LTL Trucking in Los Angeles: Congestion Relief Through Terminal Siting

Full text

o
LTL Trucking in Los Angeles:
Congestion Relief Through Terminal Siting
Randolph W. Hall
Wei Hua Lin
October 1990
Working Paper No. 43
The University of California
Transportation Center
University of California
Berkeley, CA 04720

The University of California
Transportation Cente~t
The University of California
Transportation Center (UCTC)
is one of ten regional units
mandated by Congress and
established in Fall 1988 to
support research, education.
and tr~fins in surface trans-
portation. The UC Center
serves federal Region IX and
is supported by matching
grants from the U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation. the
California State Department
of Transportation {Caltrans}o
and the University.
Based on the Berkeley
Campus. UCTC draws upon
existing capabilities and
resources of the Institutes of
Transportation Studies at
Berkeley. Davis. and lrvine:
the Institute of Urban and
Regional Development at
Berkeley; the Graduate
School of Architecture and
Urban Planning at Los
Angeles: and several aca-
demic departments at the
Berkeley. Davis. L,’vtne, and
Los Angeles campnses.
Faculty and students on other
University of California
campuses may participate in
Center activities. Researchers
at other universities within
the region also have opportu-
nities to collaborate on selec-
ted studies. Currently faculty
at California State University,
Lone Beach. and at Arizona
State University, Tempe, are
active participants.
UCTCs educational and
research programs are focused
on strategic planning for
improving metropolitan
accessibility, with emphasis
on the special conditions in
Region IX. Particular attention
is directed to strategies for
using transportation as an
instrument of economic
development, while also ac-
commodating to the re-
gion’s persistent expansion
and while maintaining and
enhancing the quality of
life there.
The Center distributes reports
on its research in working
papers, monographs, and In
reprints of published arti-
cles. For a list of publications
in print, write to the address
below.
Universtty of OdifmmlR
TranJpomlion Center
108 NavM Architecture Building
Berkeley. California 94720
Tel: 4151643-7378
FAX: 415/643*5456
Authors of papers reportin8 on UCTC-sponsored research are solely
responsible for their content, This research wes supported by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the California State Department of
Transportation. neither of which assumes liability for its content or use.

LTL Trucking In Los Angeles:
Congestion Relief Through Terminal Siting
Randolph W. Hall
Wei Hua Lin
The University of California
Transportation Center
Working Paper No. 43
October 1990
Departmentof Industrial Engineering & Operations Research
University of California at Berkeley

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Executive Summary
II. Acknowledgements
.
Opportunities for Congestion Relief
1.1 LTL Terminal Operations
1.2 Study Objective
,
Surplus Capacity in the L.A. Freeway System
2.1 Average Daily Traffic Counts
2.2 Hourly Traffic Counts
2.3 Summary
Exposure of Trucks to Congestion
3.1 General Truck Traffic Patterns
3.2 Truck Traffic at Individual Sites
3.3 Summary
.
Location of TruckingTerminals
4.1 General Terminal Locations
4.2 LTL Terminals
4.3 LTL Service to Manufacturing Centers
4.4 Summary
o Locations for New Terminals
5.1 Serving Entire Region from a Single Terminal
5.2 Multiple Terminals
5.3 Addition of Terminals
5.4 Summary
6. References
iii
V
3
6
6
10
12
12
16
17
18
18
25
36
38
4O
4O
41
42
42
44

II
TABLES
2.1ADT per Lane: Top 25 Sites
2.2 Traffic Counts by Time and Direction
4.1 Zip Code Ranking for Number of Terminals
4.2 LTL Terminals for Seven Carriers
4.3 Major Manufacturing Centers
7,8
Ii
19
27
37
FIGURES
2 1 Major Transportation Facilities in Los Angeles Region
2 2 Freeway Congestion Map for L.A. Region
2 3 Traffic Flow on Radial Routes by Time and Direction
1-3.3 Truck Traffic versus Total Traffic per Lane-Hour
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 Locations of Terminals, South-central L.A.
2 Locations of Terminals, Port Vicinity
3 Zip Codes Containing Many, or Few, Trucking Terminals
4 Most Central Location Relative to Manufacturing Employment
5 L.A. Region Topography
6 Locations of LTL Terminals
7-4.13 Maps of LTL Service Regions and Terminals
4
5
9
13-15
20
21
23
24
26
28
29-35

Ill
I. EXECUrlVE St~ARY
Traffic congestion in the Los Angeles region may cost individuals and industry
as much as $2 billion a year, in lost time and lost productivity. Much of
this cost is borne by the trucking industry and its customers. To address
this concern, this report develops and evaluates strategies for reducing
congestion delays incurred by less-than-truckload (LTL) motor carriers in Los
Angeles.
LTL common carriers are highly service oriented, and cannot easily avoid
congestion by changing their hours of operations. Therefore, our study
concentrated on the selection of terminal locations. Through analysis of
traffic flow data, existing terminal locations and manufacturing employment in
Los Angeles, we have made the following findings:
Findings
o Despite some notable exceptions (portions of the Santa Monica, Ventura,
San Diego and Santa Ana Freeways), surplus capacity exists in the L.A.
freeway system throughout much of the day.
o Currently, trucks naturally avoid congested highways. In all time
periods, the trucks make up a smaller percentage of the traffic volume
on heavily traveled freeways than on lightly traveled freeways.
Further, the truck percentage is largest at midday, when traffic is
li~htest, and smallest during the p.m. peak, when traffic is heaviest.
o Existing terminals tend to be well located. However, some locations in
the region -- most notably West L.A. and the L.A. Airport/E1Segundo
area, are not well served from existing terminals. Further, carriers
provide duplicate service, choosing to establish terminal
s
in the same
locations.
[] A shortage of vacant land in the South-central industrial core may be
forcing carriers to build terminals in more remote locations. This
trend will contribute to congestion delays.
The second finding demonstrates that congestion caused, and experienced, by
trucks could be far worse than it is. Nevertheless, there is potential for
improvement, through implementation of the following programs.
Proposals
[]
Motor carriers should be encouraged to establish terminals in
South-central L.A., to provide good access to the Downtown and the
South-central industrial core. Given that there is a shortage of
vacant industrial property, this goal may best be accomplished through
redevelopment.
[] Motor carriers should improve service to West L.A., L.A. Airport and
E1Segundo. This would best be accomplished through the addition of
terminals in the vicinity of Inglewood.
[]
Motor carriers should be encouraged to consolidate and merge their
pickup/delivery operations, to facilitate service from more terminals.
If all motor carriers served the region from 16 terminals, as
Consolidated Freightways does, rather than just six or seven, then LTL
truck travel on congested freeways would be reduced.

IV
Finally, future analyses of terminal sites and operations would be facilitated
if good data were available on system-wide highway congestion. Average daily
counts and average peak hour counts provide an incomplete picture. CALTRANS
has the mechanism in place to collect and disseminate necessary data through
its Main Line Demand System (MLD).
Proposal
[] CALTRANS should distribute data on average traffic flow, by hour of
day and direction, for selected sites in the L.A. region. Data should
be available on floppy disk as well as in printed form.

V
We wish to express our gratitude to Paul Chow of the Traffic Department at
CALTRANS District 7 for his help in collecting traffic counts. We also wish
to thank Fred @ey of the State Data Program for providing data essential to
this project. Don Bain, of the Department of Geography at University of
California at Berkeley must be thanked for his kind help in digitizing the zip
code map and for his valuable advice. Ned Devlin of Yellow Freight System,
Inc., and Joe Finney and Mike Jordan of Viking Freight Inc. must be thanked
for their generous assistance in allowing visits to their terminals. Finally,
all seven trucking companies studied in this project provided information on
terminals and service regions.

