National Academies Press: OpenBook

Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems (2009)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Institutional Arrangement Types
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14332.
×
Page 56

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.

19 4.1 Guideline Development and Application Process Case studies were developed to illustrate institutional arrangements throughout the United States. The selected case studies address a range of purposes and activities. After syn- thesizing the case study findings and defining three types of institutional arrangements, 40 guidelines were developed to facilitate the creation of new or enhanced existing arrange- ments. The guidelines reflect, in large part, the experiences of these existing arrangements. These guidelines have been organized to address the range of activities undertaken by different types of arrangements and are grouped by type to coincide with the types of arrange- ments presented in Chapter 3. The guidelines also are struc- tured to support both the key activities of an arrangement at a point in time as well as the natural progression of an arrangement over time. The guidelines have been organized within each type based on a recommended sequence of ac- tions. Although each guideline can be used independently, the intent was to describe a natural progression of the actions required to achieve success. The three types of guidelines are as follows: • Type I guidelines apply to all types of institutional arrange- ments. These overarching guidelines are the foundation for building a successful institutional arrangement. Most in- stitutional arrangements, regardless of type, initiate their organization with Type I guidelines. • Type II guidelines build on Type I and offer direction on seeking consensus on specific project priorities. Often an organization’s goal is to employ methods to score and rank projects competing for funds. • Type III guidelines build on Types I and II and are aimed at a more formalized organization responsible for design- ing, mitigating, constructing, and operating a new system element. Figure 4-1 shows the types of guidelines and their basic ac- tivities as a spectrum. Type I is the foundation of all arrange- ments. As the arrangement becomes more specialized and fo- cused, Type II and III guidelines can be applied. Any given arrangement can move in either direction along this spec- trum, based on changes in expectations and responsibilities. The effective use of these guidelines will help an institutional arrangement (1) define its purpose; (2) identify and organize its roles and responsibilities; (3) establish procedures necessary to conduct business; and (4) deploy available resources. Table 4-1 summarizes the 40 guidelines by type. Examples of the application of these guidelines are provided based on the experiences of the 16 institutional arrangements selected for case study development. The acronyms used to identify each case study are as follows: ACTA Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority CALMITSAC California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council CREATE Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program CVISN Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks DVRPC-GMTF Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission—Goods Movement Task Force FMSIB Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board FSTED Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council FTAC Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transpor- tation Advisory Committee I-95 I-95 Corridor Coalition IRAP Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program KCSP Kansas City SmartPort C H A P T E R 4 Suggested Guidelines for Establishing Freight Institutional Arrangements

