TR NEW

S 284 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013

45

The author is VicePresident, ChristensenAssociates, Madison,Wisconsin.

Asmoothly functioning freight transportationnetwork is part of the nation’s critical infra-structure and is essential to the U.S. econ-

omy. Transportation services deliver raw andintermediate materials to producers and final prod-ucts to retailers and customers. Freight and its trans-portation are an integral part of supply chainmanagement (see Figure 1, below).

According to the most recent U.S. CommodityFlow Survey, on average, 42 tons of freight worth$39,000 were delivered to every person in the UnitedStates in 2007. In terms of distances traveled, thatapproximates 11,000 ton-miles of freight per per-son. This is equivalent to carrying one ton of freightfor every man, woman, and child in the United States11,000 miles.

The shares of domestic ton-miles of truck andrail freight increased significantly between 1980 and2007, as shown in Figure 2 (above, right). Associatedwith the increases were significant pieces of legisla-tion that largely deregulated these industries—theStaggers Rail Act of 1980 and the Motor Carrier Actof 1980. Intermodal shipments also are growing, par-ticularly for truck and rail, in terms of ton-miles,and for truck and air for higher-value and time-sen-sitive shipments.

In addition, the freight transportation system is amajor employer. In 2008, 4.5 million people wereemployed in transportation and warehousing indus-tries in the United States, a little more than 3 percentof total U.S. employment.

Conflicts in Land UsesPopulation growth, rising incomes, and other aspectsof economic growth have led to increased competi-tion for the land resources around freight corridorsand facilities. Competing and incompatible land usesin close proximity often interfere with each other,leading to conflicts—this has become a significantproblem for freight transportation operations. Theexpansion of incompatible land uses, especially inAmerica’s burgeoning megaregions, raises seriousthreats to the freight transportation system.

National Cooperative Freight Research Program(NCFRP) Report 16, Preserving and Protecting FreightInfrastructure and Routes, provides a perspective onthe importance of the freight transportation systemand presents tools and strategies to resolve or mini-mize conflicts that arise when nonfreight land uses

Preserving and Protecting FreightInfrastructure and RoutesM A R K E . M E I T Z E N

NEW COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS REPORT

28.6

18.5

39.5

27.4 26.9

19.6

27.1

12.0

.1 .30%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Air Truck Rail Water Pipeline

1980 2007

FIGURE 2 Shares of domestic ton-miles by mode,1980 and 2007.

FIGURE 1 Role of freighttransportation inproduction anddistribution.

Improved TransportationInfrastructure• Greater speed• More reliability• Lower transportation

cost

Production• Optimized production

locations• Lower production cost• Lower inventory levels

Economic Benefits• Lower prices• More product variety• Economic growth and

efficiencyDistribution• Optimized distribution

network• Lower inventory levels• Lower distribution cost

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 45

TR N

EWS

284

JAN

UARY

–FEB

RUAR

Y 20

13

46

are in proximity to freight corridors and facilities.The project also produced the EnvisionFreight web-site (see box, below), which provides detailed infor-mation on the tools and strategies. Table 1 (above)shows the conflicts that arise when various land usesare adjacent to freight corridors and facilities.

Causes of ConflictThe NCFRP project identified the following factorsas underlying causes of conflict between freight andnonfreight land uses:

u Planning for freight is generally inadequate;u Zoning approaches to freight are typically inad-

equate;u Funding for planning, corridor preservation,

and conflict mitigation is often lacking or insuffi-cient; and

u Communication among stakeholders is lack-ing.

From the perspective of freight interests, conflictswith other land uses often impede economically effi-

The NCFRP project developed the EnvisionFreight websitea

for a range of stakeholders working to prevent, consider,and deal with the conflicts that arise becauseof the proximity of incompatible land uses tofreight facilities.

For planners and elected officials, thewebsite explains the role of freight in thelocal, national, and global economy; theissues and impacts that may arise from landuse conflicts; and the kinds of tools, scenar-ios, communication, and educational out-reach that can improve freight planning andpreservation.

For developers, the website assists in iden-tifying freight activities that may affect andintersect with residential and other types ofland uses, in choosing appropriate sites, and

in incorporating construction and mitigation components toreduce conflicts.

For freight entities, EnvisionFreight pro-vides education and assistance in land useplanning and zoning processes.

For individual citizens or communitygroups, the website provides basic informa-tion about the various freight modes, theimpacts of freight activity and proximity toincompatible land uses, and the tools avail-able to plan for freight effectively.

