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 16
16
Type I Type II Type III
1. Information Sharing 1. Project Evaluation 1. Project Implementation
2. Consensus Building 2. Project Prioritization 2. Design and Construction
3. Education 3. Project Selection and 3. Obtain Environmental
4. Increased Visibility Funding Approvals
and Awareness 4. Consensus Building at 4. Managing Financial and
5. Overcoming Distrust Project Level Schedule Risks
and Competitive 5. Focused Advocacy 5. Construction Oversight
Barriers 6. Leverage Additional Funds 6. Debt Service Payments
6. General Advocacy 7. Negotiate Partnership
Agreements
Figure 3-1. Spectrum of institutional arrangement types.
interactions to build trust and identify common ground generate a project score that reflects a project's priority
for action. Some arrangements have taken on data collec- compared with other projects.
tion projects so as to make the supply chain more visible · Project Selection and Funding. After completing the
and reliable. project evaluation and prioritization, projects are selected
· General Advocacy. Some Type I groups may undertake based on their numerical score, fact verification, and deter-
advocacy for freight issues through resolutions, policy mination of benefits. For some institutional arrangements,
papers, and direct outreach to state and federal officials, funding is allocated at the end of the project selection process;
as well as via websites, media outreach, and related pub- for others, the projects selected are recommended for fund-
lications. ing to the legislature, which makes the final decision.
· Consensus Building at Project Level. Project consensus is
3.2 Type II built by considering interests of all stakeholders, especially
project sponsors, project partners, and funding agencies,
Type II organizations tend to have more focused missions and working with them to define project parameters and
than Type I organizations. They are sometimes given statu- facilitate programming and funding.
tory authority in state or federal legislation. These groups · Focused Advocacy. Focused advocacy efforts include advo-
often have the responsibility to review funding applications cating for funding at the state and Federal levels, advising
for specific projects and to seek consensus on specific project the public and private sector on freight trends and concerns,
priorities, especially expenditure of funds. Successful organi- taking stakeholders on field trips or project site visits, and
zations in this category have a well-defined project selection other outreach efforts.
process and use specific evaluation criteria for scoring and · Leverage Additional Funds. Funds allocated by the project
ranking projects competing for funds. These organizations sponsor can be leveraged by requiring a funding match
have an average size of 10 to 25 members. from other public and private stakeholders.
These organizations focus mainly on evaluation of alter-
native projects, project prioritization, project selection, 3.3 Type III
consensus building at the project level, focused advocacy,
Type III organizations often develop from Type I or Type II
and fund-raising. These focus areas are discussed in more
organizations because planning or discussing organizations
detail below:
usually do not have implementation authority. Once a proj-
ect has been approved and funded, another group often takes
· Project Evaluation. Specific qualitative and quantitative over with an even more focused mission than its predecessor,
evaluation criteria are used to score and rank projects com- or the original group reinvents itself with a more focused mis-
peting for funds. The evaluation process measures the sion. These organizations usually have a small membership,
project's potential to improve freight mobility. typically fewer than 10.
· Project Prioritization. Based on the project evaluation, These organizations focus mainly on project implemen-
a prioritization process is used to measure the degree to tation through design and construction, obtaining environ-
which projects address important program objectives and mental approvals, managing financial and schedule risks,
OCR for page 17
17
construction oversight, debt service payments, and negotiat- · Construction Oversight. These organizations oversee the
ing partnership agreements. These focus areas are discussed construction of their project(s) by meeting regularly with
in more detail below: project managers (contractors), tracking the construction
progress, systematically identifying obstacles, maintaining
· Project Implementation. These arrangements are formed
adequate contingency and reserves, and monitoring the
project budget.
to address a particular need by actually overseeing the
· Debt Service Payments. In cases where bonds or loans
implementation and delivery of a project or a series of
are issued to finance a project, Type III organizations are
projects.
responsible for paying that debt. They also are responsible
· Design and Construction. Typically these arrangements
for collecting and distributing any user fees.
are responsible for the design and construction of proj- · Negotiate Partnership Agreements. These agreements
ects. Often a design-build procurement is recommended are typically consummated in the form of Memoranda of
to streamline the process. Understanding (MOUs) between the various partners vested
· Obtain Environmental Approvals. Type III arrangements in the project. These agreements define the responsibili-
have implementation authority and, therefore, are respon- ties of each partner and make sure each partner is vested
sible for obtaining all the environmental approvals neces- in the project.
sary, including mitigating the environmental impacts the
project(s) may have. Table 3-1 organizes the 16 case studies into the proposed
· Managing Financial and Schedule Risks. It is the re- categorization for Types I, II, and III. Organizations can fit
sponsibility of these organizations to decide how the into one or more types simultaneously or move from one
risks between the owner and contractors will be shared type to another over time as missions shift and programs
for unexpected cost increases or schedule changes. evolve (as is the case with two case studies).
OCR for page 18
18
Table 3-1. Categorization of case studies.
Name Type I Type II Type III Legal Structure Scale
California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council
(CALMITSAC) Multi-stakeholder working group that has produced biannual
needs assessments for the State's goods movement system to assist in educating X Public Agency State Freight
state and Federal lawmakers.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Goods Movement Task
Force (DVRPC-GMTF) Long-standing freight advisory committee, including
public and private representatives supporting the inclusion of freight projects in X Public Agency Metro Freight
regional transportation plans.
I-95 Corridor Coalition (I-95) Coalition of 16 eastern states that serves as a
forum to address regional transportation management and operations concerns of X X Not-for-Profit Corridors
mutual interest.
Kansas City SmartPort (KCSP) Investor-based economic development
organization that encourages regional economic growth by attracting logistics
X X Not-for-Profit Gateway/Port
businesses and improving supply chain security.
Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC)
Private-sector advisory board to MPO for regional freight interests. X Public Agency Metro Freight
Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition (MVFC) Ten-state coalition aimed at
improving the efficiency of freight transportation systems and regional economic X Public Agency Multistate Network
well being.
Nation'sPort Public-private collaboration in the New York-New Jersey area
that supported an earlier port dredging project and is now developing a regional X Not-for-Profit Metro Freight
logistics strategy.
Natural Resources Defense Council Southern California Clean Air Program
(NRDC) Team of nonprofit attorneys using litigation, advocacy, and public
X Not-for-Profit Metro Freight
education to promote public policy that reduces pollutant emissions from freight
movement.
Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration Agreement
(SCNFGC) Memorandum of Agreement among Federal, state, and local agencies
X Public Agency Gateway/Port
involved in freight transportation to collaborate on the challenges of growing
freight volumes.
Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Consensus Group (TCIFCG) Informal
regional collaboration of county transportation agencies to effectively coordinate
X Public Agency Metro Freight
freight funding requests to the State.
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council
(FSTED) Board with legislative mandate to evaluate and fund projects designed
X Not-for-Profit State Freight
to maintain and improve the global competitiveness of Florida's ports.
Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) Public-private board
with legislative mandate to evaluate and implement strategic investment program
X Public Agency State Freight
for freight projects in Washington State.
Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) State program to evaluate
and fund projects that maintain the viability of freight rail service and thus support X Public Agency State Freight
economic development.
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) Public authority created
to design, build, and operate consolidated freight rail corridor serving Ports of X Public Authority Gateway/Port
Long Beach and Los Angeles.
Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program
(CREATE) Public-private partnership aimed at relieving freight and passenger
X Public Agency Metro Freight
rail congestion through rationalization, reconstruction, and upgrading of five rail
corridors.
Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Federal
initiative to organize, deploy, and fund technology to automate various motor
X Public Agency Multistate Network
carrier regulatory and safety enforcement functions.
