An Assessment of the Goods Distribution System in the Greater Lafayette Area
ASSESSMENT OF THE GOODS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA Prepared For The Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission In Cooperation With The Indiana Department of Highways and The Federal Highway Administration as an Addendum to Transportation Systems Management Element of the Greater Lafayette Transportation and Development Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the FY 1986 Overall Work Program Work Elements 517 and 532 Prepared by The Staff of the Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission County Office Building 20 North Third Street Lafayette, Indiana 47901 April 1986 LIST OF OFFICIALS TIPPECANOE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION Sue Scholar, President R. Scott Giese Dan Kelly, Vice-President Phillip Kelley Francis Albregts John McDowell Ronald Corbett Bruce Osborn John Downey Dean RotAenberger Paul Finkenbinder C. Wesley Shook Johanna Gartenhaus Joseph Yahner Robert A. Mucker, Secretary GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA TECHNICAL HIGHWAY COMMITTEE Harold Michael (Chairman) Joint Highway Research Project James Hawley (Secretary) Area Plan Commission Maurice Callahan City Engineer,Lafayette Paul Couts City Engineer, West Lafayette Dan Ruth Tippecanoe County Highway Engineer Lt. Gene Reed Lafayette Police Department Lt. Dennis Mitchell West Lafayette Police Department Murray Cantrall Indiana Department of Highways (Mike O'Loughlin) Planning Division David Wilcox Indiana Department of Highways (Bruce Conrad) Crawfordsville'District James Allen Federal Highway Administration (John Brietweiser) Dan Fogerty Railroad Relocation Office Marty Sennett Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corporation Robert Stroud Purdue University Airport Robert Mucker Attorney for Area Plan Com-mission AREA PLAN COMMISSION STAFF James Hawley Executive Director Bob Foley Drafting Technician Janna Gerhart Drafting Tecnnician Bernie Gulker Principal Planner Don Lamb Junior Planner Sallie Lee Principal Planner Rhea Mitchell Executive Secretary John Moisan-Thomas Senior Planner Colleen Murphy Recording Secretary Michael Sanders Senior Planner Elizabeth Williams Junior Planner Anna Yao Secretary/Bookkeeper TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-1 INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 3 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE GOODS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 4 Quick Check 4 Mail Survey of Area Truck Fleet Operators 9 Field Survey of Territory 20 SUMMARY 32 FUTURE WORK ACTIVITIES AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 33 APPENDIX A. MINUTES OF MEETINGS AT WHICH PROGRESS ON GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY WAS PRESENTED A-1 APPENDIX B. LAFAYETTE/TIPPECANOE COUNTY TRUCK FLEET QUESTIONNAIRE B-1 APPENDIX C. RESPONDENT PROFILE BY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION; and THE TRUCKING AND WAREHOUSING INDUSTRY IN TIPPECANOE COUNTY 1980-1984: EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL AND NUMBER AND SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENTS C-1 APPENDIX D. TRUCK REGISTRATIONS: TIPPECANOE COUNTY, 1983-1984 D-1 APPENDIX E. GOODS MOVEMENT PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IDENTIFIED BY LAFAYETTE AREA TRUCKERS E-1 APPENDIX F. GOODS MOVEMENT PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IDENTIFIED IN PLANNING FOR URBAN GOODS MOVEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE TRANSPORTATION CENTER F-1 LIST OF EXHIBITS E-1. Trucking and Warehousing Industry in Tippecanoe County, 1980-1984: Establishments, Employees and Payroll E-2 E-2. Highway Use by Lafayette Area Truckers E-5 1. A Framework for Goods Movement Planning 2 2. Thoroughfare Plan for the Lafayette Area Showing Existing and Proposed Arterials 5 3. Generalized Land Use: Lafayette Area 6 4. Location of Respondents Truck Terminals and Warehouses in Lafayette/Tippecanoe County 12 5. Trucks Operated by Respondents 11 6. Indices of Relative Highway Use by Area Truckers for Local Pickups and Deliveries 14 7. Mean Weighted Road Use Index by Location of Firm in Tippecanoe County 16 8. Most important Highways by Firm Location 17 9. Percent of Local Pickup and Delivery Truck Traffic on Each Highway Generated by Firms in Each Geographical Area 19 10. Lack of Off-Street Loading/Unloading Facilities in Downtown 23 ll. Inadequate Dock Design in Older Section of Community 24 12. Inadequate Alley System Downtown 25 13. Obstacles Blocking Access to Off-Street Loading/Unloading Facilities Downtown 26 14. Complete Lack of On-Street Loading/Unloading Facilities Downtown 27 15. Insufficient On-Street Loading Facilities Downtown 28 16. Heavily Used Truck Route Along Low Grade Roadway 29 17. Poor Access to Major Roadway and Congestion Due to Poor Channelization 30 18. Inadequate Facility Design/Ground Obstacles to Truck Movements 31 19. Problems and Opportunities and the Role of Government Agencies at a Glance 35 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The staff of the Area Plan Commission would like to thank the 94 Lafayette area businesses and industries that have participated in this project. Their cooperation is greatly appreciated. The survey of local firms that operate truck fleets has made a valuable contribution to the Greater Lafayette Area's initiation of a goods movement study. A special thank you to the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce--John T. Garman, Executive Vice President and Robert E. Stroud, Chairman of the Traffic/Transportation Committee--and the Citizen Participation Committee of the Area Plan Commission for their assistance and support of this work. Thanks are also due to Ms. Dorothy Mansfield, Labor Market Analyst with the Indiana Employment Security Division, for her research on the trucking industry in Tippecanoe County, and to Ms. Kathy Garner at the Inter-Library Loan Office, Purdue University, for making important reference material available to the staff for this project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AN ASSESSMENT OF THE GOODS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA The movement of goods within the Lafayette area means primarily trucks, although railroads and passenger vehicles are also involved. People view this activity from different perspectives. The downtown business community see goods movement as a major factor in its day-to-day business op- erations; the homeowner sees trucks as something to be banned from residential streets; and auto users and pedestrians often see delivery and service vehicles as nuisances on city streets. Yet most people would probably agree that truck service is necessary to sustain and promote the growth of economic activities and must be provided. Goods movement poses complex physical, operational and regulatory problems that cannot be ignored. These problems have intensified as a result of the in- crease in the number of vehicles that move freight into, out of and within urban areas. A local indicator of this increase in goods movement activities is reflected in the growth of the trucking and warehousing industry. In Tippecanoe County between 1980 and 1984, the number of establishments furnishing local and long-distance trucking or transfer services and those engaged in the Storage of commercial goods increased from 33 firms to 54 firms, an increase of 64% (U.S. Bureau of the Census and Indiana Employment Security Division). During the same time period the number of employees involved in these activities more than doubled from 262 to 569; their payroll jumped from nearly $4.9 million to almost $12 million (see Exhibit E-1). E-1 EXHIBIT E-1 THE TRUCKING AND WAREHOUSING INDUSTRY IN TIPPECANOE COUNTY 1980-1984: ESTABLISHMENTS, EMPLOYEES AND PAYROLL, SIC 42* Trucking and Warehousing 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 No. of Estab- lishments 33 40 48 51 54 No. of Employees 262 377 52 9424 569 Annual Payroll ($1000) 4,891 7,047 9,583 9,211 11,930 *Standard Industrial Classification: Major Group 42 - Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns,1980-1983; and, Indiana Employment Security Division, 19 84 ., As a guide to the current study effort, the transportation planning staff has considered the following goods movement goals: Freight transportation should be concerned with providing and maintaining transportation facilities in such a way as tc: 1. maximize the efficiency of goods distribution in serving the community consumption needs and sustaining its source of income; and 2. minimize the intrusion of goods distribution on the community's environment. Stated as operating policies the above efficiency and environmental goals should be achieved by: 1. avoiding the creation of unnecessary bottlenecks and delays to urban goods distribution in future facility design and transportation policy decisions; E-2 2. correcting existing bottlenecks and delays during the normal process of improving or updating earlier facility investments and policy decisions; and 3. taking the initiative to enhance the community's economic base by intentionally seeking out and removing obstacles to freight distribution and even providing facilities designed to primarily facilitate the movement of freight carrying vehicles rather than total vehicle flows. Our preliminary assessment of the Lafayette area freight distribution system included a "quick check". This assessment is based on a short list of factors associated with the presence or absence of goods distribution inefficiencies. The following conditions were observed: an inadequate network of arterial streets and the existence of natural barriers; dispersed economic activity by location; a high diversification of economic activity by industry; narrow and highly used roadways; the presence of physical obstacles to truck movements; intermixed freight and people movements in the retail sectors; and, a relatively high concentration of retail activity in the central business district. Because several potentially serious problems were identified, the staff made a more detailed appraisal by conducting a mail survey of area truck fleet operators. The purpose of the survey was: 1) to identify the roads used most by Lafayette truckers for local pickups and deliveries; 2)to identify the types of trucks and the points of origin of those trucks that used each road frequently; and, 3) to identify what the truck operators believe to be the most serious truck movement problems and best opportunities for alleviating those problems. The survey of truckers has provided some gross estimates of local operators reliance upon area highways for E-3 their local pickup and delivery activities as shown in Exhibit E-2. It also identified at least what a sampling of local truck operators feel to be the more critical problems as they travel area roads: -Wabash River as a barrier to movement from south Lafayette to West Lafayette: forces vehicles through