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.
15 Freight institutional arrangements have various func- tions and structures. Functions range from information sharing and consensus building to project design and im- plementation. The overriding mission or function of an arrangement can be used to establish types or categories of institutional arrangements. Three types of arrangements can be defined based on the activities they conduct. The range of types is illustrated in Figure 3-1 and described in more detail below. The complexity of each type reflects the legal structure and scale of activities. Type I has the least formal legal structure, possibly championed by public-sector staff resources and a voluntary advisory board. As institutional arrangements move through the spectrum (e.g., Types II and III), the legal implica- tions become much more formalizedâcontracts are developed, contractors are hired, and funds are allocated. Advisory boards staffed by voluntary or appointed members move toward development of MOUs and, in some cases, new authorities. The scale of the institutional arrangement may also increase in complexity as multiple jurisdictions become involved. 3.1 Type I Type I organizations typically seek to increase the visibility and importance of freight issues and policies in their area. While adding members is seen as a success, losing members is viewed as a failure by the organization to maintain interest, relevance, or cohesiveness. To that end, Type I organizations generally seek as many members as possible in order to show solidarity and support. These organizations are similar to chambers of commerce, which promote business growth in a particular area. These organizations usually have a large membershipâtypically 25 or more members. A larger mem- bership provides greater opportunities for information shar- ing, networking, and education, but makes it harder to reach consensus on controversial topics. Policy positions of large organizations are sometimes âwatered downâ so that a broad agreement can be reached. These organizations focus mainly on information sharing, consensus building at the policy level, education, increasing visibility and awareness for freight issues, overcoming dis- trust and competitive barriers, and general advocacy. These focus areas are discussed in more detail below: ⢠Information Sharing. These types of institutional arrange- ments typically hold regular meetings that offer speakers on relevant topics or highlight specific projects or efforts by members. Type I groups may also engage in informa- tion-sharing activities such as field trips and site tours, newsletters, and websites. Information can also be shared when Type I groups act as technical advisory committees for freight studies. ⢠Consensus Building at the Policy Level. This is frequently done through committee meetings, freight studies, and related policy reports and white papers. ⢠Education. Typical activities include public education via websites, newsletters, and media outreach, or targeted industry education such as offering classes in logistics or supply chain awareness for public agency employees. ⢠Increased Visibility and Awareness of Freight Issues. This may be accomplished by high-level officials acting as conveners of a freight-oriented group or council. Many arrangements are housed within MPOs with the express purpose of ensuring that freight concerns are appropri- ately integrated into the regional transportation planning process. ⢠Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers. Arrange- ments often include diverse members, typically both public- and private-sector participants. Occasionally they can extend to non-profit members such as environmental groups. The goal in each case is to engage the participants in regular C H A P T E R 3 Institutional Arrangement Types
interactions to build trust and identify common ground for action. Some arrangements have taken on data collec- tion projects so as to make the supply chain more visible and reliable. ⢠General Advocacy. Some Type I groups may undertake advocacy for freight issues through resolutions, policy papers, and direct outreach to state and federal officials, as well as via websites, media outreach, and related pub- lications. 3.2 Type II Type II organizations tend to have more focused missions than Type I organizations. They are sometimes given statu- tory authority in state or federal legislation. These groups often have the responsibility to review funding applications for specific projects and to seek consensus on specific project priorities, especially expenditure of funds. Successful organi- zations in this category have a well-defined project selection process and use specific evaluation criteria for scoring and ranking projects competing for funds. These organizations have an average size of 10 to 25 members. These organizations focus mainly on evaluation of alter- native projects, project prioritization, project selection, consensus building at the project level, focused advocacy, and fund-raising. These focus areas are discussed in more detail below: ⢠Project Evaluation. Specific qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria are used to score and rank projects com- peting for funds. The evaluation process measures the projectâs potential to improve freight mobility. ⢠Project Prioritization. Based on the project evaluation, a prioritization process is used to measure the degree to which projects address important program objectives and generate a project score that reflects a projectâs priority compared with other projects. ⢠Project Selection and Funding. After completing the project evaluation and prioritization, projects are selected based on their numerical score, fact verification, and deter- mination of benefits. For some institutional arrangements, funding is allocated at the end of the project selection process; for others, the projects selected are recommended for fund- ing to the legislature, which makes the final decision. ⢠Consensus Building at Project Level. Project consensus is built by considering interests of all stakeholders, especially project sponsors, project partners, and funding agencies, and working with them to define project parameters and facilitate programming and funding. ⢠Focused Advocacy. Focused advocacy efforts include advo- cating for funding at the state and Federal levels, advising the public and private sector on freight trends and concerns, taking stakeholders on field trips or project site visits, and other outreach efforts. ⢠Leverage Additional Funds. Funds allocated by the project sponsor can be leveraged by requiring a funding match from other public and private stakeholders. 3.3 Type III Type III organizations often develop from Type I or Type II organizations because planning or discussing organizations usually do not have implementation authority. Once a proj- ect has been approved and funded, another group often takes over with an even more focused mission than its predecessor, or the original group reinvents itself with a more focused mis- sion. These organizations usually have a small membership, typically fewer than 10. These organizations focus mainly on project implemen- tation through design and construction, obtaining environ- mental approvals, managing financial and schedule risks, 16 Type II Type III 1. Information Sharing 2. Consensus Building 3. Education 4. Increased Visibility and Awareness 5. Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers 6. General Advocacy 1. Project Evaluation 2. Project Prioritization 3. Project Selection and Funding 4. Consensus Building at Project Level 5. Focused Advocacy 6. Leverage Additional Funds 1. Project Implementation 2. Design and Construction 3. Obtain Environmental Approvals 4. Managing Financial and Schedule Risks 5. Construction Oversight 6. Debt Service Payments 7. Negotiate Partnership Agreements Type I Figure 3-1. Spectrum of institutional arrangement types.
