Remove a loading zone and the freight task does not disappear.
The driver still has to make the delivery.
The vehicle circles the block, parks farther away, risks a fine or simply spends longer doing exactly the same job.
That was one of the clearest examples Phil Bullock gave WWTG when we spoke about the Austroads Urban Freight Scoping Study — and it captures a wider problem in the way Australian cities understand freight.
“So you remove the loading zone, the freight task doesn’t disappear. The driver just needs to spend more time and money making the delivery,” Bullock said.
Phil Bullock of economics and public-policy consultancy NineSquared is the primary author of the Austroads report. NineSquared was engaged by Austroads to assist with the study. Bullock was careful to make clear that he was speaking to WWTG as the report’s primary author and an industry practitioner, not on behalf of Austroads.
Freight can become less visible as cities depend on more of it
The study provides an evidence-based overview of urban freight across Australia and New Zealand and drew on a literature review and consultation with 56 stakeholders from 30 organisations.
Its central finding is uncomfortable: urban freight demand is increasing and becoming more complex, while planning, data availability and policy responses remain inconsistent.
Bullock says governments generally have good information about what happens on major roads and about larger heavy vehicles — travel times, congestion and network performance are increasingly measurable.
But there is less visibility over the smaller vehicles moving through urban areas and where and when deliveries are actually happening.
“It’s becoming more important with population growth and the concentration of populations in cities. It’s becoming more complex. And in some cases, it’s becoming less visible,” he said.
That creates a planning problem because a freight movement can be economically essential without being obvious in the datasets normally used to make decisions about streets and development.
A loading-zone decision can shift cost without removing demand
The Sydney CBD loading-zone example came from industry feedback during the project.
The point is not that every kerb should belong to freight. Urban space has competing demands from pedestrians, cyclists, buses, parking, businesses and public space.
The problem comes when the freight requirement is treated as though it disappears when the space does.
The delivery is still required. The cost is simply displaced into driver time, vehicle kilometres, congestion, parking risk or less efficient servicing.
That cost can ultimately sit with the transport operator, the customer or the consumer.
The biggest mistake may happen before the first delivery
Bullock argues one of the strongest opportunities is to get freight considered earlier in land-use and development decisions.
“Once a building or a precinct is built, you’re living with the impacts of that for decades,” he said.
A loading dock that is too small, poor vehicle access, inadequate kerbside servicing or a badly designed precinct does not create a one-off inconvenience. It can create thousands of inefficient freight movements over the life of the development.
Conversely, getting servicing, loading, access and kerbside arrangements right early can generate benefits for operators, businesses and communities for years.
Bullock pointed to existing guidance from Transport for NSW on last-mile freight and servicing and to Victorian work identifying strategically important freight routes, rail lines and freight hubs so freight impacts can be considered when new development is proposed nearby.
The opportunity is to turn those approaches into more consistent practice rather than leave freight as something planners discover after the building is finished.
There is data — but that doesn’t mean government should simply take it
Modern freight operations generate huge amounts of information.
Telematics can show vehicle movement. Delivery platforms can see when and where work is occurring. Fleets hold operational information that could help governments understand demand.
But Bullock says the answer is not simply to give government unrestricted access to commercial data.
Companies are understandably protective of information about their operations and customers. The better model is problem-specific collaboration where the purpose is clear and the information can be anonymised or shared without compromising commercial interests.
That is consistent with the report’s recommendation for collaborative forums and targeted data sharing rather than indiscriminate collection.
Freight versus community is the wrong argument
Perhaps Bullock’s most useful observation is also the simplest.
“Good planning is not about choosing between freight and communities. It’s about finding solutions that work for both of them.”
Successful places create freight demand. Restaurants need food. Pharmacies need medicines. Offices need supplies. Construction sites need materials. Residents increasingly expect products delivered to their doors.
The more successful and dense a precinct becomes, the more important efficient servicing can become.
Urban freight is easy to ignore precisely because, when it works, most people do not notice it.
Take away the loading zone and the task is suddenly visible again.