National Academies Press: OpenBook

Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems (2009)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Introduction
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Overview of Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4There are many types of institutional arrangements in place today that serve freight transportation interests. Under- standing these freight institutional arrangements provides the foundation for the guidelines presented in Chapter 4. Based on the definition of an institutional arrangement, infor- mation was collected through a literature review, a technical workshop, and interviews with public and private officials involved in freight programs and projects to identify com- mon themes, lessons learned, successes, and challenges of existing institutional arrangements. In addition, experts were asked to brainstorm about future needs for successful arrange- ments. In order to begin developing guidelines to support future arrangements, existing arrangements were explored. This chapter reports the findings on existing institutional arrangements. 2.1 Definition In order to develop guidelines to help create and maintain institutional arrangements, a common definition was needed. The definition of institutional arrangement reflects input from the public- and private-sector stakeholders canvassed as part of this project. its life cycle—safe from the effects of staff turnover and chang- ing priorities. Having a champion (one person or organiza- tion) responsible for keeping the foundation intact is critical. This definition is broad enough to encompass all existing institutional arrangements and their functions. Institutional arrangements have been created for various reasons, including policymaking, planning efforts, capital improvements, opera- tions and maintenance, regulation, research, and education. Most arrangements have been formed in large part to ensure private-sector needs are included in the public freight planning process, with an ultimate goal of improving freight mobility. 2.2 Literature Review A literature review was undertaken to assess existing insti- tutional arrangements. National, multi-state, state, regional, and local institutional arrangements, representing a range of organizational structures, missions, sizes, geographic loca- tions, and functions, were selected on the basis of the project team’s expertise. Table 2-1 lists the 36 organizations studied. Detailed summaries of each are provided in Appendix A. This list is not an exhaustive inventory of all possible institutional arrangements, but rather a broad and general illustration of the types of freight-related institutional arrangements in existence today and the ways in which they have been convened. Each in- stitutional arrangement reviewed was summarized based on a structured set of data elements to allow easy comparison. These elements are as follows: • Name • Purpose • Projects/Selection Process • Modes(s) • Motivator (Origin) • Funding • Geographical Coverage • Sponsors The concept of a “foundation” indicates the importance of having a structure that will support a changing cast of members—as the institutional arrangement moves through C H A P T E R 2 Overview of Institutional Arrangements A structured foundation that enables relevant parties to advance the general interests of freight mobility— infrastructure, operations, services, and regulations— or particular programs and projects to increase freight mobility.

5Name Category Area Covered American Trucking Associations, Inc. Nonprofit Corporation National Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program National Public Agency National Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Nonprofit Corporation National FHWA-Office of Freight Management and Operations-Freight Professional Development Program National Public Agency National Intermodal Association of North America Nonprofit Corporation National National Industrial Transportation League Nonprofit Corporation National National Private Truck Council Nonprofit Corporation National Performance and Registration Information Systems Management Program National Public Agency National U.S. DOT-Framework for a National Freight Policy National Public Policy National Advantage I-75 State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional Canamex Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional I-95 Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional PrePass Nonprofit Corporation Multi-state/ Jurisdictional West Coast Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council State/Multi-state Public Agency State Florida DOT Strategic Intermodal System State/Multi-state Public Agency State Florida DOT Transportation Regional Incentive Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board State/Multi-state Public Agency State Maine DOT – Industrial Rail Access Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Maine DOT – Small Harbor Improvement Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Port Authority of New York and New Jersey State/Multi-state Public Agency State Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Public Authority Regional/Local Atlanta Regional Council Freight Advisory Task Force Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Table 2-1. Freight institutional arrangements. (continued on next page)