MVFC Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition Nation’sPort Nation’sPort NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council— Southern California Clean Air Program SCNFGC Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration Agreement TCIFCG Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Consensus Group 4.2 Type I—General Guidelines To develop successful institutional arrangements for freight transportation, basic guidelines must be followed. Many arrangements have proven successful; many have been less successful. As described in Chapter 3, these arrangements can be grouped by type. Although many arrangements meet the criteria of multiple types and/or evolve from one to the other over time, the underlying basis for all institutional arrange- ments can be encompassed in certain overarching guidelines, driven by a general set of success factors. The following pro- vides a set of universal guidelines designed to initiate a success- ful arrangement. These universal guidelines should be reviewed and considered for all three types of institutional arrangements. These guidelines are presented in sequence but can be used independently based on the needs of the arrangement. Thirteen overarching guidelines have been developed as summarized in Table 4-2. Each guideline is described and illustrated using case study examples. Table 4-2 shows which of the 16 case studies illustrate use of which guidelines. Shad- ing indicates detailed examples for that guideline. All case studies are provided in detail in Appendix C. Guideline 1. Identify need and purpose. The first step in developing a successful institutional arrange- ment is to define its purpose. Institutional arrangements are developed to address a specific need. The definition and understanding of this need cut across all types of institutional arrangements. The development of a freight transportation advisory committee enables a region to better plan for freight transportation mobility by incorporating freight into estab- lished policy, planning, and programming activities. In some instances institutional arrangements are created to promote a specific project; in other cases, they provide an overall voice to the freight community. Institutional arrangements also can be used to identify and allocate funding to specific improvement projects. The definition of the specific need and purpose of the institutional arrangement is a key to success. Given that a need and purpose are fundamental components of an organization, all institutional arrangements presented illustrate the use of this guideline. Institutional arrangements come in three basic forms: addressing a specific project-level need, acting in an advisory role, or performing an advocacy function. Example 1-1 describes an organization focused on a very specific project-level need and purpose while Example 1-2 illustrates moving from a narrow focus to a broader purpose over time. Example 1-3 illustrates the definition of the purpose within the documentation of the arrangement. Guideline 2. Form deliberate strategies. Defining the need and purpose provides the overall objec- tive of the institutional arrangement; however, it does not define the action items or focus areas necessary to ensure success. A set of deliberate strategies provides the participants with a checklist of priorities that will guide the institutional arrangement’s activities. These strategies provide a frame- work designed to achieve the established purpose. For freight transportation advisory committees, strategies may consist of needs identification, consensus building, developing political support, and advising work program development. All these strategies or actions would be designed to promote freight transportation system investments in the region. The ability to complete these activities also allows the institutional arrange- ment to evaluate its level of success. For more specific insti- tutional arrangements, activities could include developing specific evaluation criteria, establishing MOUs, and other processes necessary to implement a specific program or de- velop a stand-alone entity. These strategies are, in large part, 20 Program establishment Outreach Education Consensus building Needs identification Project preordination Funding allocation Design Construction Operations Type II Type III Type I Figure 4-1. Spectrum of guideline types.

21 Type I 1 Identify need and purpose 2 Form deliberate strategies 3 Seek the support of a champion 4 Identify and recruit stakeholders 5 Build political support 6 Develop information-sharing and outreach venues 7 Partner with academia 8 Engage stakeholders as needed 9 Secure dedicated funding and resources 10 Use consensus-based process 11 Ensure short- and long-term progress 12 Develop and use performance measures 13 Encourage cost sharing Type II 14 Define specific program elements 15 Develop implementation process 16 Establish protocols for implementation 17 Identify evaluation criteria 18 Define funding allocation process 19 Require on-time completion of projects 20 Require project audits 21 Perform site visits 22 Ensure focus stays on purpose/mission Type III 23 Build consensus on specific project parameters 24 Seek out champions and develop a diverse coalition of interest groups 25 Provide a neutral forum 26 Secure private-sector involvement/commitment 27 Develop mitigation strategy for project impacts 28 Establish clear decision-making authority 29 Remain focused on defined mission 30 Adopt a product orientation 31 Identify, monitor, and address obstacles 32 Develop partnership agreements 33 Negotiate third-party agreements early 34 Allocate risk between owner and contractor 35 Establish funding firewalls and sunset clauses 36 Consider design-build procurement 37 Understand how bond rating agencies make decisions 38 Establish cost-sharing structure 39 Maintain adequate contingency and reserves 40 Maximize use of available funding cycles Table 4-1. Summary of guidelines.

