Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 31
S U M M A RY O F D AY 1 19 practitioners with a common theme of focus on the Faster and Cheaper, addressing institutional elements of projects and project elements rather than on only the alternative funding and project delivery. She described tools themselves. Tools must be selected on the basis of the well-balanced and diverse set of panelists. She their link to individual projects and to address specific explained that states are starting to see the impacts of needs rather than being applied generically to states' lower funding and are rethinking risk sharing among overall funding demands. public and private partners. In Louisiana, for instance, the challenge posed was Describing the range of perspectives of the panelists, how to fulfill a decade-old promise to deliver a program Richards noted the different view offered by David of projects. The answer was an innovative publicprivate Kusnet regarding contracting out as contributing to a partnership for program management coupled with some brain drain from government. reality-based financing. The afternoon session consisted of a series of case For the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, studies highlighting the application of various funding the question was how to restructure the program's finan- strategies and the role of institutional relationships in cial management to align with a new revenue and fund- shaping the strategies. ing approach. The answer was a conscious shift from a debt-based approach with legislative appropriations to a dedicated revenue stream and greater pay-as-you-go TRACK 4: NEW TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES funding. AND DEMANDS ON FINANCING In Michigan the question was how to achieve consen- sus among stakeholders regarding project selection and Porter Wheeler and Sasha Page funding. Answering this question was critical to being able to tap alternative cash management techniques. Providing the synopsis of the final track for the first day, In Ohio the question was how to go beyond simply Track 4: New Transportation Initiatives and Demands saying "no" to projects that did not have grant funding on Financing, Wheeler and Page drew some conclusions and to find a way to help them. The answer was cre- regarding the contributors to successful financing of mul- ative use of the state infrastructure bank and nongrant timodal projects. The reporters noted that success occurs funding tools. where there are connections (e.g., common bottlenecks) between modes. Summarizing the ideas stemming from the sessions, the reporters focused on TRACK 3: STRUCTURES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PARTNERSHIPS TO DELIVER MORE PROJECTS · The existence of silos among modes, evidenced by FASTER AND CHEAPER congressional committee structures; · The need to do a better job measuring benefits of Mary Richards intermodal projects; · The need for consistency among tools and better Richards provided the synopsis of Track 3: Structures, coordination among the modes; and Institutions, and Partnerships to Deliver More Projects · The need for intermodal research.