downtown. -Congestion problems on highly used roads such as US 52 Bypass and Teal Road. -Intersections too narrow to allow adequate turning radius for larger trucks e.g. River at State in West Lafayette; 2nd and South in Lafayette. -Sharp curve at east end of Main Street Bridge. -Traffic control problems at entrances to major commercial/industrial areas, e.g. SR 26 E at Farabee Drive and Hammon Street. -Railroad barriers, both at-grade intersections and low overpasses e.g. on Wabash Avenue and on South River Road. -Dangerous locations, such as Canal at North 9th and Duncan Road. -Narrow alleys downtown and in the Village area. -Insufficient on-street loading/unloading facilities downtown. There were some relevant recommendations made by the respondents. For example, one respondent suggested "to facilitate traffic flow, we need more high speed turn-offs into parking lots instead of right-angle turns;” another recommended use of overhead traffic lane markers at more of the high volume intersections. Several respondents re- commended completion of the major capital intensive projects (Railroad Relocation and the US 231 Relocation Bridge and its related improvements in the road network). E-4 Click HERE for graphic. Probably the most important-result of the mail survey was that it informed a large number of area firms that we are trying to do something about the community's goods movement problems. A field survey made us more sensitive to the types of delays and inefficiencies faced by the freight moving sector of the community. We used a camera in the field to document the areas thought to be potential problems. The set of 36 slides was especially useful in reporting back to the Tech- nical Highway Committee, the Citizens Participation Committee, the Chamber of Commerce Traffic/Transportation Committee and the Area Plan Commission. It is also anticipated that the slides will be useful during future activities, such as establishing priorities. Based on the results of our assessments, the problems that have been identified are related more to total vehicle flows than only truck flows. This means that the needs of freight-carrying vehicles can be met by our existing trans- portation planning process. For example, the major capital intensive projects underway, Railroad Relocation and the US 231 bridge over the Wabash, will have enormous benefits for the trucking industry. Although no major problems unique to the trucking community have been found, many small or less tangible problems were discovered. There are problems at shipping/receiving points, with regard to the dispersed pattern of economic activities and possibly with certain business operating policies. Although individually these problems may be small or accepted as an unavoidable con- sequence of doing business in the area, added together their economic and environmental impacts can be substantial. With just a little extra consideration many of the identified problems may be avoided in the future. E-6 It is anticipated that these problem areas will be the topics for future meetings with representatives of the business community. The next step in the appraisal of the goods dis- tribution system should be personal interviews with selected community representatives and/or the creation of a "goods movement advisory panel." The end product of these additional efforts would be a comprehensive listing of problems and opportunities. E-7 Introduction The focus of this report is on truck movements. Not only do trucks provide the transportation for most goods moved within the urban area, but they also contribute significantly to congestion, pollution, safety problems, and distribution costs. The purpose of including goods movement analysis in the Overall Transportation Planning Program is to identify problem areas, and to suggest and evaluate potential solutions. This process is not meant to be a large-scale, expensive undertaking relative to other elements in the Overall Work program (OWP). The recommended procedure is shown schematically in Exhibit 1. The first activity (Box A) focuses on an appraisal of the community's goods distribution system. At least four basic approaches may be used: personal interview with selected goods movement representatives; creation of an advisory panel; a field survey; and, a mail survey of area truck fleet operators. The second activity (Box B) is concerned with evaluating problems and opportunities identified during the detailed appraisal. This will involve the development of truck travel and commodity flow forecasts to assist in evaluating the magnitude of a particular problem. The end product if this process (Box C) is a set of Transportation System Management (TSM) and long range transportation freight plans that can be incorporated into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Our assessment activities in FY 1986 have been limited to the field and mail surveys which are the subject of the remainder of this report. In addition to the evaluation of problems and opportunities, future work activities may -1- Click HERE for graphic. include further appraisal activities. We view the mail and field survey work as a successful beginning point for our goods movement planning program. Background Prior to conducting an assessment of the freight movement system, staff reviewed existing literature to develop a familiarity with the nature of goods movement and the types of problems and opportunities that may be found in the community Our major source of background information was provided in the University of Tennessee Transportation Center report, Planning-for Urban Goods Movement (April 1977). Other sources included Urban Transportation Planning for Goods- and Services: A Reference Guide (June 1979) prepared by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University and, A Primer on Urban Goods Movement (April 1976) by A.T. Kearney, Inc. Planning goals and objectives for this community were first developed through the Area Plan Commission's Citizen Participation Committee in 1976. Multi-modal transportation "objectives" and "actions" were subsequently adopted by the Commission, with a goods movement element incorporated into the OWP in 1980. A more detailed set of goods movement goals and objectives, proposed by researchers at the University of Tennessee Transportation Center, has been considered by staff in guiding the current study effort: Freight transportation planning should be con- cerned with providing and maintaining transportation facilities in such a way as to: 1. maximize the efficiency of goods distribution in serving the community's consumption needs and sustaining its source of income; and 2. minimize the intrusion of goods distribution on the community's environment. -3- Stated as operating policies, the above efficiency and environmental objectives should be achieved by: 1. avoiding the creation of unnecessary bottlenecks and delays to urban goods distribution in future facility design and transportation policy decisions; 2. correcting existing bottlenecks and delays during the normal process of improving or updating earlier facility investments and policy decisions; and 3. taking the initiative to enhance the community's economic base by intentially seeking out and removing obstacles to freight distribution and even providing facilities designed to primarily facilitate the movement of freight carrying vehicles rather than total vehicle flows. An-Assessment of the Goods-Distribution System Quick Check. Before carrying out any detailed study, staff conducted a "quick check" assessment of the Lafayette area's goods distribution system. This assessment is based on a short list of factors associated with the presence or absence of goods distribution inefficiencies. Significant delays and environmental side effects are likely to exist if one or more of the following conditions are observed: 1. An Inadequate Network-of Arterial Streets and the Existence of Natural Barriers The Lafayette urban area network is characterized as a converging radial system, modified by the US 52 "Bypass" on the east and north periphery (Exhibit 2). The lack of a similar facility to the south and west contributes to overall traffic congestion in the central area and/or orces truck drivers to take circuitous routes. Physical barriers, such as the Wabash River, and in some areas steep grades, have produced discontinuities in the roadway system. The proposed US 231 Relocation bridge and its related improvements in the road network will make goods movement more efficient within and through the urban area. 2. Dispersed Economic Activity by Location As shown in Exhibit 3, manufacturers and commercial -4- Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. activities are dispersed throughout the Lafayette area. This kind of pattern: a) maximizes the travel time between shipping/receiving points, b) hinders the consolidation of freight pick-ups and deliveries and c) creates unnecessary mixing of freight-carrying vehicles with passenger-carrying vehicles. 3. A High Diversification of Economic Activity by Industry Tippecanoe County has a diversified economy, with, Purdue University, Eli Lilly, and Alcoa being the largest employers in the area. The primary employers by category are: education, retail trade and durable goods manufacturing (1980 Census of Population). The wide variety of industrial goods produced ranges from electronics and chemical products to convenience foods and refined corn products. Yet, over 70% of all manufacturers in Tippecanoe County employ fewer than 50 persons; when all businesses and industries are considered that figure jumps to 95%. (County Business Patterns, 1983). 4. Narrow and Highly Used Roadways In commercial areas characterized by narrow streets and/or highly used roadways, freight-carrying vehicles are likely to be delayed or impeded in their operations. Roadways with congestion problems (level of service D, E, or F) are likely to have significant distribution related problems. In some cases, the actual distribution of goods may in fact be the cause of roadway congestion. In the Lafayette area there are several problems as documented in previous Transportation Study plans and reports. 5. The-Presence of Physical Obstacles to Truck Movements To the extent that a) all overhead structures are not at least 14 feet off the ground, b) all bridges are not wide and strong enough to allow fully loaded tractor trailers to pass over them, and c) all street furniture is not at least 6 feet back from the roadway, there will be problems associated with physical obstacles to freight movements. Perhaps the most obvious physical obstacle to truck movements in the area are numerous at-grade railroad crossings. Low railroad overpasses such -7- as the overpass at the south edge of the Industrially-zoned area along Wabash Avenue, are also obstacles. There are numerous examples of turning problems created by the placement of utility poles at the corners of intersections or at the edge of roadways; some of these locations are documented high accident areas. 