HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 15, 2007 Transit Policy82202
RECORDS
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
DATE: Thursday, November 15, 2007
LOCATIONS: Conference Room C, Fifth Floor
Riverside County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
* * * COMMITTEE MEMBERS * * *
Frank West, City of Moreno Valley, Chair
Roger Berg, City of Beaumont, Vice -Chair
John Chlebnik / Ray Quinto, City of Calimesa
Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio
Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta
Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco
Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris
Steve Adams / Dom Betro, City of Riverside
John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II
Jeff Stone, County of Riverside, District III
Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV
* * * STAFF * * *
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director
Brian Champion, Program Manager
*** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY ***
Policy directions to prepare for transit vision and to bring regional perspective to transit
Monitor transit implementation
Performance of transit operators and its services
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the
Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
11.36.39
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
10:00 a.m.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
CONFERENCE ROOM C
Riverside County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside, 92501
/n compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section
54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please
contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to
meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to
provide accessibility at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Items not listed on the agenda)
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 24, 2007
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS - The Committee may add an item to the Agenda
after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the
item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to
the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires
2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee
members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
6. COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT -HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive and file a presentation on the
Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan.
Page 1
Transit Policy Committee Agenda
November 15, 2007
Page 2
7. GOODS MOVEMENT/TRUCK OPERATIONS SHIFT ANALYSIS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
Page 5
1) Receive and file a presentation on Goods Movement/Truck Operations
Shift Analysis prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The next Transit Policy Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at
10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 17, 2008, Conference Room C, County of
Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside,
92501.
i
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING
COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET
NOVEMBER 15, 2007
NAME
AGENCY
E MAIL ADDRESS
_ je_, --�
JCS `- ����,
-a 5-,� �r e_ R. <f, � , . ,.,�
Z.1 C. 1 � T
S 4s1.Ats
v, 675/
��/_.(ya
HA-L-c
Al e'Re.r-)
f'SIna 4( Z$aVBol, dery
.4A1k
it'llei/wcat 4!• 6Jri--a-oel
Aie—
fed tf/k ;'1l%L, S %
/YID /?6=.vo U //Cs__
G�/7 - 3'' G
6 PA_ /5 81-‘6,
�rfrell,/ "1-2 a'
j-
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
NOVEMBER 15, 2007
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District II
CountyFof Riverside, District
County of Riverside, District IV
City of Beaumont
City of Calimesa
City=o'f- Indio".'
City of La Quinta
City of Moreno =Valley
City of Norco
City of Perris
City of Riverside
AGENDA ITEM 4
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE
May 24, 2007
Minutes
1 CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Transit Policy Committee was called to order by
Chair Frank West at 10:02 a.m. in Conference Room A, Riverside County
Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside,
California, 92501 and the teleconference site at Riverside County
4th District Office, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222, Palm Desert,
California, 92260.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present
Steve Adams
Roger Berg
Daryl Busch
John Chlebnik
Frank Hall
Frank West
Roy Wilson*
Members Absent
Terry Henderson
Jeff Stone
John F. Tavaglione
*via teleconference
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Adams/Berg) to approve the February 15, 2007, minutes as
submitted.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There was a revision to Agenda Item 9, "Fiscal Year 2007/08 Through Fiscal
Year 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans-.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 2
6. CITY OF BEAUMONT TRANSIT SERVICES
Tanya Love, Program Manager, defined the following terms for the
Committee: 1) Trans Track, 2) Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), and
3) Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP). She then provided background
information and current status for the financial audits for the city of
Beaumont and its current ridership, operating costs and farebox
requirements, including its status as it relates to the above defined terms.
Commissioner Daryl Busch asked about Beaumont's transit system merging
with Banning and if there are ongoing discussions or any concerns amongst
the two cities.
Commissioner Roger Berg explained that Beaumont is looking at ways to
merge with Banning's transit system in order to provide better service. He
noted that both Banning and Beaumont lost their transit managers at the
same time and it impacted the programs.
In response to Commissioner Busch's inquiry, Commissioner Berg confirmed
that Banning is also in favor of merging the two transit systems.
M/S/C (Busch/Adams) to:
1) Based on approved Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), allocate
$1,080,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) operating funds and $140,000
in State Transit Assistance (STA) capital funds to the city of
Beaumont for FY 2006/07;
2) Based on approved SRTP, allocate $951,300 in LTF operating
funds and $11,000 in STA capital funds to the city of
Beaumont for FY 2005/06;
3) Due to excess operating expenses, allocate $28,957 in
LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2005/06
(balance of required operating funds of $30,400 to be paid by
the city of Beaumont as farebox revenue);
4► Due to excess operating expenses, allocate $350,801 in
LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2004/05;
5) Due to excess operating expenses, allocate $14,200 in
LTF operating funds to the city of Beaumont for FY 2003/04;
6► Amend the FY 2003/04, 2004/05, 2005/06, and 2006/07
city of Beaumont SRTP to reflect the additional funding; and
7) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 3
7. TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDITS: FISCAL YEARS 2003/04 THROUGH
2005/06
Tanya Love explained the requirement and purpose of a triennial performance
audit. She then introduced Derek Wong from Pacific Municipal Consultants
(PMC) to present the triennial performance audit of the Riverside County
transit operators.
Derek Wong, PMC, presented the triennial performance audits for the public
transit operators in Riverside County that received TDA revenues,
highlighting the following areas:
• Audit period FY 2003/04 through FY 2004/06;
• Riverside County Transit Operators - Cities of Banning, Beaumont,
Corona and Riverside Special Services together with Palo Verde Valley
Transit Agency (PVVTA), RTA and SunLine;
• Approach to the operator audits;
• General findings from operator audits;
• Operating costs trends for FYs 2000/01 - 2005/06;
• Ridership trends for FYs 2000/01 - 2005/06;
• Comparative trends - Ridership and operating costs for FYs 2000/01
- 2005/06;
• Farebox recovery FYs 2000/01 - 2005/06;
• Audit recommendations.
Chair West asked if and how audit recommendations are enforced.
Derek Wong replied the audit recommendations are a part of the SRTP
process and the Commission has a policy for the transit operators to
implement the recommendations.
Tanya Love added that the new PIP will strengthen the recommendations
made in the triennial performance audits.
Chair West explained at Metrolink's new fare schedule is based on miles
traveled. He asked if other operators have a consistent formula that is used
or does it vary between operators.
Tanya Love responded that she believes it is a flat rate for all operators in
Riverside County.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 4
M/S/C (Busch/Adams) to:
1) Review and approve the FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06
Triennial . Performance Audits for the cities of Banning,
Beaumont, Corona and Riverside Special Services together with
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA) and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine);
2) Direct staff to seek formal responses from the audited agencies
and incorporate the responses in the Short Range Transit Plans
(SRTPI; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. STATUS REPORT: FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Tanya Love presented a status report on the PIP for FY 2006/07,
highlighting the following areas:
• Commission commitment to fully implementing the PIP;
• Six discretionary performance targets and two mandatory targets;
• Escalating operating costs per revenue hour by consumer price index
for FY 2007/08 at 5% and for FY 2006/07 at 4.1 %;
• Transit operators compliance with PIP targets;
• Service provider performance scorecards for all eight transit operators;
and
• Non-compliance and development of an action plan.
M/S/C (Adams/Busch) to:
1) Receive and file the third quarter status report on the
FY 2006/07 Productivity Improvement Program IPIP);
2) Direct staff to work with transit operator staff from the city of
Banning, city of Beaumont, city of Corona and Palo Verde
Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) to jointly develop an action plan
to meet the Commission approved PIP; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 5
9. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 SHORT RANGE
TRANSIT PLANS
Tanya Love provided a brief overview of the SRTPs for the city of Riverside,
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the
Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program, highlighting the operating
and capital costs and ridership statistics. The cities of Banning, Beaumont,
Corona and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency are working on their action
plan to come into compliance with PIP.
M/S/C (Busch/Chlebnik) to:
1) Review and approve, in concept, the FY 2007/08 through
FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the city of
Riverside, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit
Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Regional Commuter
Rail Program, as presented;
2) Direct staff to obtain additional information from the RTA and
Commuter Rail on their requests for a Productivity Improvement
Program (PIP) waiver on operating cost per revenue hour.
Contingent on compliance with the PIP, review and approve, in
concept, RTA's and Commuter Rail's SRTPs; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO PRE -FUND RETIREE MEDICAL
BENEFITS
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented RTA's request for
assistance to pre -fund its post retirement medical benefits. She explained
the purpose of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
Statement 45 requirement of a periodic actuarial valuation to determine
actuarial accrued liability.
In response to Commissioner John Chlebnik's question regarding how this is
reflected on the balance sheet, Theresia Trevino responded that the
unfunded portion of the annual required contribution is the liability that is
recorded.
Commissioner Chlebnik then asked if pre -funding could apply to any other
operator and the other potential use of the funds.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 6
Theresia Trevino responded that this would not apply to Sunline as it does
not provide retirement benefits. With respect to the municipal operators,
no requests have been made related to the impact of GASB 45 viability on
transit operations to the extent that funding assistance for transit would be
needed.
Craig Fajnor, RTA Chief Financial Officer, added that RTA's fleet will age and
a mass capitalization will be necessary. The requested pre -funding would be
beneficial for RTA's credit rating and allow it to borrow funds at a reduced
rate when capitalization is needed.
M/S/C (Adams/West) to:
1) Allocate $2,668,182 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds
to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to pre -fund post
retirement medical benefits related to the implementation
of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
Statement 45;
2) Reprogram $5,056,818 in previously allocated, unclaimed
operating funds as additional funding for pre -funding the post
retirement medical benefits;
3) Amend RTA's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to
reflect the additional funding;
4) Amend the Commission's FY 2006/07 budget to reflect the
additional funding;
5) Direct staff to work with RTA on waiving the impact of the
incremental costs to the Productivity Improvement Program
(PIP) as a result of the pre -funding the GASB 45 actuarial
accrued liability; and
6) Forward to the Commission for final action.
11. TRANSIT VISIONING
Tanya Love provided a brief update on the transit visioning process,
highlighting the following areas:
• Purpose - vision of transit services based on mobility, congestion
relief, and connectivity;
• Triennial Performance Audit - retrospective look at transit;
• Short Range Transit Plan - an overview of the transit needs for the
next three years;
• Transit Visioning - planning for transit over the next 10 years; and
• Final review meeting - June 11, 2007.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
May 24, 2007
Page 7
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Transit Policy
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:08 a.m. The next meeting is
scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 19, 2007, in
Conference Room C, County of Riverside Administrative Center,
4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside, California, 92501 and the
teleconference site at Riverside County 4th District Office, 73-710 Fred
Waring Drive, Suite 222, Palm Desert, California, 92260.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 15, 2007
TO:
Transit Policy Committee
FROM:
Brian Champion, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director
SUBJECT:
Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to receive and file a presentation on the Coordinated
Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
With the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the following two new funding sources for
transit service are available:
1) Jobs Access Reverse Commute (Section 5316) program provides
funding for the development and maintenance of job access projects
to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to
and from work during non -peak hours as well as supply reverse
commute options for workers in suburban areas; and
2) New Freedoms (Section 5317) program provides funding for new
public transportation services and alternatives for people with
disabilities beyond what is required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA).
The following table identifies estimated funding levels by urbanized areas in
Riverside County. These estimated annual funding levels will be adjusted once
finalized by Caltrans. Program funding for the Palo Verde Valley (rural)
apportionment area will be available through a statewide competitive program
administered through Caltrans.
Agenda Item 6
1
Table 1 — Estimated Annual Funding by Program
Urbanized Area Jobs Access New Freedoms
Reverse Commute
Indio -Cathedral City -Palm Springs
Riverside -San Bernardino*
Temecula-Murrieta
Subtotal — Western Riverside County
Total
$ 167;671 $ 77,913
1,025,531 390,840
87,126 58,221
1,112,657
$ 1,280,328
449,061
$ 526,974
*estimated -actual dollar amount to be determined
Commission staff will update the Transit Policy Committee when funding levels are
finalized.
In accordance with the provisions of SAFETEA-LU, recipients under these programs
must comply with all federal coordinated planning requirements to be eligible for
funds. The reauthorization stipulates that projects selected for funding under these
programs must be derived from a locally coordinated, public transit -human services
transportation plan (Coordinated Plan). Moreover, the Coordinated Plan must be
developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and
nonprofit transportation and human service providers and participation by the
public.
The Coordinated Plan must include the following elements:
1) An assessment of available services that identifies current transportation
providers (public, private, and nonprofit);
2) An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities,
older adults, and people with low incomes. This assessment can be
based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on
more sophisticated data collection efforts;
3) Strategies, activities, and/or projects to address the identified gaps
between current services and needs as well as opportunities to improve
efficiencies in service delivery; and
4) Priorities for implementation based on resources, time, and feasibility for
implementing specific strategies and/or activities.
Agenda Item 6
2
At its February 14, 2007 meeting, the Commission approved an agreement with
A-M-M-A to assist Commission staff with developing the Coordinated Plan.
Commission staff and the consultant have since sent stakeholder surveys to
477 human service providers, conducted roundtables and workshops with human
service representatives and the public, and conducted in -person and telephone
interviews to fulfill the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirement for
inclusion in the Coordinated Plan development process.
Public outreach efforts began in May 2007 and will continue through November
2007. Please see the attachment for a listing of outreach efforts by apportionment
area.
A Report of Findings has been submitted in draft form describing outreach efforts
and the results of data collection activities. From this identification of available
services and transportation needs, a finalized Coordinated Plan will be presented to
the Transit Policy Committee and Commission for approval (anticipated January -
February 2008). Once the Coordinated Plan is approved, a call for projects will be
issued in February -March 2008.
Attachment: Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan
Outreach
Agenda Item 6
3
Type of Contact
Public Workshop
Committee Presentations
Stakeholder Roundtable
Project Development Meeting
On -Site Interviews
Consumer Group
Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan Outreach
Date
May 17, 2007
August 27, 2007
August 22, 2007
October 30, 2007
November 29, 2007 (planned)
July 19, 2007
September 24, 2007
October 4, 2997
October 22, 2007
October 23, 2007
July 26, 2007
August 7, 2007
August 7, 2007
August 16, 2007
August 24, 2007
August 24, 2007
August 24, 2007
August 24, 2007
August 31, 2007
August 31, 2007
September 10, 2007
September 10, 2007
September 10, 2007
September 21, 2007
September 25, 2007
September 26, 2007
September 27, 2007
October 1, 2007
July 19, 2007
July 26, 2007
July 26, 2007
July 31, 2007
July 31, 2007
August 6, 2007
August 8, 2007
August 1, 2007
August 1, 2007
October 2007 (sereral days)
October 26, 2007
November 2007 (tbd)
Apportionment Area
Western Riverside County
Morongo Casino Resort
Social Services Trans Advisory Committee
Riverside County Transit Operators
Technical Advisory Committee
Inland Valley Regional Center
Cal Works/GAIN Program
Corona City Hall
Banning Senior Center
First 5 Riverside
Partnership to Preserve Independent Living
St. Patrick's Church
Inland Valley Regional Center
Dept of Public Health
Inland Valley AIDS Project
County of Riv. Dept of Behavioral Health
Care -A -Van
County of Riv. Dept of Mental Health
Corona Senior Center
City of Corona / Transit
County of Riv. Dept of Public Social Services
Peppermint Ridge
Home Instead Senior Care
Banning Family Health Center
Riv./San Bernardino Indian Health
Riverside Transit Agency
TRIP/Frail Elderly - phone interviews
Blindness Support Services
Cal/Works GAIN Program Participants
4
Coachella Valley
Technical Advisory Committee
Good Samaritans
Coachella Valley Assoc. of Governments
Boys and Girls Club of Desert Hot Springs
Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert
Home Instead Senior Care
Cal/Works GAIN Program
Coachella Taxicab Owners Assoc.