1. OPPORTUNITIES FUR CONGESTIflN RELIEF
The state of California recently commissioned the Urban Freeway Gridlock Study
[1] "to investigate the impact of large trucks on peak-period freeway
congestion." Among the study findings was that "congestion in Los Angeles,
San Francisco, and San Diego may cost as much as $2 billion per year."
While the motivation for this, and other, studies (e.g. [2],[3]) was
measure, and reduce, congestion caused by trucks, it is clear that a large
portion of the congestion costs are borne by trucks. According to [1], each
hour that a truck spends on the road costs $44, in wages, maintenance, fuel
and overhead, a number considerably larger than the value of an automobile’s
time. On top of this amount, delays impose additional costs on the shippers
and receivers who depend on carriers for timely service.
1.1LTL Terminal Operations
Less-than-truckload (LTL) motor carriers transport medium size shipments
shipments that are too large for Parcel Post of UPS, but too small for
truckload service. According to [1], approximately 45% of the truck miles in
the Los Angeles region are by LTL carrier, of which approximately half is by
LTL common carrier (e.g., Consolidated Freightways or Yellow Freight System)
and half is by LTL private carrier.
h typical LTL carrier transports shipments in three phases: local pickup,
linehanl, and local delivery. The pickup phase ordinarily occurs in the
afternoon, after most of the days’ orders have been received. After visiting
multiple stops, the pickup/delivery truck deposits its load at an end-of-line
terminal (usually the carrier’s closest terminal to the shipment origins).
From there, shipments are transported in larger linehaul vehicles, either to
another end-of-line terminal or, in some cases, to a breakbulk terminal for
further sorting. After the linehaul phase, shipments are delivered in the
morning from an end-of-line terminal (usually the closest to the shipment
destinations) in pickup/delivery vehicles. In terms of congestion relief, the
important characteristics of the system are: (1) deliveries occur in the
morning, (2) linehaul occurs overnight, and (3) pickups occur in
afternoon.
Because linehaul occurs overnight, it is not greatly affected by road
congestion (nor does it contribute greatly to congestion). Pickups and
deliveries, on the other hand, must occur during the day when businesses are
open, and often must occur during the morning and afternoon travel peaks.
These trucking routes are affected by congestion, especially if
pickup/delivery vehicles travel in the same direction as commuters. That is,
congestion has the biggest impact on delivery routes heading toward work
centers in the morning and pickup routes heading away from work centers in the
evening.
One way to provide congestion relief would be to schedule trucks so that they
travel in off-peak periods. However, for LTL common carriers, this would
require major changes in carrier, shipper and receiver operations. Pickups

2
and deliveries would either have to occur at midday, after deliveries are
needed and before pickups are available, or they would have to occur
overnight. But overnight pickups and deliveries would disrupt linehaul
operations, and could be costly to shippers and receivers that do not
currently have nighttime staffing.
Alternatively, trucking delay could be reduced by selecting better locations
for LTL terminals. This can have the following beneficial effects:
D By strategically locating more satellite terminals, the lengths
of pickup and delivery routes can be reduced.
o By strategically locating terminals, travel across congested road
segments can be reduced.
To achieve the second objective, pickup/delivery trucks can be routed like
"reverse commuters." For instance, if an LTL terminal were located near a
work center, then trucks would travel in the opposite direction of commuters
in the morning, as they leave to make deliveries, and in the opposite
direction of commuters in the evening, as they return with their pickups.
1.2 Study Objective
The objective of this study is to assess the potential for reducing trucking
delays caused by urban road congestion in the Los Angeles region, with
emphasis on improved selection of terminal sites for LTL common carriers. In
particular, the feasibility of placing terminals at locations which exploit
surplus freeway capacity (e.g., "reverse commuting") will be examined.
The next four chapters of this report address the following issues in order:
Where and when is there excess capacity on the LA freeway system?
a To what extent are carriers currently exposed to congestion.7
Where are trucking terminals currently located?
a Where are the opportunities for improved terminal sites?
Although the focus is on reducing delays incurred by trucks, any strategy that
reduces trucking delay would benefit motorists in general through reduced
traffic volume on congested roadways.

2. SURPLUS CAPACITY IN THE LA FREEWAY SYSTEM
It has been said that Los Angeles is a city without a center, where work and
residences are spread amorphously throughout a massive region. Indeed,
compared to other major cities, Los Angeles is decentralized. But it is not
true that it has no center. In recent years, the Downtown of Los Angeles has
experienced tremendous job growth, including the construction of high-rises
topping the 1000 foot mark. This large concentration of employment has come
to have a significant impact on traffic patterns throughout the region. Like
all major cities, roadways leading toward the Downtown are congested in the
morning and roadways leading away are congested in the evening. The reverse
commute directions tend not to be as congested, and roadways located far from
the center tend to be less congested.
The dominance of the traditional Downtown is evident in L.A.’s ring-radial
freeway network, shown in Figure 2.1. The Santa Monica (Route 10), Hollywood
(101), Golden State (5), Pasadena (110), San Bernadino (10), Pomona
Santa Ann (5), Long Beach (710) and Harbor (110) freeways all radiate from
Downtown. The San Diego (405), Redondo Beach (91), San Gabriel (605)
Foothill (210) form a ring beltway around the center. In the newer parts
the region -- San Fernando Valley, and Orange, Riverside and San Bernadino
Counties -- Downtown L.A. is less dominant, and freeways follow more of a grid
structure.
Our goal was to determine when and where surplus capacity exists on the Los
Angeles freeway system through the analysis of traffic flow data. As an
initial illustration, Figure 2.2 shows the highway congestion map issued by
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) for the L.A. region. The
map provides an overview of which roads experience the greatest congestion,
for both the morning and evening.
Observations
[] Few freeway segments are congested in both directions at the same
time. The major exceptions are: Yentura Freeway (101); San Diego
Freeway (405), from I-lO to 1-110; Santa Monica Freeway (10);
several road segments Downtown and in the vicinity of Anaheim.
[] In the a.m., congestion is most prominent along the Ventura Freeway
(101), leading to the 405 interchange; along the Santa Monica Freeway
(10), heading east toward Downtown; along the San Diego Freeway (405),
heading north toward the 10 interchange; and in the general vicinity of
the Downtown (especially on 110 north and 5 north).
[] Congestion is also significant in the vicinity of Anaheim and Santa
Ann, along routes 5, 22, 55 and 91, and in the vicinity of Westminster
alon~ 405.
[] In the evening, congestion patterns are largely reversed, but
amplified. More locations experience congestion in the evening than in
the morning.

0
0
0
o
0
~D
Z
_B
..._I
o
~
w
,,
I--- 0
I--
Z ._1 I--
o
z
0
~_~
w
_J
Z
oD
.B
z
I-,,,-I
F--
_J
U
<
Z
O
h-
O
b---
O
,-’9
c4
w
D
(.9
LL.

5
/
#
J
-~
/
./"
}(
/
../
.._3
<~
u_
1:1.
>..
,,+,
ii
IZ

5
2.1 Average Daily Traffic Counts
Average-daily-traffic (ADT) and peak hour counts are surveyed annually
CALTRANS at hundreds of sites in the region [4]. Unfortunately, the survey
provides no indication of how traffic levels vary by direction and time of
day.
In our analysis, ADT counts were sampled at five-mile intervals along the L.A.
and Orange county freeway system, and the ratio of ADT to number of lanes [5]
was calculated as a measure of congestion. Finally, the freeway sites were
sorted to identify the most congested roads, listed in Table 2.1a for L.A.
County and 2.1b for Orange County.
Observations
[] In L.A. County, the highest ratio of 33,625 vehicles/lane-day (an
average of 1400 vehicles[lane-hr) was recorded on the San Diego Freeway
(405), in the vicinity of Century Boulevard.
[]
In Orange County, the highest ratio of 35,500 vehicles/lane-day
was recorded on the Santa Ana Freeway (5), just north of the
interchange.
[] The San Diego Freeway experiences severe congestion from the 22
interchange north to the 101 interchange. It accounts for 3 of the
top ten L.A. County sites.
[] Also among the top ten L.A. County sites are the Ventura (101), in the
vicinity of the 405 interchange; the Santa Monica (10), east
405; the Santa tna (5), immediately south of the Downtown and the
Harbor (110), immediately south of the Downtown.
[]
In Orange county, the most severe congestion is on the Santa Ann (5)
and Costa Mesa (55) Freeways, near their intersection; and
on the San Diego Freeway, near the 22 interchange.
These observations confirm the data on the congestion map, which showed that
congestion is greatest along the San Diego freeway corridor, in the vicinity
of the Downtown, and in the Santa Ann~Anaheim area.
2.2 Hourly Traffic Counts
h second source of traffic data is CALTRANS’ automated freeway control system.
This is one of the most sophisticated systems in the world for monitoring
real-time traffic flows. Flow detectors have been installed at over 900
sites, covering most of the major freeways in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
At the outset of this study, we had hoped that the data collected by this
system would provide a detailed picture of historical traffic flows over the
freeway system. Unfortunately, the system has not been set up to routinely
generate summary reports, or to easily analyze systemwide traffic. From the
Main Line Demand System, traffic counts can be generated by 15-second to
15-minute interval for any selected site, for the previous 72 hours. Each run
demands about 15 minutes of operator time, making the analysis quite
laborious. In our study, 22 sites were selected, spaced roughly at five mile
intervals along the routes radiating from Downtown Los Angeles. Figure 2.3