6. Intermixed -Freight and People -Movements- in the Retail Sectors Shopping centers in the Lafayette area typically have "back door" delivery facilities: most of the blocks in the downtown area are served by alleys. Alleys are a good way to physically separate freight movements from people movements. Unfortunately many of the alleys are inadequate for modern trucks and/or pose risks to the trucker or the freight being hauled. Some businesses have purchased a corner lot or a portion of a block, thereby providing a loading area directly off the street and to the side or rear of the building. 7. A High Concentration of Retail Activity in the Central Business District. According to the 1982 Census of Retail- Trade (Major Retail Centers), there were 68 retail stores in the CBD, or about 8% of all retail establishments in Tippecanoe County. In 1977, there were 78 retail stores downtown representing just under 10% of all retail stores. Although data is not available in the 1982 report, the 1977 Census indicates that more retail establishments were located in the CBD than in any of the other five "major retail centers” ( including Tippecanoe Mall, the Levee Plaza, Market Square, Lafayette Square and Wabash Village). 8. Enforcement of the No-Parking Restriction in Truck Loading Zones If enforcement officials do not adequately police designated loading zones, the need for freight carriers to double park, cruise the streets or miss a pickup delivery will be considerable. In Lafayette, however, loading zone restrictions are strictly enforced, according to the Traffic Improvement Department. As is the case in any downtown area, it is difficult to distinguish between a vehicle engaged in a pick-up and delivery and one -8- simply being used by a visitor. The Lafayette Police Department policy, though, is to ticket any vehicle parked in a loading zone longer than the legal time limit (30 minutes). Mail Survey of Area Truck Fleet Operators. In April 1985 staff met which the Traffic/Transportation Committee of tile Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. (See Appendix A for the minutes of this meeting). The presentation included an overview of our proposal for incorporating goods movement considerations in the local planning program. Some of the factors associated with goods movement inefficiencies were described. This meeting led to the endorsement by the Chamber of Commerce of the proposed mail survey of area truck fleet operators. In May 1985 the survey was conducted by staff. A major purpose of the survey was to identify the high- ways that are most heavily used by area truckers for their local pick-up and delivery activities (The Indiana Department of Highways, Crawfordsville District, conducts periodic 12-hour turning movement counts along State highways that usually include vehicle classification. However, these counts cover only limited areas and provide insufficient origin and destination data for our purposes). Our survey was specifically designed to identify the type of trucks using each road as well as their point of origin. Another purpose of the survey was to identify what the truck operators believe to be the most serious truck movement problems and best opportunities for alleviating those problems. Finally, the survey was intended to stimulate community interest in and support for the project. A total of 238 firms thought to operate a truck fleet in Tippecanoe County were included in the sample. Staff compiled the list of operators names and addresses from -9- various directories, including the 1984-85 Lafayette area General Telephone directory, the 1984 R.L. Polk City Directory, and a listing provided by the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce (A State Bureau of Motor Vehicles list of names and mailing addresses of all commercial truck fleet operators whole vehicles were registered in Tippecanoe County was not made available to us). By limiting the operator sample to local firms, staff could produce a purposive sample of the population of all truck operators those who only travel into the county or pass through the area would have no chance of inclusion--while avoiding the prohibitive costs of sampling a larger population. We also hoped that local operators would be more accessible and likely to voluntarily participate in a survey designed to improve goods movement activities in the area. Local operators would also likely be familiar with a greater number of problems r and be more familiar with specific problems than operators who are infrequent travellers in the County. The questionnaire used in this survey was adapted from an instrument designed by the University of Tennessee Trans- portation Center. A copy of the questionnaire (see Appendix B) was sent under a cover letter with a stamped and self-- addressed return envelope to the 238 local firms. The cover letter stressed the importance of the respondent's contribution to planning improvements in the local transportation system. After two weeks, a follow-up letter and another copy of the questionnaire and return envelope were mailed to all who had not yet responded. The Lafayette area firms responded well to the mail survey. Ninety-four of the 238 firms surveyed (39%) returned the questionnaire. Of this number, 88 (94%) were usable; firms that went out of business or did not operate truck fleets accounted for unusable returns. A profile of res- -10- pondents by Standard Industrial Classification code is in- cluded in Appendix C. Addresses of the truck terminals -and warehouse loca- tions were plotted on a Lafayette area urban base map (Exhibit 4). Five major areas were defined based on the clustering of firms (Northwest, North Central, West Central, East Central, and Southeast). The percentage of respondents located within each district is noted below: North Lafayette 13% North Central Lafayette 11% West Central Lafayette 18% East Central Lafayette 36% Southeast Lafayette 22% The firms that responded operate a total of 698 trucks out of terminals and warehouses located in the study area; 517 of these are involved in local pick-up and delivery. These trucks are further classified in Exhibit 5. EXHIBIT 5 TRUCKS OPERATED BY RESPONDENTS Light, under 10,000 lbs. GVW 399 (57%) Medium to Light-Heavy 10,000 to 26,000 lbs. GVW 90 (13%) Heavy, 26,000 to 33,000 lbs. GVW 102 (15%) Heavy, over 33,000 lbs. GVW 107 (15%) Total Number of Trucks Operated by Respondents 698 (100%) Total Number of Trucks Used for Local Activities 517 (74%) According to the Tippecanoe County License Branch, there were approximately 1,600 trucks registered in the County in 1984 that exceeded a gross vehicle weight (GVW) -11- Click HERE for graphic. of lO,OOO pounds (see Appendix D); thus, the respondents 299 trucks over lO,OOO lbs. GVW represented about 20% of all locally registered trucks on the road. Each respondent noted the extent of which his trucks used each of the major highways listed in the questionnaire by checking on of five scale positions from "little or no use" (l) to "very heavy use" (5). The means of the respondent's usage ratings for Lafayette area highways are shown in the second column of Exhibit 6. The rank order or highways by this simple mean rating if use is shown in the third column. The highways that received the five highest rankings are: 1. US 52 E 2. SR 26 E 3. SR 25 W 4. Union/Salem 5. Main/Columbia To more accurately reflect the actual level of highway use, each respondent's road ratings were weighted by the number of trucks his firm operates for local pick-up and deliveries. When weighted in this manner there was some change in the rank order of highways used most frequently. The weighted road use indices and the rank order of highways by weighted use from the fourth and fifth columns of Exhibit 6. The roads which the survey suggests are used most for local pick-up and delivery activities are: 1. US 52 E 2. SR 26 E 3. SR 25 W 4. US 231 S 5. I-65 Local streets--Union/Salem, Main/Columbia and Canal Road--dropped in terms of relative highway use when the -13- Click HERE for graphic. ratings of road use were weighted by fleet size. A high incidence of service-type vehicles operated by relatively small fleets might be expected in these areas; also, Union/Salem and Main/Columbia run through residential areas and do not make direct connections to I-65. Yet, US 231 S and I-65 rose in terms of relative road use when the ratings were weighted. Of course, both roads are major intercity routes; firms that use these roads have a larger number of vehicles whose routes are more concentrated on these highways. SR 38's low rating is a bit curious: apparently the truckers avoid the narrow, two-lane facility in favor of the divided primary arterials, SR 26 and SR 25, to reach the Interstate. The survey also determined the extent to which truck traffic on each highway was generated by firms whose truck terminals or warehouses are located in each of the five clusters. Exhibit 7 shows the average weighted index of road use for the major highways. For example, firms located in the Northwest cluster reported an average road use index (i.e. use rating from 1 to 5 times the number of trucks in their fleet) of 21.2 on US 52 E. Firms in the Southeast cluster, however, reported an average road use index of 39.4 on the same road. The mean weighted road use indices in Exhibit 7 are summarized in Exhibit 8 to indicate the highways relied upon most by truck fleet operators located in each of the five clusters. Even though US 52 E had the highest rating overall, it was not the most heavily used highway for any one of the five areas. Also, US 231 S, ranked fourth in the overall weighted ranking, does not even show up in Exhibit 8. Of course, both roads are relatively important to all the areas. Finally, the percentage of the total weighted road use index ,or each highway that was generated by firms located -15- Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. in each of the five clusters was identified. The results of those calculations are summarized In Exhibit 9. For example, over 40% of the truck traffic on US 52 E is generated by firms in the Southeast. Only 4% of the traffic is generated by firms in the North 'Central cluster. The last column in the table shows the distribution of respondents throughout the five clusters. It is easy then to note that firms-located in each of the areas generate local truck traffic that is greater or less than their proportion of all truck operator respondents. While 21.6% of the respondents were located in the Southeast, those firms generated a more than proportional index of highway use on all of the highways surveyed. Firms in both the North Central and East Central areas consistently generated a less than proportional traffic index. The heavy use of roadways on the west side of the Wabash by firms in the Southeast cluster indicates that there are considerable cross-town truck movements; there are several major truck terminal facilities in this area. The last