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 15
15 CHAPTER 3 Institutional Arrangement Types Freight institutional arrangements have various func- consensus on controversial topics. Policy positions of large tions and structures. Functions range from information organizations are sometimes "watered down" so that a broad sharing and consensus building to project design and im- agreement can be reached. plementation. The overriding mission or function of an These organizations focus mainly on information sharing, arrangement can be used to establish types or categories of consensus building at the policy level, education, increasing institutional arrangements. Three types of arrangements visibility and awareness for freight issues, overcoming dis- can be defined based on the activities they conduct. The range trust and competitive barriers, and general advocacy. These of types is illustrated in Figure 3-1 and described in more focus areas are discussed in more detail below: detail below. The complexity of each type reflects the legal structure and · Information Sharing. These types of institutional arrange- scale of activities. Type I has the least formal legal structure, ments typically hold regular meetings that offer speakers possibly championed by public-sector staff resources and a on relevant topics or highlight specific projects or efforts voluntary advisory board. As institutional arrangements move by members. Type I groups may also engage in informa- through the spectrum (e.g., Types II and III), the legal implica- tion-sharing activities such as field trips and site tours, tions become much more formalized--contracts are developed, newsletters, and websites. Information can also be shared contractors are hired, and funds are allocated. Advisory boards when Type I groups act as technical advisory committees staffed by voluntary or appointed members move toward for freight studies. · Consensus Building at the Policy Level. This is frequently development of MOUs and, in some cases, new authorities. The scale of the institutional arrangement may also increase in done through committee meetings, freight studies, and complexity as multiple jurisdictions become involved. related policy reports and white papers. · Education. Typical activities include public education via websites, newsletters, and media outreach, or targeted 3.1 Type I industry education such as offering classes in logistics or supply chain awareness for public agency employees. Type I organizations typically seek to increase the visibility · Increased Visibility and Awareness of Freight Issues. and importance of freight issues and policies in their area. This may be accomplished by high-level officials acting While adding members is seen as a success, losing members as conveners of a freight-oriented group or council. Many is viewed as a failure by the organization to maintain interest, arrangements are housed within MPOs with the express relevance, or cohesiveness. To that end, Type I organizations purpose of ensuring that freight concerns are appropri- generally seek as many members as possible in order to show ately integrated into the regional transportation planning solidarity and support. These organizations are similar to process. chambers of commerce, which promote business growth in · Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers. Arrange- a particular area. These organizations usually have a large ments often include diverse members, typically both public- membership--typically 25 or more members. A larger mem- and private-sector participants. Occasionally they can extend bership provides greater opportunities for information shar- to non-profit members such as environmental groups. The ing, networking, and education, but makes it harder to reach goal in each case is to engage the participants in regular