Table 2.1a Average Daily Traffic - Los Angeles County
Mile
Freeway Post
405
22.22
5
13.78
I01 17.17
ii0 17 98
I0 6 4O
405
16 57
i0
21 38
5
24 33
10
ii 39
405 33 00
405 6 08
I01 22 25
405 27 96
5
8 31
I0
16 90
91 13 59
405 ii 22
91 8 44
5 2 14
I01 27 36
i0 2 16
91 18 66
605
16 65
ii0 12 90
i01 Ii 75
405 0 45
405 39 43
710 23 28
i01 6 38
i0 32.22
I0 26.86
170 14.50
605 11.54
405 44.74
5
19.20
210
.26.94
605 0.29
710 16 99
60
28 04
60 15 93
210 48 52
210 32 91
ii0 7 02
57 0 91
605
5 81
60 9 51
i0 43 66
22 1 14
60
21 48
5
29 78
Description
+
Number
of
Lanes
Century Blvd.
4 4
Commerce, Jct. Rte. 710
4 4
Sherman Oaks, Van Nuys Blvd.
4 4
Los Angeles, Slauson Ave.
4 4
West Los Angeles, Overland Ave.
4 4
Jct. Rte. 91
4 4
Monterey Park, Jct. Rte. 710
4 4
Los Angeles, Los Feliz Blvd.
4
4
Los Angeles, Crenshaw Blvd.
5 5
Bel Air, Sunset Blvd.
4 5
Long Beach, Jct. Rte. 710
5
4
Tarzana, Tampa Ave.
4 4
Culver City, Jct. Rte. 187
5 5
Downey, Jct. Rte. 19
4 4
Los Angeles, San Pedro St.
4 4
Long Beach, Paramount Ave.
5 4
Carson, Avolon Blvd.
4 4
Compton, Central Ave.
4 4
Santa Fe Springs, Carmenita Rd.
3 3
Calabasas, Mulholland Dr.
3 3
Santa Monica, Jct. Rte. 1 & 2
3 2
Cerritos. Norwalk Blvd.
4 4
Peck Road
4 4
Athens District, E1 Segundo Blv
4
4
N. Hollywood, Jct. Rte. 170
4 4
Long Beach, Studebaker Rd.
5 4
Los Angeles,Jct Rte i01
5
5
Commerce, Jct. Rte. 5
4
4
Hollywood,Hollywood Blvd.
4 4
Baldwin Park, Baldwin Park
4 4
E1 Monte, Jct. Rte. 164
4 4
Jct. Rtes. i01 and 134
3 3
Slauson Ae.
4 4
Los Angeles, Nordhoff St.
4 4
Los Angeles, N. Main St.
4 5
Pasadena, Hill Ave.
5 5
Long Beach, Spring St.
4 4
South Gate, Imperial Hwy.
4 4
Philips Ranch Road
3
3
Hacienda Blvd.
4
4
Jct. Rte. I0 Fwy
3 3
Monrovia, Jct. Rte. 248
4 4
Carson St.
4 4
Diamond Bar, Brea Canyon Rd.
4 4
Norwalk, Alondra Blvd.
5 5
Jct. Rte. 164, Rosemead
5
4
Ganesha Blvd.
5 5
Long Beach, Studebaker Rd.
2 2
Industry, Fairway Drive
4 4
Burbank, Burbank Blvd.
4 4
Peak
Hour
16000
15000
14400
15000
14700
16000
20500
18000
20000
18000
18000
14400
20000
14700
14600
16200
15200
15200
11300
1O800
ii000
14700
15500
15000
14400
17100
20000
15000
14400
14900
14900
12200
15500
15000
16200
18O00
15500
14900
10800
13500
11300
15000
14900
15200
18O00
16800
15000
7600
13800
14100
ADT
ADT /
Annual Lanes
269000
267000
266000
258000
256000
254000
246000
245000
305000
274000
273000
242000
300000
236000
234000
259000
230000
227000
168000
166000
138000
21.6000
215000
215000
214000
238000
264000
210000
209000
207000
207000
149000
198000
197000
220000
240000
191000
188000
141000
188000
139000
185000
180000
179000
222000
198000
218000
87000
173000
171000
33625.00
33375.00
33250.00
32250.00
32000.00
31750 00
30750 00
30625 00
30500 00
30444 45
30333 33
30250 00
30000 00
29500 00
29250 00
2877778
28750 00
28375 00
28000 00
27666 67
27600 00
27000 00
26875 00
26875 00
26750 00
26444 45
26400 00
26250 00
26125 00
25875 00
25875.00
24833.33
24750.00
24625.00
24444.45
24000 00
23875 00
23500 00
23500 00
23500 00
23166 67
23125 00
22500 00
22375 00
22200 00
22000 00
21800 00
21750 00
21625 00
21375 00
(Sorted By ADT/Lanes in Descending Order)
+ source: "1987 California State Highway Log District 7."
by CALTRANS.
* source: "1989 Traffic Volumes on California State Highway."
by CALTRANS.

Mile
Freeway Post
5 30.90
55 7.85
55 12.97
91 6.12
405 12.64
5 36.37
405 17.75
405 23.28
5 42.10
22
4.81
22 9.73
57 15.60
57 20.88
57 11.25
91 11.54
91 0.49
22
12.87
8
Table 2.1b Average Daily Traffic - Orange County
+
Number
of Peak
Description
Lanes Hour
Santa Ana, First St.
3 3
13300
Santa Ana, Dyer Road
3 3
15200
Jct. Rte. 22 West
3 3
11400
Anaheim, Jct. Rte. 57
3
4
15900
Fountain Valley, Euclid
5
4
17100
Anaheim, Katella Ave.
3 3 11400
Westminster, Bolsa Ave. 4
4 16000
Seal Beach, Jct. Rte. 22 West
5 5 19000
Fullerton, Jct. Rte. 91
4 3 13300
Garden Grove, Magnolia St.
3 3
13600
Orange, City Dr.
3 5 15200
Anaheim, Jct. Rte. 91 4 4
15200
Brea, Lambert Rd. 4 4
15200
Orange, Chapman Ave.
4 4
15200
Peralta, Jct. Rte. 90 5
5 15900
La Palma, Orangethorpe Ave.
4 4 14300
Tustin Ave.
4 4 11400
ADT
Annual
213000
204000
195000
220000
278000
179000
233000
289000
199000
159000
209000
201000
180000
177000
220000
176000
143000
ADT /
Lanes
35500.00
34000.00
32500.00
31428.57
30888.89
29833.33
29125.00
28900.00
28428.57
26500.00
26125 00
25125 00
22500 00
22125 00
22000 00
22000 00
17875 00
+ source: "1987 California State Highway Log District 7."
by CALTRANS.
* source: "1989 Traffic Volumes on California State Highway."
by CALTRANS.