page of the questionnaire contained two open- ended questions. The first asked respondents to identify specific truck movement problems they encounter throughout the Lafayette/Tippecanoe County area. The second asked the respondents to suggest actions that should be taken to provide for more efficient and safer truck travel in and around Lafayette. There were 52 respondents (59.1%) who identified at least one problem, while 49 (55.7%) made recommendations. Respondents identified several specific problems and many more general problems. Some examples include: -Wabash River as a barrier to movement from south Lafayette to West Lafayette: forces vehicles through downtown. -Congestion problems on highly used roads such as -18- Click HERE for graphic. US 52 Bypass and Teal Road. -Intersections too narrow to allow adequate turning radius for larger trucks, e.g. River at State in West Lafayette, 2nd and South in Lafayette. -Sharp curve at east end of Main Street Bridge. -Traffic control problems at entrances to major commercial/industrial areas, e.g. SR 26E at Farabee Drive and Hammon Street. -Railroad barriers, both at-grade intersections and low overpasses, e.g. on Wabash Avenue and on South River Road. -Dangerous locations, such as Canal at North 9th and Duncan Road. -Narrow alleys downtown and in the Village area. -Insufficient on-street loading/unloading facilities downtown. There were some relevant recommendations made by the respondents. For example, one respondent suggested: "To facilitate traffic flow we need more high speed turn-offs into parking lots instead of right-angle turns." Another recommended use of overhead traffic lane markers at more of the high volume intersections. Several respondents recommended completion of the major capital-intensive projects (Railroad Relocation and US 231 Relocation Bridge and its related improvements in the road network). Few respondents, however, made substantial recommendations for improving the goods movement system. Solutions to many of the identified problems were obvious (e.g. widen the road) or not practical (e.g. removal of the guard rail on US 52 between Greenbush and SR 38). The unabridged listing of problems and opportunities identified by area truckers is included in Appendix E. Field Survey of Territory Following the analysis of the mail survey results, the staff conducted a field survey -20- in August 1985. The field survey provided us an opportunity to become familiar with some of the problems identified through the mail survey; it also allowed us to look for problems not recognized or articulated by the private sector. The following areas were surveyed: 1. Arterial roadways 2. Entrance point to major commercial areas along the arterials 3. The central business district 4. Industrial districts or parks 5. Strip shopping developments 6. Major shopping centers 7. Off-street and on-street loading facilities in any of the above areas We used a camera in the field to document the areas thought to be potential problems. The set of 36 slides was especially useful in-reporting back to the Technical Highway Committee, the Citizens Participation Committee, the Chamber of Commerce Traffic/Transportation Committee and the Area Plan Commission (refer to Appendix A). It is also anticipated that the slides will be useful during future activities, such as establishing priorities. In addition to reviewing the problems identified through the mail questionnaire, we also reviewed the "Glossary of Urban Goods Movement Problems and Opportunities" presented in the Planning for Urban Goods Movement report. This "Glossary" is a comprehensive listing of the more prominent problems and opportunities observed in case study cities. Each identified problem and opportunity is defined and illustrated. In addition, the relationship between the problems and opportunities and their "by-products" have been portrayed. An abbreviated listing of both problems and opportunities is included in Appendix F. -21- The nine exhibits which follow illustrate specific problems and by-products found through the field survey in the Lafayette area. The first three exhibits include problems of inadequate off-street loading/unloading facil- ities. Trucks are designed to be loaded and unloaded from a dock. However, few businesses in the central business district have one. In many cases, the off-street loading facilities provided are nothing more than a narrow alley where a single parked truck can block the flow of traffic. In other cases, truckers must contend with minimal space for either maneuvering trucks for loading and unloading or wait for dock space to open up to make a pick-up and delivery. Thus, when off-street facilities are not provided or are inadequate, truckers are forced to make their pickup and deliveries from the street. Even where they are provided, much time and effort may be required to unload or load the freight. -22- Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. In addition to certain design problems, obstacles on the ground and overhead can significantly hinder access to a loading dock or even a back door for alley delivery. The more serious problems include parked cars, telephone poles and trash containers in the vicinity of the loading dock. Other problems include low utility lines and signs. Many of these obstacles have been placed as a result of policy decisions on the part of businesses or government agencies. Problems exist because many policy makers are unfamiliar with maneuvering characteristics of trucks. Consequently, a well designed truck dock or alley may be rendered ineffective or at least inefficient. Click HERE for graphic. Problem: Utility poles/parked cars blocking access to off-- street loading/unloading facilities downtown (hand delivery of freight beyond obstacles) By-Products: Traffic hazards; congestion; higher operating costs. -26- Where off-street loading/unloading facilities are not available, the city must provide on-street loading zones. In many cases, the affected proprietors are vocal and will demand that loading zones be placed in their block. In other cases, they are insensitive to the carriers' needs and argue for parking places in lieu of on-street facilities. The major problem in providing on-street loading fac- ilities is to determine their number and location. On-street facilities provided by the city may not always be a function of the freight movement needs of the different land uses. Consequently, there may be too many or too few spaces for a given land use. Click HERE for graphic. Problem: Complete lack of on-street loading/unloading facilities dowtown. By-Products: Higher operating costs; congestion; traffic hazards. -27- Click HERE for graphic. In addition to problems at pick-up and delivery points, there are a number of problems along the routes between shipping/receiving points. Several have been mentioned previously in the quick check assessment and by the truckers in the mail survey (Appendix E). Exhibit 16 provides an example of a roadway that con- nects a large industrial district with a major highway. As can be seen in the picture, the roadway is narrow and in disrepair. The major truck terminal shown in the photo is one of several along this roadway. Exhibit 17 shows the intersection of this local road with the major highway. Truckers destined for northbound locations must merge across two lanes of traffic in order to make a left turn at the intersection of a major highway shown in the background. Click HERE for graphic. Problem: Heavily used truck route along low grade roadway By-Product: Traffic hazards; higher operating costs; congestion; impedes economic development -29- Click HERE for graphic. Trucks in general, and tractor-trailer combinations in particular, are large vehicles which require considerable clearance for transit, turning, backing and parking. Physical obstacles such as utility poles, low-slung utility lines, traffic control devices and commercial signs often hinder truck movements causing inefficient truck routing. As men- tioned earlier in the report, major problems may exist at intersections where utility poles are placed too close to the roadway intersection. Exhibit 18 provides-an example of utility poles too close to a heavily used low-grade roadway. Click HERE for graphic. Problem: Inadequate facility design/ground obstacles to truck movements. By-Products: Safety; higher operating costs; congestion; impedes economic development -31- Summary The objective of this report has been to make a pre- liminary assessment of the Lafayette area freight distribution system. Initially, a "quick check" assessment was made to determine if significant goods movement delays and inefficiencies exist. Because several potentially serious problems were identified, the staff made a more detailed appraisal by conducting a mail survey of area truck fleet operators. The survey of truckers has provided some gross estimates of local operators' reliance upon area highways for their local pick-up and delivery activities. It also identified at least what a sampling of local truck operators feel to be the more critical problems as they travel area roads. The identified problems will provide direction to future appraisal activities. Probably the most important result of the mail survey was that it informed a large number of area firms that we are trying to do something about the community’s goods movement problems. The field survey, then, made us more sensitive to the types of delays and inefficiencies faced by the freight-moving sector of the community. Based on the results of our assessments, the problems that have been identified are related more to total vehicle flows than only truck flows. This means that the needs of freight-carrying vehicles can be met by our existing trans- portation planning process. For example, the major capital intensive projects underway, Railroad Relocation and the US 231 bridge over the Wabash, will have enormous benefits for the trucking industry. Although no major problems unique to the trucking community have been found, many small or less tangible problems were discovered. There are problems: at shipping/receiving points, with regard to the dispersed pattern of economic activities and possibly with certain business operating policies. Although individually these -32- problems may be small or accepted as an unavoidable conse- quence of doing business in the area, added together their economic and environmental impacts can be substantial. With just a little extra consideration many of the identified problems may be avoided in the future. Future Work Activities and the Role of Government Agencies A general set of goods movement problems and opport- unities has been identified by area truck fleet operators and staff. It is anticipated that these major problem areas will be the topics for future meetings with representatives of the business community. Through the mail survey, over 90 individuals have been identified representing the interests of area truckers. The next step in the