For state legislators and staff, Envision-Freight provides information and ideas forpotential legislative changes to facilitate theintegration of freight and land use planning.

awww.envisionfreight.com.

EnvisionFreightOnline Information for a Range of Users

TABLE 1 Conflicts Between Freight and Other Land Uses

Noise-sensitive uses Dwelling units (residential, motels, etc.); educational (childcare, schools, colleges, etc.); libraries; hospitals and other residential health care providers;playgrounds

Light-sensitive uses Dwelling units; hospitals and other residential health care providers

Vibration-sensitive uses Dwelling units; educational; vibration-sensitive industries (e.g., precision high-tech); buildings not constructed to withstand fatigue caused by rail vibrations

Pollution- and air quality– Dwelling units; medical (hospitals and other residential health care providers); sensitive uses educational (childcare, schools, colleges, etc.); park and recreational facilities

Uses requiring potentially Dwelling units; educational; libraries; hospitals and other residential care pro-incompatible at-grade crossings viders; commercial; emergency services; park and recreational health facilities

Uses associated with the Dwelling units; education uses (especially childcare facilities and potential for dangerous trespass schools); libraries; playgrounds; commercial

Time-sensitive uses Nighttime-sensitive dwelling units; hospitals and residential care facilities

Traffic- and congestion- Dwelling units; emergency services; residential health care facilitiessensitive uses

Height-sensitive uses Residential and commercial, with possible impact on flight paths at approachand landing

TR NEW

S 284 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013

47

cient freight transportation. In addition, barriers canarise from insufficient funding for the maintenanceor expansion of freight facilities and corridors andfrom public policy decisions that impede or do notsufficiently accommodate the needs of freight trans-portation. Impediments include the following:

u Speed restrictions,u Restrictions on hours of operation,u Physical encroachment into freight corridors,

andu Impacts on transportation routing decisions.

Local jurisdictions have an incentive to maximizeproperty and sales tax revenues. This can create pres-sure to change zoning designations to generategreater tax revenues. Demand for affordable landnear city and downtown amenities has aggravatedthis issue, because many freight facilities—especiallyrailroads and rail yards—historically are situated inthese areas.

Freight-Compatible DevelopmentThe project developed the concept of freight-com-patible development as a guiding principle for land useplanning and development. The main objectives areas follows:

u Ensure that freight transportation–related ser-vices are not affected by, or do not affect, other landuses that are placed close to the freight corridor orfacility;

u Reduce and minimize community impacts thatarise from the proximity of sensitive land uses,including residences, schools, hospitals, and emer-gency services; and

u Incorporate the preservation and protection offreight facilities and corridors as a forward-lookingcomponent of general planning and economic devel-opment policies.

Tools for achieving freight-compatible develop-ment fall into four main areas: long-range planning,

Freight-compatibledevelopment ensuresthat rail facilities andresidential or othercommunity land uses cancoexist successfully.

PHO

TO: J

OH

ND

ON

GES

Long-Range Planning Zoning and Design Mitigation Education and Outreach

State enabling acts

Regional visioning

Comprehensive plans

Freight facility inventories

Official maps

Purchase and advanceacquisition

Land swaps

Protective condemnation

Permit development

Access rights

Zoning standards

Buffer areas

Overlay districts

Lot orientation

Property design

Construction standards

Soundproofing standards

Buffer areas

Noise and vibrationtreatment

Track treatment

Yard realignment

Grade-crossingmanagement

Port gate management

Environmental measures

Zoning measures

Public outreach andeducation

Relocation

Informal negotiations

Public involvement

Multijurisdictionalagreements

Public outreach andeducation

Stakeholder roundtablesand freight–communitycommittees

TABLE 2 Tools to Achieve Freight-Compatible Development

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 47

TR N

EWS

284

JAN

UARY

–FEB

RUAR

Y 20

13

48

zoning and design, mitigation, and education andoutreach (Table 2, page 47). The project’s analysis ofthese tools led to suggestions for preserving and pro-tecting freight infrastructure and routes. Mitigationis often a final resort in resolving conflicts, and mostmitigation activities are expensive to implement andhave uncertain outcomes. In contrast, planning is aproactive tool that suggests actions for freight-com-patible development.

New Planning DialogueLand use planning is the primary forum for avoidingconflicts between freight and other land uses and forhelping in the preservation of freight corridors andfacilities. In general, however, land use planningprocesses inadequately accommodate freight needs.