Stroke Recovery Center
Coachella Valley Rescue Mission
Palo Verde Valley
County of Riv. Dept of Mental Health
Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
November 15, 2007
TO:
Transit Policy Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director
SUBJECT:
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file a presentation on Goods Movement/Truck Operations
Shift Analysis prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its July 19, 2007 Transit Policy Committee (TPC) meeting, a discussion was
held regarding truck traffic congestion related to the movement of goods.
Accommodating increased trucking activity whi►e preserving the economic benefits
associated with goods movement presents a challenge as more companies are
locating their distribution centers in Riverside County. This trend, combined with
increased shipping and receiving activity across the region, has meant that the
volume of trucks entering Riverside County has grown substantially. According to
Ca!trans, between 1990 and 2004, truck vehicle miles traveled on state highways
in Riverside County grew 20%. Over that same time period, vehicle traffic grew by
43%. The result is an increased demand for the road system.
It should be noted, however, that increased warehousing activity and increased
shipping and receiving activity across the region have contributed positively to the
economy. As a result, any strategy to reduce the impact of truck traffic must
balance the need to preserve the economic benefit associated with truck
commerce.
While major infrastructure improvements will continue to be part of the solution,
there are other short-term strategies for relieving congestion and improving air
quality that the Commission may want to consider. One strategy that staff was
directed to review was time of day shifts in trucking activity to relieve congestion
during peak passenger vehicle travel periods similar to the efforts made during the
Los Angeles Olympics.
Agenda Item 7
5
To assist with the truck shift analysis, the Commission engaged the services of
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. At the November 15, 2007 TPC meeting, consultant
staff will provide a review of the attached Technical Memorandum on Goods
Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis.
Attachment: Technical Memorandum — Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift
Analysis
Agenda Item 7
6
CAMBRIDGE
mmatzmimmo
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
October 2007
7
www.camsys.com
8
final technical memorandum
Goods Movement/Truck Operations
Shift Analysis
prepared for
Riverside County Transportation Commission
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
55512th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, California 94607
date
October 2007
9
Goods Movement/Dyck Operations Shift Analysis
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ES-1
Characteristics of Congestion ES-1
Constraints on Truck Travel ES-2
Local and National Experiences With Time -of -Day Restrictions ES-2
Implementation Strategies ES-3
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Characteristics of Congestion 2-1
2.1 Trucks in Freeway Congestion 2-1
2.2 Heavy -Duty versus Medium -Duty Trucks in Peak Congestion 2-7
2.3 Through versus Local Trucks 2-9
2.4 Trucks on Local Roadways 2-11
2.5 Summary of Key Points 2-12
3.0 Constraints on Truck Travel 3-1
3.1 Governmental Regulations 3-1
3.2 Business Operations 3-6
3.3 Summary of Key Points 3-8
4.0 Local and National Experiences With Time -of -Day Policies 4-1
4.1 Background Information 4-1
4.2 Atlanta 1996 Summer Olympic Games 4-2
4.3 Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympic Games 4-3
4.4 California Urban Freeway Gridlock Study 4-4
4.5 New York City Delivery Incentives 4-6
4.6 Los Angeles Truck Ordinance 4-7
4.7 Beijing's Badaling Expressway 4-8
4.8 Summary of Key Points 4-8
5.0 Potential Implementation Strategies 5-1
5.1 Loosen Nighttime Noise Restrictions for Industrial Land Uses 5-1
5.2 Create Incentives for Off -Peak Pickups and Deliveries 5-3
5.3 Direct Restrictions 5-4
5.4 Alternative Strategies 5-6
5.5 Summary of Key Points 5-7
6.0 References 6-1
Appendix A. Noise Ordinance Overview A-1
Appendix B. Interviews B-1
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
11
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
List of Tables
Table ES.1 Matrix of Strategies ES-4
Table 2.1 Trucks Share of Average Daily Traffic 2-2
Table 2.2 Share of Trucks by Time of Day SR 60/I-15Interchange 2-6
Table 2.3 Share of Trucks by Axle on Riverside Freeways 2-8
Table 2.4 Time Conversion Factors for SCAG Region 2-9
Table 2.5 Truck Trip Origins and Destinations on Select Riverside
Freeways 2-10
Table 2.6 Share of Through Truck Trips by Origin Location 2-10
Table 2.7 Truck Percentages on Arterial Roadways in Riverside County 2-12
Table 2.8 Truck Percentages at Coachella Valley Intersections 2-12
Table 3.1 Palm Springs Noise Restrictions 3-3
Table 4.1 Receivers' Willingness to Accept Off -Peak Deliveries by Incentive ..4-7
Table 5.1 Matrix of Strategies 5-7
Table A.1 Noise Ordinance Overview by Jurisdiction A-3
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
13
Goods MovemenhTruck Operations Shift Analysis
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Large Truck Vehicle -Miles Traveled 2-4
Figure 2.2 Large Trucks' Share of VMT 2-4
Figure 2.3 Truck and Nontruck Travel by Time of Day SR 91 2-7
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v
15
Goods Movement/1 ruck Operations Shift Analysis
Executive Summary
Accommodating increased trucking activity while preserving the economic bene-
fits associated with goods movement presents a challenge for Riverside County.
Major infrastructure improvements will undoubtedly be part of the solution.
However, such improvements take many years to implement. In the meantime,
the County must identify short-term strategies for relieving congestion and
improving air quality.
One such strategy is to promote time -of -day shifts in trucking activity to relieve
congestion during peak passenger vehicle travel periods. This report analyzes
the likely impact and feasibility of strategies to achieve time -of -day shifts in
trucking activity.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONGESTION
A first step in determining the effectiveness of encouraging or requiring truck
time -of -day shifts is to gain an understanding of the role that freight movement
plays in Riverside County's congestion. Several data sources analyzed for this
study reveal the following characteristics of trucking -related congestion in the
County:
• On average, trucks comprise about 14 percent of daily traffic flow on Riverside
County freeways, with much higher percentages in some isolated locations.
Truck percentages are much lower during the AM and PM peak periods.
• Truck volumes tend to be highest between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m., and exhibit a noticeable drop on most freeways after 3:00 p.m.
Truck percentages during the PM peak period tend to be one-half or lower of
the daily average. In short, trucks are already avoiding the most congested
time periods.
• Nontruck volumes continue to increase in the midday time period. This
trend is decreasing the daytime time windows during which truckers are
likely to experience uncongested conditions.
• At the same time, truck and nontruck volumes remain relatively low in the
overnight hours, with substantial capacity available between 9:00 p.m. and
4:00 a.m. As with daylight hours, however, the AM and PM peak periods are
expanding in duration to begin earlier and end later in the day.
• The majority of larger trucks have at least one end of their trip outside of
Riverside County, with upwards of one-half of trucks on some freeways
passing through the County without stopping.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-1
17
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
CONSTRAINTS ON TRUCK TRAVEL
A key question is whether current truck travel patterns are a reflection of busi-
ness, regulatory, or travel cost constraints. To determine which constraint plays
the dominant role, interviews were conducted with trucking companies, distri-
bution centers, and other industry representatives. In addition, municipal
ordinances were reviewed, and city staff contacted to gauge the extent of truck -
related regulations in the County. The review revealed the following information:
• Business operation practices of receivers have by far the most powerful effect
on the timing of warehouse and trucking operations of all factors.
• Many Riverside County jurisdictions have truck route restrictions in place,
but time -of -day restrictions exist in only two communities in the County.
• Noise restrictions are quite common throughout the County, although many
of the ordinances have exemptions for short-term noise exceedances that
would likely be associated with truck movements. The restrictions are most
strict in residential areas, which can create problems as residential areas and
industrial/warehouse areas are developed in close proximity to each other.
• Nighttime trucking operations currently exist, but are generally not wide-
spread due to business risks and costs that are generally unrelated to gov-
ernment regulations.
• Most trucks face congested conditions at some point during their trip,
because congested conditions are now fairly pervasive throughout the day.
LOCAL AND NATIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH TIME -
OF -DAY RESTRICTIONS
Although efforts to shift truck travel by time of day are not widespread, there are
a number of examples that provide important lessons for any future application
of time -of -day restriction or incentive programs. The examples compiled for this
study include voluntary shifting of pickup and delivery schedules during the
Salt Lake City and Atlanta Olympics, proposed time -of -day truck bans in the
City of Los Angeles and the State of California, a freeway truck ban in Beijing,
and a study of incentive programs in New York City to encourage shifting of
pickup and delivery times. These case studies reveal the following lessons:
• Outright truck bans are legally and politically difficult to implement. The
Los Angeles, Beijing, and State of California examples demonstrate that there
are difficult political and legal issues associated with outright truck restric-
tions on freeways.
• Shifting truck schedules requires the cooperation of both shippers and receiv-
ers. During both the Atlanta and Salt Lake City Olympics, extensive outreach
was conducted to ensure both shippers and receivers could accept off-peak
ES-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
18
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
deliveries. There is anecdotal evidence that the outreach resulted in some
time -of -day shifting during the limited period of the Olympics.
• Some industries and businesses are more able to shift to off-peak deliveries
than others. The New York City delivery incentive study revealed some of
the business and geographic constraints that make receipt of off-peak deliv-
eries easier for some businesses. For example, restaurants located in com-
mercial areas were more open to receiving nighttime deliveries, presumably
because they do not risk disturbing sleeping neighbors.
• Incentive programs could have an impact on shifting off-peak deliveries to
overnight hours, as shown in the New York City study. However, the study
showed that only 50 percent of restaurant owners would accept an incentive
equivalent to the cost of additional staff necessary to accept the deliveries,
confirming that issues beyond staff cost are at play in delivery scheduling.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
There are a limited number of mechanisms through which Riverside County
might be able to influence the time -of -day travel patterns for trucks on its free-
ways. Three strategies were identified for this report, ranging from passive, no -
cost policy changes to more direct initiatives that may entail a public -sector cost.
The strategies were each evaluated for their feasibility and their likely impact on
congestion and air quality.
Loosen Nighttime Noise Restrictions for Industrial Land Uses
This report revealed that nighttime noise ordinances have an impact on truck
movements throughout the County, although the impact appears to be small and
limited primarily to truck movements in residential areas. Since removing noise
ordinances in residential areas is likely to be politically difficult, efforts could be
made to remove noise ordinances in the vicinity of industrial land uses. The
impact of this strategy on freeway congestion and air quality would be minimal,
since it would only affect the movements of a small number of trucks, namely
those who are currently operating in industrial areas; whose customers could
conceivably accept nighttime deliveries; and who are currently limited from
making such deliveries because of noise ordinances. The program would only
target trucks with destinations in Riverside County, which are a minority of
trucks on Riverside freeways.
Create Incentives for Off -Peak Pickups and Deliveries
Another strategy would be to offer businesses incentives to accept pickups and
deliveries during off-peak periods. Research analyzed for this report revealed
that only certain types of businesses would be likely to shift their schedules in
return for such incentives. A pilot program could be conducted in a limited part
of the County to identify the businesses best suited for the program.
Cambridge Systematics, Me. ES-3
19
Goods MovemenVTmck Operations Shift Analysis
The impact of this strategy on congestion and air quality would likely be small.
The program would only target trucks with destinations in Riverside County,
which are a minority of trucks on Riverside freeways. Moreover, only a small
share of those trucks with destinations in the County would be affected, namely
those servicing industries that are not already operating after hours, but would
do so if offered sufficient incentive. Since this would be an incentive program,
there would be few legal or direct political barriers to ,implementing it. How-
ever, there may be indirect political barriers associated with identifying sources
of funds to support the program.
Direct Restrictions
A direct alternative to the two strategies described above is to impose time -of -
day restrictions on trucks moving on certain roadways. This strategy could be
used, for example, to restrict trucks during peak hours on certain freeways or on
certain arterial roadways within the County.
Assuming time -of -day restrictions were implemented along the most heavily
used freeways, the congestion reduction benefits could be as high as 10 or
15 percent during peak periods on the impacted facility, assuming that the truck
volume reduction is not offset by increases in passenger car volumes. However, this
estimate should be viewed with caution. Most trucks' schedules are set by the
needs of their customers, and there is limited room for adjustment. Thus, most
trucks would likely shift their route instead of their schedule in order to meet
their customers' needs. Truck congestion and pavement degradation would
simply shift to other freeways or local roadways. The feasibility of direct free-
way restrictions is also uncertain. Any restrictions on freeways would have to be
approved by both the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). There is limited precedent or
legal basis for truck restrictions aimed at reducing congestion.
Table ES.1 presents a summary of the feasibility, air quality, and congestion
impacts of the strategies discussed above. They are rated as low, moderate, and
high for their potential to reduce air quality and congestion problems; and as
easy, moderate, and difficult in terms of their feasibility.
Table ES.1 Matrix of Strategies
Feasibility Freeway
(Easy, Moderate, or Air Quality Congestion
Difficult) Impact Impact
Loosen ordinances in industrial areas Moderate Low Low
Create Incentives for off-peak pickups and Moderate Low Low
deliveries
Direct restrictions Difficult Could Moderate
worsen
ES-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
20
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
1.0 Introduction
Over the last several years, more companies have been locating their distribution
centers in Riverside County. This trend, combined with increased shipping and
receiving activity across the region, has meant that the volume of trucks entering
Riverside County has grown substantially. Between 1990 and 2004, truck vehicle -
miles traveled (VMT) on state highways in Riverside County grew 20 percent'.
Over the same period, total vehicular traffic has increased even more. Total
vehicle miles of travel grew by 43 percent on state highways within the County
between 1990 and 2004. The result of these very large increases in demand for
the road system, both from trucks and vehicles, is severe congestion and poor air
quality.
