Click for next page ( 17

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 16
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 16
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.