22 Guideline A CT A CA LM IT SA C CR EA TE CV IS N D VR PC FM SI B FS TE D FT A C I-9 5 IR A P K CS P M VF C N at io n’ sP or t N R D C SC NF G C TC IF CG 1 Identify need and purpose 2 Form deliberate strategies 3 Seek the support of a champion 4 Identify and recruit stakeholders 5 Build political support 6 Develop information-sharing and outreach venues 7 Partner with academia 8 Engage stakeholders as needed 9 Secure dedicated funding and resources 10 Use consensus-based process 11 Ensure short- and long-term progress 12 Develop and use performance measures 13 Encourage cost sharing Note: Shading indicates that this is a detailed example of the guideline. Table 4-2. Summary of Type I—general guidelines. Example 1-1. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority The Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA), a joint powers authority of the cities of Los Ange- les and Long Beach, is the governing entity responsible for one of the largest and most successful public works projects in Southern California, the Alameda Corridor. Combining capacity improvements and environmen- tal enhancements, the project dramatically improved railroad access to the largest port complex in the United States by consolidating harbor-related railroad traffic onto a single 20-mile corridor between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the railroad mainlines near downtown Los Angeles. The issue identified in the beginning was the need to improve traffic conditions in the port area for both highway and rail corridors and to address the effect of this traffic on surrounding communities. The success of this project could not have been possible without a clear purpose to accomplish this goal. To achieve this success, ACTA’s purpose has evolved over the life of the Alameda Corridor project. The original pur- pose was to design and construct the Alameda Corridor. Beyond this initial purpose, ACTA is responsible for making debt service payments and maintaining the right-of-way and related facilities. When the design and construction phase of the project was completed in 2002, the purpose of ACTA expanded to other areas including data collection for supporting initiatives, design, and construction of highway improve- ments; assisting in goods movement studies; investigating funding options for goods movement projects; and participating in additional railroad projects. ACTA’s success story is defined by its ability to identify its purpose in the early stages of the Alameda Cor- ridor project. By working through a step-by-step process toward its goal, the organization that eventu- ally came to be ACTA was able to work through public and private concerns with a clear mission of where it was headed and remain focused on the railroad access problem to be solved.

covered by the guidelines provided in this document; how- ever, creating a plan early in the process will help determine the direction of the institutional arrangement. Institutional arrangements considered successful have clearly identified strategies that help keep the organization fo- cused on its mission and members engaged. For instance, Kansas City SmartPort (KCSP) has employed specific mar- keting strategies to achieve its mission. Example 2-1 illus- trates a state-based organization that has developed strategies to raise awareness of its freight-related mission. Example 2-2 is a regional example where the leadership formed strategies early on to keep members engaged. Guideline 3. Seek the support of a champion. Institutional arrangements typically consist of various stake- holders who come together for a common purpose. However, 23 Example 1-2. Nation’sPort Nation’sPort is a non-profit organization formed to promote commercial freight interests in the New York/ New Jersey harbor area. In partnership with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), Nation’sPort’s initial focus was coordinating local private-sector support with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to deepen the New York harbor and berth access. The group was successful in bringing USACE’s attention to the issue and the dredging project is on track for completion in 2014. Once this initial goal was achieved, the entity remained dormant until 2006 when it was urged to under- take a new, broader purpose of promoting sustainable goods movement through a comprehensive logistics system while enhancing the region’s economy. This restructured mission for Nation’sPort pro- vided a new direction for the entity. This new purpose allows Nation’sPort to focus on gathering the sup- port of both public and private stakeholders in the success of the mobility of goods in the port region. It continues to develop a strategic freight logistics plan that will guide its efforts. It sees its mission as mainly strategic rather than project oriented. It is working in partnership with PANYNJ to reach out to as many stakeholders, public and private, as possible to advance freight logistics in the harbor area. Nation’sPort is an example of an organization redefining itself as the need originally identified changed. Being sensitive to the changing environment has allowed Nation’sPort to make changes as necessary to fur- ther its purpose. Example 1-3. Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration Agreement The Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration Agreement was signed by 19 Federal, state, and local government agencies (including 3 Southern California ports) on October 12, 2007. The three-page agreement documents these agencies’ intent to collaborate on the challenges of growing freight volumes in Southern California, coupled with limited infrastructure capacity and funding and unacceptable environmental and human health impacts associated with freight movement. The agreement among numerous agencies at several levels of government is a testament to the success in demonstrating the need for collaboration. Such collaboration is unusual, but in an arena where transporta- tion, environmental, and economic factors are all relevant, the senior agency leaders were clearly persuaded and motivated to offer their commitment to a new effort. The purpose for the collaboration was docu- mented in the agreement itself: The purpose of this agreement is to promote cooperation, coordination, and collaboration among the sig- natories to advance projects for sustainable and efficient freight transportation operations while all signa- tories pursue their normal responsibilities under the law. This agreement is not intended to limit, increase, or affect the authority of any agency under the law. The undersigned agree to cooperate with all stakehold- ers in the Area to improve freight throughput capacity while protecting and enhancing the natural and human environment.

