![]() ![]() |
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities--Technical Report (FHWA-RD-01-158):
This section of the report presents a compilation of recommended actions for addressing commercial truck parking shortages. The first set of recommendations was obtained through discussions with various stakeholder groups. These are groups that, in general, represent the national stakeholder constituencies, such as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) [enforcement] and Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT) [safety community]. These stakeholders help provide a high-level, national view on the issue and possible solutions.
The second set of recommendations was provided by the participating State partnerships. The recommendations, while often mirroring the national-level recommendations, also focus on State- and corridor-specific solutions – that is, the “grass roots” level.
On June 29-30, 1999, FHWA hosted a two-day Rest Area Forum in Atlanta, GA. More than 70 representatives from State DOTs and enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, commercial drivers, commercial truck stop operators, safety advocates, and other interested stakeholders participated in the Forum, which was intended to achieve the following objectives:
A number of issues were identified by the participants, and recommendations were developed for the seven highest-ranked issues, which are presented below, but not in any ranked order.
These recommendations served as a resource for identifying a number of questions that were included in the survey.(2) It is interesting to note that the findings of the current study, which draws upon a significantly larger (and different) population than that included in the Rest Area Forum, are consistent with and support these recommendations. The Rest Area Forum report also noted that the recommendations developed were not necessarily consensus recommendations and that various stakeholders disagreed on approaches to addressing shortages of commercial vehicle parking spaces. The results of the current study support this lack of consensus, in particular on the issue of whether parking space shortages should be addressed by expanding public rest areas or relying on the private sector to meet demand.
5.3 National Stakeholder Discussions
During the course of the study, FHWA provided the study team with a detailed listing of stakeholder groups that comprise the “national stakeholder” interests. These groups represent the enforcement community, the motor carrier industry, commercial truck stop operators, shippers and receivers, and the safety community. The intent of discussing truck parking space availability issues with stakeholders was to obtain a balanced portrayal of how the issue of truck parking space availability affects the various interest groups.
Each group was contacted by telephone to discuss the proposed interview. Groups were then given a list of questions and issues and either provided written comments or agreed to telephone discussions.As can be seen, the groups share a common desire to solve the truck parking problem. As outlined in this list, a variety of positions were proposed, including expanding public parking, changing regulations and financing, and increasing the number of commercial truck stop and travel plaza spaces:
Increase yearly truck registration fees with the stipulation that these special funds can be used by States only on initiatives to address the truck parking issue.
Implement a program that allows States to close rest areas in locations that are well served by private-sector businesses and shift funds to areas in which additional development is desirable.
Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA). PMAA feels that ensuring that drivers get adequate sleep is the responsibility of the companies that use their services and that the best way to address parking shortages is for the trucking industry to seek out alternative solutions. For example, setting schedules so that drivers do not necessarily arrive in congested areas during peak times would help reduce overcrowding in some locations. The trucking industry could develop consortia to locate available parking areas in which inadequate parking currently exists, and large carriers could seek out parking areas within reasonable distances of thruways and contract for parking at those facilities. Trucking companies could also work with their customers, shippers, and receivers to allow trucks to park at their facilities.
Four other stakeholders [American Automobile Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), and National Private Truck Council (NPTC] were contacted but did not have an official position on the truck parking issue.
Partners provided a set of recommended actions to solve any parking shortfalls that have been identified either through this study or as a result of other similar studies conducted in recent years for their States. These actions fall into six broad categories, as listed below.
Table 19 summarizes the actions that have either recently been completed or are currently being implemented in each State. Table 20 summarizes the actions by each State partnership for future implementation. The sections that follow describe in more detail some of the specific suggestions or comments associated with each of these six categories.
Table 19 . Summary of recent or current actions pursued by State partners.
