Integrating Freight Movement into Twenty-First-Century Communities' Land Use, Design, and Transportation Systems (2023)

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.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 373 Integrating Freight Movement into Twenty-First-Century Communities' Land Use, Design, and Transportation Systems Christopher Lamm Cambridge Systematics, Inc. New York, NY Laura Richards Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Denver, CO Anna Marsh BJH Advisors, LLC New York, NY Jaimison Sloboden Michael Baker International Inc. Houston, TX Conduct of Research Report for NCHRP Project 08-134 Submitted June 2023 © 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

e National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. e National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. e National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. e three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. e National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. e Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. e mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. e Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. e program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 373 Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Trey Joseph Wadsworth, Senior Program Officer Mazen Alsharif, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer J. Weeks, Publishing Projects Manager NCHRP PROJECT 08-134 PANEL Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Planning Methods & Processes Sherry Pifer, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX (Chair) David S. Greensfelder, Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate LLC, Albany, CA Brian C. Hunter, Florida Department of Transportation, Tampa, FL William Kruger, United Parcel Service (UPS), Atlanta, GA Makaela R. Niles, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Boston, MA Pavithra Parthasarathi, Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization, Chesapeake, VA Andrea Cristina Ruiz, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Arlington, MA French F. Thompson III, BNSF Railway, Fort Worth, TX Alissa Barber Torres, Orange County (Florida), Orlando, FL Prachi Vakharia, Amazon, Washington, DC Jocelyn B. Jones, FHWA Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 08-134 by a consultant team led by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CS). CS was the prime contractor for this study, and was supported by Michael Baker International, Inc. (MBI), and BJH Advisors, LLC (BJH). Christopher Lamm, Principal of CS, was the Principal Investigator. Laura Richards, Senior Associate of CS, was the Deputy Principal Investigator. The other authors of this report are Michael Marks, Senior Professional of CS; Christian Higgins, Senior Professional of CS; Peter Quintanilla, Senior Associate and Senior Urban Designer of MBI; Jaimison Sloboden, Technical Manager-Transportation of MBI; and Anna Marsh, Senior Analyst of BJH. The work was performed under the general supervision of Mr. Lamm and Ms. Richards at CS.

iv Table of Contents SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ VI PROBLEM BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................... 1 Problem Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Research Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Organization of this Report .................................................................................................................................... 3 WORK PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................................... 4 Task 1 - Initiate Project and Work Plan .................................................................................................................. 4 Task 2 - Conduct Focused Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 4 Literature Review Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Task 3 - Evaluate Best Practices and Document Gaps ............................................................................................. 5 Gaps Identified in the Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 6 Key Toolkit Attributes ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Stakeholder-Identified Use Cases ........................................................................................................................... 11 Stakeholder-Identified Key Issues ........................................................................................................................... 13 Task 4 - Toolkit Framework and Development ..................................................................................................... 15 Toolkit User Requirements ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Task 5 – Prepare Interim Report and Draft Planning Toolkit ................................................................................ 21 Task 6 – Prepare Peer Exchange Approach and Material ..................................................................................... 22 Task 7 – Schedule and Conduct Peer Exchange .................................................................................................... 24 Peer Exchange Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................... 24 Task 8 – Develop and Discuss Recommended Modifications to the Toolkit ......................................................... 25 Task 9 – Prepare Final Deliverables ...................................................................................................................... 30 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TOOLKIT .......................................................................................... 32 Audience or Market ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Strategies for Disseminating the Toolkit .............................................................................................................. 32 Successful Implementation of the Toolkit ............................................................................................................ 32

v CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 35 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY ....................................................................... 37 APPENDIX B: PEER EXCHANGE BREAKOUT GROUP MATERIALS ....................................... 46 List of Figures Figure 1: Initiative Comparison Table from CoE-SUFS Initiative Selector ................................................... 9 Figure 2: Diagram of the Toolkit .................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3: Toolkit Linked PDF Design .......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4: Toolkit Sorting Tool Design .......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5: November 2022 Peer Exchange Agenda .................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Workplan to Update the Draft Toolkit to Final .............................................................................. 25

vi Summary This report presents an overview of the approach and outcomes of research performed under NCHRP Project 08-134. The efficient movement of freight is the foundation of our communities and economy. Disruptions to the movement of goods can have substantial economic and quality of life effects. At the same time, public-sector planners and officials desire a clearer understanding of how goods movement benefits communities through job creation, tax revenues, and other benefits, while balancing the potential environmental and/or community disbenefits. Public-sector agencies are considering these questions at a time when more data, information, and tools are being developed and distributed. However, these agencies typically have limited staff or procurement capacity to discover and apply those information resources. The primary objective for this research is to develop a planning toolkit for public-sector decision-makers to better integrate freight and goods movement into the planning process for land use, design, and multimodal transportation systems. The toolkit aims to be scalable for all geographic and population densities and provide best practices and tools for implementation. The research team conducted a thorough literature review and interviews with public-sector planning organizations representing a variety of regions, urban-to-rural contexts, and freight planning experience and capabilities. The research uncovered key issues that agencies need help to understand and address, identified examples of existing freight planning tools and guides, and documented gaps and needs that the toolkit developed under this research project ought to address. The toolkit is a package containing several documents. Hyperlinks are embedded in the documents to help users navigate within and between the packaged documents. The toolkit consists of several components, or tiers, including: • The first tier contains reference guides on several topics that are relevant to planners and other practitioners. These guides aim to help the reader augment their understanding of these issues and to provide “how to” guidance to address common questions or needs. The reference guides include freight stakeholder engagement and involvement, goods movement and livability issues, freight logistics and decision-making, emerging freight trends, and freight data and applications guidance.

vii • The second tier of the toolkit includes a resource sorting tool that allows the user to select issues and contexts, and receive a list of documents and other resources that provide relevant information and guidance. • The third tier of the toolkit is a design guidance tool that helps users identify key urban design and streetscape considerations, and it includes suggestions for design treatments and other interventions to address common issues and needs. • The fourth and final tier includes a table of data resources with information about the source(s), formats, coverage, update frequency, links to websites where the data or more information can be retrieved, and other considerations. The research team convened a group of public- and private-sector representatives to participate in day-long peer exchange event to review a draft version of the toolkit and to participate in group exercises to apply the toolkit to hypothetical situations. Feedback from the peer exchange participants were applied to the development of the final toolkit. Use of the toolkit is likely to take place as part of the development of traditional planning products including statewide or regional freight plans and studies, regional long-range transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, regional or statewide freight performance management, local zoning and design standards, and private-sector business planning. Tools may also be used on an ad-hoc basis (e.g., as part of improvements to individual roads or sites). Ensuring that the target audience becomes aware of the toolkit and can begin using it is a key challenge that may be addressed through engagement of academic institutions, jurisdictional organizations (e.g., planning associations, etc.), state departments of transportations (DOTs), and via conferences and other meetings that include practitioners in freight, transportation, land use, economic development, and other key disciplines.