9
I I I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
p~
to
tO
LO
Cq
C~
-0
_ 0
,(--
~’-
©
Q_
~--
©
_ I
E
c’q
x’--
- I
v"-
- I
0
©
Oh
Oh
- I
o3
00
- I
p~
I
Z
0
k-
¢m
z
k--
1.1.1
F-
Z
0
I_L
U
ii
ii
C~
ILl
(spuosnoq/)
JnoH Jad Sel9!qeA

10
displays the total traffic count among all 22 sites by direction and time of
day, and Table 2.2 provides traffic counts for individual sites.
flbservations
[] From 6-9:00 a.m., traffic leading toward the Downtown exceeds traffic
heading away by 28%.
[] From 2:00-6:00 p.m., traffic leading away from the Downtown exceeds
traffic heading toward by 23%.
o Between 9:00 and 2:00, traffic levels leading toward the Downtown
average 80% of the peak-period count. Traffic level heading
away from the Downtown average 76~ of the peak-period count.
[] Heading toward the downtown, the p.m. count is nearly the same as
the midday count. Heading away from the downtown, the a.m. count
is nearly the same as the midday count.
It appears that most radial freeways operate below capacity for most of the
day. Most radial roads leading toward the Downtown only operate at peak
capacity from about 6:00 - 9:00 a.m.. Most roads heading away from the
Downtown only operate at peak capacity from about 2:00 to 6:00. Among the
sites surveyed, the major exceptions are on the Ventura Freeway (101) at Van
Nuys, the Santa Monica Freeway (10), and the Santa Ana Freeway (5)
Orangethorpe (Buena Park). These roads operate at or near capacity throughout
much of the day -- in both directions at the same time. Based on ADT counts,
there are likely exceptions along the San Diego Freeway and in the
Anaheim/Santa Ana area as well.
2.3 Summary
The L.A. freeway system is highly congested in many locations, especially on
portions of the San Diego, Santa Monica, Santa Ana and Ventura Freeways.
These roads operate at or near capacity throughout the workday -- from about
6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. -- in both directions. But these are the exceptions.
The majority of the freeway system only experiences severe congestion during a
few hours out of each day, in only one direction at a time.
Motor carriers have the potential to reduce congestion delays, both for
themselves and for other vehicles. Carriers can exploit surplus capacity and
reduce their congestion delays by strategically locating their terminals.

Freeway
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
60
60
60
60
60
60
101
101
101
101
101
101
ii0
110
710
710
710
710
TOTAL
TOTAL
Table 2.2. Traffic Counts by Time and Direction
Average Iourly Traffic
Location Direction
6-9 9-2
2-6
Burbank To
7700 4800
5800
Burbank
From 5300
4200 6600
Tuxford
To 7100
3900 4000
Tuxford From
3600 3700
6100
S. o£ 710
To 7900 6000
6000
S. of 710
From 5700
5500 6100
Los Feliz To
7400 5400 6900
Los Feliz From
6100 5100
7200
Rosencrans
To 5300 4500
4900
Rosencrans From 4500
4400 4900
flrangethorpe To
5800 5100
5700
Orangethorpe From 10500
9100 11500
Crenshaw
To 6800 7300
7900
Crenshaw
From 5200
7500 7900
7estwood To 7900
8000
8200
~est~ood
From 8400 8000
8500
E. o£ 710 To
6000 5000
4000
E. of 710
From 3300 4400
5600
Atlantic To 6700
5800
5400 .
Atlantic
From 4100 5100
6800
Rosemead
To 7100
6100 5900
Rosemead From
4100 5300 7400
Citrus To 7500 4800
5100
Citrus From 4200
4300 7300
Atlantic To 9700 6300
5400
Atlantic From 4500
4900 7700
Rosemead
To 9000 6000
5800
Rosemead From 4400
4600 7200
Turnbull To
7400 5700
6500
Turnbull
From 5200 5700
8700
7estern To 6800
5700
5100
~estern
From 5300 5400
7000
Yineland To 8500 6800
5900
Yineland
From 5600
5600 8400
Van Nuys To 6800
7200
7400
Van Nuys From
9000 9900
9400
Slanson To 6600
6500 5000
Slanson From
6500 5900
7600
Imperial To 6700 4800 6200
Imperial
From 5900 4200 6500
Del Amol To
6000 4600 6400
Del hmol From 6200 4300 5600
TO
158000
127000 131000
FROM 123000 123000 162000

12
3. EXPOSURE OF TRUCKS TO CONGESTION
Ordinary two-axle automobiles and light-trucks compose the vast majority of
vehicles on the Los Angeles freeway system and general traffic patterns are
dominated by personal trips. During peak hours, traffic is further dominated
by commute trips, which are reflective of where people live and where people
work.
On most L.A. Freeways, less than 5% of the vehicles are large trucks (3 axles
or more), whose traffic patterns differ substantially from personal vehicles.
Most of their trips begin and end at manufacturers, transportation terminals
or warehouses. Consequently, truck travel patterns are reflective of where
industrial facilities are located.
In the L.A. region, the largest concentration of manufacturers and warehouses
is in South-central L.A. along the Santa Ana (5) Freeway corridor. The
largest transportation terminals are the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach and
Southern Pacific’s Long Beach intermodal terminal, 20 miles south of Downtown;
and the Santa Fe, Southern Pacific, and Union Pacific intermodal terminals in
the vicinity of the Downtown (Figure 2.1). In addition, unlike automobile
traffic, which is dominated by commuting, truck trips are spread throughout
their workday. These factors combine to cause truck travel patterns to differ
substantially from general traffic patterns, both in terms of where they are
on the road and when they are on the road.
The Urban Freeway Gridlock study found that "a substantial number of freeway
sites had a smaller percentage of large trucks than is suggested by the
statistical average" [1]. We decided to examine this issue in depth through a
statistical analysis of truck and automobile traffic in the Los Angeles
region. Our data was collected by video camera at 40 sites by Cambridge
Systematics as part of the Gridlock study. For each site, truck (3 or more
axle) and automobile counts were obtained for six 15-minute periods, two in
the a.m. peak, two at midday, and two in the p.m. peak. In all, recordings
were made for 221 15-minute periods (19 data points were missing).
3.1 General Truck Traffic Patterns
Figures 3.1a, 3.2a and 3.3a display truck-traffic as a percentage of total
traffic for the a.m. peak, midday and p.m. peak periods, respectively. In
each case, the relationship between truck-traffic and total traffic was
approximated by linear regression, to produce the lines shown.
Observation: There is a natural tendency for trucks to avoid the most
congested roadways
o As a ~ of total traffic, truck traffic declines as traffic volume
increases in all three periods.
o As a ~ of total traffic, truck traffic is largest at midday, when
roadways are the least congested, and smallest in the p.m., when
roadways are the most congested.

0.2
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
O.il
0.I
0.09
v
0.08
0.07
0.06
0,05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
]_3
AM Truck Traffic in Los Angeles
[]
o
o
o
[]
o
o
0
13
o
_~o []
DD [] OD
~ - ~ o[] ~ [] D [] []
[]
0 --
~,~,~ 0 " O I
°
~b
°o
o°o oo~ o
d
, , , , ,
~, 0,
, , , ~,
°, "1
0 0,4
0.8
1.2 1.6 2 2.4
(Thousonds)
Totol Trofflc/Lone-Hour
3
O
I
E
\
._t2
2
F-
u
2
26O
240
220
2O0
180
160
140
120
100
80-
60-
40 -
20 -
0
0
AM Truck Traffic in Los Angeles
o
[]
[]
[]
o []
[]
n
D
[]
[]
[] ° O []
[] ° °
° D
~oO
O
[] [] Q O
o
~ o []
[] D
°
E~3D D O
D
li
~
[]
[] []O
o o o
~ o o __%0° nn~](~)
o
o %8
o
[]
[] N
D °
I I I I
0.4 0.8
FIGURE 3,1
o o
[]
D
I I I I I I
I I
I I
1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
(Thousands)
Total Traffic/Lone--Hour
TRUCK TRAFFIC VERSUS TOTAL TRAFFICPER
LANE-HOUR

0.2
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.1.3
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
lq
Los Angeles Off-Pe@k Tr@ffic
o
[]
[]
c]
[]
o 0
dJ []
o
o¯ []
[]
O
~_ O
O
Do D ~,~ [] []
O D
°
O ~ O
o o
o
oo
o
-
°° ° Z~° o o
i
I I
I I I
i
o
I i I
I I C~l
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
2 2.4
(Thousands)
Total Trafflc/Lone-Hour
2.8
0
I
0~
c
o,
\
u
I,.-
2
I-
260
240
220 -
200
180
160
140
120
IO0
8O
6O
40
20
Los Angeles Off-Peok Traffic
0
I I
0 0.4
[] 0
O¯
0
[]
O
O O
[]
[]
[]
O
O [] O
DO
~
[] []
D
[]
[] []
[]
O
[]
O []
O
O
DO 2
Do
[g0
od~ o o
ooOO~
[]
[]
o
o
o
0 n
O
D
[]
I
I
I t I I
I I I I I
0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
2.8
(Thousands)
Total Traffic/Lane-Hour
FIGURE 3,2 TRUCK TRAFFIC VERSUS TOTAL TRAFFIC PER LANE-HOUR

