Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
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 21
Freight Transportation Decisions and Considerations 21
Areas Where Public and Private Interest Diverge
In areas where public officials are responding to broader social and equity issues, the narrower
profit motive of the private sector can drive the two sides apart.
Environmental and land use planning issues regarding the private freight system have been
the source of many disagreements between the two sectors because objectives and incentives dif-
fer. Public sector agency resources dedicated to freight transportation in these areas have been
limited, because freight transportation has not generally been a high priority. The mismatch
between public sector jurisdictional geography and the need to operate across global supply
chains in the private sector leads to conflicting objectives.
Operations of the freight system by the public sector have not always adequately taken into
account the needs of the private sector. For example, truck use on the roadway network has been
constrained, which increases costs and, in some cases, exposure because of circuitous routing.
This has especially been the case in congested urban areas with severe passenger transportation
and environmental challenges. In these difficult situations, the accommodation for private
freight operational needs has often been limited, at times without the full consequences of these
operational limitations being understood.
Consequences for Public Sector Officials
The interdependencies and overlapping responsibilities highlight the importance of decision
making in both sectors. Decisions cannot be made truly independently and there are limits on
each sector's ability to pursue its own objectives. Compromises must be achieved between the
public sector's goal to provide infrastructure to help reach the potential of the entire economy
and the private sector's goal to use publicly provided infrastructure to optimize time and cost
Freight Does Vote:
functions for its own gain.
Loss of access to cost-
In the private sector, profitability and efficiency drive internal decisions, but costs are not effective freight
solely in the private sector's control because some costs are driven by public policies and regu- transportation can
lations. Conversely, public sector costs for infrastructure operations and maintenance depend chase business
in part on how much the private sector uses that infrastructure. away--costing jobs,
reducing tax rev-
When there are conflicts between the two sectors, a common public sector misperception is
enues, and resulting
that "freight doesn't vote" and that consequences from acting against private freight desires will
in adverse selections
be limited. Frequently, the public sector does not fully understand that there are instances when
of alternative freight
freight does vote. This voting does not take place at the ballot box but rather through the shrink-
facility locations and
ing, removal, and relocation of facilities and the jobs associated with them. The end result in such
route choices.
jurisdictions is a curtailment in services and loss in revenue.