appraisal of the goods distribution-system should be personal interviews with selected community representatives and/or the creation of a "goods movement advisory panel". Involving members of the goods movement community directly will not only provide us further refinement of problems but will also heighten interest and support for the project. The end product of these additional efforts would be a comprehensive listing of problems and opportunities as identified by the affected community. Evaluation activities that would follow might take a couple of directions. One approach would be for the community to rank problems and opportunities. A technique that is helpful to conduct these rank orderings is the nominal group process. Detailed evaluations of problems or opportunities would require the quantification of their magnitude; one measure is the number of freight carrying vehicles affected by a given problem or opportunity. Specific techniques for estimating and forecasting truck travel include short counts, truck percentages, truck trip generation rates, -33- and truck traffic assignments. Finally, the complexity of goods movement problems-means that multiple governmental agencies are involved. The relationship between the problems and opportunities and the organizations which are likely to have jurisdiction over them is summarized in Exhibit 19. This-Exhibit is designed to give the reader a quick picture of which agencies would be involved in resolving a particular problem or implementing various opportunities. -34- Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. APPENDIX A MINUTES OF MEETING AT WHICH PROGRESS ON GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY WAS PRESENTED GREATER LAFAYETTE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE APRIL 11, 1985-12:00 NOON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING # 8 PRESENT Bob stroud, Rex Bowman, Sid Griffiths, Judith Hamman, Greg Myskowski, D.E. Himelick, Hal Kinzer, Dale McHenry, Dennis Overley, William Martin, Jim Hawley, Michael Sanders. ABSENT: Dick Butram, Julie Campfield, Jane Renny, Ray Merritt, Don Niemoeller, Art Schassberger, Martin Sennett, Keith Shaw, Bert Strain, Dave Webb, William Martin, Tom Weston, John Garman. CALLED TO ORDER: 12:10 p.m. APC GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY: Jim Hawley and Mike Sanders, reporting - proposal for goods movement and terminal and transfer study - accident study and traffic count has been done - keeping abreast of railroad relocation efforts - looking for solutions through what other cities have done, interviews with truck companies, and surveys - trucks involved in moving only goods; auto and service fleets not included - mail survey designed to reflect: 1. who is responding 2. vehicle class 3. number of trucks here and where maintained 4. what use of major roadways 5. specific problems 6. potential solutions - Would information from this survey be helpful to this committee and would the Traffic/Transportation Committee lend its support and participation to this survey? - Executive Committee will be advised of this proposal and Traffic/ Transportation Committee will suggest approval - Chairman Stroud will report to Area Plan Commission of the Chamber of Commerce Board's decision - APC will do the work of the survey and provide a narrative and survey results to the Chamber of Commerce - J. Hamman will share the Truck Terminal Survey with the APC TRAFFIC FLOW/ - truck traffic on North Creasy still a problem PROBLEMS: - sign indicating "No Through Trucks" not yet in place - B. Stroud has checked with D. Ruth and county and city officials about signs and center line SOUTH BRIDGE: R. Bowman, reporting - study being made for corridor South Bridge; crosses painted - agreement to proceed should be in effect approximately 1 June 1985 per Reith Lockmiller - according to J. Hawley some consternation among citizens who have been led to believe that lines painted represent future highway location; reality is that this is only survey and no decision has been reached - city and merchants will pay for signals on State Street and North River Road A-2 MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF GREATER LAFAYETTE June 27, 1985 1. Members Present: James Riehle -Mayor of Lafayette; Sonya - Margerum -Mayor of West Lafayette; Eugene Moore- President of Tippecanoe County Commissioners; Francis Albregts -Pres- ident-Area Plan Commission; Jerry Ledbetter-President of Lafayette City Council; Bev Stone-President Pro-Tem West Lafayette City Council; Harshad Shah-Urban Planning Super visor; John Breitweiser, FHWA; James Hawley, Executive Director-Area Plan Commission; John Garman-Executive Dir- ector-Chamber of Commerce. Also present were Dan Novreski Deputy Director IDOH; Bill Petranoff-Long Range Planning Supervisor, IDOH: John Moisan-Thomas-Senior Planner, Area Plan Commission. In addition WLFI-TV reporter Chris Morisse was present. 8. Secretary James Hawley-Area Plan Executive Director, gave an update on the Terminal and Transfer facilities study. Currently answers to a trucking firm questionnaire are being tabulated and results will be forthcoming. He further explained that the Transportation Study would be conducting a parking usage and duration study in the Lafayette Central Traffic District this fall as part of the Terminals Study. A-3 MINUTES OF THE GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA TECHNICAL HIGHWAY COMMITTEE AUGUST 13, 1985 1. Members present: Harold Michael, Dan Ruth, Bob Stroud, Lt. Reed, Capt.Stillons, Jim Hawley, Mike O'Laughlin for Urban Planning IDOH, Bruce Conrad for District IDOH, and Marty Sennett. Also present were: Steve Hardesty and Ron Meschen, District IDOH; John Garman, Chamber of Commerce; Mike Sanders, Senior Planner, APC; others present were Chris Morisee, WLFI-TV and Jane Kinney. (Ms. Jane Kinney asked several questions concerning Improvements proposed at SR 38/52 and was referred to the appropriate persons). 6. Mike Sanders explained preliminary results of the Truck Fleet Survey. A 38% response to the survey was obtained. A field review of problems will be made and presentation made to the Citizen's Participation Committee and Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee. Results of this effort will be a list of problems, potentials for alleviating those problems and responsibility for their correction. In 1980 there were 33 trucking firms in the County, in 1982 there were 48. The number of persons employed nearly doubled from 262 to 529 in the same period. Discussion of the survey results continued. It was established that the findings were indicators of problems since a more complete survey was not possible at this time. Mike O'Laughlin indicated that establishing Truck Routes was a possible TSM strategy. A-4 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE Time ------------------------------------7:30 P.M. Date ------------------------------------September 24, 1985 Place -----------------------------------County Office Building 20 North 3rd St. Lafayette, IN 47901 Members Present Organizations Persis Haas Newman Community & Family Resource Center Mark Thompson Washington Township Ruth Bone Fairfield Township Steve Carr Central Labor Council Ralph W. Patrick Wildcat Creek Federation Helmut Kohnke Wildcat Park Foundation Staff Present Sallie D. Lee Michael Sanders Elizabeth Williams Goods Movement Project presented by: Michael Sanders Mr. Sanders began with an explanation of the planning agency's role in the past doing tasks associated with Railroad Relocation and proposing where truck terminals should be located. He went on to say that the Goods Movement Project is something new, looking at the truck movements in the community with two primary goals in mind: 1) to make goods distributions better; and 2) to keep those movements from being an intrusion Mr. Sanders stated that a mail survey was conducted. In May the survey was sent to business firms in the community that have truck fleets. Two weeks later the survey was sent again to firms that had not responded. The overall response was approximately 40% which is a very good return for a mail survey. The firms that responded to the questionnaire reported what they felt were problems in the system and in some cases specific locations; they reported what roads they were using and what they felt could be done in order to solve e some of the problems and make the system better and easier to use. Sanders used a handout listing the problems and by-products or Urban Goods Distribution. The survey also let the trucking community know we are trying to help and be more sensitive to their needs. A-5 Mr. Sanders then presented a series of slides visually displaying a variety of problems that truckers deal with everyday in accomplishing their work. Some of the problems illustrated included double parking while unloading and parking on side walks both due to lack of loading zones, difficult turning movements; at particular locations, and loading zones with difficult access due to placement or interfering traffic and utility poles. There was then an extensive discussion about what could be done about these problems idealistically and realistically. Members discussed the direct and indirect benefits of finding solutions to make the traffic network more convenient for the goods movement personnel servicing the community. A-6 GREATER LAFAYETTE CHAMBER OP COMMERCE TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION OCTOBER 9, 1985 - 12:00 NOON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING #2 PRESENT: Hal Kinzer, Acting Chairman; Howard Lyon; Rex Bowman; Dick Butram; James Calloway; Patricia Carr; Kris Ehelich; Sid Griffiths; D.E. Himelick; Dale McHenry; D.E. Niemoeller; Dennis Overley; Dave Patch; Sue Scholar; Dave Webb; Greg Yoder; James Hawley, guest; Michael Sanders, guest; John Garman. ABSENT: Robert Stroud; Cliff Hall; Bruce Holt; Ray Merritt; Greg Myszkowski; Arthur Schassberger; Martin Sennett; John Shen; Frank Simek. INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS APC TRAFFIC Mike Sanders. reporting. STUDY - overview of history, truck/traffic problems and how survey was made PRESENTATION: - handout of survey results - survey from 200 local companies thought to have truck fleets - results weighted - slide presentation - problems of inadequate loading and unloading facilities - obstacles in docking - parking permitted where trucks must load and unload - many intersections where turning radius is inadequate - several local low-grade roads - need for railroad relocation - government policy concerning how well loading zones are enforced - zoning - Lafayette seems to be a growth area in trucking - more trucks are on the road - what agencies could implement a change DISCUSSION Question and answer period included: OF SURVEY: - voluntary cooperation rather than government intervention - perhaps city could specify loading zones - more loading zones could be made available - cooperation between government and business - hours for loading could be specified - commercial vehicle route with a map could be available - need to keep signage current - problem of trucks going to places difficult to reach via complicated routes - feedback from citizen comments on traffic and signage - overhead signage helpful - cooperation with agencies for signage, roads and furniture A-7 - cooperation between Indiana Gas and City Engineer begun in last 30 days - N & S bid to support Conrail - Chamber of Commerce not to be involved in this struggle ANNOUNCEMENTS: E.V.P. reported on upcoming events. ADJOURNED: 1:05 p.m. A-8 MINUTES OF THE GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA TECHNICAL HIGHWAY COMMITTEE November 13, 1985 1. Members present: Harold Michael, Dan Ruth, Bob Stroud, Mary Bassett, Capt. Stillions, Jim Hawley, Scott Snyder, Mike O'Loughlin, Urban Planning-IDOH, Sgt. DesEnfants, Liz Solberg, Brad Yarger Crawfordsville-IDOH, Ron Meschen also of Crawfordsville Indiana Department of Highways; others present were John Garman, Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, John Moisan-Thomas and Mike Sanders of Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission. 