0.2
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16 -
0.15
0.14
._~ 0.13
0.12
0.11
o.1
0.09
0.08
D
0.07 -
0.06 -
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0
15
Pbt Peak Truck Traffic in Los Angeles
[]
D
D
D@
[]
°o
DD O D
D
gC
[]
o
u[] a~a
8 aaauu~a
~
[]
[] n
[] n
[]0
I
I I I I I
I I l I I I I
I
0.4 0.8
1.2 1.6
2 2.4 2.8
(Thousands)
Total Traffic/Lane-Hour
D
O
"r
I
®
c
3
\
u
F-
D
l-
260
240
220
200
180
160 -
140
120
100
80
6O
40
20
0
PM Peak Truck Traffic in Los Angeles
[]
[]~
[] [] D~
[]
D
[] []
OD
D°
[]
aa ¯d~ 8
D
DD
[]
O
D[]
I I
I I I l I
l I I I I I I
0.4 0.8
1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
(Thousands)
Total Traffic/Lone-Hour
FIGURE 3,3 TRUCK TRAFFIC VERSUS TOTAL TRAFFIC PER LANE-HOUR

15
Figures 3.1b, 3.2b and 3.3b convert the percentages into trucks per lane-hour.
These figures demonstrate the following additional points:
Observations
o Truck traffic is nearly the same during the a.m. and midday,
but considerably smaller during the p.m.
[] Total traffic is largest during the p.m., slightly smaller
during the a.m. and considerably smaller during the off-peak.
[]
The largest truck volumes occur on freeways with medium traffic
volumes (on the order of 1400 vehicles/lane-hour). Truck traffic
is smaller on roads that have either a very large or very small
traffic level.
Roughly the same number of trucks is on the road during the a.m. peak and
midday, likely because driver workshifts run from early morning through the
afternoon. The higher percentage of trucks at midday is due to fewer
automobiles being on the road, not more trucks. During the p.m. peak, there
are fewer trucks on the road because many carriers have terminated operations
for the day. And, in all periods, there is a natural tendency for trucks to
avoid congested routes.
3.2 Truck Traffic at Individual Sites
On a microscopic level, several sites stand out as having especially large, or
small, truck volumes. In the a.m. peak, the truck percentages were smallest
and largest at the following locations
Small Truck Percentages: A.H. Peak
Rte Freeway/Location
Total/Lane-hr Trucks/Lane-hr
Truck Z
IO-E
Santa Sonica/La Brea
2250 11 .5 Z
IO1-S Hollywood/Hollywood 1270 10 .7
IO-W
Santa Monica/La Brea
2547 30
1.2
llO-N
Harbor/Torrance
2153
33 1.6
IO-W
San Bernadino/W.Covino
2022 35 1.7
55-N
Costa Mesa/Villa Park
1428 25 1.8
55-S
Costa Mesa/Santa Ana
1882 36 1.9
IO1-E Yentura/Tarzana 2035 38 1.9
llO-N
Harbor/USC
1818
35
1.9
405-N San Diego/Fountain Valley 1326 26 2.0
405-S San Diego/Fountain Valley 1958 39 2.0
Large Truck Percentages
710-S Long Beach/Long Beach 1326 207 15.6
605-S San Gabriel/Whittier
1708 195 11.4
605-N San Gabriel/E1 Monte
807 92 11.4
60-E Pomona/Industry 1120 102 9.1
710-N Long Beach/Long Beach 1551 128 8.2
5-N Golden State/Sun Valley
798 62 7.8
110-S Harbor/Long Beach 1538 101 6.6
5-S Santa hna/Bell Gardens
1374 88 6.5
60-W Pomona/Industry 1260 78 6.2

¯
17
The emergent pattern is that the heaviest a.m. truck volumes occur on roadways
located near to the Port of L.A./Long Beach and near to the South-central
industrial corridor, over roads that are relatively uncongested. The smallest
truck volumes occur on roadways heading toward the Downtown or other
employment centers, over roads that are quite congested. The absolute lowest
truck percentages occur on the Santa Monica Freeway, the most densely
developed commercial corridor in the region.
3.3 Summary
Trucks in the Los Angeles region naturally avoid the most congested roadways.
In every time period, there is a negative correlation between percentage truck
volume and total traffic. Further, truck percentage is largest at midday and
smallest during the p.m. peak. Nevertheless, it is impossible for trucks to
avoid congested freeways completely. The congested Santa Ana and San Diego
Freeways are surrounded by major industrial centers. Trucks must travel these
roads to serve their customers. Thus strategies are needed to minimize the
exposure of trucks to congestion.
I

18
4. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING TRUCKING TERMINALS
The travel patterns for trucks in the L.A. region is dependent on the
locations of the major trip generators -- manufacturers, warehouses, the Port
and rail yards -- as well as on locations of trucking terminals. By locating
terminals closer to trip generators, the total number of truck miles can be
reduced. By strategicaHy locating terminals to exploit excess freeway
cap~city, the number of truck miles over congested roadways can be reduced.
We now examine the existing locations of trucking terminals in the region.
The analysis is based on two data sources: (1) the California Trucking
Association (CTA) file of L.A. and Orange County terminals (San Bernadino
Riverside Counties were excluded), and (2) Service directories for seven major
LTL Carriers. Neither data source is comprehensive. Nevertheless, each
provides a representative sample of existing terminal locations, and provides
insight into truck travel patterns in the L.A. region.
4.1 General Terminal Locations
The CTA data file contains the addresses of 600 terminals covering a wide
variety of trucking -- LTL and truckload, private and common, as well as
specialized carriers. The CTA data was coded by zip code, then the zip codes
were ranked from largest to smallest according to number of terminals. Table
4.1 gives the top 23 zip codes.
Observation
[] The greatest concentrations of terminals are in South-central L.A. --
in the Santa Ana corridor stretching from Downtown to Santa Fe Springs
-- and in the vicinity of the Port of L.h./Long Beach, stretching up
to Gardena.
The first area is the manufacturing core of the region, and the second is the
distribution core. Clearly, large numbers of motor carriers have selected
sites to serve these customers.
Specific terminal locations are shown for the South-central and Port areas in
Figures 4.1 and 4.2. The single largest concentration of terminals is south
of I-5, in the vicinity of Vernon, Bell and Commerce. Terminals in the Port
area are somewhat more dispersed.
Comparison to Manufacturing Employment If terminals are to be located
effectively, they should be placed close to their customers. Because
manufacturers comprise the single largest source of customers, we compared the
terminal location pattern to the pattern of manufacturing employment in the
region [6]. Through statistical regression, the relationship between number
of terminals and manufacturing employment, by zip, was approximated by a
linear equation. Some zip codes contain considerably more terminals than
predicted. For instance, Zip 90250, which has 10,000 manufacturing e~ployees
and 4 terminals, is close to average, with one terminal per 2,500 employees.
Zip 90706, which has three terminals and just 500 manufacturing employees, is
far above average, with one terminal per 170 employees.
.°

Table 4.1 Zip Code Ranking for Number of Terminals
+
~k Zip Location Terminals
1 90058 South-central Los Angeles 30
2 90040 Commerce 27
3 90670 Santa Fe Springs 25
4 90744
Wilmington 22
5 90810 Long Beach 18
6 90640 Montebello 14
7 90021
South Central Los Angeles 12
8 92667 Orange 11
8 90723 Paramount
11
10
90807 Long Beach 9
10 90701 Artesia 9
10 90023
East Los Angeles 9
10 90248 Gardena 9
14 90022 East Los Angeles 8
15 90048
Hollywood
7
15 90806
Long Beach
7
15 90660 Pico ~evera 7
15 92665 Orange 7
15 90745
Carson
7
15 91706 Baldwin Park 7
15 90501 Torrance 7
15
92805
Anaheim
7
15 91746 La Puente 7
+
Data extracted from California Trucking Association terminal database for
Los Angeles and Orange Counties,lO~3/89. In some cases, numbers were
supplemented to include omitted LTL terminals. These numbers are not
all inclusive, but should be indicative of which zip codes contain the
greatest concentrations of terminals.
J