24 Example 2-1. California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council The California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) is a multi- stakeholder group that has been meeting since 2001 to raise awareness of the importance and needs of California’s port and marine transportation system. Since its formation, CALMITSAC has been creating spe- cific strategies to deal with the growing quantity of maritime cargo handled by the California ports. The group’s first milestone publication came in 2003, California Marine Transportation System Infrastructure Needs. This report represented the first consensus listing of maritime infrastructure projects needed statewide. In 2004, Assembly Bill 2034 was passed into law requiring CALMITSAC to produce a strategies plan to the legislature. This plan, Growth of California Ports: Opportunities & Challenges, was delivered in April 2007 and included 54 specific recommendations on the following topics: economic growth, environment, project priorities, funding, intermodal trucking availability and terminal productivity, legislation, marine transportation system security, and education. Every 2 years, a report is written by a CALMITSAC member with an academic affiliation who conducts exten- sive research and works closely with the Council to frame each report. These biannual Strategic Analysis reports serve as the main educational and outreach vehicle for state and Federal lawmakers for the orga- nization. In addition, these reports lay out recommendations for action to foster the development of a marine transportation system in California that is safe, secure, efficient, environmentally sound, and can expand to meet the demands of the global economy. By producing regular written consensus reports that are of high quality, based on objective research and statistics, and contain recommendations for action on several mission areas including security, infrastructure, environment, and competitiveness, CALMITSAC has created deliberate strategies that have helped the group support its state-oriented mission of raising local and national awareness on the importance of California’s ports and maritime system. Example 2-2. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission—Goods Movement Task Force The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) Goods Movement Task Force (GMTF) is a freight advisory committee composed of about half private sector and half government representatives. Meeting since 1992, it has successfully built relationships among its members and improved their collective under- standing of the Philadelphia region’s freight system through planned strategies. The task force was formed to give freight a stronger voice in the regional transportation planning process. The GMTF’s purpose is to maximize the Delaware Valley’s position in the global economy by promoting local freight operations and implementing a regional goods movement strategy. It has ensured this happens by taking specific steps to keep the freight industry engaged and working together. One strategy, employed by the Executive Committee, is to develop a theme for each year and plan all quarterly meetings around this theme. This helps members to know ahead of time what topics will be discussed. In addition, the task force clearly defined its structure so that it is organized into logical, pertinent subcommittees making the most use of the members’ time for each meeting. Finally, the leadership uses membership involvement strategies (e.g., tours and speaking engagements) to help members learn from one another and provide valuable insight to the GMTF discussion. These and other strategies have ensured that freight is effectively represented and included in the regional transportation planning and programming processes. In addition to awareness, the common understanding and regional freight focus fostered through the GMTF has resulted in funding for freight-specific infrastruc- ture improvements in the Delaware Valley region.