On the other hand, increased warehousing activity in Riverside County and
increased shipping and receiving activity across the region have contributed
positively to the economy of Riverside County. Therefore, any strategy to reduce
the impact of truck traffic must balance the need to preserve the economic benefit
associated with truck commerce.
To address the challenge of reducing truck -related congestion, this report focuses
specifically on the potential for time -of -day shifts in trucking activity. This
involves encouraging or requiring trucks to travel during less congested midday
and/or nighttime periods. Time -of -day shifts are attractive because they are
perceived as having the potential to provide a quick means of reducing truck
impacts without expensive new infrastructure.
To determine whether time -of -day shifts in trucking activity could be success-
fully achieved in Riverside County, this report considers several sources of
information, which are organized as follows:
• Section 2.0 clarifies basic questions relating to the contribution of trucks to
congestion problems within the County. It establishes the magnitude of con-
gestion reduction benefits that could be achieved from truck time -of -day shifts.
• Section 3.0 presents some of the regulatory and business constraints that influ-
ence truck schedules, and weighs which of them have the greatest impact.
• Section 4.0 presents background research and case studies that reveal some of
the issues surrounding time -of -day shifts in truck movements.
• Section 5.0 presents three potential strategies for encouraging or requiring
shifts in truck schedules and the likely impacts of each.
1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) data.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1
21
22
Goods MoaemenUTruck Operations Shift Analysis
2.0 Characteristics of Congestion
A first step in determining the effectiveness of encouraging or requiring truck
time -of -day shifts is to gain an understanding of the role that freight movement
plays in Riverside County's congestion. Key questions include the following:
• How much of the peak -period traffic and congestion problem is related to
truck traffic?
• To what extent is the congestion problem related to heavy-duty versus
medium- and light -duty trucks?
• Is truck traffic primarily a through movement, or is it generated by economic
activity involving Riverside County?
• Are trucks a substantial contributor to congestion on state highways and arte-
rials that are not freeways?
The following section addresses each of these questions in turn using data sets
pulled from a variety of sources.
2.1 TRUCKS IN FREEWAY CONGESTION
This section addresses the question of the role that trucks, particularly heavy
trucks, play in highway congestion in Riverside County. While this section
addresses the portion of traffic volumes represented by trucks, it is important to
note that trucks affect highway congestion at a magnitude that is disproportion-
ate to their raw number. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, trucks
affect traffic and contribute to highway congestion in two ways:
• They are longer than passenger cars and therefore occupy more highway
space than passenger cars; and
• They have poorer operating capabilities than passenger cars particularly with
respect to acceleration, deceleration, and the ability to maintain speeds on
grades.
The Highway Capacity Manual notes that trucks' operating characteristics are
the more critical feature, particularly in terms of congestion. Large gaps tend to
exist both in front and in back of trucks, and these gaps lead to inefficiencies in
the use of highway space that cannot be completely overcome. The mere pres-
ence of heavy trucks tends to affect the speed and placement of vehicles in adja-
cent lanes, further affecting highway performance. There is also considerable
variation in operating characteristics between trucks, and these operating char-
acteristics are affected by how heavily the trucks are loaded. The effect of these
operating characteristics is compounded as the percentage of trucks in the traffic
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1
23
Goods Movementaruck Operations Shift Analysis
stream increases and/or during peak -period congestion where stop -and -go traf-
fic creates a particular burden for trucks.
Overall Contribution of Trucks to Daily Traffic
Caltrans maintains aggregate data on freeway volumes throughout the State.
Analysis of the most recent (2005)2 data reveals the following regarding the con-
tribution of trucks to average daily traffic on Riverside freeways:
• Truck's share of average daily freeway volume ranges widely throughout the
County. Truck volumes make up an average of 13.7 percent of traffic on
County freeways, but the percentage ranges from 4 percent to 43 percent
depending on the location.
• The I-10 and the SR 60 have the greatest volumes of truck traffic and the
greatest share of trucks in the traffic stream. Trucks make up an average of
27 percent of the daily traffic stream on I-10 and 13 percent of the traffic
stream on SR 60. Daily truck traffic along both freeways averages around
15,000.
• The I-215, I-15, and SR 91 freeways have smaller truck volumes and a smaller
percentage of trucks in the traffic stream than the I-10 and the SR 60
freeways.
Table 2.1 shows the absolute number and relative percentages of trucks in the
traffic stream for major freeways in Riverside County. The range represents high
and low values over the length of each freeway in the county.
Table 2.1 Trucks Share of Average Daily Traffic
Truck Percent Truck Volumes
Range Average Range Average
1-10 13-43°/0 27% 9,000-26,000 15,600
SR 60 11-16% 13% 7,000-27,000 15,800
1-215 6-15% 9% 9,000-17,000 10,800
1-15 6-11% 8% 9,000-18,000 11,900
SR 91 5-8% 6% 8,000-17,000 13,200
Countywide 4-43% 13% 50-27,000 8,124
Source: Analysis of Caltrans 2005 truck counts.
2 Caltrans Truck Counts, 2005, http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/.
2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
24
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Contribution of Trucks to Peak -Period Congestion
The information presented above reflects the contribution of trucks to average
daily traffic on Riverside freeways. Understanding the contribution of trucks to
peak -period congestion is more difficult, given the lack of a single, comprehen-
sive source of data on the variation in truck volumes by time of day for freeways
in Riverside County.
There are several data sources that each provides partial answers to the question
of how much trucks contribute to peak -period congestion. One of these is
Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS), a software system that takes
real-time input from Caltrans counters and uses an algorithm to develop detailed
estimates for several flow parameters. The PeMS can only recognize trucks
longer than 16 feet. Any vehicle shorter than 16 feet is classified as a passenger
vehicle. As a result, truck counts from the PeMS are substantially lower than the
corresponding Caltrans counts. However, time -of -day patterns can still be accu-
rately depicted with the PeMS data. Recent PeMS data from segments of the
SR 60, SR 91, and I-15 freeways in Riverside County were analyzed to identify
truck time -of -day patterns3.
Figure 2.1 shows large trucks' VMT for both travel directions on these freeway
segments. All freeways share a common pattern of VMT peaking during the
midday and falling off during the evening and early morning hours, which dif-
fers from the two peaked pattern typical of passenger vehicle travel demand.
The pattern of a midday travel peak is more pronounced on some freeways than
others. On SR 91, truck travel rises dramatically during the day and decreases
just as dramatically during the evening and early morning; whereas travel on
SR 60 remains relatively steady all throughout the day.
It should be noted that several of the segments (SR 91 East, I-15 South, and SR 60
East) show a marked dip in travel during the evening peak period (4:00 p.m. to
6:00 p.m.), perhaps due to some trucks attempting to avoid congested conditions
on the freeway.
Figure 2.2 shows large trucks' share of VMT for the same freeway segments.
Overall, large trucks' share of VMT during peak periods ranges between 2 and
6 percent of total VMT, with the highest shares on SR 91 and I-15. The share of
trucks in the PM peak period appears to be lower overall than the share in the
AM peak period. During the midday, early morning, and evening periods, the
share of trucks rises, simply because there are fewer passenger cars on the road-
ways. Similarly, the lower share of heavy truck traffic during peak periods is
due to very high passenger car volumes during these times.
3 Data was sampled from May 7 to May 18, 2007, and excludes weekends and holidays.
Values are median. PeMS data were not available for the I-10 and I-215 freeways in
Riverside County.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3
25
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Figure 2.1 Large Truck Vehicle -Miles Traveled
Vehicle Miles Travelled
6,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
a
0
0
N
a
0
0
Q
0
0
N
io
2
a
o
■ r .-_.._ 411 �1ri
a
0
0
N
a_
a
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
O
SR-91 E --i—SR-91 W - 1-15 N ^`-" I-15 S - r - SR-60 E {- SR 60 W
Figure 2.2 Large Trucks' Share of VMT
Percent of Total Traffic
14%
12%
10%
a%
6%
4%
2%
0%
a
0
0
a
0
2
a a a a
0 a
a o
io w o
0
0
0
SR-91 E
8
a
e
ry
a
0
0
N
I'
a_
a
0
0
Q
CL a_
a a
0 0
0 0
-SR-91 W—•--1-15N 1-15S --•-SR-60ESREOW
2-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
26
Goods Moaement,/lruek Operations Shift Analysis
The Subregional Freight Movement Truck Access Study is another data source
that sheds some light on the share of all trucks in peak -period traffic. The study
involved the collection of several truck counts at locations throughout the Inland
Empire. The data collection included the interchange of SR 60 and 1-15 in west-
ern Riverside County, which is heavily utilized by trucks.
The data shown in Table 2.2 indicate that the percentage of trucks at the SR 60/
I-15 interchange is highest during the midday, and that the percent of trucks in
the morning peak is higher overall than in the evening peak. This is consistent
with the PeMS analysis. However, the actual percentage of trucks in the peak
periods is, as expected, higher than that estimated for the PeMS analysis.
Based on these disparate data sources, a rough estimate is that trucks likely
comprise:
• Between 7 percent and 10 percent of AM peak -period freeway traffic on aver-
age throughout the county;
• Between 5 percent and 7 percent of PM peak -period freeway traffic on aver-
age throughout the county;
Since the average share of trucks on Riverside freeways is 13 percent, and truck
peaks do not coincide with commuter peaks, 13 percent can be considered the
average upper bound on peak -period shares of trucks.
During the overnight and midday periods, trucks make up slightly higher per-
centages of freeway traffic. The patterns revealed in the PeMS data show that
large trucks' share of freeway travel peaks three times. The peak is highest
during the early morning period (12:00 a.m. to 5 00 a.m.); second highest during
the midday (10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.) period, and third highest during the eve-
ning (7:00 p.m. to midnight). Assuming similar patterns apply to all trucks, and
bearing in mind that trucks are an average 13 percent of daily traffic, it is prob-
able that trucks make up:
• Between 13 to 15 percent of early morning (midnight to 5:00 a.m.) freeway
traffic on average throughout the county;
• Between 12 to 14 percent of midday (10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) freeway traffic
on average throughout the county; and
• Between 11 to 13 percent of evening (7:00 p.m. to midnight) freeway traffic on
average throughout the county.
Note that these values are rough approximations and that the actual volumes of
trucks during the evening and early morning periods are low relative to volumes
during other times of day, as evidenced by Figure 2.2.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5
27
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Table 2.2 Share of Trucks by Time of Day
SR 60/1-151nterchange
Range
Share of Trucks (By Intersection Approach)
6:00 a.m. 7:45 a.m. 11% 9-15 percent
11:00 a.m.-12:45 p.m. 19% 13-26 percent
4:00 p.m: 5:45 p.m. 8% 4-13 percent
Source: Subregional Freight Movement Truck Access Study, Appendix A, 2003.
In recent years, it has become widely acknowledged that severe congestion is no
longer limited to the traditional peak periods of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. This growth in passenger car volumes and congestion into
the traditional peak "shoulders" and off-peak hours are reducing the daytime
windows during which trucks are likely to experience uncongested conditions.
Figure 2.3 displays VMT data for heavy trucks and other vehicles along SR 91
through Riverside County; the two dark bands represent traditional peak peri-
ods. Nontruck travel on eastbound SR 91 displays traditional peaking charac-
teristics, but there is now heavy congested conditions beginning as early as
2:00 p.m. Westbound SR 91 exhibits a nearly constant flow of nontruck travel
between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
As shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.3, the peak hours for truck travel in both direc-
tions of SR 91 are between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Peak travel volumes for all
vehicles are now starting to overlap on the midday borders of the traditional
peak periods. It is reasonable to expect that truck and nontruck volumes will
continue to grow into the future, with most of this growth occurring outside of
the traditional peak periods. As this growth occurs, the midday window of
uncongested conditions for truck traffic is likely to shrink and eventually disap-
pear altogether.
In addition to the expansion into the midday time period, the morning and after-
noon peak periods are also expanding into the overnight hours. The data in
Figure 2.3 show that westbound volumes exhibit a substantial uptick beginning
as early as 4:00 a.m., with high eastbound volumes continuing until 9:00 p.m.
However, truck and nontruck volumes still exhibit a substantial drop between
9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., indicating that substantial freeway capacity is available
between these hours. As with the midday time period, however, it is possible
that these overnight windows of uncongested conditions could narrow in the
coming years with continued regional growth.
2-6 Cambridge Systematics, Mc.
28
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Figure 2.3 Truck and Nontruck Travel by Time of Day
SR 91
2 2
¢ ¢
o o
o o
lV N
0
0
O
0
0
O
¢
0
0
r-0
0
0
O
0
0
0
IV
s- SR-91 EB Truck VMT
- - SR-91 EB Non -Truck VMT
0
0 0 0 o
lV 4 0i id 6
^^°4.,..SR-91 WB Truck VMT
—�SR-91 WB Non -Truck VMT
2
a
2 2 2 2
o. o_ u. a
0 0 0
0
0
2.2 HEAVY-DUTY VERSUS MEDIUM -DUTY TRUCKS IN
PEAK CONGESTION
The share of heavy- and medium -duty trucks on the roadways varies by freeway
throughout Riverside County. Generally, most truck traffic is comprised of two -
axle trucks and five -axle trucks. Three- and four -axle trucks make up a relatively
small percentage of truck traffic. Table 2.3 shows the percentage of two- and
five -axle trucks for each of the major freeways in Riverside County, including the
following:
• On the I-10, 5-axle trucks dominate, comprising between 50 and 84 percent of
all truck traffic;
• On SR 60 and the I-15, truck traffic on SR 60 is fairly evenly split between
two- and five -axle trucks; and
• On SR 91, truck traffic is fairly evenly split between two- and five -axle trucks,
but two -axle trucks dominate.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-7
29
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Table 2.3 Share of Trucks by Axle on Riverside Freeways
2-Axle % 3-Axle % 4-Axle % 5-Axle %
Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range Avg Range
I-10 20% 13-40% 4% 2-8% 3% 1-6% 73% 50-84%
1-15 40% 34-49% 9% 7-13% 5% 3-8% 46% 40-53%
SR 60 45% 24-60% 9% 4-15°/o 4% 3-5% 43% 20-68%
SR 91 52% 42-69% 7% 6-8% 4% 4-4% 37% 21-47%
1-215 43% 38-51% 9% 5-15% 5% 2-7% 43% 28-51%
Source: Analysis of Ca!trans 2005 truck counts.
Note that while the number of axles gives some indication of the size of the
truck, it does not signify truck weight. According to the Vehicle Inventory and
Use Survey (VIUS) database for the State of California, on average:
• Thirty-two percent of 2-axle trucks are light -heavy, 59 percent are medium -
heavy, and 9 percent are heavy -heavy;
• Two percent of 3-axle trucks are light -heavy, 15 percent are medium -heavy,
and 83 percent are heavy -heavy;
• Zero percent of 4-axle trucks are light -heavy, 5 percent are medium -heavy,
and 95 percent are heavy -heavy; and
• Zero percent of 5- or more axle trucks are light -heavy, 1 percent are medium -
heavy, and 99 percent are heavy -heavy.