• Public Outreach • Year Established • Partners/Members • Frequency of Meetings • Description • Organizational Structure/Changes • Strengths/Successes • Type • Roles and • Weaknesses/Challenges. The literature review revealed that the largest number of current arrangements focus primarily on planning functions, followed by capital improvements. Most arrangements were statewide or regional in structure. Overall, the examples of in- stitutional arrangements revealed a common set of strengths and weaknesses. Given that these institutional arrange- ments were formed for many different reasons, success for one may be calculated differently than for another. Key strengths identified include • Integrating freight into transportation policy, planning, and programming activities. Freight advisory committees or task forces have been instrumental in helping MPOs draft and formulate regional freight goals, objectives, and policies as well as understand how to better incorporate and integrate freight planning into the regional transportation planning and programming process. By having the right public and private interests represented in these committees, it has been easier to find champions who can address the obstacles and rally momentum to move projects forward either by locat- ing funding matches or promoting them to decisionmakers. • Facilitating freight project prioritization and completion. Institutional arrangements have been successful in integrat- ing freight projects into existing planning processes, as well as implementing stand-alone freight program ele- ments. In many instances, this has helped expedite project completion. The availability of funding has made the dif- ference in whether or not a project could move forward to construction. • Improving operational efficiency of freight movements. Many arrangements have led to “quick fix” improvement projects that address bottlenecks in the short term and set priorities for longer term improvements. • Improving information dissemination and education. Most arrangements have a self-appointed role in infor- 6 Name Category Area Covered Bridging the Valley Project Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission – Goods Movement Task Force Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local International Mobility and Trade Corridor Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Miami Dade MPO-Freight Transportation Advisory Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local New York Metropolitan Transportation Council – Freight Transportation Working Group Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local PierPASS Nonprofit Corporation Regional/Local Port of Miami Tunnel Joint Venture Company Regional/Local Puget Sound Regional Council – FAST Corridor Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Puget Sound Regional Council – Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Susquehanna Economic Development Association Council of Governments Freight Advisory Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments – Freight Subcommittee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Wilmington-Harrisburg Freight Study Steering Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Table 2-1. (Continued).

mation dissemination and educational activities. In fact, for many, the ability to educate leaders and community members is one their primary functions. • Promoting multi-jurisdictional solutions. Many multi- state and regional coalitions have been successful in iden- tifying key freight concerns that affect a region by provid- ing the foundation and process to work with policymakers, the private sector, and local partners to address specific is- sues that cross jurisdictional boundaries and traditional fi- nancial structures. These coalitions encourage a system- level, multi-state, or regional approach to planning for and investing in the freight transportation system. • Forming project-specific operating authorities to ad- dress bottlenecks. Although less common, creating a joint powers authority, like the Alameda Corridor Transporta- tion Authority, can be used to tackle the design and con- struction of major infrastructure projects. • Leveraging public-private funding opportunities. Many private partners are willing to share project costs, enabling public agencies to better use their funds. Chicago’s CREATE and Puget Sound Regional Council’s FAST have been suc- cessful in leveraging partnership funds and talents to get critical projects funded and delivered. • Promoting freight system needs. In addition to informa- tion dissemination and education, some arrangements are created specifically to promote the industry. Trade associ- ations serving as advocates for their industry have been a driving force in providing powerful representation, expert support, important policy-shaping forums, and valuable information to promote the industry’s interests. The analysis also revealed common challenges or weaknesses. Key weaknesses identified include • Lack of mandate. Relatively few arrangements have a defin- itive mandate for their existence and operation. Many are ad hoc arrangements meant to address short-comings and gaps in established agency or industry functions. As such they lack dedicated funding and staffing, and many arrangements must devote considerable time and effort to justifying their existence, role, and expenditures. Examples include MPO- level freight committees, which have been difficult to sustain because MPOs were perceived as having mandates to address highways, transit, and congestion management, but not mandates and funding to address freight issues. • Mismatch of scope. Freight institutional arrangements have failed because the scope and scale of their geographic and jurisdictional coverage did not match actual “freight sheds” and economic blocs. For example, relatively few of the early freight-oriented Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)/Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) corridor pro- grams survived, in large part because they spanned juris- dictions and economic regions that did not have compelling mutual interests. • Insufficient funding. Arrangements focused on policy and planning functions often operate on shoestring budgets with limited staff support. They serve an advisory role but their influence can be transitory and highly dependent on the willingness of their political administrators to make use of their advice. 2.3 Stakeholder Workshop Understanding institutional arrangements includes not only exploring the details through research but engaging those developing and operating institutional arrangements in dis- cussing their experiences. Personal experiences were drawn on during a 2-day workshop where representatives of all modes, all levels of government, and the private sector shared valuable information concerning their involvement in institutional arrangements and their thoughts on the future of institutional arrangements in the freight transportation system. Workshop summary materials, including a list of attendees and presen- tations given, are provided in Appendix B, which is included on the attached CD-ROM and is also available for download from the TRB website (www.trb.org). The workshop was designed to engage a full range of public and private freight stakeholders in a discussion about the need for institutional arrangements. Specifically, the workshop was designed to explore the following questions: • What do we mean by freight institutional arrangements? • What institutional arrangements are critical for the future? • How can these critical future institutional arrangements be created? • What major national and international trends affect the formation of freight institutions? • What can this project develop that would lead to creation of these future institutional arrangements? • What have we learned about creating institutional arrange- ments? • What are the future solutions/directions? Representatives from eight freight institutional arrange- ments were invited to present their experiences to the group to help answer these questions. The presenters were a subset of the cases identified through the literature review. They were selected to illustrate a range of institutional types and levels of organization (national, multi-state, and local) that were well established and would provide workshop attendees with well-documented examples of best practices. The following programs were presented: • Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority • Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program • Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Program 7

• Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board • I-95 Corridor Coalition • Kansas City SmartPort • Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee • Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration Each presenter was asked to provide an overview of his or her organization, describe its strengths and weaknesses, and define what makes an institutional arrangement successful. Following the presentations, small groups were formed to encourage roundtable discussion on the above questions to explore lessons learned and best practices in the industry. Although the small groups were given a specific question to address, most followed an unstructured flow of conversa- tion allowing these freight transportation experts to share their thoughts pertaining to each topic. The common themes identified are as follows: • Institutional arrangements must anticipate or respond to dynamic market forces that are changing freight movement patterns and technologies. • Because freight problems transcend jurisdictional bound- aries, so must institutional arrangements. • New, diverse sets of players will expect involvement in institutional arrangements, but trust must be built among participants. • Institutional arrangements need to be characterized by clear goals and explicit purposes. • Additional institutional arrangement success factors are competence, credibility (trust and believability), champions (leadership), performance, and accountability. • Successful models for institutional arrangements exist within states or at national level—more examples are needed for institutional arrangements at the multi-state level. • Institutional arrangements can be advanced through incentives—funding, regulatory simplification, and threat avoidance. • Different kinds of institutional arrangements with different members may be appropriate and necessary for different purposes. • Mitigating trends are as follows: – Environment: fold in issues early in a broader, holistic planning effort; – Infrastructure: also focus on maintaining current system; – Funding: create sustainable, viable, national funding program; – Education: broaden skills, train entry workers, include education of public and elected officials; – Foreign and/or private investment: will investors keep transportation purposes in mind; and – Additional trends to consider: security, eminent domain, natural disaster recovery, economic trends. • There is no one-size fits-all approach; there is a need to identify the core underpinnings of successful structure. • Document successes and failures and how they are evaluated. • Provide guidance to the Federal government; national freight policy can be an umbrella for actions. • Explore the transition from planning to implementation. • Provide a primer or educational program. • Study the application of non-transportation arrangements already in place. • Provide a better understanding of accessing and using available financing models. The lessons learned in each small group session are sum- marized as follows: • Institutional arrangements can have measurable results. • Institutional arrangements can be highly organized, even if the structure is voluntary rather than contractual. • Institutional arrangements with staying power can point to a record of accomplishments that transcend transitions in leadership within member organizations. • Geographically disparate entities can join institutional arrangements in which all parties may not win equally in every project selection cycle, but all parties are better off together than individually. • A record of delivering projects successfully is useful in attract- ing resources to an institutional arrangement. • Institutional arrangements can use modest investments for accomplishing bigger results. • Rejection of institutional arrangement ideas can cause participants to lose desire to make modest contributions. • Even if institutional arrangements do not directly imple- ment projects, they can hold project sponsors accountable for project performance. • Some institutional arrangements can be structured to allow multiple ad hoc working groups. • Institutional arrangements should balance process and product. • Make simple legal arrangements between equity owners to support complex negotiations with other affected interests. 2.4 Follow-Up Interviews and Case Study Development At the workshop, participants offered examples of insti- tutional arrangements, in addition to the 36 summarized in the literature review. Fifty-four institutional arrangements in total were identified, providing a broad range of examples, including representation of all levels of governments, all 8

