Space for Freight - Managing
capacity for Freight in Sydney
1
September 2018
Michael Stokoe, Associate Director Freight &
Servicing, Sydney Coordination Office
Why write this paper?
• Transport/traffic capacity management is a problem
common to every city
• It is a problem my team and I are working on continuously
• Other papers around the subject do not appear to look at
the problem by categorising vehicle purpose/type
• Categorising purpose and behaviour will drive our
management approach
• We have information that is useful.
Content
• Key constraints
• Planning policies to meet freight demand
• Provision and management of on street loading zones
• Loading Zone behaviour
• A comparison of behaviour in 2 centres
• Conclusions
While lower value industry activities have been pushed out of
bigger cities to neighbouring centres or suburbs, capacity for
the service provided by logistics activity is still essential to a
city’s daily activity. Clark 2016
A city’s capacity constraints for managing freight activity
impact of freight and servicing demand on the network:
• Limited and finite kerbside space
• Provision of off-street facilities (loading docks)
• Temporal aspects of a service driven industry
• Non-discretionary, service orientated transport tasks
competing for space
Key Urban Constraints
4
Global Consumer Trends: Choice = Freight
In one short section of a Sydney CBD street we found there was a consumer
choice of 230 different types of bread for sale.
Bread by numbers:
1 side of the street in
a 220 metre CBD
block
21 shops and cafes
selling bread
35 bread suppliers
80 deliveries each
day
5
Content
• Key constraints
• Planning policies to meet freight
demand
• Provision and management of on street loading zones
• Loading Zone behaviour
• A comparison of behaviour in 2 centres
• Conclusions
Planning for Freight and Servicing Building Planning and design often doesn’t address the freight and servicing tasks the
buildings generate
Servicing
• Bins monopolise valuable
kerbside space
Deliveries
• Drivers rely on and compete
for on-street parking
Poor Building Accessibility
Difficult onsite access/lack of capacity Reliance on on-street servicing from Day 1 5 Star Green ratings
Commercial Operating Decisions
• Operators take the easiest and
fastest option
7
OPERATING HERE:
• HPVs
• Heavy rail
• Shipping
LOCATED HERE:
• DCs/warehouse
OPERATING HERE:
• Electric/autonomous delivery
trucks (large)
• Rail shuttles
LOCATED HERE:
• UCCs
• Co-modal solutions (UCC to
dock)
OPERATING HERE:
• Electric/autonomous delivery
trucks (medium/large)
• Co-modal vehicles
LOCATED HERE:
• Precinct dock
• Commercial/retail centres
OPERATING HERE:
• Electric/autonomous vans
• Electric/autonomous delivery
trucks (small)
LOCATED HERE:
• Lockers
• Last mile collection points
• Homes/shops
OPERATING HERE: • Small electric vehicles • Bicycle/walking modes • Drones/autonomous delivery “bots”
Balancing Movement with Place
8
World Class Facilities Design: Barangaroo
To get this…
You need this….10,000 times a month
9
Content
• Key constraints
• Planning policies to meet freight demand
• Provision and management of on
street loading zones
• Loading Zone behaviour
• A comparison of behaviour in 2 centres
• Conclusions
• Loading zone spaces are managed in 3 daily time periods
• These periods permit management of the CBD’s commuter peaks and
maximisation of loading zone provision in between
Loading Zone Space Demand and Supply
AM peak
period
Inter peak
period
PM peak
period
Hours in period 4 5 3
Operating Hours 0600-1000 1000-1500 1500-1800
Capacity % change Mar 2015 to Apr 2018 -12% -7% -27%
Per cent of capacity provision 33% 48% 19%
Per cent of demand by period 29% 54% 16%
Spare capacity indicator 4% -6% 3%
2017-18 data
Kerbside Space Management
• Space
• Policy = Hierarchy
• Regulation = road rules
Also consider:
• Future demand / future vision of the city
• A change management path to achieve the outcome
1. Transit
2. Taxi
3. Freight
4. Disable parking
5. General parking
Kerbside Hierarchy Available Spaces
(Gardrat & Serouge, 2015)
Permitted Vehicles
As defined in road rules regulation
• Vehicles constructed primarily for the conveyance
of goods
• A driver is permitted to stop for 30 minutes
• Passenger vehicles are not permitted to park.
Permitted (but requires
2+ adjacent spaces to
park)
Not Permitted:
Passenger vehicle + SUV Permitted courier van ????? Constructed for
Conveying goods?
Permitted – purpose may be unknown
Australia's No. 1 Selling Vehicle
• Usage may often be private
• It is permitted to park in the CBDs loading zones
Content
• Key constraints
• Planning policies to meet freight demand
• Provision and management of on street loading zones
• Loading Zone behaviour
• A comparison of behaviour in 2 centres
• Conclusions
Free Loading Zones – A Tragedy of the
Commons?
• Who gets what space?
• Who gets priority?
• It is in the interests of the users of a commons to manage it prudently.
• Broader negative externality as no user is liable for the cost of his or her use or
actions
• Not a genuine “commons” as capacity be refreshed – momentarily transitory
Tragedy of the Commons
Hardin, 1968
Loading Zones – A Common Good
Rational Self interest
• Users act rationally but in self interest to complete their task
• Driver of efficiency
Rivalrous Consumption
• Competition for space intensifies
• Driver of positive change – exploration of latent capacity and alternate methods
• Can instigate poor behaviours
Wilful Non-compliance
• Abandonment of “the greater good”
• A deterioration in quality
Egoist Anarchism
• Rejection of moral codes
• Cynical exploitation – working around the regulations and the system
Loading Zone Users
B18
• The graphs assess use within the study area (27% of CBDs
loading zone)
• When looking at Usage by hour it is important to remember that
different LZs are active at different periods of the day.