Bearing in mind these conversions, the great majority of trucks on Riverside
freeways are medium -heavy and heavy -heavy.
Data on the variation in truck types by time of day is very limited. The most
recent data come from the 2002 Southern California Association of Governments
(SC'AG) Goods Movement Truck Count Study, which presented time -of -day
model factors by truck weight classes for truck trips internal to the SCAG region.
The data shown in Table 2.4 shows that light -heavy and medium -heavy duty
trucks follow a similar temporal pattern, with about one-half of truck travel
occurring during the midday period, and the remaining travel distributed rela-
tively evenly between the AM and PM peak periods and the nighttime period.
In contrast, a greater share of heavy -heavy duty trucks operates during the eve-
ning periods-
2-8 Cambridge Systematics; Inc.
30
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Table 2.4 Time Conversion Factors for SCAG Region
6:00 a.m.-
Truck Class 9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m: 3:00 p.m: 7:00 p.m:
3:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 6:00 a.m.
Light -heavy 18.1% 46.3% 20.8% 14.8%
Medium -heavy 18.1% 46.1% 20.7% 15.1%
Heavy -heavy 15.6% 41.1% 17.0% 26.3%
Results from the Subregional Freight Movement Truck Access Study indicate
that about 50 percent of the trucks that passed through the SR 60/I-15 intersec-
tion in the morning (6:00 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.), midday (11:00 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.), and
evening (4:00 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.) were 5-axle vehicles, and about 30 percent were
2-axle vehicles. The remainder was 3- and 4-axle vehicles. There was little to no
variation in the distribution of trucks by axle throughout the day. However, the
overall share of trucks in the traffic stream did vary throughout the day from
11 percent in the morning, to 19 percent in the midday, and 8 percent in the
evening4.
Taken together, these data sources suggest the following regarding the percent-
ages of medium- and heavy-duty trucks in peak period traffic:
• The dominant truck types are two and five -axle trucks, which each makes up
between about one-third and three -fourths of truck traffic, depending on the
freeway. Five -axle trucks predominate on the I-10; whereas, two -axle trucks
predominate on SR 91.
• Since nearly 60 percent of 2-axle trucks are heavy, and nearly 100 percent of
5-axle trucks are heavy; it can be concluded that the great majority (likely
more than two-thirds) of trucks on Riverside County freeways are heavy
trucks by weight.
• The share of different truck types does not appear to vary much by time of
day, with the exception of heavy trucks, which make up a greater percentage
of nighttime truck travel.
2.3 THROUGH VERSUS LOCAL TRUCKS
In order to determine the proportion of trucks on Riverside County freeways that
pass -through trucks with no destinations in the County, a select link analysis
using the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Models was performed. All five major freeways
4 Classification counts were collected in May 2003 for all four intersection ramps and for
both directions on the 1-15 and SR 60 mainlines.
5 The updated 2007 model could not be used as it has not been released by SCAG.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-9
31
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
in Riverside County (I-10, I-15, SR 60, SR 91, and I-215)• were included in the
analysis. Table 2.5 presents the results of the analysis showing the percent of
trip -end locations for trucks, as well as the composition of truck traffic in terms
of light, medium, and heavy trucks. Trip -end locations are classified as:
• Begin and end in Riverside. Trip is completely internal to the County;
• Begin or end outside Riverside. Trip enters or leave the County; and
• Begin and end outside Riverside. Trip is pass through.
The table reveals that the percentage of pass -through truck trips varies by Riverside
freeway, ranging between 20 and 58 percent. Pass -through trips represent a
large share of truck trips on all freeways, but are actually exceeded by trips
beginning or ending outside of Riverside County on all freeways, except I-10.
Trips completely internal to Riverside County only represent between 7 percent
of 14 percent of total truck trips. Heavy trucks represent the majority of truck
trips on all Riverside County freeways, with percentages between 64 percent and
86 percent.
Table 2.6 shows the share of through truck trips by county of origin. There is a
wide diversity in the origin location of pass through truck trips on Riverside
County freeways. On both I-10 and SR 60, about one-third of through truck trips
is originating from points east of the County. Another one-third comes from Los
Angeles County, while most of the remainder comes from either Imperial or San
Bernardino Counties. For SR 91, Orange County is the largest origin location for
through trips, followed by Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties account for nearly all pass
through trips.
Table 2.5 Truck Trip Origins and Destinations on Select
Riverside Freeways
Trip End Locations Composition of Truck Traffic
Begin and Begin or Begin and
End in End Outside End Outside
Riverside Riverside Riverside Light Medium Heavy
1-10 10% 32% 58% 5% 9% 86%
SR 60 14% 52% 35% 8% 12% 80%
1-15 7% 50% 43% 12% 24% 64%
SR 91 13% 48% 39% 9% 19% 72%
1-215 13% 66% 20% 11% 26% 64%
Source: Select links analysis of the 2001 SCAG heavy-duty truck model.
2-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
32
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Table 2.6 Share of Through Truck Trips by Origin Location
Los San
Imperial Angeles Orange Bernardino Ventura Arizona San Diego
I-10 16% 29% 6% 12% 3% 34% 1%
SR 60 12% 32% 14% 10% 0% 32% 0%
1-15 0% 38% 9% 16% 2% 0% 34%
SR 91 6% 20% 38% 23% 0% 12% 0%
1-215 0% 20% 1% 50% 2% 0% 26%
The data in Tables 2.5 and 2.6 indicate that nearly all large truck trips have at
least one trip end outside of Riverside County, with anywhere from about one-
third to one-half of all truck trips passing completely through the County with-
out stopping. These truck trips begin or end all over Southern California and
neighboring states. Taken together, these trends suggest that it will be difficult
to address truck operation patterns on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.
2.4 TRUCKS ON LOCAL ROADWAYS
The following three sources of truck counts in Riverside County were identified
to help determine the extent of truck traffic on local roadways:
1. Screenline counts on nine arterial roadways spread throughout the County.
The counts were collected in 2006 to 2007 to validate the SCAG heavy-duty
truck model. Trucks make up between 4.9 and 15.2 percent of the average
daily volume on the selected roadways (Table 2.7).
2. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments provided truck counts
collected during AM, midday, and PM periods in February of 2007 at five
arterial intersections. The counts show truck percentages in the range of
three to four percent (Table 2.8). The lower percentages at these sites, relative
to the SCAG validation counts, is likely due to the fact that the counts were
collected only for peak periods, and because of differing land uses around the
count sites.
3. The City of La Quinta provided three days of truck counts from Eisenhower
Drive north of Avenue 50, collected in January 2004. The counts show
trucks to be 8 percent of daily traffic. Trucks make up 10 percent of AM peak
period (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) volumes on average; 7 percent of midday
(11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.) volumes, and 5 percent of PM (4:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m.) volumes.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-11
33
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Table 2.7 Truck Percentages on Arterial Roadways in Riverside County
% of Trucks
Jefferson St S/0 48th, Indio 11.2
Washington St S/0 48th, La Quinta 10.5
Ramon Rd E/0 Gene Autry, Palm Springs 15.2
Ramona Expressway — W/0 Lakeview Ave, Nuevo 7.4
Van Buren St N/0 50th, Coachella 4.9
Perris Blvd N/0 SR 215, Perris 5.8
Jackson St S/0 48th, Indio 11.4
Monroe St S/0 48th, Indio 8.7
J. F. Kennedy Dr W/O E/O Moreno Beach, Moreno Valley 8.9
Table 2.8 Truck Percentages at Coachella Valley Intersections
Coachella Valley Intersection % of Trucks
Date Palm & Ramon.
Sunrise& Ramon
Monterey & Fred Waring
Gene Autry & Vista Chino
Monterey & Gerald Ford
Total
2.7%
1.6%
2.1 %
4.4%
4.4%
3.0%
For arterial roadways, limited evidence shows a similar time -of -day pattern to
the freeway counts. Counts collected during the AM, mid -day, and PM peak
periods at five intersections in the Coachella Valley reveal that truck volumes are
highest in the midday and higher in the morning than in the afternoon. How-
ever, overall vehicles increase through the day, and therefore trucks make up the
largest share of traffic during the morning peak. Larger trucks travel the most
during the morning and noon times, while travel by smaller trucks is more
constant.
2.5 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
A review of truck traffic data in Riverside County reveals that:
• On average, trucks comprise about 14 percent of daily traffic flow on Riverside
County freeways, with much higher percentages in some isolated locations.
Truck percentages are much lower during the AM and PM peak periods.
2-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
34
Goods Movement�TYnck Operations Shift Analysis
• Truck volumes tend to be highest between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m., and exhibit a noticeable drop on most freeways after 3:00 p.m.
Truck percentages during the PM peak period tend to be one-half or lower of
the daily average. In short, trucks are already avoiding the most congested
time periods.
• Nontruck volumes continue to increase in the midday time period. This
trend is decreasing the daytime time windows during which truckers are
likely to experience uncongested conditions.
• While available capacity is decreasing during the midday time period, capac-
ity is still relatively abundant in the overnight hours, particularly between
9:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. As with daylight hours, however, the AM and PM
peak periods are expanding in duration to begin earlier and end later in the
day.
• Truck traffic tends to be either very large tractor -trailer combinations or
smaller local delivery trucks. The majority of larger trucks have at least one
end of their trip outside of Riverside County, with upwards of one-half of
trucks on some freeways passing through the County without stopping.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-13
35
Goods Movement/Track Operations Shift Analysis
3.0 Constraints on Truck Travel
The analysis in the previous section raises the deeper issue of why these time -of -
day patterns exist. There are three dominant factors that are likely to be guiding
the temporal movements of trucks throughout Riverside County:
1. Business constraints,
2. Regulatory constraints, and
3. Cost of travel constraints.
The public sector can only indirectly affect the business constraints of industry,
and can marginally impact cost of travel constraints. However, the public sector
controls regulatory constraints placed on truck travel.
This section gauges the prevalence of restrictions on truck travel in Riverside
County and explores the importance of these restrictions vis-a-vis business and
cost of travel constraints in shaping truck travel patterns. This information helps
in the appraisal of strategies to encourage truck time -of -day shifts by removing
restrictive regulations; and in determining whether time -of -day restrictions on
freeways could conflict with existing truck -related regulations at the municipal
level.
3.1 GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
Direct Ordinances
A comprehensive search was conducted to identify truck -related ordinances in
place within Riverside County. By reviewing the transportation ordinances in
municipal codes and speaking with several municipal planners, code enforcers,
and officials in city clerks' offices, several common themes were identified.
The review revealed that, except for small outlying towns that do not experience
significant truck volumes, most municipalities in Riverside County have truck
route restrictions in place. These restrictions typically prohibit freight trucks in
excess of a specified weight from traveling along certain roads, generally in cen-
tral commercial areas. Some of these cities also require that freight trucking
firms apply for a municipal permit to travel through the city limits or along cer-
tain city roads when hauling an oversized load.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-1
37
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
In contrast to the widespread nature of truck route restrictions, there were only
two cities identified in the County of Riverside that have truck time -of -day
restrictions in place. These are:
1. The City of Indian Wells prohibits truck movement on portions of several
streets between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. The resolutions authorizing
the ordinances cite health and safety as the reason for limiting truck movements.
2. The City of Palm Desert prohibits truck movement in its central traffic district
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. In addition to freight trucks, garbage trucks
and some large construction vehicles are also prohibited during these times.
Indirect Ordinances
While only two municipalities have direct time -of -day truck restrictions in place,
many municipalities indirectly limit truck movements by time of day through
noise or lighting ordinances. To explore this issue, noise and lighting ordinances
in all but two in Riverside County cities were catalogued6. Appendix A contains
the complete results of the noise ordinance review. Lighting ordinances in a few
cities were also catalogued, but were found not to be relevant to the study pur-
pose, so a comprehensive review was not pursued7.
The review of noise ordinances revealed that noise issues are addressed in all of
the municipal codes in the County. Some cities have very general restrictions on
nuisance noises, while other cities specify sound level limits by time of day and
land use. The following types of ordinances are those most likely to have an
impact on truck movements and/or business operating hours:
• Noise standard by time of day and land use. Twelve cities set noise stan-
dards by time of day for different land uses. These standards apply princi-
pally to fixed noise sources. Many cities exempt roadway traffic noise,
indicating that such noise is better governed through the principals set forth
in a city's General Plan (all California cities must include a noise element in
their General Plan). Some cities allow the noise levels to be exceeded for
short periods of time.
• Noise standard by land use only. Three cities set noise levels by land use
only, and do not differentiate allowable levels by time of day. These levels
apply to fixed sources of noise, not roadway traffic.
6 Staff at the City of Canyon Lake were not available to assist with a search of the
municipal code, and the municipal code was not available for Internet review. The City
of Lake Elsinore did not respond to repeated messages, and the municipal code was not
available for Internet review.
7 Lighting ordinances appear to be used primarily to ensure minimum levels of lighting
for community safety, rather than to restrict maximum lighting levels:
3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc:
38
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
• Noise standard by time of day only. Two cities set a noise standard that var-
ies by time of day, but not by land use. These levels apply to fixed sources of
noise, not roadway traffic.
• Transportation -specific noise standards. Three cities set noise standards
that specifically targets noise from transportation or land uses adjacent to
transportation facilities. Two cities (Calimesa and Perris) simply make refer-
ence to the California Motor Vehicle Code, which already sets noise limits by
vehicle type. Corona sets decibel limits by land uses adjacent to transporta-
tion facilities.
• Restrictions on loading and unloading. Five cities restrict the times that
loading and unloading activities can take place. Some cities specifically
mention that the restriction only applies to loading and unloading of contain-
ers or trash into trash compacters.
• Restriction on idling. Four cities restrict idling of large vehicles by time of
day, unless the idling is caused by traffic congestion.
The City of Palm Springs is an example of a municipality that sets noise levels by
both zoning and time of day. Table 3.1 shows the general noise restrictions in
Palm Springs.
Table 3.1 Palm Springs Noise Restrictions
Sound Level
Zone Time (in dBA)
Residential
Low Density 7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 50
6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 45
10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. 40
High Density 7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 60
6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. 50
Commercial 7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 60
6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 50
Industrial 7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. 70
6:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 55
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-3
39
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
General Plans
On the issue of noise, there tends to be a strong two-way linkage between a city's
General Plan and municipal ordinances. Several cities make direct reference to
their General Plan in their noise ordinances, indicating that cities may be relying
on their General Planning process to provide a policy framework to control
noise, especially from roadway traffic. This linkage and policy framework
implies that noise ordinances tend to flow from a municipality's General Plan
process, and do not exist in isolation.