modes, and the public and private sector. Seventeen represen- tatives were chosen for follow-up interviews; sixteen detailed case studies were developed. As with the literature search and workshop presenters, these cases were selected not to be exhaustive or statistically representative, but with the goal of identifying and learning from the best institutional practices, as drawn from the expertise of the workshop attendees and the project team. The detailed case studies and the interview guide are provided in Appendix C. The representatives from the following organizations were interviewed: • Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Gill Hicks, Gill V. Hicks & Associates • California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council, Norm Fassler-Katz • Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Effi- ciency Program, Luann Hamilton, Transportation Com- missioner, Chicago DOT • Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks, Quon Kwan, FMCSA; Brad Wright, Cambridge System- atics, Inc. • Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission-Goods Movement Task Force, Ted Dahlburg, Delaware Valley RPC • Federal Highway Administration, Tony Furst, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations • Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, Karen Schmidt, FMSIB • Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Devel- opment Council, Nancy Leikauf and Toy Keller, Florida Ports Council • Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Com- mittee, Larry Foutz, Miami-Dade MPO • I-95 Corridor Coalition, Marygrace Parker, I-95 Corridor Coalition • Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program, Nathan Moulton, Maine DOT • Kansas City SmartPort, Chris Gutierrez, Kansas City SmartPort, Inc. • Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition, Ernie Wittwer, MVFC Facilitator • Nation’sPort, David Stein, Nation’sPort • Natural Resources Defense Council—Southern California Clean Air Program, David Pettit, Senior Attorney, NRDC • Southern California National Freight Gateway Collabo- ration, Lindell L. Marsh, Attorney/Facilitator; Ty Schuiling, SANBAG • Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Consensus Group, Ty Schuiling, SANBAG The purpose of the interviews was to collect information about each institutional arrangement in sufficient detail to support development of a detailed case study. Interviews focused on two areas of interest: • Description of Arrangement – Overview/History – Mandate/Mission – Organization/Participation – Procedures/Activities – Resources – Accomplishments/Successes – Challenges/Weaknesses – Lessons Learned – Future Vision/Plans • Input on Study Objectives – What is the best definition of institutional arrangement for freight? – What institutional arrangements are critical for the future? – How can these critical future institutional arrangements be created? – What major national and international trends affect the formation of freight institutions? – What can this project develop that would lead to creation of these future institutional arrangements? The case studies provide an in-depth look into the key suc- cess factors and challenges for each institutional arrangement. In addition, detailed narratives are provided that document mission and mandate, organization, resources, process, and funding. Table 2-2 summarizes key input captured through the interview process categorized into three broad purposes of institutional arrangements: increased visibility and impor- tance of freight; project consensus and selection; and a specific project focus. In addition to the interviews, the 2009 TRB Annual Meeting was used to present initial project findings and get feed- back. The Annual Meeting offered a unique chance to learn from the transportation professionals who serve on com- mittees within the sponsoring organization for this research project. TRB’s Technical Activities Division encompasses approximately 200 standing committees divided into 11 func- tional or mode-specific groups, including freight. Among other functions, the committees identify research needs, evaluate and interpret research findings, and encourage the adoption of appropriate findings into practice. Following outreach to about 20 of the most relevant com- mittees, presentations were given to the following commit- tees, which represent 6 of the 12 standing Freight Systems committees (AT), 1 of the Rail committees (AR), and 1 of the committees in the Policy and Organization group (AB): • Trucking Industry Research (AT060) • Transportation of Hazardous Materials (AT040) 9