• Most turn on at either 6 or 7am with a small group becoming
active at 10am.
• Some sights turn off at 3pm.
Delivery 39%
Service 42%
Passenger 19%
Loading Zone Usage by type
00:00
50:00
100:00
150:00
200:00
250:00
6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
Hour of Day
Passenger
Delivery
Service
Ho
urs
of
use (
wit
hin
th
e s
tud
y a
rea)
B19
Dwell time by Vehicle Type Average dwell time per
vehicle:
Private: 15 minutes
Delivery: 27 minutes
Service: 63 minutes
Approximately 50% of private
and service vehicles exhibit
legal dwell times.
75% of delivery vehicles had
legal dwell times.
A small numbers of vehicles
stay for very long periods of
time. 15% of Service vehicles
stay for over 2 hours.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Delivery Service Passenger
120+
90 to 120
60 to 90
45 to 60
30 to 45
25 to 30
20 to 25
15 to 20
10 to 15
5 to 10
0 to 5
Usage of loading zone kerbside space
0
50 000
100 000
150 000
200 000
250 000
300 000
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
LO
Ad
ing
Zo
ne
eve
nts
Hour of Day
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
12% reduction in
space from 2015
Limited Kerbside Space – competition for its use
Peak Opportunity Opportunity
21
Example of retiming activity 2013-2018 • Since 2015, major transport projects have
reduced overall loading zone capacity by:
– 12% in the AM peak
– 7% in the inter-peak
– 27% in the PM peak
• Since transformation work commenced,
we have seen increases in overnight &
early morning activity
– Operating outside of peak is easier
and more efficient – as long as the
customer can cooperate….
FY
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Annual
Annual
Latent
Capacity
Latent
Capacity
Financial
Year
Index
FY 2014 0.46
FY 2015 0.46
FY 2016 0.55
FY 2017 0.80
FY 2018 1.00
Limited Kerbside Space
23
Loftus Street 04.11.16 8:48am
An example of kerbside space on a city
street depending on time of day
Loftus Street 26.09.17
4:38pm
Trades Vehicles Dwell time
• Often found in larger frequencies where construction/redevelopment is occurring
• Dwell time often exceeds the 30 minute permitted period
• Drives are less sensitive to incurring fines for overstaying
Towing the vehicle as a penalty can only occur
when the space ceases to be a loading zone.
At 3pm many loading zone spaces are re-
designated for bus lanes.
Content
• Key constraints
• Planning policies to meet freight demand
• Provision and management of on street loading zones
• Loading Zone behaviour
• A comparison of behaviour in 2 centres
• Conclusions
Comparison of activity across 2 centres
loading zone occupancy
Sydney CBD
Passengers 43%
Parramatta CBD
Passengers 19% Servicing 42% Delivery 39%
Only 47% of on-street Delivery and Servicing is conducted from loading zones
25km 165,000 jobs 630,000 jobs
Comparison of Loading Zone use across 2 centres
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
Passenger Vehicles (Minutes Occupied) Delivery Vehicles (Minutes Occupied) Service Vehicles (Minutes Occupied)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
Time of day
Parramatta CBD
• Space is commonly used
by passenger vehicles
• (Car) parking spaces are
also commonly used by
Freight vehicles
Sydney CBD
• Service vehicles feature
more prominently. A
shape of things to come
for Parramatta?
• There is virtually no
designated private
vehicle parking available
• Space is used by Freight and Servicing and Passenger vehicles more
informally than in Sydney CBD
• Are Loading Zones necessary in this environment?
– Short term parking offers greater flexibility for both Freight and private
vehicles
Assessment of Church St, Parramatta
Church Street
Parking Type
Number of
Spaces
Number of PV
Events
(Mon-Fri 6am-6pm)
Passenger
Vehicles
(Avg Time)
Number of Commercial
Vehicle Events (Mon-Fri
6am-6pm)
Commercial
Vehicle
(Avg Time)
¼ hour
parking 12 816 0:20:21 206 0:18:37
1hour parking 6 764 0:36:49 107 0:25:55
Loading Zone 3 153 0:27:17 93 0:28:01
TOTAL 21 1733 0:28:21 406 0:22:36
Content
• Key constraints
• Planning policies to meet freight demand
• Provision and management of on street loading zones
• Loading Zone behaviour
• A comparison of behaviour in 2 centres
• Conclusions
• Freight is largely speaking a non-discretionary task. How and When it occurs are variables.
• When creating places for people, planning for freight activity is a key ingredient to achieving an attractive
environment and creating amenity.
• Local planning policies promote the development of off-street parking: buildings should be self-sufficient. This is
often difficult to enforce. Sydney benefits from being a young city. Older heritage buildings rely on on-street loading
zones
• We have Policy, Regulation, Management Control and Space for Freight. We also must consider the longer term
perspective for city planning and change management approaches to influence this movement to a future state.
• In Sydney almost all available daytime kerbside capacity has been allocated to loading zones to support business
activity. There is no more on-street space in the CBD available to allocate. At peak, the operational capacity is
exceeded, however there is substantial latent capacity (overnight in particular) still existing at other times outside of
peak that offers opportunity.
• Different legitimate users of loading zone space have different profiles of work. This can result in tensions related to
compliance between groups.
• Rational egoism encourages drivers to do their best and be efficient, ultimately for their own interests. When this
gives way to rivalrous consumption, wilful non-compliance, egoist anarchism, there is a need for effective
management and penalties to curtail the misuse of space.
• The future is unlikely to get easier.
Conclusions