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-