10 Broad Purpose of Institutional Arrangements Key Success Factors Challenges Increase visibility and importance of freight through: Information Sharing Consensus Building Education Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers General Advocacy Having a common goal and clear illustration of benefits Securing dedicated funding Pursing commitment of executive leadership Creating well-defined and productive meeting agendas Engaging members in promotion activities Ongoing public outreach, communications, and education regarding the role of freight Partnering with academia Pursuing an aggressive marketing campaign Building Federal, state, and local support Allowing flexibility in legal structure Providing a neutral forum Building strong partnerships with the Federal government, across state agencies, and with industry Focusing on timely issues of public concern Knowing your partners and their jurisdictions Determining a common evaluation framework to determine cost benefit Convening a commission to determine where freight corridors are likely to be in the future Communication and coordination with a wide range of public and private entities Effective use of available planning tools No single organization serving as a freight voice Lack of available lands for expansion of the freight system Need for more sophisticated, objective project evaluation tools and freight data Keeping Task Force members motivated and engaged in the planning process Conflicting agency priorities Lack of private-sector involvement Securing a dedicated funding source Lack of trust among stakeholders Project consensus and selection through: Project Evaluation Project Prioritization Project Selection and Funding Consensus Building at Project Level Focusing on Advocacy Leveraging Additional Funds Gaining continued support from program sponsor Requiring program matching requirement Considering multimodal, multi-jurisdictional approach Securing private-sector commitment Effectively leveraging state funds Determining quantifiable criteria and guidance for project selection and evaluation Seeking accountability Providing an open, transparent project funding selection process Mandate to focus benefits only on strategic freight corridors Partnerships are difficult to hold together Inadequate funding Redirection of funding Focus on a specific project through: Project Implementation Design and Construction Obtaining Environmental Approvals Managing Financial And Schedule Risks Providing Construction Oversight Processing Debt Service Payments Negotiating Partnership Agreements Establishing funding firewalls and sunset clauses Carefully allocating risk between owner and contractor Maintaining cost and schedule control Adopting a product orientation Keeping a focused agency mission Establishing clear decision-making authority Negotiating third-party agreements early Adopting a partnering program Maintaining adequate contingency and reserves Considering design-build procurements Understanding funding program requirements Securing a dedicated institutional funding source and competition for available project funding Agreed-on project definition Construction and project delivery Environmental mitigation requirements Job training and local participation Personnel turnover among leadership and staff Lack of a political champion Complex multi-institutional committee structure Keeping all partners involved and participating Table 2-2. Interview findings: summary of key success factors and challenges.

• Local and Regional Rail Freight Transport (AR040) • Freight Transportation Data (ABJ90) • Motor Vehicle Size and Weight (AT055); • Freight Transportation Planning and Logistics (AT015) • Intermodal Freight Transport (AT045) • Urban Freight Transportation (AT025) In response to the presentation, committee members offered the following input by category. 2.4.1 Partner Involvement Building and sustaining private-sector involvement should be started at the grassroots level, involving private companies in efforts to improve day-to-day urban freight operations. The private-sector is motivated by operational improvements; efforts to maintain or enhance operational improvements provide opportunities to build communica- tion and trust. FHWA is working to develop a workshop to engage the private sector in transportation planning. Cargo owners are difficult to engage; they see many institutional arrangements as “all talk and no action”; they don’t want to be seen as potential funding partners; they are looking for reliability, velocity and cost savings—without this focus they will not participate. The private sector is stove-piped; ocean carriers, truckers, railroads, third-party logistics providers (3PLs), terminal operators, and warehouses often are insu- lar and do not communicate well or often enough with one other. 2.4.2 Implementation and Performance Arrangements that identify bottlenecks and improvements are useful, but implementation is critical. Focus on the ability of the institutional arrangement to produce its desired result; document what did and did not work. Identify the current limitations of institutional arrangements and provide guid- ance on how to improve them. Opportunity costs should be evaluated as part of the prioritization process. 2.4.3 Organization Evolution Although there is no one-size-fits-all approach, it is im- portant to provide advice on the key factors that make an institutional arrangement succeed or fail. There is a need to refine and expand transportation planning institutions at all levels, enable MPOs to deal with all aspects of urban freight transportation, encourage states to create freight offices and/or institutions, fill the gap at the multi-state level, and strengthen the national freight program. There is a strong need for more effective multi-state institutional arrangements. 2.4.4 Funding Opportunities Organizational requirements need to be identified to make effective use of available tools. Reauthorization should be monitored to maximize funding opportunities for institutional arrangements; funded programs could affect the types of institutional arrangements that are developed. Effective insti- tutional arrangements that can provide matching funds will be more competitive pursuing Federal funding. 2.5 Characterization of Freight Institutional Arrangements Each freight institutional arrangement is designed to meet the specific need of a group of stakeholders. The mission, or- ganization, mandate, resources, processes—all the factors that define an institutional arrangement—are designed to address the identified need. Institutional arrangements can be defined by issue or scale, function, and legal structure. Each of these elements affects the make up of members and ultimately what the freight institutional arrangement can ac- complish. An advisory committee or coalition that spans ju- risdictional boundaries may be categorized by regional- or corridor-level issues, may require memoranda of understand- ing (MOUs), and may be housed within a regional trans- portation authority or be part of newly created coalition. As part of this research project, each of these approaches (i.e., issue/scale, function, and legal structure) was considered as a possible way to organize focused guidance. 2.5.1 Issue and/or Scale The issue and/or scale of a freight arrangement directly affects the identification of members, the scope of the project (micro versus macro), the legal implications, funding oppor- tunities, organizational format, and logistics. The following describes examples of scale: • Gateway or Port—An arrangement that addresses the spe- cific needs of a gateway or port; a hub of freight activity like a port complex or international border crossing. • Metro Freight—An arrangement that addresses the freight needs of an urbanized area; a network of local and state cor- ridors and freight hubs, focused on access and distribution activities. • State Freight—An arrangement that addresses the freight needs of a state; a network of highway or rail corridors providing key intercity, interstate, and international freight flows. • Multi-State Network—An arrangement that addresses the freight needs of multiple states; a national network of 11

