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 1
1 SUMMARY Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems With the nation's growing consumption of goods and services has come a growing reliance on freight transportation systems. Stakeholders in these systems--both public and private-- have recognized the need for new investment strategies to keep up with demand. Dialog and collaboration between the public and private sectors have given rise to new institutional arrangements dedicated to advancing freight transportation through various means. Strong institutional relationships can help overcome the obstacles inherent in the complexity of freight movement systems and the limits to transportation funding. This report identifies the factors that help freight institutional arrangements succeed and provides guidelines to help other institutional arrangements be successful. The findings reflect several data collection efforts, including a literature search, a stakeholder workshop, and in-depth interviews with representatives from established institutional arrangements. The data collection efforts led to the development of 16 detailed case studies, each of which includes a review of the institution's accomplishments as well as lessons learned. Freight institutional arrangements can be grouped into three categories. Type I organiza- tions typically seek to increase the visibility and importance of freight issues and policies. Type I organizations often concentrate on education, consensus building, and general advocacy; an example might be a freight advisory committee for a metropolitan plan- ning organization. Type II organizations evaluate, prioritize, and fund freight projects in a particular region or of a particular type (e.g., freight rail). A state infrastructure bank, such as that in Washington State, is an example. Type III organizations are formed to implement a specific project, such as financing, environmental clearances, and negoti- ating contractual arrangements; an example explored here is the Alameda Corridor project. Forty guidelines are presented for Types I, II, and III. Examples are drawn from the case studies to help readers understand the guidelines and how to apply them. Guidance for getting started is provided for those beginning to develop an institutional arrangement. Depending on the type of arrangement being contemplated, one or more sets of guidelines may be applicable. Some institutions may evolve from Type I to Type II or Type III; others may remain focused on their original purpose. Report appendixes present the literature search (Appendix A); workshop materials (Appendix B); and detailed case studies (Appendix C). These appendixes are available on the CD-ROM enclosed with the print publication and can be downloaded from the TRB website (www.trb.org).