The State of California General Plan Guidelinese requires that cities include a
noise element in their General Plan. Although the Guidelines do not stipulate
specific allowable noise thresholds, they do require communities to map existing
noise levels and, if possible, to project those noise levels over the life of the
General Plan. The Guidelines do not stipulate specific noise thresholds that must
be followed, but provide recommended guidelines and require that communities
adopt strategies to meet their noise abatement goals.
Consequently, all municipalities in the County of Riverside have a noise element
in their General Plan document. These elements may contain noise abatement
goals or mitigation measures that could conflict with any efforts to increase
allowable noise levels in the municipality. For example, the City of Murrieta's
General Plan document contains over 20 noise -related policies, including the
following:
• N-1.Ic. Protect the noise environment in existing residential areas by requiring
mitigation measures for commercial, industrial or other proposed developments
which would exceed the noise level standards set forth in the Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines and the City Noise Ordinance as measured at any affected
land use.
• N-1.2d. Prepare standards to address issues that have the potential for "disturbing
the peace" of residential and "after-hours" non-residential areas, such as loud par-
ties, car alarms, home and business alarms, yard maintenance, and hours of operation
for construction activities.
As can be seen, there is a strong policy foundation for the municipal noise ordi-
nances that exist in Riverside County, and indeed throughout California: Even if
a local jurisdiction wanted to adopt a less restrictive noise ordinance, it is possi-
ble that such a change may trigger the need for a General Plan amendment.
Truck -Related Mitigation Measures in Environmental Documents
In addition to direct and indirect regulations, mitigation measures included in
Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) sometimes contain restrictions on truck
movements. Several jurisdictions were contacted to identify whether any such
8 http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/publications/General_ Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf.
3-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
40
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
mitigation measures are typically included in EIRs. Public works and/or plan-
ning staff in the following cities were interviewed:
• City of Riverside,
• City of Corona,
• City of Murrieta,
• City of Moreno Valley, and
• March Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
None of these jurisdictions indicated having any mitigation measures in place
that limit truck movements by time of day, with the exception of temporary
limitations on the movements of construction vehicles. However, some cities
have put other non -time -of -day, mitigation measures in place to minimize the
impact of trucks in the community. For example, development of the March
Business Center, a 1,290-acre property with extensive warehouse uses, required
implementation of several truck -related mitigation measures. These included the
designation of truck routes, placement of truck signage, installation of truck
choke points to prevent trucks from using certain roadways, separation of resi-
dential uses from truck routes, and construction of buffers/sound attenuators to
reduce noise impacts from the development9.
Summary
The prevalence of spatial restrictions on truck movements in Riverside County
suggests that truck traffic does present an issue for local jurisdictions. Evidence
from recent newspaper articles and discussions with planning staff at local juris-
dictions indicate that truck traffic issues are particularly acute around newly
developing industrial areas that abut residential areas. Similar issues occur
when new residential areas develop adjacent to existing industrial or warehouse
areas. In some cases, truck traffic stemming from these developments has stirred
community concerns.
By and large, municipalities appear to be addressing these concerns by restricting
trucks to certain routes, separating industrial and residential land uses, and
restricting overall noise levels. Direct temporal restrictions on truck movements
or warehouse hours of operation are not widespread throughout the County.
Further, many of the municipal noise restrictions have exemptions for short-term
excessive noise levels that frequently accompany itinerant sources such as truck
movements along a public roadway.
9 Source: Discussion with planning staff of the March JPA, and analysis of the March
Business Center Final Focused Environmental Impact Report, 2003.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-5
41
Goods Movement/lmck Operations Shift Analysis
3.2 BUSINESS OPERATIONS
The question remains as to what extent these restrictions influence the timing of
truck travel relative to other constraints, such as business considerations or the
costs of travel at certain periods. To answer these questions, interviews were
conducted with the following members of the trucking, logistics consulting, and
warehousing industries:
• Five of the largest trucking companies based in Riverside County. The com-
panies interviewed served the construction, beverage, and food services
industries.
• A representative of the California Trucking Association (CTA).
• The manager of a large distribution center located in the City of Riverside.
• A senior staff person at a major logistics consulting firm serving distribution
centers throughout Southern California.
Complete interview results are available in Appendix B.
Several themes emerged from the interviews.
Business constraints have a large impact on truck schedules. The interviews
revealed that business constraints have a far more powerful effect on the timing
of warehouse and trucking operations than do any other constraints. These con-
straints are unique to each industry and company.
The phrase "we are a customer service industry" came up several times in the
interviews with trucking companies. Trucking companies schedule their pickups
and deliveries based on the needs of their customers, which stem from the busi-
ness constraints just mentioned. Some examples of these customer needs include:
• One food service company's customers requires him to make deliveries at
midmorning and lunch break times. Delivery trucks must travel during peak
hours to meet this schedule. The trucks typically budget one to two hours on
either end of the trip to ensure timely delivery given the congested highway
conditions.
• One beverage delivery company indicated that his customers (primarily big -
box stores) schedule pickup and delivery times based on when they have
staff available to accept the delivery. Some companies have after-hours
operations, allowing him to schedule 25 percent of his deliveries during eve-
ning hours.
• One company that deliveries heavy construction equipment indicated that
they are able to make about 60 percent of equipment deliveries at night.
However, certain jobs require that the equipment be delivered during the
daytime, when specialized staff are available to receive it.
Regulations have a relatively small impact on truck schedules. Most of the
interviewees indicated that ordinances and restrictions play a small role in
3-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
42
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
shaping the timing of truck pickups and deliveries, or in shaping warehouse
hours of operation. However, permit loads and warehouses operating in close
proximity to residential areas are more influenced by truck restrictions. Exam-
ples of these influences include the following:
• Several trucking companies indicated that ordinances and restrictions have
limited impact on their pickup and delivery schedule. Often, these were the
same companies that made most deliveries during the day due to their cus-
tomers' needs.
• One trucking company, which delivers heavy construction equipment, indi-
cated that restrictive ordinances, particularly noise ordinances, have a strong
impact on scheduling. This sensitivity to noise is likely related to the fact that
this company primarily moves permit loads.
• One trucking company that delivers building materials indicated that cus-
tomers set pickup and delivery times based on what they are allowed to do in
their jurisdiction. Sometimes there are noise ordinances in place that affect
when they can schedule the deliveries. If those regulations were removed, it
would be up to the customers to say if they wanted deliveries after-hours.
• The CTA representative and the senior logistics consultant both indicated
that ordinances primarily impact trucks moving through residential areas.
Since distribution centers are primarily located outside of residential areas,
ordinances have less of an impact on them.
• A warehouse owner/operator in the City of Riverside indicated that local
ordinances and noise restrictions had little impact on his pickup and delivery
schedule. He maintains nighttime operations, except for the hours of
2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m., which is between shifts.
Nighttime delivery is only possible for certain industries. Following on the
theme of business constraints shaping pickup and delivery schedules, the inter-
views revealed that only certain industries are able to accept nighttime deliver-
ies. Many of those that can accept nighttime deliveries already do so. For
example,
• The senior logistics consultant indicated that most of the distribution centers
that accept nighttime deliveries are large importers/exporters. Large distri-
bution centers can take nighttime deliveries, because they maintain very
large yards that can fill up during the nighttime, and because they have the
resources to hire nighttime guards. Small distribution centers and stores do
not have the resources to stay open at night.
• One trucking company indicated that some of his warehouse customers
maintain nighttime operations, but others do not, because they do not want
to compromise the family lives of their workers.
• The representative of the CTA indicated that nighttime delivery comes with
risks and costs that only certain companies are willing to bear. These include:
Cambndge Systematics, Inc. 3-7
43
Goods Movement/Tntck Operations Shift Analysis
Higher cost of doing business at night,
- Higher labor costs at night,
- More theft of cargo at night, and
- More expensive to keep warehouses open at night.
Many trucks must travel during the peak hours. As a consequence of the busi-
ness constraints of their customers, many trucking companies must dispatch
trucks during peak -travel periods. These companies indicated that they often
leave several hours of buffer to ensure timely pickup and delivery during con-
gested periods. The representative of CTA pointed out that, regardless of the
timing of their trip, most trucks face congested conditions because these condi-
tions are no longer limited to certain times of day. In other words, there is no
longer a well-defined peak period.
3.3 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
A review of the regulatory and business operations information reveals that:
• Many Riverside County jurisdictions have truck route restrictions in place,
but time -of -day restrictions exist in only two communities in the County.
• Noise restrictions are quite common throughout the county, although many
of the ordinances have exemptions for short-term noise exceedances that
would likely be associated with truck movements. No examples of maxi-
mum lighting levels were found in municipal ordinances.
• The municipal noise restrictions are most strict in residential areas, which can
create problems as residential areas and industrial/warehouse areas are
developed in close proximity to each other. These noise conflicts may be
better addressed through greater attention during land use planning and site
development activities.
• There tends to be a strong two-way linkage between a city's General Plan
and municipal ordinances on the issue of noise. This linkage and policy
framework implies that noise ordinances tend to flow from a municipality's
General Plan process, and do not exist in isolation. Even if a local jurisdiction
wanted to adopt a less restrictive noise ordinance, it is possible that such a
change may trigger the need for a General Plan amendment.
• Business operation practices of receivers have a far more powerful effect on
the timing of warehouse and trucking operations than do any other con-
straints (including government regulations).
• Nighttime trucking operations currently exist, but are generally not wide-
spread due to business risks and costs that are generally unrelated to gov-
ernment regulations.
• Most trucks face congested conditions at some point during their trip because
congested conditions are now fairly pervasive throughout the day.
3-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
44
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
4.0 Local and National
Experiences With Time -of -Day
Policies
Increasing truck congestion is affecting many areas around the country, resulting
in negative air quality, safety, maintenance, and mobility impacts. Managing
these negative impacts, while retaining economic productivity associated with
truck movements, is a common challenge.
Some local jurisdictions have attempted to meet this challenge by either studying
or implementing time -of -day restrictions on truck movements. The few imple-
mentation examples have tended to coincide with limited duration events, such
as the Salt Lake City, Atlanta, and Los Angeles Olympic games. Nonetheless,
their experiences help to inform any policy choices being considered in Riverside
County.
This section synthesizes the experiences of other jurisdictions with truck time -of -
day restrictions, and provides relevant background information drawn from the
research literature. The section concludes with a synopsis of the lessons learned
from these sources.
4.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NCHRP Synthesis 314: Strategies for Managing Increasing Truck Traffic contains a
survey of truck congestion management practices at 28 state departments of
transportation (DOTS) and eight metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
around the country. The study found that the most common approaches to
coping with increased truck congestion are:
• Use of weigh -in -motion devices that communicate truck identity and weight
information electronically to enable the truck to bypass roadside weigh stations;
• Special climbing lanes for trucks;
• Restrictions on truck uses of certain travel lanes; and
• Improved incident management to keep traffic flowing after incidents
involving trucks.
In contrast to the measures listed above, time -of -day truck restrictions are not a
widespread strategy for coping with truck traffic congestion. Some states have
implemented time -of -day restrictions at spot locations (e.g., over the Hoover
Dam in Nevada), but most jurisdictions surveyed for the NCHRP report reported
avoiding time -of -day truck restrictions because of insufficient benefits and
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-1
45
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
potential implementation difficulties (Douglas, 2003). However, many states do
restrict permit trucks from traveling during certain hours due to safety issues
(Mannering et al.,1993).
Some academic researchers have raised concerns regarding the potential effec-
tiveness of peak -period truck bans, noting that:
• Trucks generally represent only a small proportion of peak -period traffic,
thus restrictions on trucks will not likely result in significant congestion
reduction (Grenzeback et al., 1990; Mannering et al., 1993; and Mussa and
Price, 2004).
• Time -of -day restrictions on trucks on certain roadways could result in diver-
sions of trucks to roadways that are not designed for trucks, resulting in
safety and maintenance issues (Mussa and Price, 2004).
• Latent demand may quickly consume any capacity freed up by truck restric-
tions (Mussa and Price, 2004; and Campbell, 1995).
• Peak -hour truck restrictions will not necessarily improve air quality since
emission rates are very sensitive to vehicle speed. Therefore, air quality
improvements will only result if the speed differential between the peak and
the off-peak period are great enough. In addition, if trucks divert to slow
moving roadways to avoid time -of -day bans on major arterials, their emis-
sions may increase. Accurate predictions of vehicle speeds are necessary to
determine the air quality impact of truck time -of -day restrictions (Campbell,
1995; and Mussa and Price, 2004).
4.2 ATLANTA 1996 SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES
The dual challenges of transporting thousands of visitors while maintaining
acceptable air quality led Atlanta city officials to aggressively implement a suite
of transportation control measures during the 1996 Olympic Games.
Measures included increases in the quantity and frequency of transit services;
outreach efforts to encourage voluntary shifts in normal working hours and
increased telecommuting; and closure of the downtown to private automobile
travel (Freidman et al., 2001). In addition, an outreach campaign was conducted
to encourage commercial vehicles to voluntarily consolidate their deliveries and,
as much as possible, shift them out of peak hours. This effort required the coop-
eration of private businesses (groceries, retailers, distribution centers, etc.), which
had to adjust their hours of operation to receive off-peak deliveries (Atlanta
Regional Commission, 2007b).
Traffic counts were collected at four locations through the metropolitan area to
gauge the impact of the transportation control measures on traffic volumes.
Weekday morning peak traffic counts decreased 22.5 percent from normal levels,
while 24-hour traffic counts showed little change from pre -Game levels. Much of
4-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
46
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
the reduction in peak -hour traffic can be attributed to heightened transit rider-
ship, which increased 217 percent during the Games (Friedman et al., 2007).
In addition, surveys of employers in metropolitan Atlanta indicated that there
was a widespread effort to adjust schedules around the Games, including
shifting of work hours; compression of the work week; and increased vacations
(Cambridge Systematics, 2001). There were no empirical studies of the impact of
truck delivery shifts on peak -hour traffic, since they were just one of many
changes in place during the Games.
However, anecdotal evidence from the freight industry indicates that shifts did
occur. Most freight stakeholders appreciated having the opportunity to deliver
during off-peak hours, since it allowed them to improve their bottom line by
reducing the costs associated with traveling during congested periods. Outside
of the Olympics, they are forced to travel during congested periods to meet the
delivery requirements of their customers (Atlanta Regional Commission, 2007b).
Off-peak deliveries are so attractive to the freight industry that they raised the
issue during recent discussions surrounding Atlanta's Freight Mobility Plan,
which is currently under development. The delivery industry, particularly Coca-
Cola, which is headquartered in Atlanta, suggested that an Olympics -style cam-
paign be conducted to encourage local businesses to accept off-peak deliveries.
The possibility of piloting such a campaign in a limited section of the City is
under discussion. It has been acknowledged that this type of pilot would require
working with the diverse delivery needs of local businesses to make off-peak
delivery possible. Some of these needs include just -in -time delivery (manufac-
turing sector), narrow delivery windows (grocery sector), and quick delivery of
hot cement to construction sites within three hours of mixing (construction
industry). More detailed needs are listed in Atlanta's Freight Mobility Plan
Needs Assessment (Atlanta Regional Commission, 2007a).