7. Mike Sanders, Area Plan Commission staff presented a slide show of identified and documented trucking problems in the community and opportunities for their solution. There are no major problems but small difficulties which create insufficiencies in the system. Mike O'Loughlin suggested peak hour loading and unloading restrictions. Ron Meschen stated that one County had imposed a delivery permit fee for all trucks of 10,000 #GVW which provided revenues of approximately $60,000/year. Chairman Michael stated that some additional regulation of delivery by large, over-the-road vehicles should be restricted and that transfer to smaller delivery vehicles ought to be required. Transfer depots would be necessary. Mike Sanders stated that we will remain in contact with the trucking industry for additional input to transportation improvements. A-9 TIPPECANOE COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE -------------------------------------November 20, 1985 TIME -------------------------------------7:30 p.m. PLACE ----------------------------------- County Office Building 20 N. 3rd St. Lafayette, IN 47901 PRESENT STAFF John McDowell James Hawley Johanna Gartenhaus Mike Sanders Francis Albregts Bernie Gulker Dan Relly Sallie Lee John Downey Colleen Murphy Scott Giese Robert Bauman, Atty. Ron Corbett Bruce Osborn Sue Scholer C. Wesley Shook IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Mr. Hawley stated that Mike Sanders will make a short presentation He has been working with the trucking industry asking them questions to find out where their problems are and about the difficulty caused by or for trucks in the transportation network. He will present the end product of over a half-year's work. Mike Sanders stated that there is a memo in the packet summarizing some of the questions asked, the activities that staff has been working on and the direction that staff will be heading in the future. The primary emphasis up to this point has been to document some of the problems that the truckers have in the Greater Lafayette area, identify some of the specific by-products that they create, suggestions, safety, and higher operating costs. Staff also attempted to identify the opportunities to correct these problems and identify which public agencies ir which businesses can most effectively find solutions to these problems. In the future staff may be in position to do some more evalu- ation to determine the magnitude of some of these problems. The end product of this protect as in any transportation project is to develop items for the Transportation Improvement Program. The first step was to identify some general conditions existing in the communities having goods movement problems. There are 8 conditions listed. Staff mailed a survey to 230 firms having truck fleets in the Lafayette area. It was a simple 4-page form complete with drawings and a map, in part asking that they identify the roads they used. They were also asked to identify problems they have and what solutions they recommend. About 90 firms responded, representing 40% return. Staff then took pictures of the problems identified in the survey. A-10 Mike Sanders explained the slides. He then stated that nationally there has been an increase in the total number of vehicles moving freight. The greatest increase has come from within the trucking industry. In 1980, in Tippecanoe County there were 33 trucking firms. In 1984, according to the Employment Security Division figures, the number jumped to 54 with an annual payroll of 12 million dollars. These are just the for-hire trucking companies, not the increase in private business. 98% of all truck fleets have less than 20 vehicles. Staff also found that there is an increase in small shipments. Because storage space is non-productive, firms want a continuos flow of goods, therefore, there are more frequent shipments of smaller units of less that cargo sized loads. There are no major problems that staff found that cannot be handled through transportation planning framework currently in place. There are a lot of small problems that if we had thought about them more in the past or begin to address them now, could be eliminated. At this point staff is in a monitoring phase. Sue Scholar asked how many presentations have been made. Mr. Sanders answered that presentations have been made to the Greater Lafayette Technical Highway Committee, including the City Traffic Engineers, County Highway Engineer, and Police Departments and the Chamber of Commerce and two to the Chamber of Commerce Traffic and Transportation Committee Mr. Hawley stated that staff will continue to provide the Commission with a series of presentations on the work done with the Transportation Study as well as with zoning and subdivision ordinances and comprehensive plan elements. This is the kind of background information needed to make recommendations or capital improvements. A-11 APPENDIX B LAFAYETTE/TIPPECANOE COUNTY TRUCK FLEET QUESTIONNAIRE LAFAYETTE/TIPPECANOE COUNTY TRUCK FLEET QUESTIONNAIRE CONDUCTED BY THE GREATER LAFAYETTE AREA TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY as part of its GOODS MOVEMENT PLANNING PROJECT Endorsed by: The Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce Traffic and Transportation Committee Please provide us with the information requested below. Your Name________________________________________________ Your Company_____________________________________________ Your Position____________________________________________ Company Address__________________________________________ B-2 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. 5. As your drivers travel throughout the Lafayette/Tippecanoe County area, they undoubtedly encounter problems with overpasses which are too low, roads which are too narrow, entrance ramps which are too short, utility poles which make turns difficult and many other similar circumstances. Please briefly describe in the space below the major problems which your drivers encounter. Please be as specific as possible. _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ 6. Do you have any recommendations to help us to plan to improve our area's transportation system? In other words, what kinds of projects should be undertaken to provide for more efficient and safer truck travel in and around Lafayette? _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ B-5 APPENDIX C RESPONDENT PROFILE BY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC.); and, THE TRUCKING AND WAREHOUSING INDUSTRY IN TIPPECANOE COUNTY, 1980 - 1984: EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL AND NUMBER AND EMPLOYMENT SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENTS C-1 RESPONDENT PROFILE BY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) _____________________________________________________________ SIC Code INDUSTRY No. PCT. _____________________________________________________________ --- Construction..................................4 5.9 16 Construction other than building construction-general contractors 1 1.1 17 Construction--special trade contractors 13 14.8 --- Manufacturing.................................9 10.2 20 Food and kindred products 2 2.3 32 Stone, clay, glass and concrete products 4 4.5 33 Primary metal industries 1 1.l 36 Electrical and electronic machinery, equipment and supplies 1 1.1 39 Misc. manufacturing industries l 1.1 --- Transportation, communications, electric, gas and sanitary service.................................15 17.0 *42 Motor freight transportation and warehousing 13 14.8 48 Communication 1 1.1 49 Electric, gas and sanitary service 1 1.1 --- Wholesale Trade.................................32 36.4 50 Durable goods 19 21.6 51 Nondurable goods 13 14.8 --- Retail Trade ...................................13 14.8 52 Building materials, hardware, garden supply and mobile home dealers 6 6.8 57 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 3 3.4 Misc. retai1 --- Services.........................................5 5.7 72 Personal services 2 2.3 73 Business services 1 1.1 75 Automotive repair, services, garages 1 1.1 76 Misc. repair services 1 1.1 TOTAL 88 100% * For additional information on the trucking and warehousing industry in Tippecanoe County see the next table. THE TRUCKING AND Warehousing INDUSTRY IN TIPPECANOE COUNTY 1980- 1984: EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL AND NUMBER AND EMPLOYMENT SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENTS SIC 42* Trucking and Warehousing 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 No. of Employees 262 377 529 424 569 Annual Payroll ($1000) 4,891 7,047 9,583 9,211 11,930 No. of Establishments 33 40 48 51 54 By Employee-size class 1-4 14 19 25 31 26 5-9 11 9 13 10 14 10- 19 7 7 4 6 6 20-49 0 4 3 2 4 50-99 1 1 3 2 3 100 plus 0 0 0 0 1 *Standard Industrial Classification: Major Group 42. Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing. This major group includes establishments furnishing local or long-distance trucking or transfer services, or those engaged in the storage of farm products, furniture and other household goods, or commercial goods of any nature. The operation of terminal facilities for handling freight, with or without maintenance facilities, is also included. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns,1980 - l983; anc, Indiana Employment Security Division, 1984. C—3 APPENDIX D TRUCK REGISTRATIONS: TIPPECANOE COUNTY, 1983 - 1984 D-1 TRUCK REGISTRATIONS: TIPPECANOE COUNTY, 1983 - 1984 Gross Vehicle Weight (lbs) 1983 1984 Under 9,000 13,384 13,765 9,000 - 11,000 428 426 11,000 - 26,000 597 612 26,000 - 36,000 124 135 over 36,000 548 621 Source: Derived from annual reports of the Tippecanoe County License Branch. D-2 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: Northwest FIRM PROBLEMS 1 Dangerous intersection @ Canal Rd. & 9th St. Also dangerous intersection @ Canal Rd. and Duncan Road (numerous accidents per yearly 3 As all our vehicles are either pickup; trucks or vans, the above listed prob- lems do not effect us much. The under- pass on Canal on the way to the land- large fill is narrow even for cars. still as it is. 4 Traffic congestion at Duncan & Canal Roads. Always hard to turn. 5 Chuck holes and rough roads are really the only complaints and certainly with all the taxes they slapped on trucks they will have money to do some im- provement Too narrow: 200N to 25N busy and just can't get around with boom trucks between 500 and 600 is horrible. 