17 construction oversight, debt service payments, and negotiat- ing partnership agreements. These focus areas are discussed in more detail below: ⢠Project Implementation. These arrangements are formed to address a particular need by actually overseeing the implementation and delivery of a project or a series of projects. ⢠Design and Construction. Typically these arrangements are responsible for the design and construction of proj- ects. Often a design-build procurement is recommended to streamline the process. ⢠Obtain Environmental Approvals. Type III arrangements have implementation authority and, therefore, are respon- sible for obtaining all the environmental approvals neces- sary, including mitigating the environmental impacts the project(s) may have. ⢠Managing Financial and Schedule Risks. It is the re- sponsibility of these organizations to decide how the risks between the owner and contractors will be shared for unexpected cost increases or schedule changes. ⢠Construction Oversight. These organizations oversee the construction of their project(s) by meeting regularly with project managers (contractors), tracking the construction progress, systematically identifying obstacles, maintaining adequate contingency and reserves, and monitoring the project budget. ⢠Debt Service Payments. In cases where bonds or loans are issued to finance a project, Type III organizations are responsible for paying that debt. They also are responsible for collecting and distributing any user fees. ⢠Negotiate Partnership Agreements. These agreements are typically consummated in the form of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between the various partners vested in the project. These agreements define the responsibili- ties of each partner and make sure each partner is vested in the project. Table 3-1 organizes the 16 case studies into the proposed categorization for Types I, II, and III. Organizations can fit into one or more types simultaneously or move from one type to another over time as missions shift and programs evolve (as is the case with two case studies).
18 Name Type I Type II Type III Legal Structure Scale California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) â Multi-stakeholder working group that has produced biannual needs assessments for the Stateâs goods movement system to assist in educating state and Federal lawmakers. X Public Agency State Freight Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission â Goods Movement Task Force (DVRPC-GMTF) â Long-standing freight advisory committee, including public and private representatives supporting the inclusion of freight projects in regional transportation plans. X Public Agency Metro Freight I-95 Corridor Coalition (I-95) â Coalition of 16 eastern states that serves as a forum to address regional transportation management and operations concerns of mutual interest. X X Not-for-Profit Corridors Kansas City SmartPort (KCSP) â Investor-based economic development organization that encourages regional economic growth by attracting logistics businesses and improving supply chain security. X X Not-for-Profit Gateway/Port Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) â Private-sector advisory board to MPO for regional freight interests. X Public Agency Metro Freight Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition (MVFC) â Ten-state coalition aimed at improving the efficiency of freight transportation systems and regional economic well being. X Public Agency Multistate Network NationâsPort â Public-private collaboration in the New York-New Jersey area that supported an earlier port dredging project and is now developing a regional logistics strategy. X Not-for-Profit Metro Freight Natural Resources Defense Council â Southern California Clean Air Program (NRDC) â Team of nonprofit attorneys using litigation, advocacy, and public education to promote public policy that reduces pollutant emissions from freight movement. X Not-for-Profit Metro Freight Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration Agreement (SCNFGC) â Memorandum of Agreement among Federal, state, and local agencies involved in freight transportation to collaborate on the challenges of growing freight volumes. X Public Agency Gateway/Port Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Consensus Group (TCIFCG) â Informal regional collaboration of county transportation agencies to effectively coordinate freight funding requests to the State. X Public Agency Metro Freight Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED) â Board with legislative mandate to evaluate and fund projects designed to maintain and improve the global competitiveness of Floridaâs ports. X Not-for-Profit State Freight Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) â Public-private board with legislative mandate to evaluate and implement strategic investment program for freight projects in Washington State. X Public Agency State Freight Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) â State program to evaluate and fund projects that maintain the viability of freight rail service and thus support economic development. X Public Agency State Freight Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) â Public authority created to design, build, and operate consolidated freight rail corridor serving Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. X Public Authority Gateway/Port Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) â Public-private partnership aimed at relieving freight and passenger rail congestion through rationalization, reconstruction, and upgrading of five rail corridors. X Public Agency Metro Freight Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) â Federal initiative to organize, deploy, and fund technology to automate various motor carrier regulatory and safety enforcement functions. X Public Agency Multistate Network Table 3-1. Categorization of case studies.