4.3 SALT LAKE CITY 2002 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
The Salt Lake City Olympic Games brought more than half a million visitors into
the City during several weeks in the winter of 2002. Increased transportation
demand from all the visitors was expected to create significant congestion issues
for the city if nothing was done to manage it.
Several steps were taken to contain congestion and meet the transportation needs
of the visitors. Those steps included deployment of enhanced Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) technology to help manage travel during the
games, development of the Olympics Games Transportation System to transport
spectators to and from events, and development of a "Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan to reduce "background" traffic levels during the
games.
The TDM plan was developed by a coalition of local agencies and a public rela-
tions consulting firm. It included a suite of measures designed to reduce
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ¢3
47
Goods Movement/I'ruckOperations Shift Analysis
background traffic by at least 20 percent for specific major routes impacted by
Olympic traffic. Strategies included encouragement of increased transit use, car-
pooling, shifting of work hours, and shifting of routes and times (especially for
trucks), and other approaches.
As in the Atlanta Olympics, adoption of these measures by the public and by
businesses was on a voluntary basis. Gaining their participation required exten-
sive outreach efforts. To encourage shifting/consolidation of truck routes and
delivery times, outreach was conducted to both trucking companies and to busi-
nesses on the receiving end.
In combination, the traffic management programs implemented during the
Olympics were very successful at containing congestion. Overall, total traffic
(including visitors and residents) were reduced 15 to 20 percent during the
Olympics from normal levels.
The extent to which shifts or reductions in truck movements contributed to the
drop in congestion is not certain. However, there is some evidence that truck
trips were reduced during the games. Truck counts collected at one site (Parley's
Canyon) during the games showed a reduction of daytime truck trips as com-
pared to normal levels. However, no corresponding increase in truck trips at
night was measured, indicating that there was no time -shifting of truck trips.
Rather, the daytime truck trips were either diverted to another route or foregone
during the Games.
The Utah DOT also collected truck counts at the truck Ports of Entry (POEs)
operated by Utah DOT. These showed that the number of entering trucks fell by
between 1,800 and 7,000 from normal levels, depending on the location. Percent-
age reductions in truck counts were not recorded. Truck counts at one of the
POEs showed some shifting from daytime to night.
4.4 CALIFORNIA URBAN FREEWAY GRIDLOCK STUDY
Concerned with rising peak -period congestion and growing volumes of large
trucks on freeways, the California Legislature commissioned the Urban Freeway
Gridlock Study in the late 1980s. The study assessed the extent of truck -related
freeway congestion in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco metropoli-
tan areas; and evaluated several strategies to cope with truck congestion,
including strategies to restrict truck freeway access by time of day.
The analysis of the nature of peak -period congestion in the three metropolitan
areas revealed that large truck volumes did not contribute significantly to free-
way congestion. Large trucks represented a small (two to three percent) propor-
tion of freeway traffic on all the highways that were sampled. The authors
pointed out that trucks were perceived as having a larger impact on congestion
than they actually were due to the high visibility of trucks in the traffic stream.
4-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
48
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
However, traffic incidents involving large trucks were found to contribute sig-
nificantly to nonrecurrent congestion. Truck -involved accidents were estimated
to account for 20 percent of the total cost of nonrecurrent congestion.
To address concerns surrounding the effects of trucks on traffic flow, the study
evaluated the candidate strategies for managing truck traffic. The strategies
were evaluated for their feasibility, likely impact on congestion, and likely eco-
nomic impact. The strategies assessed for the study were:
• Traffic management strategies. These strategies might include freeway
design improvements for trucks and ITS enhancements to benefit trucks.
These strategies would not reduce the number of trucks on the roadway, but
would likely reduce stop -and -go traffic somewhat and improve truck safety,
thus reducing congestion associated with incidents.
• Incident management. Enhanced incident management activities (e.g.,
reduction in time required to locate and clear incidents) would reduce some
of the nonrecurrent delay associated with truck -involved incidents. This
strategy is highly feasible and would build on programs already in place.
However, it would not address recurring congestion problems.
• Night shipping and receiving program. A nighttime shipping and receiving
program would reduce congestion by requiring that larger businesses (e.g.,
warehouses, oil refineries, etc.) do most of their shipping and receiving at
night. Smaller businesses would not be subject to the requirement due to the
heavy economic burden of maintaining nighttime hours. This strategy would
require buy -in from many industry groups, and could be vulnerable to legal
challenge. The economic impact would be costly, unless businesses could
find offsetting savings from conducting nighttime deliveries. The effect on
peak -period congestion would be small, but air quality would likely be
improved by reducing truck emissions during daylight hours.
• Peak -period freeway truck ban. This strategy would limit the hours in
which large trucks could operate on freeways. It would likely negatively
impact air quality, because engine emissions would increase as trucks divert
to slower arterial routes. Average freeway speeds would increase slightly,
but the ban would not significantly relieve peak -hour congestion, due to the
small percentage of trucks in the traffic stream. Moreover, such a ban would
be subject to legal challenge, as it could be judged to conflict with the Federal
government's mandate to protect interstate commerce.
Rather than choosing one of these strategies, the Urban Freeway Gridlock Study
recommended employing several of them to combat peak -period congestion.
The study's final recommendations were that the Caltrans should:
• Expand and intensify traffic management programs;
• Expand incident management programs;
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-5
49
Goods Movement/Tnzck Operations Shift Analysis
• Conduct a pilot program to determine if a cost-effective night shipping and
receiving program can be developed; and
• Research whether limited "spot" peak -period bans on trucks would be legally
justifiable for safety reasons.
Peak -period freeway bans over large sections of freeway were not recommended.
4.5 NEW YORK CITY DELIVERY INCENTIVES
More than 67 million trucks travel in and around New York City each year. The
intensity of truck traffic, combined with high levels of passenger vehicle conges-
tion, has created severe congestion problems for the City.
Nighttime delivery incentives have been explored as a means of reducing con-
gestion and the cost burden it imposes on the commercial sector. One study in
particular, entitled "Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Off -Peak Deliveries
to Restaurants in Manhattan, New York" (Hoguin-Veras et al., 2006), analyzed
the receptiveness of an important group of receivers, the restaurant sector in
Manhattan, to policies aimed at fostering off-peak deliveries.
The restaurant industry was targeted because restaurants are usually open
during the nighttime, and previous research suggested that both carriers and
receivers of these goods would be interested in off-peak deliveries. Furthermore,
it was estimated that the 6,500 current restaurant and drinking establishments in
Manhattan receive somewhere between 36,000 and 42,000 deliveries per day,
resulting in 18,000 to 21,000 daily truck trips, implying that even small changes
in the delivery patterns for these establishments could yield significant
improvements to the City's congested roads. As a point of reference, New York
City's 22 toll river crossings facilities administered by the various transportation
agencies handled over 43 million trucks in 2006. Assuming that these are dis-
tributed over a six -day week (excluding Sundays), this would equate to nearly
138,000 daily trucks, meaning that the restaurant and drinking places sector
represents approximately 13 percent to 15 percent of total truck traffic in Manhattan.
The survey asked receivers whether they would be willing to accept off-peak
deliveries provided that they were rewarded financially through four different
incentive programs:
1. Tax deductions for one worker,
2. Unspecified government subsidies,
3. Unspecified tax cuts, and
4. A 20-percent surcharge in shipping costs during the peak hour.
4-6 Cambridge Systematics,, lnc.
50
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
The results from these questions are shown in Table 4.1. As shown, more than
one-half of the establishments surveyed stated that they would be willing to
accept off-peak deliveries under the first two programs, nearly one-half
(46 percent) said they would do so if tax cuts were provided, and one-third said
that they would do so for a 20-percent reduction in shipping charges.
Those restaurants, located in commercial areas, already open during peak hours,
and those with long (multihour) deliveries were found to be more receptive to
the idea of receiving deliveries after hours. In addition, interviews with selected
restaurateurs revealed that the availability of a backdoor for nighttime delivery
and the restaurant's orientation (breakfast, lunch, dinner, and bar) are all
important considerations when determining if nighttime delivery is feasible.
These findings suggest that while some members of the restaurant industry can
accommodate off-peak deliveries, others cannot because of business and logisti-
cal constraints. Even generous incentives are not always enough to make up for
the business losses or logistical problems associated with off-peak deliveries.
4.6 LOS ANGELES TRUCK ORDINANCE
In 1987, the City of Los Angeles, with the strong backing of Mayor Tom Bradley,
developed a draft ordinance to establish a pilot program to regulate large truck
transportation during peak periods. The ordinance stated that 70 percent of
large trucks would be prevented from operation on city streets between 6:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m., and between 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The primary justification for
the ordinance was air quality considerations. The proposed restrictions were
highly controversial, and were dropped from discussion after Mayor Bradley's
term was ended (Campbell,1995).
Table 4.1 Receivers' Willingness to Accept Off -Peak Deliveries by Incentive
Incentive
Accept Off -Peak Deliveries?
Yes No
1. Tax deduction equal to salary of one worker doing off-peak 55AV/0 44.60%
deliveries
2. Govemment subsidy to restaurants receiving off-peak 57.80% 42.20%
deliveries (amount not specified)
3. Tax cut for companies receiving off-peak deliveries (amount 46.30% 53.70%
not specified)
4. 20% reduction in shipping charges during off-peak hours 33.33% 66.67%
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-7
51
Goods Movement/hick Operations Shift Analysis
4.7 BEIJING'S BADALING EXPRESSWAY
Although this case study is not an effort to move truck traffic to the off-peak
period, it presents a situation in which a mandate was issued to reduce truck
traffic on a particular highway. It also presents the immediate fallout from that
mandate.
The Badaling Expressway is a roadway in China that links Beijing to the Badaling
stretch of the Great Wall of China. It continues toward Yanking and leaves
Beijing, becoming- the Jingzhang Expressway. The original design of the
expressway was for the use of tourism vehicles traveling between the capital's
downtown and the Great Wall, but lately the expressway had become a crucial
route for trucks going from Beijing to other neighboring provinces like Hebei and
Shanxi.
Mayor Wang Qishan of Beijing cited the growing volume of truck traffic on the
expressway, in addition to the fact that many of these trucks were normally
being driven over their design weight limits as the cause for an increasing num-
ber of fatal accidents on the roadway. As a result, on December 14, 2005, the City
of Beijing banned overloaded vehicles and heavy trucks from the Badaling
Expressway, following a tragic accident that killed 24 people on December 5.
The new regulation has been tightly enforced, with 29 checkpoints along the
roads that lead to the Expressway, citing all truckers with loads exceeding 2 tons.
The new regulation added significant burdens on Highway 110, which is the
only alternate route that trucks can take to access Beijing's downtown area and
the Badaling. In the days after the ban took effect, the number of trucks using
the route reached 8,000 per day, while the highway is only designed to have
capacity for 2,500 to 3,000 vehicles per day. This volume of truck traffic, com-
bined with the time and effort involved in inspecting :trucks, led to queues
exceeding 2,000 trucks and extending over 30 kilometers (over 18 miles).
Authorities expressed that the ban of trucks on the expressway was only a make-
shift way to reduce traffic accidents on the expressway, and that a second
expressway was likely to be built connecting Changping and downtown Beijing
in the near future.
4.8 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
The case studies and background research presented in this section provide sev-
eral important lessons for any future application of time -of -day restrictions on
truck movements:
• Shifting truck schedules requires the cooperation of both shippers and receiv-
ers. During both the Atlanta and Salt Lake City Olympics, extensive outreach
was conducted to ensure both shippers and receivers could accept off-peak
deliveries.
4-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
52
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
• The Atlanta and Salt Lake City examples were short-term applications of
time -of -day initiatives. In both of these cases, normal economic activity in
the regions was interrupted, and businesses had the opportunity to avoid any
short-term interruptions by increasing inventories prior to implementation of
the time -of -day initiatives.
• Outright truck bans are legally and politically difficult to implement. The
Los Angeles and Beijing examples and the Urban Freeway Gridlock Study
demonstrate that there are difficult political and legal issues associated with
outright truck restrictions on freeways. Perhaps for these reasons, there are
few examples of freeway time -of -day restrictions on trucks.
• Some industries and businesses are more able to shift to off-peak deliveries
than others. The New York City delivery incentive study revealed some of
the business and geographic constraints that make receipt of off-peak deliv-
eries easier for some businesses than others. For example, restaurants located
in commercial areas were more open to receiving nighttime deliveries, pre-
sumably because they do not risk disturbing sleeping neighbors.
• Incentive programs could have an impact on shifting off-peak deliveries. The
New York City study shows the potential for incentive programs to be used
to encourage shifting of deliveries to after hours. However, the study
showed that only 50 percent of restaurant owners would accept an incentive
equivalent to the cost of additional staff necessary to accept the deliveries.
This confirms that issues beyond staff costs are at play in the scheduling of
deliveries.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-9
53
54
Goods Movement/Tinck Operations Shift Analysis
5.0 Potential Implementation
Strategies
This section identifies and evaluates three potential strategies that could be used
to influence the time -of -day travel patterns for trucks on Riverside County free-
ways. The strategies progress from passive, no -cost policy changes to more
direct initiatives that may entail a public -sector cost. None of the strategies
address time -of -day ordinances or restrictions at the city/county level since such
direct ordinances either do not exist or do not influence truck travel patterns.
5.1 LOOSEN NIGHTTIME NOISE RESTRICTIONS FOR
INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
Description
A thorough search conducted for this study revealed that few cities in Riverside
County have ordinances that directly limit truck movements by time of day.
However, many cities have noise ordinances in place that could be indirectly
confining some truck movements, or business hours of operation, to daytime
hours.
Interviews with representatives of cities and trucking companies suggest that
these ordinances only impact certain types of trucks in some areas. They appear
to have the greatest impact on large/heavy trucks moving in the vicinity of resi-
dential areas, and little to no impact on the schedules of other types of trucks.
Given this finding, it would seem that loosening noise ordinances in residential
areas would have the greatest effect on truck movements. But such a strategy
may be politically difficult given that noise ordinances are put in place to protect
residents from unwanted nighttime disturbances. Residents are not likely to
react positively to large increases in nighttime pickups and deliveries around
their homes.
An alternative strategy would be to work with cities to loosen noise ordinances
that may be directly or indirectly restricting truck movements in the vicinity of
industrial areas. This would potentially allow some trucks to make more of their
pickups and deliveries during off-peak periods.