6 McCarty Lane is very narrow. 8 Overpass not marked to right. 9 Canal Road: All intersections are con- gested, roads too narrow. passes over 11 RECOMMENDATIONS to Problems Problem #1 We hope that Canal Rd. can be made 4-lane to US 52 eventually. Problem #2 The "Y" at Canal and the road out the bypass is dangerous to all concerned Especially when having to meet the large industrial size garbage container trucks. No ideas on how to fix it, as am sure that's why it's Problem#5 Not really. Problem#9 Need to four-lane Canal Road and put over railroad on 9th street. Post lower MPH on Canal Road. APPENDIX E PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IDENTIFIED BY LAFAYETTE AREA TRUCKERS PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: North Central FIRM PROBLEM 2 Traffic light system on SR 26 (South-St.)at Earl Av. and US 52 intersections, while improved is still the cause of major traffic bottleneck--especially afternoon noon. and early morning rush-hour. Have personally observed many accidents on the State Street Levee/Roebuck Dr. intersection. Dangerous intersection SR 43N @ intersection. I have seen many wrecks and near-misses when a north-bound 43 vehicle signals a right turn off 43 onto Prophet's Rock Road and any traffic is waiting at the stop sign on Burnett's Road assumes the right signal indicates an intended turn onto Burnett's Road 3 None that I have been made aware of. 4 No problems--our pickups mostly travel US 52 on the east side. 5 We use small trucks only. Railroads tied up. rough Streets. 6 8 No Problems 10 Almost all our trucks are pickups or vans Recomendations 2 Retime the Traffic Light system mentioned in #5 to expedite the east-bound SR26 traffic in the afternoon With the proper timeing mechanisms, west bound SR26 morning traffic could be similary expedited Install traffic lights at both ends of Roebuck Drive or close Roebuck Drive left turn onto State Street. 3 Railroad relocation.Better traffic light sequencing on thru-routes. 5 Some streets should be one-side parking only as 19th between Rough streets. South and Ferry. 6 Repair and widen Creasy Ln., Greenbush and Union. 8 No problems. 10 Almost all our trucks are pickups or If you could try and repair the vans. chuck holes in the streets as quickly as possible, that would be great as far as we are concerned. Streets not that bad PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: West Central FIRM PROBLEMS 1 Chuck Holes. S.9th & S.18th St. bus are in pitiful condition. Harrison Bridge bottle-up now Poor traffic flow in levee area-- and it will be worse with the new drivers how to drive and be improvements--poor ideas. 2. Chuck holes. 6 The type of vehicles our drivers use the major problems they run into are basically rough streets, not enough lights on some streets and narrow streets, especially in the winter time. 10 At the 4th & Cincinnati intersection a driver progressing east from the west side of 4th st. must commit himself too far into the intersection to assertain if traffic heading north on 4th st. is such that he can pull out into the intersection This is due to a building, a fence, and cars parked along the west side of N. 4th St. just south of Cincinnati St. McCarty Ln. from sagamore PKWY. to 350E. is a road that is too narrow and dangerous for the volume of traffic tat use it The practice of planting trees and shrubs between curbs and sidewalks should be curtailed. They are creating blind spots and a traffic hazard. RECOMENDATIONS 1 Teach public transportation bus drivers how to drive and be courteous in driving manners. Re-evaluate loadinq zones in the city. 2 Take some of the money from the license branches and fix the roads. 6 Other than rough streets the only improvements I can see is better lighting on streets and better snow removal plans. 10 Yes. This suggestion concerns cars and trucks. The north (curb) lane in front of Jefferson High School is a hazard, because drivers who are especially in a hurry use that right hand to pass the slower main lane traffic. the unsafe part happens when the passing traffic tries to get back into the left lane The use of overhead traffic lane is a road that is too narrow and danger- markers should be utilized ous for the volume of traffic that whenever busier streets use it. Much of the time the street markings are fadded or covered. The out of town drivers are confused and at times are the cause of accidents and near misses Problems and Opportunities Area: West Central FIRM PROBLEM 10, The worst problem I can see is that in certain areas where they planted trees a few years ago they have grown enough where when you come up to an inter section you can't see around thebtrees to see if something is coming for example at 9th and Brown and the same for off streets that intersect with South Street. 11 12 RR bridge underpass on South River Road. Telephone poles on S. River Road too close to road. SR 26 & 52 too congested from 2 PM on, and early morning. 13 Something must be done about Teal Road 14 McCarty Lane is narrow. 15 16 In many instances there are too many no right turn signs posted. I think the intent of the law was to speed traffic flow. and mis-use Decrease the number of Recomendations 11 Road Repair 13 South Bridge project--a way through or around south Lafayette 14 The South bridge should be completed, and south Grant street should be continued and connection should be made at South River Road with clover leaf 15 The early morning flashing yellow helps a lot. As most of our deliveries are early morning this keeps the drivers from stopping and starting so much no-right-turn 16 Decrease the number of no-right- turn signs To facilitate traffic floe we need more high-speed turn-offs into parking lots PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: East Central FIRM PROBLEM 2 SR 26 (west of W.L.) needs to be widened 3 Chuck holes are a major problem. 5 Most of our delivery vehicles are small vans which are easy to operate on our streets. Except for the pot holes we don't encounter many problems. 6 We don't have too many problems with the above. 7 We as of rule use smaller delivery trucks in the city. Our larger trucks are used for over the road on nearby highways and other counties. Therefore we have very few of the above problems. Sagamore Pkwy (N&S) at certain times are traveled heavy. Therefore such as 3 PM to 5PM week days there are problems turning in and off the Pkwy. into or out of many businesses located on its border. 8 Low power & or phone lines in alleys. Lack of deceleration lanes. Congested traffic at corner of 52 & Teal. Congested traffic at ints. 52 & 26. 9 Ints. Earl 6 South Sts. very congested esp. Fridays. Teal Road very crowded. RECOMMENDATION 1 Stop light at Earl and Ferry 2 There needs to be more space allocated downtown Lafayette for light delivery vehicle parking in each city block to allow United Parcel Service and similar companies to better sereve the dntn. business community 3 Repave well-traveled raods. 5 Repair pot-holes 6 Only problems are the chuck holes that are hard to fix when they appear in the spring PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: East Central, continued---- FIRM PROBLEM 11 Concord Road/Teal Rd./Sagamore Pkwy intersection area 13 14 Hard to turn into businesses on US 52 between Greenbush and SR 38. 15 Chuck holes. Dayton Bridge too narrow. 26 R.R. overpass W.L. too narrow and blind driving. Need some type of traffic control on Farabee Dr. and SR 26E. Stop light at SR 26 & US 52 too long. A lot of hidden stop corners--you have to pull out into road to see any on-coming traffic Lines crooked @ Teal Rd. & State St. 16 Narrow alleys that are very hard to get in and out of, esp. in W.L. Also parking regs. for trucks downtown and on-campus. They have to double park sometimes to make delivery. There are not enough loading zones in these areas so they get parking tickets or told to move trucks. 17 McCarty Lane @ 52 Hamman St. onto SR 26E 18 Railroads RECOMENDATIONS 13 McCarty Lane should be widened 14 I would like to see the rail barrier on 52 between Greenbush and SR 38 removed it makes turning into some locations impossible. The drivers have to go out of their way to turn around and come back to get intoa driveway. 16 We need a bypass for sr 26 from us 52 to SR 26W 17 Needs lights Farabee Dr. corner at Kossuth needs to be widened to accomodate truck traffic and congestion 18 Move them PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: East Central, continued-- FIRM PROBLEMS 19 Bridge on SR 38E too narrow therefore our problems are the same as those encountered by cars. 20 Our company uses van and pickups Therefore our problems are the same as those encountered by cars 21 Slow moving grain trucks. Farmer tractors slow blocking traffic. City and county slow on removing snow particularly around this area. 22 Very few problems--Main St. traffic Kossuth St.--Eli Lilly Plant Kossuth St.--Staley Plant South Improve Intersection 52 & 26.Kossuth St. --I-65N 24 All of our trucks are 3/4 ton utility vans so mobility is no problem. The only problem we have is parking when helpful. working in the downtown area. 26 SB 52 @ junction with SR 26--inters. too small and congested to facilitate save turns from 52 onto westbound SR 26. 27 In many cases roads such as Union St. and Kossuth st. at intersections where there are no painted arrows heading WB. People who are heading west can't seem to hit the right lane. Roads such as Underwood St. where parking on both sides inhibits lane traffic. Earl and Central where there should be a light: instead of a 4-way stop. When Alcoa lets RECOMENDATIONS 19 Stop light at SR 38 and entrance to Mal] Find some way to stop traffic from cutting thru businesses to get from Sagamore Pky. to SR 26E. 20 Better turn lane markings, esp. W.L. and purdue where traffic is heavy at certain times of day 21 2 LH turn signals at ints. SR.26E & Creasy lane; Sr. 26 & Denny's Ho Jo's entrances Removal of flashing light sagamore PKWY. & National Homes 22 Improve Intersection 52 & 26 24 More Parking for delivery and service vehicle would be helpful 26 We are a long haul interstate carrier, while we do make some pickup amd del. in the lafayette area, most of our travel is on I-65. We cannot at point in time contribute much in the way of recomendations on improving the area transportation system PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: Southeast FIRM PROBLEM l Bad roads. 2 No complaints from our drivers. 