight program, reviewing or refining project lists, ranking and prioritizing projects, pro- viding data, helping identify funding opportunities, and advocating for projects. 3. Data analysis. The literature also suggests appropriate data sources that plan- ners and policy makers can use to better understand freight issues within their communities. For example, data describing existing and forecasted transportation system conditions and freight volumes are useful in educating and engaging the private sector. Freight data are also invaluable in developing or refining existing performance measures and tracking economic growth and benefits associated with freight projects.
15 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS The existing literature and planning practices outline approaches for developing a freight-planning program; however, the recommendations do not always translate well to the process for making decisions on highway capacity improvements. The following describes ways that current literature and practice could be improved to provide high- way planning practitioners with the strategies and tools needed to properly consider freight in the highway planning decision-making process: 1. Improve the evaluation methodology for assessing freight impacts during NEPA. The literature provides detailed information on methods for developing metrics to evaluate project benefits and costs for freight for project programming but little information on how to use or adapt these metrics for the NEPA process. The body of literature would be strengthened with a clearer evaluation methodology. 2. Better integrate economic considerations, logistics, and commodity flow deci- sions into the process for project programming and environmental review. There is limited information in the existing literature on how to apply the information collected during the initial planning phases on the general economy, industry lo- gistics patterns, and commodity data into the NEPA phase. 3. Clarify the key freight-related decision points in the highway planning process. The literature includes useful information on the types of freight stakeholders to engage and the types of questions to ask; however, the information is less clear on the specific stakeholders (i.e., BCOs versus motor carriers) and the different level of engagement expected and required at key decision points. 4. Direct more attention to the role of regulatory issues in freight decisions throughout all phases of the highway decision-making process. When determining long-range goals for the freight infrastructure system, regulation (e.g., truck size and weight or hours of service rules) is a key consideration and greatly influences logistics decisions. These types of issues are rarely considered in the current long-range planning process. Figure 2.1 summarizes the literature review findings by showing which of the exist- ing research and guides provide good, partial, or limited coverage of market-based freight-planning considerations for each phase in the planning process. This graphic points out some of the gaps that this guide and other emerging resources will help fill. INTERVIEWS WITH INDUSTRY LEADERS Interviews with industry stakeholders were conducted across three categories: private freight stakeholders (BCOs and motor carriers), other private and nonprofit highway planning stakeholders, and government organizations involved in freight and high- way planning policy at the national level. Through the interviews the research team sought stakeholdersâ views on best practices in integrating freight into highway plan- ning, including integration of the seven market-based freight-planning considerations described in Figure 2.1 and initial insight, into appropriate decision points for freight stakeholder engagement. These insights were later validated by the case studies. The team also sought to determine what could be improved in the planning processâfrom the freight stakeholder perspective.
16 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Figure 2.1. Effectiveness of existing literature in addressing freight considerations in the highway decision- making process. CASE STUDIES The research team conducted 11 interviews with transportation agencies, private-sector freight companies, and other freight stakeholders to gain perspective on best practices. The case studies were selected because they exhibited the following characteristics: ⢠Evidence of collaboration; ⢠Geographic/economic diversity; ⢠Projects that have not been in the spotlight previously; ⢠Successful integration of market-based freight-planning considerations; ⢠Consideration of private-sector concerns in the planning process; ⢠Diversity across highway decision-making phases (LRTP, PRO, COR, ENV [or NEPA]); and ⢠Feedback from cooperative sponsors and stakeholders. Table 2.1 lists the case studies conducted during guide development. The follow- ing section summarizes lessons learned from the case studies and the other examples of current practice. Full summaries of the case studies are available at www.trb.org/ Main/Blurbs/170008.aspx. Market-Based Freight-Planning Considerations Economy Industry Logistics Patterns Freight Infrastructure Commodity Flows Quality of Service Environment Safety and Security Long-Range Planning Corridor-Level Planning Programming NEPA Planning LimitedRelatively Well Partial Four Phases of Highway Capacity Planning and Project Development