Impact on Congestion and Air Quality
The research conducted for this review suggests that ordinances play a small role
in determining truck pickup and delivery schedules. While some trucking com-
panies, particularly those making deliveries of oversize loads, indicated that
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-1
55
Goods Moyement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
ordinances restrict their operations, the majority of those interviewed said that
business constraints, not ordinances, have the greatest impact on their pickup
and delivery schedules. For example, a food service delivery company reported
needing to make food deliveries in accordance with workers' morning and lunch
break periods. These customer needs determined the schedule.
Since ordinances have limited influence on truck schedules, the strategy of loos-
ening ordinances to encourage more nighttime delivery in industrial areas would
likely have a minimal effect on congestion and air quality. Only a small subset of
trucks would be affected, namely those who are currently operating in industrial
areas; whose customers could conceivably accept nighttime deliveries; and who
are currently limited from making such deliveries because of noise ordinances.
The research conducted for this study suggests that few trucking companies are
in this position.
Assuming this small subset of companies could be successfully targeted, the
impact on congestion and air quality would be small. In fact, congestion might
not be impacted at all, unless most of these companies currently travel during
congested periods. Some of them could already be traveling in the less -
congested midday time period.
Feasibility
As indicated in Appendix A, there are 14 cities in Riverside County that restrict
noise levels by time of day only or time of day plus land use, and there are an
additional 3 cities that restrict loading and unloading and/or excessive idling by
time of day.
Since many of these cities set higher allowable noise levels for industrial uses, the
question remains as to whether increases in nighttime shipping and receiving
activity would exceed the current standards. Undoubtedly this potential would
depend on the extent of the increase and the sensitivity of the surrounding land
uses. Further study may be needed to determine how much shipping and
receiving could increase without violating each city's standard.
If nighttime shipping and receiving activity could increase noise without vio-
lating proposed noise levels, those revised levels could be implemented. This
revision would involve contacting elected officials in the aforementioned 14 cities
and persuading them to propose an amendment to the municipal code. How-
ever, since many cities also include noise policies and mitigation measures in
their General Plans, amendments to the General Plan may also be required. If
such amendment is needed, the cost and complexity of modifying the noise ordi-
nances are likely to grow substantially.
Implementation of this strategy is feasible if a General PIan amendment is not
needed, but would require the cooperation of elected officials and planning staff
throughout Riverside County. As mentioned previously, gaining political buy -in
is most likely if the strategy is limited to industrial, rather than residential areas.
If the increases in noise adversely affect surrounding communities or conflict
5-2 Cambridge Systematics, inc.
56
Goods Movementffruck Operations Shift Analysis
with principles outlined in the city's General Plan, there could be political oppo-
sition to this strategy.
5.2 CREATE INCENTIVES FOR OFF-PEAK PICKUPS AND
DELIVERIES
Description
Overwhelmingly, trucking companies set their pickup and delivery schedules
according to their customers' needs. These needs vary from receiving lunchtime
deliveries of food to receiving hot cement at a construction site within a few
hours of mixing.
For a good share of industries, these schedules cannot be altered since they are
tied to the organization's business model or to major logistical constraints. A
simple example is fine restaurants lacking back doors. In the New York City case
study discussed previously, such restaurants reported they could not accept
nighttime deliveries, because they could not be loading and unloading boxes in
front of their customers.
However, there are undoubtedly some industries for whom nighttime or off-
peak deliveries make business sense, and many of them have already begun
operating after hours. A consultant contacted for this study indicated that most
major importers in the SCAG region operate after hours, because they have the
financial wherewithal to cover the higher cost of doing business at night, and
because they have large enough warehouses to accommodate containers accu-
mulated at nighttime.
There is a final group of businesses that is not currently accepting off-peak pick-
ups and deliveries, but could reasonably do so given appropriate incentives or
help to remove minor logistical barriers (including, for example, the nighttime
noise ordinances discussed previously). These businesses could include:
• Operators of small- to middle-sized warehouses not already operating at
night;
• Large big -box stores not already operating at night; and
• Small businesses already open at night (e.g., restaurants).
These businesses could be offered direct and indirect incentives for accepting off-
peak deliveries, including, for example, deductions or direct subsidies to offset
the costs of operating at night (e.g., the costs of maintaining additional staff,
nighttime guards; and so on). The incentives could be offered in proportion to
the amount of freight redirected to the nighttime. However, the incentives may
necessitate financial commitment from the public sector.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-3
57
Goods Movement/Thick ick Operations Shift Analysis
Impact on Congestion and Air Quality
The impact of this strategy on congestion and air quality would likely be small.
The program would only target trucks with destinations in Riverside County,
which are a minority of trucks on Riverside freeways. Moreover, only a small
share of those trucks with destinations in the County would be affected, namely
those servicing industries that are not already operating after hours, but would
do so if offered sufficient incentive. All in all, the percentage of trucks impacted
would be small, as would the likely congestion and air quality benefits. If the
program could be extended across multiple counties, the benefit would be
greater, as it would affect a greater proportion of trucks.
Feasibility
Since this would be an incentive program, there would be few legal or direct
political barriers to implementing it. However, there may be indirect political
barriers associated with identifying sources of funds to support the program.
One possibility would be to begin the program as a pilot in a small section of the
County. This would help determine whether any businesses would voluntary
shift hours without incentives, which types of businesses could shift with mini-
mal incentives, and which types of businesses would require major incentives.
The Atlanta Regional Commission is currently considering such a pilot program.
5.3 DIRECT RESTRICTIONS
Description
A direct alternative to the two strategies described above is to impose time -of -
day restrictions- on trucks moving on certain roadways. This strategy could be
used, for example, to restrict trucks during peak hours on certain freeways or on
certain arterial roadways within the County.
There are few examples of such time -of -day restrictions, although the State of
California and the City of Los Angeles have both studied them in the past.. In
both cases, it was decided not to implement the restrictions because of political
and economic concerns and logistical barriers.
Impact on Congestion and Air Quality
Depending on where they were implemented, freeway truck restrictions could
have a significant impact on congestion on the targeted facility. Along certain
sections of the I-10 and SR 60 freeways, for example, truck Annual Average Daily.
Traffic (AADT) exceeds 20,000, and trucks make up as much as 27 percent of
daily traffic.
On most freeways, however, trucks make up a much smaller percentage of traf-
fic, especially during peak -travel period. Several data sources analyzed for this
study suggest trucks likely make up between 7 to 10 percent of AM peak -period
54 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
58
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
traffic and between 5 to 7 percent of PM peak -period traffic on average. Trucks
make up a larger percentage of off-peak period travel.
Assuming time -of -day restrictions were implemented along the most heavily
used freeways, the congestion reduction benefits could be as high as 10 or
15 percent during peak periods on the impacted facility, assuming that the truck
volume reduction is not offset by increases in passenger car volumes. In an intercon-
nected transportation network, however, a single facility cannot be looked at in
isolation. There are several reasons to be cautious when considering the sys-
temwide benefits of a freeway time -of -day restriction:
• Most trucks' schedules are set by the needs of their customers, and there is
limited room for adjustment. Most trucks would likely shift their route
instead of their schedule in order to meet their customers' needs. Truck
congestion and pavement degradation would simply shift to other freeways
or local roadways.
• If trucks shift off freeways to local roadways, they may be forced to move at
slower speeds. Generally, slower speeds are associated with increased
emissions.
• Since there is a great deal of demand for peak -hour travel, it is probable that
any new capacity freed up by peak -hour truck restrictions would be quickly
consumed by passenger vehicles.
Feasibility
To determine the legality of time -of -day restrictions on freeways, interviews
were conducted with staff of Caltrans Goods Movement Division and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Freight Management.
Several legal barriers to time -of -day freeway restrictions were identified:
• The Federal government is charged with protecting interstate commerce.
Any large-scale restriction on trucks movements, whether on or off freeways,
could be challenged on the grounds it interferes with interstate commerce.
For example, the State of New Jersey recently tried to confine interstate truck
travel to a few major expressways in the State. The U.S. Third Circuit Court
of Appeals struck down the restriction because it violated the dormant com-
merce clause of the U.S. Constitutionlo.
• Several freeways in Riverside County, including most of SR 60 and SR 91, are
part of a Federally -designated National Network of truck routes, which are
set in law (23 CFR 28 658.11). States are prevented from restricting large-
10See American Trucking Association and US XPRESS, INC., vs. Christine Todd
Whitman, 2005, available online at http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2006/
042201p.pdf.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-5
59
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
truck operations on these routes. States are allowed to apply to the FHWA
for exceptions, including time -of -day restrictions. Approval of requests for
restrictions will be contingent on the ability to justify significant negative
impact on safety, the environment, and/or operational efficiency. The
FHWA staff interviewed for this study indicated that there is little precedent
for whether the FHWA would approve time -of -day restrictions because of
truck congestion. Exceptions based on safety considerations have been
accepted in the past.
• Any time -of -day restriction on state-owned highways would also have to be
approved by Caltrans. According to the Caltrans web site and interviews
with Caltrans staff, state law forbids highway restrictions to truck access,
except for "safety and engineering" reasons. There is no mention in the law
of time limitations. However, a peak -hour truck restriction would hinder
trucks from making deliveries and would probably, therefore, be considered
a restriction under the law. In order to enact a time restriction, it would be
necessary to validate a safety issue by traffic studyn.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
This report has focused specifically on the possibility of reducing truck traffic by
encouraging or requiring trucks to shift their activity patterns by time -of -day.
However, there are a several alternative short-term strategies to reduce truck -
related congestion. Exploring any one of these in detail is outside the scope of
this report. It is still worth noting, however, strategies that could be considered
in detail in later studies. A few examples include the following:
• Enhanced incident response programs. Traffic incidents, especially major
incidents involving trucks, tend to make up a large share of nonrecurrent
congestion. Incident response programs aimed at quickly removing inci-
dents from the roadways can reduce congestion and improve the predict-
ability of freeway travel.
• Traffic management strategies. Traffic management strategies, such as
reconstruction of high accident ramps, enforcement of safe truck operation,
and provision of real-time traffic information can help reduce accidents, and
therefore congestion, associated with trucks.
• Value pricing. Applying pricing schemes to congested freeways can, be a
very effective method of congestion reduction. In the United States, pricing
schemes have been applied primarily to new freeway capacity, but have been
used successfully abroad to reduce congestion across entire freeways or geo-
graphic areas.
I'See http://www.dotca.gov/hq/traffops/trucks/trucksize/fs-restrict.htm.
5-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
60
Goods MovemenVlruck Operations Shift Analysis
5.5 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
Table 5.1 presents a summary of the feasibility, air quality, and congestion
impacts of the strategies discussed above. They are rated as low, moderate, and
high for their potential to reduce air quality and congestion problems; and as
easy, moderate, and difficult in terms of their feasibility.
Table 5.1 Matrix of Strategies
Feasibility Impact on
(Easy, Moderate, Impact on Freeway
or Difficult) Air Quality Congestion
Loosen ordinances in industrial
areas
Create incentives for off-peak
pickups and deliveries
Direct restrictions
Moderate Low Low
Moderate Low Low
Difficult Could worsen Moderate
air quality
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-7
61
62
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
6.0 References
Atlanta Regional Commission, 2007a, Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan:
Draft Needs Assessment, Section 7: Freight Operating Systems Profile,
http:/ / www.atlantaregional.com/ FreightMobility/files/ Operating_Systems_Pr
ofile.pdf
Atlanta Regional Commission, 2007b, personal communication, September 2007.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2001, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 462: Quantifijing Air Quality and Other Benefits and Costs of
Transportation Control Measures, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.
Campbell, J., 1995, Peak Period Large Truck Restrictions and a Shift to Off -Peak
Operations: Impact on Truck Emissions and Performance, Journal of Business Logistics,
1995.
Douglas, J., 2003, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 314:
Strategies for Managing Increasing Truck Traffic, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C.
Friedman, M., K. Powell, L. Hutwagner, L. Graham, and G. Teague, 2001, Impact
of Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviors During the 1996 Summer
Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma, Journal of the
American Medical Association, 285: 897-905.
Glazer, L. J., and R. Cruz, 2003, Intelligent Transportation Systems at the 2002 Salt
Lake City Winter Olympic Games: Event Study— Traffic Management and Traveler
Information, prepared for the Utah Department of Transportation.
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS TE//13850.htm1# Toc3
6976688, accessed September 10, 2007.
Grenzeback, L., W. Reilly, P. Roberts, and J. Stowers,1990, Urban Freeway Gridlock
Study: Decreasing the Effects of Large Trucks on Peak -Period Urban Freeway Congestion,
Transportation Research Record 1256, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Holguin-Veras, J., N. Perez, B. Cruz, and J. Polimeni, 2006, Effectiveness of Financial
Incentives for Off -Peak Deliveries to Restaurants in Manhattan, New York, Transportation
Research Record No. 1966., Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Mussa, R., and G. Price, 2004, Safety and Operational Evaluation of Truck Lane
Restriction on Interstate 75, prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-1
63
64
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Appendix A. Noise Ordinance
Overview
Table A.1 presents, for cities in Riverside County, an overview of the nature of
noise restrictions that may be affecting the movement of trucks or business hours
of operation. The types of restrictions are described in the following sections and
an example is provided for each restriction.
Noise Standard by Time of Day and Land Use
Twelve cities set noise standards by time of day for different land uses. These
standards apply principally to fixed sources of noise. Many cities exempt road-
way traffic noise, indicating that such noise is better governed through the prin-
cipals set forth in the city's General Plan (all California cities must include a
noise element in their General Plan). Some cities allow the noise levels to be
exceeded for short periods of time. An example from the City of Banning
municipal code is as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated, any single
or combination of fixed source or non -stationary source type of equipment or
machinery except construction equipment used in connection with construction
operations, that individually or collectively constitute an identifiable sound
source in such a manner as to cause the sound level at any point on the property
line of any properhy to exceed by five (5) decibels or more, the noise level limits
set forth in subsection C.1, plus allowances for time duration in subsection C.2.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-1
65
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Subsection C.1
Sound Level
(A -weighted)
Zone Time Decibels
Residential Low Density
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 50
6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 45
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 40
Residential High Density
7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
60
55
50
Commercial
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 60
6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
Industrial
7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
10 p.m. to 7a.m.
70
60
55
Subsection C.2
Duration of Sound dl3(A) Allowance
Up to 30 minutes per hour + 3
Up to 15 minutes per hour + 6
Up to 10 minutes per hour + 8.
Up to 5 minutes per hour +11
Up to 2 minutes per hour +15
Up to 1 minute per hour +18
Up to 30 seconds per hour +21
Up to 15 seconds per hour +24
A-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
66
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Table A.1 Noise Ordinance Overview by Jurisdiction
Cathedral City
City Of Blythe
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Cal imesa
City of Coachella
City of Corona
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Hemet
City of Indian Wells ✓
City of Indio
City of La Quinta
City of Moreno Valley ✓
City of Murrieta ✓
City of Norco
City of Palm Desert ✓
City of Palm Springs ✓
City of Perris
City of Rancho Mirage ✓
City of Riverside ✓
City of San Jacinto
City of Temecula
Notes: All cities mention the issue of unwanted noise in their municipal ordinance. However, very generic
noise restrictions (e.g., general prohibitions against loud, annoying noises), were not catalogued.