2O
!
_.3
._1
(_;
I
--~
0
_.1
(.9
u_
0
Z
0
F--
.._q
,-----t
LI_

Z
0
r~
-_1
z~
Ill
LL
0
Cf~
Z
0
o,
C~J
W
u~
II

22
Figure 4.3 shows the zip codes where the number of terminals differs
substantially from expected, given manufacturing employment.
Observations
[]
Zips 90058, 90040, 90640, 90670 in the Santa Ann Freeway corridor, and
90744 and 90810 in the Port area stand out as having especially large
concentrations of terminals. Each has at least 10 more terminals than
expected. These zips are also large manufacturing centers, averaging
15,000 employees each.
[]
Zips 91311 (Chatsworth), 91406 (Van Nuys), 91504 (Burbank),
(El Segundo), 90278 (Redondo Beach), 90503 (Torrance), 92705
~na) and 92714 (Irvine) stand out as having far fewer terminals than
expected. These zips have at least four fewer terminals than expected,
and average 19,000 manufacturing employees each. In addition, all
are distant from Downtown, located in the suburbs.
Explanation of Terminal Clusters Manufacturing employment is just one
determinant of the number of terminals in a zip code. Other factors include
manufacturing employment in nearby zips and location of major transportation
facilities. The latter factor surely explains the large concentration of
terminals in the Port area. It would be inefficient for carriers that serve
the Port to locate elsewhere.
The concentration of terminals along the Santa Ann corridor can be explained
by neither employment in nearby zips nor transportation facilities: the total
number of terminals along the Santa Ann far exceeds the expected number, given
the manufacturing employment. An imbalance does not exist in one or two zips,
but in most of the zips. Though the Santa Ana corridor is adjacent to the
Union Pacific and Santa Fe intermodal terminals, the traffic generated here is
not comparable to the traffic generated at the Port of L.A./Long Beach, and
cannot alone explain the cluster of terminals.
The likely explanation is that South-central L.A. is an ideal location for
carriers that serve the entire L.A. region from a single terminal. To test
this reasoning, alternative terminal sites were analyzed according to the
average straight-line distance to manufacturing job sites in L.A., Orange,
Riverside and San Bernadino Counties. The single most central location was
found to be in Bell, west of 1-710 and south of I-5, which is within a mile of
the cluster of terminals in Figure 4.1.
To further test the reasoning, locations were analyzed to see which sites are
nearly optimal with respect to minimizing average straight-line distance. In
Figure 4.4, the average distance from any location in the central circle to
the region’s manufacturers is within 1Z of the optimum; within the middle
circle, the distance is within 5Z of optimum and within the outer circle the
distance is within IOZ of optimum. The middle and outer rings almost directly
coincide with the pattern of Figure 4.3, showing zips with excess terminals.
In addition, the Santa Ann corridor provides excellent freeway accessibility.
The Port can be reached via 1-710, Riverside/San Bernadino can be reached via

23
cO
0
m
0
_.1
W
(.D
Z
oe-
IJJ
I_1_
0
:2
Z
z
Z
ILl
3
t’M

0
0
0
!
1.1.1
r~
1.1_

25
1-60, and Orange County can be reached via I-5, all reverse-commute
directions. The flip side is that San Fernando Valley, West L.A. and the E1
Segundo/LtX can only be reached via the Downtown or by circuitous routes.
Although the construction of the Century freeway will partially remedy this
situation, access to San Fernando Valley will remain a problem for carriers
based in South-central L.A. The twin obstacles of the Santa Monica Mountains,
and the routing of the Golden State and Hollywood freeways through the
congested Downtown, may make the Valley increasingly isolated in future years.
4.2 LTL Terminals
Terminals were evaluated for seven LTL common carriers: the three "majors"
(Consolidated Freightways, Roadway and Yellow), three smaller nationwide
carriers (ABF, ANR and P.I.E.) and a large regional carrier (Viking).
Terminal locations, and boundaries of terminal service regions, were obtained
from published service directories [7].
Topography and, to a lesser extent, governmental boundaries, play a keyrole
in dictating terminal locations and service regions. All carriers appear to
have divided L.A. into four distinct regions:
Region
San Fernando
Eastern
Orange
Central
Boundaries
Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountain Ranges
San Gabriel and Santa Ann Ranges
Santa Ana Range and Orange County line
Santa Monica and Santa Ann Ranges, and Orange County line
To illustrate the region’s topography, Figure 4.5 shows the positioning of
1000 foot contour lines. Areas located above the 1000 foot level tend to be
sparsely populated and difficult to traverse. Consequently, service regions
have been drawn to minimize pickup/delivery truck travel across the mountains.
Table 4.2 lists the terminals 5y region and associates terminals having
similar locations. For instance, the first line gives the terminal serving
locations to the west of San Fernando Valley. In all seven cases, that
terminal is located in either Yentura or Oxnard.
The second line gives the
terminal serving central San Fernando Valley.
Again, the locations are
similar. All carriers have a terminal in Pacoima or the adjacent Sun Valley.
In Figure 4.6, locations of all seven carriers have been plotted. Figures 4.7
to 4.13 show terminal locations and service region boundaries for individual
carriers. These figures also show the number of tractors (does not include
all types of trucks) and the number of loading docks at each terminal.
9bservations
[]
It appears that a minimum of six terminals is needed to serve the
region competitively, one each for: flxnard, San Fernando Valley, Long
Beach, Central L.A., Orange County, and San Bernadino/Riverside.
[] The larger carriers have aivided L.A. into smaller service regions and
established more terminals. Roadway, for instance, serves Central L.A.
from five terminals: Gardena, Industry, Long Beach, South-central L.A.,

t"
i
,,,~,, -- -
,’\’,
.°
t~
.. .....
,,, .." ~<
/_./I,
..... ,~.."
~
~ ,,,.J
¯ .
"-:’i ""
!
)’
t~’~
I"-
/
oo° ¯
°°
, oo °
__1

27
Table 4.2 LTL Terminals for Seven Carriers
Large LTL Carriers
Consolidated
Roadway
Yellow
San Fernando/Ventura
Oxnard
92613 Ventura
93001 Yentura
Pacoima
91331 Pacoima 91331 Sun Valley
Simi 93065
93003
91352
Central: Santa Ana
L.A. 9O021
Montebello 90640
Santa Fe S. 90670
L.A. 9OO58
Santa Fe S. 90670
L.A. 90021
Pico Rivera 90660
Santa Fe. S. 90670
Central: San Diego
Carson
90745
Compton
90220
Inglewood 90304
Wilmington
90744
Gardena fi0248
Carson 90810
¢ardena 90247
Central: East County
Industry 91789
Industry
Irwindale 91706
91746
Orange Country
Irvine 92718 Irvine
Los tlamit. 90720
Orange 92665 Orange
Eastern
Fontana 92335
San Bern. 92324
92718 Irvine 92718
92667 Orange 92668
Ontario 91743
San Bern. 92316
Fontana 92335
Riverside 92507
ABF
Medium LTL Carriers
PIE
San Fernando/Ventura
Oxnard 93001 Oxnard+
eacoima 91331 Pacoima
93030 Ventura
91331 Pacoima
Central
Carson 90810 Long Beach 90810 Carson
Pico River 90660 L.A.
90023 L.A.
Orange
Orange
Eastern
Pomona
Viking
93003 Oxnard 93030
91331 Sun Valley 91352
90746 Gardena
90058 Whittier
Montebello 90023
Industry
91769
90248
90601
92667 Orange 92665 Orange 92665 Anaheim 92806
91767 San Bern. 92408 Fontana 92234 Pomona 91767
Colton 92324
+ Recently closed
San Bern. 92402 San Bern. 92408

28
0
0~1
0
0
0
LLI
LI..
0
Z
0
~D
ILl
t’Y
LI_

29

co
,_.1
,.uO
r,._O f-~
Z
r-,, ~-s
-’r
(_0
Z
0
~
0
cO
I:~ u.I
1.1_1
-r-
1.1_1
w
I_1_

31
C~
._1
,---I
,-’-I
cl
0,’---I
@,,,
Z
i,i
"1-
._1
.--~
0
,,q
u’)
0
LI..I
la.I
0
I---
o’) I..LI
>-co
¢.~ la.!
,,q..z
X~-~
¯ ILl
D
L.I_

52
r~co
I--~-t
ILl
q
>-
p_
U
r~
I.,,-I
O2
LUl
,,9
-r
._1
:=)
Z
0
ILl
O3
Z
0
<8
el_ LLI
7-
LI-I--
OZ
ILl
,--4
-:F
ILl
FF
--I
(.9
LL.