Because the primary responsibility for land useplanning lies with local jurisdictions, any planningfor freight needs is piecemeal; most freight trans-portation corridors transcend jurisdictional bound-aries. State and regional planning agencies typicallydo not have the land use planning authority to fill thegap in freight planning. For example, metropolitanplanning organizations are not authorized to conducttransportation planning outside of their areas, andregional visioning exercises generally do not dealadequately with freight. This problem is often exac-erbated by a lack of effective communication amongfreight and land use and transportation planningstakeholders.

No single entity at the federal level has responsi-bility for freight planning, financing, or projectimplementation. Multiple federal agencies overseedifferent aspects of the U.S. freight network, but nonehas authority over land use planning. Federal fund-ing for freight preservation and protection activitieshas been sporadic; moreover, significant portions ofthe U.S. freight network are privately owned.

With the emergence of freight megaregions over-lapping state and national boundaries, a new plan-ning dialogue is necessary. Tools and strategies tominimize and resolve conflicts between freight andother land uses are needed in long-range planning,zoning and design, mitigation, and education andoutreach.

Planning decisions in the next decade will be crit-ical to future transportation system efficiencies andregional competitiveness. Local and regional freightplanning will require highly skilled freight trans-portation planners, new planning strategies andtools, community support, longer-term regionalvisioning, and legislative authority.

A significant research effort is needed. Until thefindings are put to practical use, the conflictsbetween freight and nonfreight interests will not sub-side.

Suggested Actions1. Amend state enabling acts to require states,

local jurisdictions, and planning agencies to account

An intermodal train ofdouble-stackedcontainers and trailerspasses a commuter railstation near Lisle, Illinois,along the BNSF ChicagoSubdivision railroad. Newfreight megaregions thatcross state and nationalboundaries require newtools to address land useconflicts.

PH

OTO: V

XLA, F

LICK

R

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 48

TR NEW

S 284 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013

49

for freight in transportation planning and land useplanning.

2. Provide guidance to land use planners aboutplanning and zoning practices that relate to freight.For example, zoning overlays and industrial protec-tion zones can be put in place not only for the indus-trial areas serviced by freight, but also for linkingcorridors.

3. Accurately map freight facilities and corridorsas part of the comprehensive planning process.

4. Include freight entities as key stakeholders—and make freight issues a focus—in cooperativeregional planning and visioning efforts.

5. Through state and national associations, pro-vide appropriate education and tools for city andcounty planners for freight planning and develop-ment.

6. Encourage freight entities to participate asstakeholders in local, regional, and state planningand visioning processes.

7. Encourage private-sector groups, includinglocal chambers of commerce, to keep freight issueson the agenda and to gain buy-in from the businesscommunity when a preservation project is proposed.

8. Include the principles of freight activity in grad-uate and undergraduate curricula in planning, archi-tecture, policy, engineering, business, and law,through partnerships between private-sector and

governmental freight groups and educational insti-tutions.

9. Encourage port authorities to quantify the con-gestion and noise impacts outside the immediateport area, in addition to tracking port-related jobimpacts throughout the region. Port master planscan illustrate affiliated congestion and chokepointsbeyond the port properties. Other freight operationsthat cannot easily relocate can undertake similaractivities.

10. Implement innovative funding practices—including public–private partnerships and rights offirst refusal—for freight planning and preservationprojects.

11. Include in real estate contracts—and in otherdocuments provided to purchasers and lessees—dis-cussions of the possible freight-related impacts thatmay occur as a consequence of living in proximity tofreight activities.

AcknowledgmentsThe research team for NCFRP Project 24, Preservingand Protecting Freight Infrastructure and Routes,was led by Christensen Associates and included stafffrom the Center for Transportation Research–Uni-versity of Texas at Austin and from Grow & Bruen-ing. The team also received valuable input andassistance from consultant Kathryn Pett.

Cyclist commutesthrough truck traffic atPort of Seattle Terminal18. NCFRP Report 16offers suggestions forport authorities, such asmeasuring congestionand noise impacts of portactivities, as well as port-related job impacts.

PHO

TO: D

ON

WIL

SON, P

OR

TO

FSE

ATT

LE

NCFRP Report 16, Pre-serving and ProtectingFreight Infrastructureand Routes, with supple-mental material on CD-ROM, is availableelec tron ically atwww.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166831.aspx or from theTRB Bookstore,http://books.trbbookstore.org/fc016.aspx.

00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 3:00 PM Page 49