Not all noise restrictions were catalogued. For example, very specific restrictions on the operations
of garbage trucks, ice cream trucks, and construction vehicles were not catalogued, though they
are common. Staff at the City of Canyon Lake were not available to assist with a search of the
municipal code and the municipal code was not available for Internet review. The City of Lake
Elsinore did not respond to repeated messages, and the municipal code was not available for
Internet review.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-3
67
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Noise Standard by Land Use Only
Three cities set noise levels by land use only, and do not differentiate allowable
levels by time of day. An example from the city of Hemet municipal code is as
follows:
...no use, except a temporanj construction operation, shall be permitted which
creates noise of a maximum sound pressure level greater than the value given at
the locations given in the following table. The sound pressure levels shall be
measured in decibels (0.002 dynes per square centimeter) with a sound level
meter and associated octave band filter conforming to standards prescribed by the
United Sates of America Standards Institute. Sound shall be muffled so as not to
become objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness.
NOISE LEVELS
Octave Band
(Cycles Per Second)
Zone Boundary Zone Boundary
M-1 M-2
Below 75 72 79
75-149 59 74
150-299 52 66
300-599 46 59
600-1,199 42 53
1,200-2,399 39 47
2,400-4,799 34 41
4,800 and above 32 39
Noise Standard by Time of Day Only
Two cities set a noise standard that varies by time of day but not by land use. An
example from the city of Perris municipal code is as follows:
...it is unlawful for any person to willfully make, cause or suffer, or permit to be
made or caused, any loud excessive or offensive noises or sounds which unrea-
sonably disturb the peace and quiet of any residential neighborhood or which are
physically annoying to persons of ordinary sensitivihj or which are so harsh,
prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to occasion
physical discomfort to the inhabitants of the city, or any section thereof. The
standards for dBA noise level in Section 7.34.040 shall apply to this section. To
the extent that the noise created causes the noise level at the property line to
exceed the ambient noise level by more than 1.0 decibels, it shall be presumed that
the noise being created also is in violation of this section.
A-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
68
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Time Period Maximum Noise Level
10:01 p.m.-7:00 a.m. 60 dBA
7:01 a.m.-10:00 p.m. 80 dBA
Exemption for Motorized Vehicles
The noise thresholds set by time of day and land use apply principally to station-
ary sources of sound. Six cities explicitly exempt motor vehicles from the noise
standards applied to stationary sources. Several cities indicate that noise from
motor vehicles is addressed in the General Planning process (California cities are
required to have a noise element in their general plan), and several also mention
that noise from motor vehicles is regulated by the California Motor Vehicle Code
and the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972. Examples from Cathedral City and
Moreno Valley follow.
Cathedral City
The following activities and noise sources shall be exempt from the provisions of this
chapter:
A. Those noise events in the communihj (e.g., airport noise, arterial traffic noise, rail-
road noise) that are more accurately measured by application of the general plan
noise element policy, utilizing the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) method.
City of Murrieta
The following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
H. Motor, Vehicles on Public Right -of -Way and Private Property. Except as provided
in this chapter, all vehicles operating in a legal manner in compliance with local,
state, and Federal vehicle noise regulations within the public right-of-way or on pri-
vate property.
Transportation -Specific Noise Standards
Three cities set noise standards that specifically targets noise from transportation
or land uses adjacent to transportation facilities. Two cities (Calimesa and Perris)
simply make reference to the California Motor Vehicle Code, which already sets
noise limits by vehicle. Corona sets decibel limits by land uses adjacent to trans-
portation facilities. An example from the city of Corona follows:
(a) Roadway noise. A noise study shall be performed prior to the construction of
new master planned roads, roadway improvements, rail lines and/or prior to the
construction of residential or sensitive land uses adjacent to existing or master
planned roads or railways. The noise study shall identlfij the existing and future
noise contours for the roadway and propose mitigation measures to reduce the
noise impacts to a maximum of 65 dBA CNEL in the private outdoor living area
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-5
69
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
of residences and to a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL for residen-
tial and sensitive Iand uses, as shown in Table 2.
b) Airport noise. Sensitive land uses, site -built homes, and institutional uses are
prohibited in airport noise contours above 65 dBA CNEL. All subdivisions
within two miles of the Corona Municipal Airport or within the 65 dBA CNEL
contour shall show and record an aviation easement for the benefit of the airport.
The aviation easement shall provide notification to potential buyers and occu-
pants of the presence of the easement and the potential for over flights and air-
craft noise.
Noise studies required. As referenced in division c) of this section, there are
essentially two different types of noise sources that have been identified in
Corona and each has its own noise metrics as well as its own required noise
studies. The noise metrics used for transportation related noise sources is the
CNEL which is a 24 hour time weighted average noise level. The noise metrics
used for stationary sources are defined as noise levels that cannot be exceeded for
certain percentages of time.
Restrictions on Loading and Unloading
Five cities restrict the times that loading and unloading activities can take place.
Some cities specifically mention that the restriction only applies to loading and
unloading of containers or trash into trash compacters. An example from the city
of Indio follows:
(B) Controlled hours of operation. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Chapter 151 of this code it shall be unlawful for any person to operate, permit,.
use or cause to operate, any of the following:
(2) Loading and unloading of vehicles, operating of fork lifts or cranes within
1,000 feet of a residence [exempted if distance from residential area exceeds 1,000
feet or as it may be reduced by the Planning Commission subject to design review
or conditional use permit]; and
(3) Construction tools and machinery.
Other than between the hours of
(1) Pacific Standard Time.
(a) Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.
(b) Saturday, 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.
(c) Sunday, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.
(d) Government Holidays, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.
(2) Pacific Daylight Time.
(a) Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.
(b) Saturday, 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.
(c) Sunday, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.
A-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
70
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
(d) Government Holidays, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.
Restrictions on Idling
Four cities restrict idling of large vehicles by time of day, unless the idling is
caused by traffic congestion. Example from the city of Desert Hot Springs:
No person shall operate or permit the operation of any motor vehicle with a gross
vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds, or any auxiliary equipment
attached to such a vehicle, including but not limited to refrigerated truck com-
pressors, for a period longer than 15 minutes in any hour while the vehicle is
stationary, on a public right-of-way or public space, and within 150 feet of a resi-
dential dwelling or noise sensitive zone, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m., for reasons other than traffic congestion.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-7
71
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Appendix B. Interviews
Trucking Company 1
Person interviewed:
Dispatcher
Based in: City of Riverside Fleet size: 300-350 trucks Area: Construction sites all
over California
What is the business? Delivery of heavy construction equipment (e.g., paving equipment —often wide, low -bid loads).
Does the company by to avoid peak -hour traffic? Traffic is a nightmare and the firm does everything it can to avoid it. The
fimi splits shifts so that they have an early morning and evening (after 6:00 p.m.) shift to avoid traffic.
How much do the trucks have to travel during the peak hour? The firm avoids having trucks travel during the peak hour
as much as possible. However, at times it is forced to travel during the peak hour, because there are no alternative routes
(due to bridge height restrictions, load restrictions, etc.), and in cases where it has a job that requires accessing the freeway.
As an example, they currently have a job on the 1-60 freeway that requires them to make deliveries during peak hours even
though traffic is extreme.
Is the company constrained by local ordinances when it sets its pickup and delivery times? They often are required to
get permits to travel through local areas with large !oversize loads. They would like to be able to move more freely later at
night, but noise laws keep them from doing so.
Does the company ever do nighttime deliveries? They sometimes move their equipment at nighttime to get it ready for the
next day. It is easier for them to do this in unincorporated areas of the County where there are fewer residents to be disturbed
by the noise.
Trucking Company 2
Person interviewed: Based in: Mira Loma Fleet size: 150-200 for -hire Area: Deliveries all over
Dispatcher trucks the West Coast
What is the business? This firm is a for -hire trucking company. Most of its work is with the beverage industry. It does
pickups from the warehouses of big beverage companies like Nestle water and Tropicana, and then delivers them to
distribution warehouses or directly to large stores such as COSTCO. It rarely makes deliveries to small stores.
Does the company try to avoid peak -hour traffic? They do not make a concerted effort to avoid peak -hour traffic. They
simply budget extra time for the trip depending on where they must make the delivery. If it is a local pickup, they allow an extra
hour; and if it is to downtown Los Angeles, they would allow an extra hour to two hours on either end.
How much do the trucks have to travel during the peak hour? About 75 percent of their deliveries are during the day.
They operate at the behest of their customers. Their customers schedule the pickup and delivery times, based on when they
have the staff availability and they try to meet the request, so they often have to travel in congested conditions.
Is the company constrained by local ordinances when it sets its pickup and delivery times? In a few (5 percent) cases,
local noise ordinances have affected their schedules, but it rarely occurs.
Does the company ever do night-time deliveries? About 25 percent of their deliveries are nighttime deliveries. They do
these deliveries when their customer asks for them. Again, they do not schedule their deliveries; their customers do. Some of
the larger customers maintain 24-7 operations at their warehouses, so some of them want to schedule deliveries at nighttime.
But a lot of them feel their employees' need to have time off at night to be with their families, so they avoid 24-7 operations.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc B-1
73
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Trucking Company 3
Person interviewed: Based in: Riverside Fleet size: 50-100 Area: Southem Califomia
Dispatcher
What is the business? They deliver large pavement -grinding machines to construction sites throughout Southern Califomia.
They do some deliveries to the ports, but it is not a big part of their business.
Does the company try to avoid peak -hour traffic? Yes. They try to make all of their deliveries at night or in the very early
morning so they avoid peak -hour traffic. For example, if their drivers have to be in Los Angeles in the moming, they will leave
at 4:00 a.m.
How much do the trucks have to travel during the peak hour? Sometimes they have to travel during the day because of
job constraints, such as when they need to meet someone at the job site to move the equipment with a special moving vehicle. .
Is the company constrained by local ordinances when it sets its pickup and delivery times? They are somewhat
constrained by local regulations. They are aware of all the local ordinances and they work around them. For example, they
cannot go into the City of Los Angeles between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and they cannot deliver in Irvine after dark. They
work around these regulations and they affect their scheduling somewhat. However, they are able to make about 60 percent
of their deliveries at night (between 6:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m.). The other 40 percent of deliveries are scheduled during the day,
mostly because of because of job constraints.
Does the company ever do nighttime deliveries? Sixty percent of their deliveries are at night..
Trucking Company 4
Person interviewed: Based in: Mira Loma Fleet size: 50-100 Area: Inland empire
Dispatcher (Riverside and San
Bemardino)
What is the business? They deliver food (lunch trucks and industrial catering trucks) and vending machines.
Does the company try to avoid peak -hour traffic? They cannot avoid peak -hour traffic. All of their trucks leave the yard at
6:00 a.m., and most return by 2:30 p.m.
How much do the trucks have to travel during the peak hour? Their trucks have to travel during the peak hour because of
their customer's needs. The customers indicate when they are planning to take their lunch and morning breaks, and they have
to be there with the delivery during those break times.
Is the company constrained by local ordinances when it sets its pickup and delivery times? Most of their trucks are
smaller trucks. They never have issues with noise ordinances or any other ordinances. Ordinances do not affect their
schedules at all. They noted that ordinances are only a problem with very big trucks.
Does the company ever do nighttime deliveries? No.
Trucking Company 5
Person interviewed: Based in: Norco Fleet size: 50-100 Area: Plants located all
Dispatcher over Califomia and the
Southwest (Arizona and
Nevada)
What is the business? They deliver building materials (bricks, stone, and wood) to companies such as Home Depot, tile
stores, and other businesses.
Does the company try to avoid peak -hour traffic? No. They serve their customer's needs. They schedule the deliveries
according to their customers' request.
How much do the trucks have to travel during the peak hour? About 75 percent of their deliveries are made throughout
the day, with the exact time depending on their customer's schedule. When they must travel in congested conditions, they
budget an extra hour or two hours on each end.
Is the company constrained by local ordinances when it sets its pickup and delivery times? Indirectly. Their customers
set the pickup and delivery times based on what they are allowed to do in that jurisdiction. Sometimes there are noise
ordinances in place that affect when they can schedule the deliveries. If those regulations are removed, it would be up to their
customers to say if they wanted deliveries after-hours.
B-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
74
Goods Movement/Truck Operations Shift Analysis
Does the company ever do nighttime deliveries? About 25 percent of their deliveries occur after hours. Some of their
customers (e.g., Home Depot) stay open relatively late and so they ask for deliveries after hours. Once again, they make
deliveries based on their customer's schedule. They are a customer -service company.
Trucking Association
Person interviewed: Intermodal Chairperson
What is your sense of delivery constraints on trucks in the evening periods? Why/why don't they deliver during the
evening? Trucks serve their customers. When they are on the road during peak periods, it is because of their customers.
When they deliver at night, it is also because of their customers. Also, there is no such thing as a "peak" period in California
any more. The freeways are congested all day.
• Nighttime delivery has risks,
• Higher cost of doing business,
• Higher labor cost,
• More theft of cargo at night, and
• More expensive to keep warehouses open at night.
What about ordinances? How much do they restrict truck movements? Ordinances have an impact on trucks going into
residential areas. The big distribution centers tend to be far from residential areas, so ordinances do not have as much of an
impact on them.
Logistics Consulting Firm
Person interviewed: Senior Based in: Long Beach
consultant
What is the business? A management consulting firm providing supply chain management strategy, operations, technology,
and organization solutions to distribution centers throughout Southern California.
What is your experience with nighttime deliveries at warehouses? In general, who can make them and who can not?
The largest importers can take nighttime deliveries because they maintain very large yards. A number of the top 100 importers
are located in Riverside County. They can take large deliveries because they are big enough to be able to hire a nighttime
guard and to keep staff around, and because they can accumulate containers in their yard.
Small importers do not have the extra staff available, and they do not have the space. Normally, they will receive one small
load of containers during the day, unload them, and then a truck will come again and take the empty containers out to make
space for another load. If they receive the nighttime delivery, the containers would accumulate and there is not space for that.
How much do local ordinances restrict the warehouses? If the warehouses are near residential areas, they might be
restricted from operating at night. It is common for the community to come together to prevent the warehouse from operating
at night. This happened with Big 5 Sporting Goods in Riverside.
Distribution Center
Person interviewed: Based in: Riverside
Distribution center manager
Note: This company was not willing to answer detailed questions. The interviewee indicated that they maintain nearly
24 operations at their distribution center, and that they are not restricted by local ordinances. This is interesting given that
there was a great deal of press surrounding the issue of nighttime operations at this warehouse; the community was heavily
opposed to warehouse construction and the possibility of nighttime operations.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-3
75