freight systems or a coalition of multiple states working to address freight issues of national or regional concern. • Corridors—An arrangement that addresses the freight needs of a specific corridor; a defined buffer around a single facil- ity or multiple transportation facilities working to address a specific bottleneck. 2.5.2 Function The functions of a freight arrangement dictate the types of activities and processes that will be undertaken. Functions provide the architecture or foundation for what the arrange- ment is attempting to accomplish (e.g., plan, construct, and advocate). Examples of functions are as follows: • Policy and/or Advocacy—An arrangement whose func- tion is to establish policy as it relates to freight mobility either at the national, state, or local level, providing a voice for the freight community. • Planning—An arrangement whose function is to consider freight mobility in long-range planning efforts. • Capital Improvements—An arrangement whose function is to provide for and help execute capital improvement projects to enhance freight mobility, whether through securing funding or public partner outreach. • Operations—An arrangement whose function is to oper- ate and maintain a freight facility or service to encourage freight mobility. • Regulation/Safety—An arrangement whose function is to provide regulation for safe movements in freight trans- portation, including enforcement. • Research/Education—An arrangement whose function is to provide research and an information-sharing plat- form to enhance public and private knowledge about freight movement and its effects on the transportation system. • Forum—An arrangement whose function is to provide a forum for freight stakeholders to come together to iden- tify issues, build consensus, and collaborate on common issues. 2.5.3 Legal Structure Understanding the range of legal requirements or options allows a group interested in forming a freight-related orga- nization to know the capabilities and limitations of certain types of arrangements. Although the legal structure may not define the mission of an arrangement, it directly affects the success of that mission. On the simplest level, freight institu- tional arrangements can be a public agency, a public-benefit corporation, or a private-sector company. • Public-agency-based arrangements are identified by their location in government. These locations are grouped by geography into national, state/multi-state, and regional/ local. • Public-benefit-corporation-based arrangements are iden- tified by the legal structure used to bring them into exis- tence. The legal breakdown includes public authorities, public corporations, and nonprofit corporations. • Private-benefit-corporation-based arrangements are also identified by the legal structure. The legal breakdown in- cludes joint-venture companies, publicly held companies, and privately held companies. Each legal structure was viewed from four angles: funding, purpose, control, and governing arrangement. • The funding category considered the source of funds for the arrangement. For public agencies the only funding source is public. Public-benefit corporations range in source from public, often self-sustaining through taxes, to public or pri- vate sources through dues, fees, and project revenues. Private corporation funding is fully private. • The purpose category considered the general purpose of each type of structure. Public agencies generally have a public purpose while public-benefit corporations vary from narrow public function to private activities. Private companies are in business for financial purposes. • The control category considered the basis for manage- ment of the structure. Public agencies are controlled by the executive branch of a political jurisdiction. Depend- ing on the type of public-benefit corporation, the control could be either public or private. Private companies are managed privately. • The governed by category considered the administrative structure by which each type is governed. Public agencies fol- low statutes and administrative regulations. Public-benefit corporations follow statutes, trust, or association. Private companies are governed by owners or shareholders. Table 2-3 provides an overview of these legal structures. 2.5.4 Examples of Characterization The three elements described above provide critical input to the character and make up of a freight institutional arrange- ment. Figures 2-1 through 2-3 illustrate the elements for three existing institutional arrangements. The function of an insti- tutional arrangement provides the definition of the technical direction of an institutional arrangement and is responsible for development of the mission, which brings together the stakeholders and/or partners and serves as the motivation for creating a freight institutional arrangement. Chapter 3 will define and group institutional arrangements by functional characteristics. 12