[
8
I
_1
O_
Z
0
,,q
V
Z
0
ILl
>
1.1.1
GO
0
ZU9
"r"
U.. t-’-
o~
D
U_

35
_.1
LLI
LU

and Santa Fe Springs. Roadway has also established two terminals in
Orange County (Irvine and Orange) and two terminals in the eastern
region (Ontario and San Bernadino).
[] Consolidated Freightways has the most terminals. With 16 total, it has
five more than its nearest competitor.
[]
There is no precise relationship between carrier size and number of
terminals. Yellow has 75 more tractors and 73 more docks than
Consolidated, but five fewer terminals. Viking, with six terminals,
has a comparable number of docks as Roadway, with eleven.
Terminals are not always centrally located relative to their service
regions. This is especially apparent for Yellow.
The large carriers hold a natural advantage over the small in terms of
minimizing their pickup/delivery costs. With more terminals, large carriers
can serve their customers from closer terminals, on average. Consequently,
they are not as exposed to road congestion delays. Consolidated, for
instance, can serve the manufacturing center in E1 Segundo from nearby
Inglewood. All other carriers would have to dispatch a truck from the Long
Beach/Gardena area, or from South-central L.A.
4.3 LTL Service to Manufacturing Centers
The distance, and route, from terminal to customer dictates the extent to
which trucks are exposed to highway congestion. Some manufacturing centers
enjoy much closer service than others, as indicated in Table 4.3. The
following describes the regional needs for LTL service.
San Fernando Manufacturing employment is concentrated along the S.P. Railroad
lines, with one corridor paralleling theGolden State Freeway (5) and a branch
heading west toward Sepulveda and Chatsworth [6,8]. The LTL terminals are
concentrated on the east side of the valley, which makes access to Chatsworth
and Sepulveda somewhat distant. However, the San Fernando Valley Freeway
(118) provides relatively uncongested, if circuitous, routes. Glendale
also distant but, given the relatively light traffic on the Golden State
Freeway, access is not a major problem. By far the most congested freeway in
the Valley is the Ventura (101). However, there is little manufacturing
employment in the vicinity and LTL trucks can avoid the route.
Eastern Sparse development and good east-west freeway coverage make
congestion a much smaller issue in San Bernadino and Riverside counties.
Major manufacturing centers can be reached without encountering large delays.
However, as the counties develop their vast stocks of vacant, industrially
zoned, property [8], congestion is sure to increase. Of particular concern is
the area between Ontario and Fontana along the Devore Freeway (15).
Orange Manufacturing employment is concentrated in two areas: in Irvine along
the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway; and in the Riverside (91)/Santa Ann (5)/Orange
(57) Freeway triangle, surrounding Anaheim. The major carriers afford good
access, with terminals in both locations, but the smaller carriers only have
terminals in Orange or Anaheim. The distance from Orange to Irvine is not

Center/zip
Table 4.3. Major Manufacturing Centers
Ave 9ist to CF Dist to Access Route*
Terminal+
Terminal@
San Fernando
Burbank 91504 5 6
5 south
Chatsworth 91311 11 10
5 north/liB west
San Fernan. 91342 5 5
5 north
Sepulveda 91406
5 5 surface,5 north/405
south
Central: I-5
Commerce 90040 3 2 5 south
Santa Fe Sp 90670
4
0 surface
Vernon 90058
3
2 surface
Central: 1-405
Compton 90221 4 2
91 east,710 north
Culver Cty 90230
10 5 10 west
E1Segundo 90245
8 2 405 north(CF:405 south)
Oardena 90248 2 3
surface
Redondo Bch 90278 6
3
405 north/surface
San Pedro 90731 6 5
110 south,surface
Santa Mon. 90404 13 8 10 west
Central: East County
Azusa 91702 10 3 605 north
E1 Monte 91733 5 4 605 north
La Puente
91746 6
4
605 north/60 east
Orange
Fullerton 92631 4 4
55 north
Hunt. Bch 92649 11 5 22 west
Irvine 92714 8 6 405 north
East
Pomona 91766 8 6 10 west
Rancho Cuc. 91730 8 7 10 west,surface
Riverside 92507
7 6
215 south
+
Average straight-line distance from zip code to zip code.
@Straight-line distance for Consolidated Freightways, zip to zip.
Zero value indicates that terminal is located in manufacturing zip code.
*
Most common access route among seven LTL carriers

enormous. However, southbound a.m. congestion and northbound p.m. congestion
are significant. West Orange County, and the manufacturers around Huntington
Beach, are even more difficult to reach. Most carriers access the area Irom
Orange, on the Grove (22) and San Diego (405) freeways. Both are congested.
Central The central district has by far the largest number of manufacturing
employees, especially along the San Diego Freeway (405), from Long Beach north
to Santa Monica, and along the Santa Ana Freeway (5), from Downtown south
La Mirada. Smaller concentrations exist in east L.A. county, along the San
Gabriel (605) and Pomona (60) Freeways.
Santa kaa The large carriers are well positioned to serve the corridor,
the single largest manufacturing concentration in the region.
Consolidated, PIE, Roadway and Yellow each has two or three terminals.
Service from the smaller carriers is somewhat inferior. In particular,
Viking has located its terminal in outlying Whittier. To reach the
South-central industrial core, Viking must travel north on the
Santa hna Freeway or west on the Pomona Freeway, following the same
direction as commuters, or traverse slow surface streets. The outlying
Whittier location has also forced Viking to serve Downtown from Sun Valley
-- the only carrier to do so -- rather than from South-central L.A.
San Diego This heavily developed corridor is currently the most
difficult to serve in the region. Only one carrier (Consolidated) has-
built a terminal north of the Harbor interchange, making access to the
manufacturing centers in Santa Monica, Culver City and E1Segundo very
difficult. Access to the commercial centers along the Santa Monica
Freeway (10) and to LAX is also hard. For most carriers, the only ways
reach these cities are to travel west from South-central L.A. on the Santa
Monica freeway, or to travel north from the Long Beach area on the San
Diego freeway. Both routes are heavily congested in the direction of
travel (especially the latter).
East County Only Consolidated has sited a terminal in the Azusa/
Irwindale area. The smaller carriers serve these cities, and Pasadena,
from as far away as South-central L.A or Sun Valley. The more central
E1 Monte/Industry area is somewhat better served by all carriers.
Fortunately, access is in the reverse commute direction, so carriers are
not exposed to substantial congestion.
4.4 Summary
The largest concentrations of trucking terminals in L.h./flrange counties ar
e
in the vicinity of the Port of L.h./Long Beach and along the Santa hna (5)
Freeway corridor. The former is a good location for serving the large truck
demand at the Port, and the latter is a central location from which to serve
the entire L.A. region.
Among seven LTL carriers examined, all had terminals in at least six
locations: Oxnard/Ventura, Pacoima/Sun Valley, Central L.A., Long
Beach/Gardena, Orange, and San Bernadino/Pomona. Larger carriers --

especially Consolidated Freightways -- have established more terminals and,
consequently, can reduce truck travel over congested freeways.
Accounting for existing terminal locations, freeway capacities and prevailing
traffic patterns, several industrial areas are especially difficult to serve
from existing terminals.
Carriers serving the entire region from South-central L.A.
San Fernando Valley
West L.h./Santa Monica
LAX/E1 Segundo
LTL carriers serving region from multiple terminals (other than Consolidated)
Glendale/Pasadena
Huntington Beach
South-central L.A. (ABF and Viking only)
IrwindalelAzusa
~est L.A./Culver City
LAX/E1 Segundo
The San Diego Freeway corridor, from West L.A. down to Redondo Beach, presents
the biggest challenge. The San Diego Freeway is highly congested, often in
both directions, and there is a shortage of trucking terminals.

