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 4
4
CHAPTER 2
Overview of Institutional Arrangements
There are many types of institutional arrangements in its life cycle--safe from the effects of staff turnover and chang-
place today that serve freight transportation interests. Under- ing priorities. Having a champion (one person or organiza-
standing these freight institutional arrangements provides tion) responsible for keeping the foundation intact is critical.
the foundation for the guidelines presented in Chapter 4. This definition is broad enough to encompass all existing
Based on the definition of an institutional arrangement, infor- institutional arrangements and their functions. Institutional
mation was collected through a literature review, a technical arrangements have been created for various reasons, including
workshop, and interviews with public and private officials policymaking, planning efforts, capital improvements, opera-
involved in freight programs and projects to identify com- tions and maintenance, regulation, research, and education.
mon themes, lessons learned, successes, and challenges of Most arrangements have been formed in large part to ensure
existing institutional arrangements. In addition, experts were private-sector needs are included in the public freight planning
asked to brainstorm about future needs for successful arrange- process, with an ultimate goal of improving freight mobility.
ments. In order to begin developing guidelines to support
future arrangements, existing arrangements were explored.
2.2 Literature Review
This chapter reports the findings on existing institutional
arrangements. A literature review was undertaken to assess existing insti-
tutional arrangements. National, multi-state, state, regional,
and local institutional arrangements, representing a range of
2.1 Definition
organizational structures, missions, sizes, geographic loca-
In order to develop guidelines to help create and maintain tions, and functions, were selected on the basis of the project
institutional arrangements, a common definition was needed. team's expertise. Table 2-1 lists the 36 organizations studied.
The definition of institutional arrangement reflects input Detailed summaries of each are provided in Appendix A. This
from the public- and private-sector stakeholders canvassed as list is not an exhaustive inventory of all possible institutional
part of this project. 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
A structured foundation that enables relevant parties structured set of data elements to allow easy comparison. These
to advance the general interests of freight mobility-- elements are as follows:
infrastructure, operations, services, and regulations--
or particular programs and projects to increase freight · Name
mobility. · Purpose
· Projects/Selection Process
· Modes(s)
· Motivator (Origin)
The concept of a "foundation" indicates the importance · Funding
of having a structure that will support a changing cast of · Geographical Coverage
members--as the institutional arrangement moves through · Sponsors
OCR for page 5
5
Table 2-1. Freight institutional arrangements.
Name Category Area Covered
American Trucking Associations, Inc. Nonprofit Corporation National
Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and
National Public Agency National
Networks Program
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Nonprofit Corporation National
FHWA-Office of Freight Management and
Operations-Freight Professional Development National Public Agency National
Program
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
National Public Agency National
Systems Management Program
U.S. DOT-Framework for a National Freight
National Public Policy National
Policy
Multi-state/
Advantage I-75 State/Multi-state Public Agency
Jurisdictional
Multi-state/
Canamex Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency
Jurisdictional
Multi-state/
I-95 Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency
Jurisdictional
Multi-state/
PrePass Nonprofit Corporation
Jurisdictional
Multi-state/
West Coast Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency
Jurisdictional
Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic
State/Multi-state Public Agency State
Development Council
Florida DOT Strategic Intermodal System State/Multi-state Public Agency State
Florida DOT Transportation Regional
State/Multi-state Public Agency State
Incentive Program
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
State/Multi-state Public Agency State
Program
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
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Task Force
(continued on next page)
OCR for page 6
6
Table 2-1. (Continued).
Name Category Area Covered
Bridging the Valley Project Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Chicago Region Environmental and
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Transportation Efficiency Program
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Commission Goods Movement Task Force
International Mobility and Trade Corridor Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Miami Dade MPO-Freight Transportation
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Advisory Committee
New York Metropolitan Transportation
Council Freight Transportation Working Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Group
PierPASS Nonprofit Corporation Regional/Local
Port of Miami Tunnel Joint Venture Company Regional/Local
Puget Sound Regional Council FAST
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Corridor
Puget Sound Regional Council Regional
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Freight Mobility Roundtable
Susquehanna Economic Development
Association Council of Governments Freight Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Advisory Committee
Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Governments Freight Subcommittee
Wilmington-Harrisburg Freight Study Steering
Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local
Committee
· Public Outreach or task forces have been instrumental in helping MPOs draft
· Year Established and formulate regional freight goals, objectives, and policies
· Partners/Members as well as understand how to better incorporate and integrate
· Frequency of Meetings freight planning into the regional transportation planning
· Description and programming process. By having the right public and
· Organizational Structure/Changes private interests represented in these committees, it has been
· Strengths/Successes easier to find champions who can address the obstacles and
· Type rally momentum to move projects forward either by locat-
· Roles and ing funding matches or promoting them to decisionmakers.
· Weaknesses/Challenges. · Facilitating freight project prioritization and completion.
Institutional arrangements have been successful in integrat-
The literature review revealed that the largest number of ing freight projects into existing planning processes, as
current arrangements focus primarily on planning functions, well as implementing stand-alone freight program ele-
followed by capital improvements. Most arrangements were ments. In many instances, this has helped expedite project
statewide or regional in structure. Overall, the examples of in- completion. The availability of funding has made the dif-
stitutional arrangements revealed a common set of strengths ference in whether or not a project could move forward
and weaknesses. Given that these institutional arrange- to construction.
ments were formed for many different reasons, success for one · Improving operational efficiency of freight movements.
may be calculated differently than for another. Key strengths Many arrangements have led to "quick fix" improvement
identified include projects that address bottlenecks in the short term and set
priorities for longer term improvements.
· Integrating freight into transportation policy, planning, · Improving information dissemination and education.
and programming activities. Freight advisory committees Most arrangements have a self-appointed role in infor-