|
State |
Expand Public Facilities |
Expand Commercial Facilities |
Foster Partnerships |
Improve Information |
Enforcement Changes |
Additional Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alabama |
||||||
|
Alaska |
||||||
|
Arizona |
|
|
||||
|
Arkansas |
|
|
|
|
||
|
California |
|
|
|
|||
|
Colorado |
|
|
||||
|
Connecticut |
|
|
||||
|
Delaware |
||||||
|
Florida |
|
|
||||
|
Georgia |
|
|
|
|||
|
Idaho |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Illinois |
|
|
|
|||
|
Indiana |
|
|
||||
|
Iowa |
|
|
||||
|
Kansas |
||||||
|
Kentucky |
|
|||||
|
Louisiana |
|
|
|
|||
|
Maine |
|
|||||
|
Maryland |
|
|
||||
|
Massachusetts |
|
|||||
|
Michigan |
|
|||||
|
Minnesota |
||||||
|
Mississippi |
|
|||||
|
Missouri |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Montana |
|
|
||||
|
Nebraska |
|
|||||
|
Nevada |
|
|
|
|||
|
New Hampshire |
||||||
|
New Jersey |
|
|||||
|
New Mexico |
|
|||||
|
New York |
|
|||||
|
North Carolina |
|
|
|
|
||
|
North Dakota |
||||||
|
Ohio |
|
|
|
|||
|
Oklahoma |
||||||
|
Oregon |
|
|
||||
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
||||
|
Rhode Island |
|
|
|
|||
|
South Carolina |
|
|||||
|
South Dakota |
||||||
|
Tennessee |
|
|
||||
|
Texas |
|
|||||
|
Utah |
||||||
|
Vermont |
|
|||||
|
Virginia |
|
|
|
|||
|
Washington |
|
|||||
|
West Virginia |
|
|||||
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming |
|
|
|
| Note: Checks denote States reporting recent or current actions. |
Table 20. Summary of future actions recommended by State partners.
|
State |
Expand Public Facilities |
Expand Commercial Facilities |
Foster Partnerships |
Improve Information |
Enforcement Changes |
Additional Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alabama |
||||||
|
Alaska |
||||||
|
Arizona |
|
|
||||
|
Arkansas |
|
|
|
|
||
|
California |
|
|
|
|||
|
Colorado |
|
|
||||
|
Connecticut |
|
|||||
|
Delaware |
|
|
||||
|
Florida |
|
|
||||
|
Georgia |
|
|
|
|||
|
Idaho |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Illinois |
|
|
||||
|
Indiana |
|
|
|
|||
|
Iowa |
|
|||||
|
Kansas |
||||||
|
Kentucky |
|
|||||
|
Louisiana |
|
|
|
|||
|
Maine |
|
|||||
|
Maryland |
|
|
||||
|
Massachusetts |
|
|||||
|
Michigan |
||||||
|
Minnesota |
||||||
|
Mississippi |
|
|||||
|
Missouri |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Montana |
|
|||||
|
Nebraska |
|
|||||
|
Nevada |
|
|
|
|||
|
New Hampshire |
||||||
|
New Jersey |
|
|||||
|
New Mexico |
|
|||||
|
New York |
|
|||||
|
North Carolina |
|
|
|
|||
|
North Dakota |
|
|||||
|
Ohio |
|
|
||||
|
Oklahoma |
||||||
|
Oregon |
|
|
||||
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
||||
|
Rhode Island |
|
|
||||
|
South Carolina |
|
|||||
|
South Dakota |
|
|||||
|
Tennessee |
|
|
||||
|
Texas |
|
|||||
|
Utah |
||||||
|
Vermont |
|
|||||
|
Virginia |
|
|
|
|||
|
Washington |
|
|||||
|
West Virginia |
|
|||||
|
Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming |
|
|
|
| Note: Checks denote States planning or considering future actions. |
Six States indicated that they were currently taking or had recently taken actions to encourage formation of public-private partnerships to increase the availability of adequate parking for trucks, and five of these States expressed an interest in continuing to do so in the future. The recommendations on how to encourage formation of public-private partnerships included the following:
Seventeen States indicated that they were currently taking or had recently taken actions to better educate or inform drivers about available parking spaces, and 16 of these States expressed an interest in continuing to do so in the future. States suggested that the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) infrastructure may provide real-time information on the availability of parking to drivers. In addition, States suggested that drivers be informed of the importance of complying with HOS rules to encourage fatigued drivers to pull off the road. Specific recommendations offered by the States included the following:
Five States indicated that they recently had implemented or may in the future implement changes in parking regulations and other development-related regulations related to commercial vehicle parking. Specific recommendations offered by the States included the following:
Eight States indicated that they recently had conducted or may in the future conduct additional studies on the adequacy of parking for commercial vehicles to refine the results emerging from the Section 4027 study and to develop more detailed strategies targeted at specific locations.
One State will be pursing more detailed truck parking supply and demand studies at the State and regional levels on specific, heavily traveled truck corridors. The methodology used for the national study will be modified. Field interviews with truckers could be added to make the results of these studies more useful as planning tools for developing measures to address identified parking problems.
Another State suggested that a multi-State committee be established to evaluate alternatives and recommend solutions that would address “on-time deliveries.” Many States noted that truck parking demand at certain locations is a reflection of trucks “staging” to provide just-in-time delivery.