4O
5. LOCATIONS FOR NEW TERMINALS
Strategic terminal siting provides an opportunity for LTL carriers to reduce
their congestion delays. In this section, positions for new terminals are
examined in relationship to the existing manufacturing base and in
relationship to freeway congestion. Because all carriers have made
substantial investments in their existing facilities, and because additional
terminals would require bigger investments, neither change could come quickly.
Nevertheless, the cost of constructing a terminal is far less than the cost of
constructing other industrial buildings, such as factories or even warehouses.
So establishing new terminals would not be impossible.
5.1 Serving Entire Region from a Single Terminal
South-central L.A. is the most central location from which to serve the entire
L.A. region. If offers the minimum average travel distance to the region’s
manufacturing employment, and it offers good freeway accessibility to all but
San Fernando Valley and West L.A./E1Segundo. It effectively exploits surplus
freeway capacity heading south, to the Port and to the Santa Ana corridor.
Our analysis of existing terminals shows that a large number of motor carriers
have wisely selected South-central L.A. for their terminals. Our only concern
is that future carriers will avoid the area for the reasons of high land costs
and lack of vacant industrial land. In its 1989 analysis of the L.A.
industrial real estate market, Grubb and Ellis Reality stated:
The scarcity of available land and the area’s high prices have combined
to keep construction activity low. The small amount of development
activity that does occur consists primarily of teardowns of old
structures, particularly multi-story industrial warehouse space, which is
considered unsafe by earthquake or fire standards. [9]
One alternative to South-centralL.A. is the Santa Fe Springs/La Mirada area,
to the south-east, where there is some vacant industrial land. This area
offers improved access to the fastest growing areas in the region: Orange,
Riverside and San Bernadino Counties. With the construction of the Century
Freeway, access to LAX/E1Segundo would also be good. San Fernando Valley, on
the other hand, could only be reached by the circuitous 1-605/I-210 route, or
through the congested Downtown via the Santa Ana Freeway. Access to the
manufacturing core in South-central L.A. would also be made more difficult.
A second alternative is the Carson/Dominguez area to the south. The
advantages here are excellent access to the Port and the San Diego corridor,
and good access to South-central L.A., via the Long Beach Freeway (710).
Vacant industrial property is available and prices are relatively low. The
biggest drawbacks would be very difficult access to San Fernando Valley, and
increased distance from the growing Riverside and San Bernadino Counties.
In the future, lower land prices and vacant property may draw carriers even
further from the center, to East L.A. county or San Bernadino/Riverside
counties. This would certainly be harmful to congestion, as average travel

distances would increase and trucks would be forced to travel in the same
direction as commuters.
With the lack of vacant land in South-central L.A., and the lack of a direct
route to San Fernando Valley that circumvents the Downtown, carriers may find
it impossible to serve the entire region from a single location in the future.
Santa Fe Springs would be workable for serving central L.A., and Orange,
Riverside and San Bernadino counties, but a second terminal would be needed
for San Fernando Valley and, perhaps, West L.A. (which could be accessed by
1-405, the San Diego Freeway). Quite independently of freeway congestion, the
sheer size of the L.A. region presents an enormous challenge. The urbanized
area encompasses a region larger than the state of Delaware, and a population
bigger than Pennsylvania. In the future, L.A. may be difficult or impossible
to serve from a single location.
5.2 Multiple Terminals
We now examine for multiple terminals opportunities in the four L.A. regions:
San Fernando, Eastern, Orange County and Central.
San Fernando All seven LTL carriers currently serve the valley from the
Pacoima/Sun Valley location. This places the carriers strategically at the
intersection of the Golden State (5) and Hollywood (170) freeways, and near
the manufacturing center of the valley. The most difficult manufacturing
sites to access are Glendale and Chatsworth. However, because access routes
are relatively uncongested -- even in the direction of peak traffic flow -- it
would be difficult to improve on the current location.
Orange County If a carrier can only provide one terminal in Orange County,
then Orange -- used by all 7 LTL carriers surveyed -- is a reasonable choice.
Orange provides immediate access to the I-5/I-91/I-57 triangle and close
access to the manufacturing center in Irvine. However, given the size of the
Orange County market, and the congestion heading toward Irvine, two terminals
are warranted, with the second in Irvine.
Eastern The concern here is not so much with existing congestion but with
future congestion. The Ontario/Fontana area, along the Devore Freeway (15),
is prime for development, and the larger carriers have wisely established
terminals here. Because the area is large, a reasonable combination of
terminals is San Bernadino and Fontana.
Central The re~ion contains at least three distinct manufacturing centers --
San Diego corrlaor, Santa hna corridor, and East L.A. County -- which suggests
that a minimum of three terminals is needed to serve the region.
San Diego Service to the northern part of the corridor would improve
if the smaller carriers moved further north to the Gardena/Worrance area
(as Viking has already done). Gardena provides good reverse-
commute access to the port, and improved access to E1Segundo, LAX
and Santa Monica. Ideally, the corridor would be served by two terminals,

one to the north in the Inglewood area and one to the south in the Carson/
Long Beach area.
Santa Aria Vernon/Commerce in South-central L.A. provides immediate access
to the industrial core and the Downtown, and reverse commute access to
Santa Fe Springs and South Gate. Unfortunately, the lack of vacant land is
an obstacle to location there, and some carriers have moved further south.
Ideally, two terminals would be used here, with the second in the Santa Fe
Springs area.
East County E1 Monte, near the intersection of the San Gabriel (605) and
Pomona (60) freeways provides excellent reverse-commute access
the manufacturing centers of Azusa/Irwindale and Industry/La euente.
5.3 Addition of Terminals
The ideal way to avoid road congestion would be for motor carriers to
establish more terminals, closer to their customers. In this re~ard,
Consolidated Freightways, with sixteen terminals, serves as a model, among
the seven carriers studied, Consolidated is the only one with a terminal in
Inglewood, to serve West L.A./E1Segundo; the only carrier with a terminal in
Irwindale, to serve hzusa and Pasadena; and the only carrier with a terminal
in Los hlamitos, to serve Huntington Beach. For the other LTL carriers, these
three manufacturing centers (and especially the first) are the most difficult
to serve in the L.A. region. It would be highly desirable if all carriers had
terminals in these areas.
Unfortunately, other individual carriers may not have the volumes to justify
sixteen terminals. 8n the other hand, they could justify more terminals if
they pooled their traffic. Here are some possibilities:
[] Jointly operated terminals for several LTL carriers, to minimize the
investment of each.
[] h pooled fleet of pickup/delivery trucks to be shared among carriers.
[] Independently operated terminals to serve multiple LTL carriers,
with terminals acting as agents for pickup/delivery. LTL carriers
would be responsible for line-haul between terminals.
In this era of deregulation, trucking is a highly competitive, but fragmented,
industry, with many small operators. While shippers have benefited from low
prices, some efficiency has been lost. From the standpoint of highway
congestion, a reduction in the number of competitors would allow individual
carriers to strategically locate terminals in more locations and reduce truck
travel over congested roads.
5.4 Summary
The San Diego corridor and the Santa Ana corridor present the biggest
challenges, and opportunities, for motor carriers. The regions are
industrialized and congested. They demand excellent service from nearby
terminals.

Unfortunately, there is little vacant industrial property in portions of these
corridors. Available property is high priced. South-central L.A., along the
Santa Ana corridor is built out and new construction requires teardown of
older buildings. Land at the north end of the San Diego corridor is
expensive. Nevertheless, carriers need to establish terminal in these areas
if they are to avoid congestion delays.

44
6. REFERENCES
[1]
Yrban Freeway Gridlock Study. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cambridge,
MA (1988).
[2]
"Estimating the Full Economic Costs of Truck Incidents on Urban
Freeways." R.F.TeM, Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Irvine, CA (1988).
[3]
"Truck Operations on Arterial Streets," D. Gerard and R. Wunderlich,
in Strategies to Alleviate Traffic Congestion, Institute of Trans-
portation Engineers, 1988.
[4]
1989 Traffic Voluxes on California State Highways. State of
California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Division of
Traffic Engineering, Sacramento, CA. 1988.
[5]
1987 California State Highxay tog, District 7 and 12. State of
California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of
Transportation, Office of Traffic Engineering, Sacramento, CA 1987.
[6]
Distributiou of Manufacturing Employment in the Los Angeles Five County
Area. Western Economic Research Co. Encino, CA. 1988.
[7]
Routiag and Zip Code Directory, 198~1990. ABF Freight System, Inc.
Fort Smith, AR.
1989 Service Guide. ANR Freight System, Inc. Denver, CO.
Customer Service Guide. Consolidated Freightways. Menlo Park, CA.
(January, 1990)
Service Directory. P.I.E. Nationwide. Jacksonville, FL (March, 1988)
1990 Routing Guide. Roadway. Akron, OH.
Direct Points via Viking. Viking Freight System. San Jose, CA.
1990 Service Guide. Yellow Freight System. Overland Park, US.
[8]
Industrial Xap of the Los Angeles ~County Area. Western Economic
Research Co. Encino, CA 1988.
[9]
Los Angeles Basin Real Estate 1989. Grubb and Ellis Realty, Los Angeles
1989.