17 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Figure 2.1. Effectiveness of existing literature in addressing freight considerations in the highway decision- making process. TABLE 2.1. CASE STUDIES COMPLETED Phase Case Study Organization Urban/ Rural Region Region (W/MW/E/S) LRTP Baltimore MPO Freight Movement Task Force Baltimore Metropolitan Council Urban Coastal E LRTP Kansas City Regional Freight Outlook Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)/KC SmartPort Urban Inland MW LRTP Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) Goods Movement Task Force DVRPC Urban Coastal E PRO Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) Freight Transportation Improvement Program (F-TIP) MORPC/Columbus Chamber Urban Inland MW PRO Seattle Freight Mobility Advisory Committee City of Seattle Urban Coastal W PRO Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable (RFMR) PSRC Urban Coastal W COR 1-70 Truck Only Lanes Led by Indiana DOT (partnership with Missouri, Ohio, Illinois DOT) Rural/ Urban Inland MW COR Freight Plan Implementationa Georgia DOT Rural/ Urban Inland S COR San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) State Route (SR) 905 Freeway Project SANDAG MPO Urban Coastal W NEPA I-5 Columbia River Crossing Oregon DOT/Washington State DOT Urban Inland W NEPA I-710 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) Processa Caltrans/LA Metro Urban Coastal W Note: W = West; MW = Midwest; E = East; and S = South. a Projects/programs conducted or assisted by Cambridge Systematicsâ staff. THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: WHAT WORKS? The literature review, interviews, and case studies provide insight on best practices in integrating freight into the planning process and ways in which the practice could be improved. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 catalog best practices from these sources. Table 2.2 pro- vides overarching best practicesâapplicable to the entire planning process. Table 2.3 describes best practices that are more specific to the four decision-making phases.
18 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS TABLE 2.2. CURRENT BEST PRACTICES TO INTEGRATE FREIGHT INTO THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY PLANNING PROCESS: ALL PHASES OF THE PLANNING/DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Nurture âfreight champions.â Freight champions are individuals with the ability to mobilize interest in advancing freight planning. A freight champion may be a private-sector leader, a policy maker, or an individual working for a transportation agency. An important role of the freight champion is to be a face for freight and to build trust and relationships with industry stakeholders. Engage early and frequently. Engagement should be conducted early and often but targeted at key decision points to help conserve resources and avoid stakeholder fatigue, which can cause participants to lose interest in the planning process altogether. Improve freight-planning capacity. Agencies should continue their efforts to improve freight-planning knowledge and staff capacity. Stakeholders indicate that freight agency staff with knowledge of freight issues, trends, and operations provide additional value to the outreach and maximize the benefits of stakeholder engagement. Collaborate with other agencies. Work with other agencies and organizations to share private-sector freight stakeholder input, which sometimes makes its way into the planning process through elected officials and others with frequent and direct contact with the business community (e.g., Chambers of Commerce, economic development organizations). Improve interagency communication. Communications can break down between local, regional, or state government institutions and the DOT and MPO planners related to the highway impacts of new development projects (e.g., a BCO purchases property near a highway interchange through an arrangement with local leaders, causing a bottleneck; and the DOT is instructed to âmake it workâ). Inclusion of the MPO in discussions is helpful. Assist policy makers. Build their knowledge about supply chain and logistics; help them connect with freight constituents. Prepare focused meetings and materials. Stakeholders respond to plans and products that already have been prepared or summarized in a way that minimizes the time they need to spend reviewing materials. Stakeholder meetings should be focused, with clearly defined agendas and action items. Institutionalize outreach. Establish regular meetings and outreach activities to build relationships and to improve the understanding of freight issues in the jurisdiction. Implement limited but creative engagement to be most effective. Use technology, other venues (industry events), focus groups, and so forth. Engagement depends on the scale of the freight stakeholder interest in the project. A more robust engagement strategy can be developed for a major truck route improvement versus a commuter route with few trucks. Post and integrate feedback. Transportation agencies should assimilate feedback from private-sector stakeholders, post it online, and make sure that stakeholders recognize that their valuable feedback is being integrated into the planning documents.