3 Alleys too small if required to deliver in an alley. 4 Chuck holes and narrow roads. 5 McCarty Lane is too narrow. Wabash Avenue and Beck Lane low clearance bridge. 6 Creasy Lane from Union to Greenbush is like a washboard. 8 Four lane road from Lafayette to 9 RH turn from Teal to Concord is very Continued effort should be-made difficult, since you must cross a lane to provide limited-access of traffic to go north on Sagamore. l0 Low hanging tree limbs in the area around P.U. Railroad crossings Q 9th & Columbia. Railroad crossings on Concord Rd. Traffic tie-up at Teal & Concord Rds. Narrow traffic lanes on Columbia St. because of Parking on both sides of the street. RECOMENDATIONS 1 9th & Teal needs to be wider so you can turn off Teal Road onto 9th Street going uptown. It is hard to turn this corner because of the turn lane on 9th Street. 2 No 4 Fix the above--use concrete not asphalt 6 McCarty Lane should be widened from Sagamore PKWY. to Creasy Lane. 8 Four lane road from Lafayette to Ft. Wayne. 9 Continued effort should be made to provide limited-access highways around the city. A "bypass" is self-defeating when traffic lights and driveways are peritted 10 The most important projects now are the Wabash Bridge and the 350S improvement PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Area: East Central, continued------- FIRM PROBLEMS 27, cont. out traffic blocks up ˝ mile. 28 Lack of parking areas designated for deliveries, esp. around the square. 29 Pot holes Traffic light timing on South St. Parked cars on south side of Salem St. between 20th and l8th St. Levee Plaza interchange. 31 Our vans receive very limited use. 32 No problems NA We are a major shipper in the Lafayette area. Most of our shipments, however, are destined for other cities and states. Virtually all of our shipments are made thru common carrier. If you have not surveyed the carriers serving this area, I would suggest you do so. RECOMENDATIONS 27 Redesign the bypass sewer system so that rain water can drain off. Re-open the road from the apartments behind Central Catholic so you can get to the Poland Hill area so you don't have to travel all the way down Teal in the winter time. Its tough for a truck to get up that hill and you slide going down. Problems and Opportunities Area: Southeast, continued FIRM PROBLEM 11 South River Road is too narrow and congested. Low R.R. overpass and bad curve on S.River Road Main St. Bridge from West to East too sharp at the 1st St. turn. 12 Parking problems when making service calls at residences and some small businesses, being held up by trains, traffic congestion caused by "out of sync" traffic lights. Some spped limits unreasonably low. 13 Low hanging tree limbs in residential areas Congested traffic Earl Ave. and State St. Lanes confusion at 18th & Teal east bound. Entrance from 18th & Teal Rd. to Tecumseh school. 15 As a gravel hauler we haul basically from Vulcan Pit W.L. Fairfield Builders Pits, 52N. and Macy on 725E. and Delphi & Monon. I guess the biggest problem is the inter-section in W.L. by Bruno's Pizza. The big intersection is too congested and can't make RH turn in right lane. Another problem is the Fairfield pit 725 by Dayton where you leave the pit no matter where you're going you have to go west because of bridges or weight limits on roads not supposed to haul north, south, or east because of roads. 17 Timing of stop lights--you cannot go from 52 & Teal Rd. to W.L. without stopping at each light. You cannot go from 65 and 26 to downtown without stopping at each stop light. This uses a lot of gas, brakes, and time. Weeds, trees and bushes blocking information stop and speed signs. RECOMENDATIONS 11 Sr 26 East (south) traffic lights need to be coordinated for truck traffic from 1st st. to us 52-- it is stop and go. Need better access to South Lafayette from West Lafayette. Relocate trains, better regulation of traffic lights, reasonable speed limits. 13 Stop light at Earl & State st. Signs and markers for east bound traffic at 18th and Teal. Sign (thru-traffic right lane only) or signs and re-paint lines--winter time drivers cannot see painted lanes. 15 I think that any stone or gravel road that is in the plans to be built to carry truck loads because any roads that have people on them ill sooner or later have materials hauled on them and its not built to carry the loads it will break down right away. 17 Time lights so we do not have to stop @ each, i.e., 52, Teal & 4th. Need light 231s & Brady Ln. Need something at Teal & Concord so left hand turn can be made from Teal. Fix S. 18th south from Brady. Need light on 38E at Payless & Mall so cars do not pull out in front of trucks. People think trucks can stop on a dime.Widen Concord Rd. to Brady Ln. from Teal. Problems & Opportunities Area: Southeast, continued-------- FIRM PROBLEM 19 No feedback from drivers. 10 The bulk of our deliveries are off the main roads listed. RECOMMENDATION 19 A shorter route from I-65 to General Foods Plant which could be 350S on the east side of US 52. 18 Keep pushing the railroadrelocation. APPENDIX F PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IDENTIFIED IN PLANNING FOR URBAN GOODS MOVEMENT UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE TRANSPORTATION CENTER (APRIL 1977) F-1 PROBLEMS A. Physical characteristics of the 5. Physical obstacles transportation system at the to loading/unloading shipping, receiving Point a. curbs b. narrow doors and 1. Inadequate off-street loading/ steps unloading facilities a. Lack of off-street loading/ B. Physical characteristics of the unloading facilities transportation system in route shipping/receiving point. b. Lack of loading/unloading docks to the c. Inadequate alley systems 2. Inadequate design and access 1. Network configuration to off-street loading/ unloading facilities a. ridges and rivers a. Inadequate number of b. overlapping radial systems docks b. Inadequate dock design c. Inadequate access to dock 2. Street capacity a. narrow streets in older sections b. highly utilized roadways c. streets with under utilized capacity 3. Obstacles blocking access to off-street facilities. a. Movable obstacles such as automobiles and dumpsters 3. Facility design b. Fixed ground obstacles such as telephone poles or utility a. intersections too narrow to poles allow for adequate turning radius for larger tractor c. Overhead obstacles trailer equipment b. Heavily utilized truck routes along low grade roadways 4. Inadequate on-street loading/ c. short and/or incline merge unloading facilities(acceleration) lanes d. sharp curves in the roadway a. Complete lack of on-street facilities b. Insufficient on-street loading facilities 4. Traffic control c. Misuse of loading zones by passenger vehicles a. Trucks queuing at entrance to industrial districts b. Truck routing without con- sideration of freight carrier needs or alternatives F-2 5. Major barriers to truck movements 4. Institutional jurisdictions a. low overpasses a. building codes versus traffic b. bridges with weight engineering restrictions b. diversion of city and county c. lack of direct access to major planning policies highways from highly con- c. development of commercial centrated commercial areas. districts D. Business operating policies 6. Overhead and ground obstacles to truck movements 1. Limitations on the use of receiving facilities a. placement of utility poles at turning points a. restrictions on the time of b. placement of utility poles along day for freight pickup/ roadway delivery c. overhanging commercial signs b. restrictions on the location of receiving c. restrictions on the number of loading bays open for pickup and C. Policies of Governmental Agencies delivery d. restrictions on the type of equipment accepted 1. Lack of enforcement of loading zone restrictions e. use of shipping/receiving areas for purposes other than loading/unloading 2. Lack of specialized equipment for freight handling and transportation 2. Taxation licensing and rate making a. hand loading and unloading b. palletization problems a. commercial zones to taxation c. lack of versatile truck design b. taxation for goods movement 3. Land use planning 3. Use of driver-salesman for a. lack of planned commercial and delivery industrial districts b. preemption of ideal distribution a. proliferation of trucks making sites deliveries F-3 4. Undesirable carrier responses to insufficient receiving facilities a. double parking of trucks b. parking in no parking zone c. parking on sidewalks 5. Other pickup and delivery problems faced by carriers a. inability to optimize truck routing b. delays in pickup of shipment c. requirements of special equipment without notification d. refusals of freight e. inability of receiving personnel to assist driver f. unnecessary detention of driver making a delivery E. Increase in the total number of number of vehicles moving freight 1. Increase in the total volume of freight 2. Increase in the number of small shipments 3. Increase in private carriage 4. Increase in the dispersion of economic activity F-4 OPPORTUNITIES A. Physical and Operating Characteristics of the Transportation System 1. Network Configuration Investments 4. Traffic Control a. Entrance and Exit Ramps into a. Truck Routes an Industrial Park b. Ancillary Measures b. Construction of Bridges to c. Truck Priorities link major Freight Generators d. Truck Travel Restrictions c. Construction of New Roads to e. Pick-up and Delivery divert Truck Traffic Circulation Plans d. Removing a Street from the Roadway Network in an Industrial 5. On-Street Loading/Unloading sector a. Time Phased Loading/Parking 2. Network Capacity Investments Zone b. enforcement of No Parking a. Upgrade Capacity of roadway Restriction in Loading Zones along major Truck Routes c. Metered Loading Zones b. Removal of Major Barriers to d. Loading Zones in Parking Truck Movements Lots 3. Facility Design Investments a. Turning Radius b. Turning Lanes into Industrial Districts c. Channelization d. Installation of Turnouts to Reduce Impact of Trucks Blocking Roadway during Loading/Unloading e. mountable Curbs F-5 B. Public Policy C. Business Community Options 1. Land Use Planning 1. Freight Consolidation a. Distribution Activity Clusters b. Industrial Parks a. Small Shipment Freight c. Distribution Priority Rankings Consolidation may take many forms b. Block Consolidation 2. Zoning Ordinances c. Route Consolidation a. Design and Layout of Loading/ 2. Management Practices Unloading Facilities b. Shopping Center Design a. Facility Location Decisions c. Industrial Parks b. Inventory Decisions c. Resource Scheduling and 3. Placement of Overhead and Ground Allocation Decisions Obstacles d. Storage and Material Handling Decisions a. On-Street Obstacles b. Off-Street Obstacles 3. Building and Equipment Design 4. Economic Incentives a. Installation of unloading Ramps a. Tax Breaks and/or fines for b. Sawtooth Docks Commercial and Industrial c. Tractor Detachment during Developers loading/unloading b. Franchise/Permit Systems c. Enforcement F-6 76