13 Government Public-Benefit Corporation Private Corporation National Agency State Agency Regional/Local Agency Public Authority Public Corporation Nonprofit Corporation Joint Venture Company Publicly Held Company Privately Held Company Funding Public Public Public Public/often self-sustaining through taxes, fees Public/often self-sustaining through taxes, fees Public or private, dues, fees, project revenues Private Private Private Purpose Public Public Public Narrow publicfunction Any public function Public or private activities without commercial or monetary profit purposes Private activities with monetary profit purposes Private activities with monetary profit purposes Private activities with monetary profit purposes Control Executive branch of a political jurisdiction Executive branch of a political jurisdiction Executive branch of a political jurisdiction Public Public Private Private Private, subject to extensive disclosure Private Governed By Statutes and administrative regulations Statutes and administrative regulations Statutes and administrative regulations Statutes/board Statutes/board Board, trust, association Owners and/or shareholders Owners and/or shareholders Owners and/or shareholders Examples USDOT Depts of Transportation, Public Safety, Motor Vehicles DOTs, Public Works, MPOs Transit, port, toll road, multistate authorities (TVA) Amtrak, USPS, state universities, Corporation for Public Broadcasting Trade associations, United Way, Red Cross, universities D/B & DBFOM consortia, terminal railroads JB Hunt, Delta Airlines, Jacobs Engineering HNTB, HDR, HEB Grocery Table 2-3. Legal structures underpinning freight institutional arrangements. Issue/Scale Function Legal Structure Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/Education Forum PANYNJ – Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Issue/Scale – Gateway/Port: Port of New York/New Jersey Primary Function – Operations: Manages and maintains the seaport in addition to bridges, tunnels, bus terminals, airports and PATH. Secondary Function – Planning: Identify and meet the critical transportation infrastructure needs of the bistate region’s businesses, residents, and visitors. Secondary Function – Capital Improvements: Undertake port and regional improvements not likely to be financed by private enterprise, including the development of major infrastructure. Legal Structure – Public Authority: Board Commissioners are appointed by the Governors of NY and NJ. Figure 2-1. Characterization example: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

14 Issue/Scale Function Legal Structure Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/Education Forum FMCSA CVISN – Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program Issue/Scale – Multistate Network: Part of the National ITS Architecture sponsored by U.S. DOT Primary Function – Safety: Support Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) mission to improve safety and security and reduce the number and severity of CMV crashes. Secondary Function – Operations: Deploy the CVISN architecture in the 30 participating states. Legal Structure – Public Agency: FMCSA Issue/Scale Function Legal Structure Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/Education Forum CVSA – Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Issue/Scale – Multistate Network: Association of state, provincial, and Federal officials responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier safety laws in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Primary Function – Policy/Advocacy: Provide leadership to enforcement, industry and policymakers. Secondary Function – Safety: Promote commercial motor vehicle safety and security by providing leadership to enforcement, industry, and policy makers. Legal Structure – Not-for-Profit Figure 2-2. Characterization example: Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program. Figure 2-3. Characterization example: Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.

Next: Chapter 3 - Institutional Arrangement Types »
Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) Report 2: Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems explores successful and promising institutional arrangements designed to improve freight movement. The report examines 40 guidelines, reflecting lessons learned from existing arrangements, that are designed to help agencies and industry representatives work together to invest in and improve the freight transportation system.

Appendices, consisting of a literature review, workshop material, detailed case studies, and interview guide, contained on a CD-ROM (CRP-CD-72), which accompanies the printed version of the report and is available for download as an ISO image online.

Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large and may take some time to download using a high-speed connection. Any software included is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively “TRB”) be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.)

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!