19 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Long-Range Planning Corridor Planning Project Selection NEPA Engage the private sector early. Engagement during the initial stages of the long-range planning process is consistent with the interests of private- sector stakeholders. Assist policy makers. Build their knowledge about supply chain and logistics. This helps them connect with freight constituents. Establish Freight Advisory Committees. These committees have been very effective in many jurisdictions to facilitate ongoing engagement with freight stakeholders, improve knowledge sharing between DOT and MPO planners and private-sector representatives, and build ongoing relationships. Incorporate freight data and metrics. Stakeholders would like to see better incorporation of freight data and freight-oriented performance metrics (e.g., commodity flows, throughput) into highway planning. Improve multimodal planning. The existing planning process is focused on maximizing the operations within specific modes with little network optimization across modes. Agencies should work with stakeholders to integrate other modal considerations, including cost, to reflect the realities of freight mode choice. Integrate freight into corridor studies. Make sure that freight is represented in corridor studies. Listen to transportation system user feedback in establishing the scale of those studies. Industry stakeholders prefer to be engaged at major decision points, defined ahead of time in the development of corridor plans (e.g., before a final decision is made) to ensure that input is considered on alignments, route characteristics, and effects on freight operations. Work with motor carriers to address planning and truck operations issues. Motor carriers report success in working with DOTs and MPOs on long- range corridor studies, not only on highway improvement issues but on operational issues like truck parking. Improve dialogue and data on multistate and national corridor relationships. Stronger relationships with state and national trade associations would be helpful to enable better understanding of freight stakeholder priorities and trends in trade flows along freight corridors. Differentiating between the different types of trade flows between imports and exports, and domestic shipments that pass through a state or region, is also important. Seek input on programming. Freight stakeholders are often engaged by non-DOT organizations (e.g., Chambers of Commerce, economic development department staff, mayors, or governorâs offices) for project programming. However, they too often are asked to provide feedback on a list of projects already under development, rather than to help formulate that list. They would prefer to be involved early in the development of the program. Increase freight focus during programming. Freight stakeholders indicate a preference for even more involvement with highway planners to ensure that freight-beneficial projects are prioritized. They would like to see freight metrics incorporated into the project selection criteria. Freight stakeholders are interested in how funding is allocated to projects and are amenable to public-private partnerships (PPP). Define freight as a programming category. A dedicated category for freight-oriented projects or a mechanism for giving additional âpointsâ to freight-beneficial projects in State Transportation Improvement Program/ Transportation Improvement Program (STIP/TIP) evaluations should be developed to increase freight stakeholder interest. Integrate logistics and trade into NEPA. The NEPA process has institutionalized many practical engagement points for freight stakeholders through the public comment process and other advocacy, yet there is room for improvement. Industry stakeholders believe that the NEPA review and approval process is much too lengthy to effectively consider the logistics and trade decisions for industry. Consider freight in alternatives analysis. The NEPA process should incorporate logistics and freight decisions into the alternatives analysis. It also should look at what is counterfactual (what will happen to freight transportation if the project is not built; not necessarily only the âno project alternativeâ). Make NEPA outreach substantive. Freight stakeholders sometimes sense that NEPA outreach activities are simply procedural (e.g., a box- checking exercise). Stakeholders often feel like the process does not yield effective solutions to freight issues and can raise issues for the freight community (e.g., residentsâ truck, noise, or air quality concerns may inhibit industrial/ warehouse development; community groups may oppose distribution center development because of perceived traffic impacts). TABLE 2.3. CURRENT BEST PRACTICES TO INTEGRATE FREIGHT INTO THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY PLANNING PROCESS: LONG-RANGE AND CORRIDOR PLANNING, PROJECT SELECTION, AND NEPA