25 in order for the institutional arrangement to achieve success, it is critical to have the support of a champion. A champion can take several forms: an elected official, a dedicated staff person, or a lead organization that may campaign toward a legislative mandate for implementation or for the funding needed to accomplish the defined goals. The champion often is in the best position to promote the common purpose, provide dedicated staff and funding, or serve as an objective contracting agent. As the key motivator, the champion is responsible for keeping other stakeholders engaged. This requires a common goal, showing evidence of progress/success, and a tireless commit- ment to motivate participation. A local or regional freight task force can be used to identify, prioritize, and fund specific im- provement projects. In this case, the champion must be in a po- sition to follow through with implementation of these improve- ments to be effective. More formalized programs can also be developed through public and private participation to facilitate improved efficiencies in business practices. In these instances, the champion often must provide the architecture or frame- work as well as a range of incentives to stimulate participation. Examples of champions were found in many of the entities interviewed. For instance, the Miami-Dade Freight Trans- portation Advisory Committee (FTAC) has enjoyed the tireless effort of a coordinator who makes sure the council meets to discuss important freight issues to provide recommendations to the MPO. In the case of the Maine DOT Industrial Rail Ac- cess Program (IRAP), the Maine DOT fully supports the pro- gram and sees the importance in the mission of the program. The Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition (MVFC) executive officers have championed their effort through an MOU and pooled funds. Example 3-1 illustrates the outcome of a dedi- cated lead agency championing the effort for the CVISN Pro- gram while Example 3-2 shows how losing a champion can affect the institutional arrangement. Example 3-1. Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks The Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Program provides a framework for organizing, deploying, and funding the implementation of technology to automate various motor car- rier regulatory and safety enforcement functions. The program is managed by FMCSA. Although deploy- ment planning and implementation of the program requires the full participation of FMCSA, state agen- cies with motor carrier safety or regulatory responsibilities, and industry, FMCSA is the champion, providing the national reach to unite a diverse set of public and private stakeholders and incentivize investments in new business and enforcement processes and technologies. FMCSA cannot achieve its mission of reducing crashes involving trucks and buses without the support of the states, which are responsible for administering and enforcing commercial vehicle regulations. States, on the other hand, typically cannot fully finance the technology infrastructure required for CVISN, nor are individual states well-suited to coordinate activities across states to promote uniformity and stan- dards. States wishing to receive Federal CVISN funds must enter into formal partnership agreements with FMCSA. These agreements (1) specify what is required of states in order to qualify for and receive CVISN grant money and (2) outline what they can expect from FMCSA. In general, FMCSA has primary responsibility for managing and overseeing the CVISN program at the national level, including evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. States are responsible for planning, deploying, operating, and maintaining their CVISN architecture and services. Example 3-2. Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) is a public-private part- nership created in 2003 that includes the state and city transportation departments, passenger rail services, and six of the largest North American freight railroads. The CREATE Program consists of approximately 78 projects of national and regional significance aimed at addressing existing and future congestion issues on the rail system, which, if not addressed, are expected to bring adverse effects to the national economy and the transportation system. In order to complete the 78 projects, Federal funding is necessary. (continued)

Guideline 4. Identify and recruit stakeholders. One of the key success factors for an effective institutional arrangement is identifying and recruiting stakeholders to achieve the defined purpose or mission. Given that freight transportation is, in large part, driven by the private sector, this requires a mix of public and private stakeholders—public transportation agencies and authorities to drive the funding, permitting, and programming of projects and private trans- portation companies to drive the needs identification, priori- tization, and buy-in for specific projects and programs. To re- cruit the appropriate partners successfully, a win-win scenario must be defined and promoted. A group of like-minded stake- holders can be brought together to promote mutual benefits at a regional level to drive economic development, mobility, and overall competitiveness. At a specific project level, stakehold- ers can be organized to solve a key freight bottleneck that is big- ger than an individual agency or company. It is critical that the individual stakeholders represent affected agencies and com- panies as well as being leaders and decisionmakers who can en- sure the commitment of resources. Many entities have successfully identified and recruited stakeholders to achieve the defined purpose or mission such as CREATE, which united several public and private parties to ad- dress a freight bottleneck in the region; DVRPC, which reaches out to various freight-related entities to join in the transporta- tion planning process for a region; and KCSP, where investors are stakeholders representing a mix of public and private part- ners. Example 4-1 shows an organization that successfully reached out to a wide range of stakeholders to ensure the right individuals participated and contributed to the overall mission of the group. Example 4-2 discusses an entity that is building its membership after broadening its mission over time. 26 Example 4-1. California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council The California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) was created as a California-focused group to help the state develop a strategy to deal with the growing amounts of maritime cargo being handled by the California ports. This group of like-minded stakeholders was needed in order to act effectively in concert and address California’s marine transportation system issues. As a result, a mix of public and private stakeholders were identified and recruited, including State legislative staff, Maritime Administration (MARAD) officials, the Marine Exchanges of Northern and Southern California, the California Association of Port Authorities, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, the California State Lands Commission, academics in trade and transportation fields, labor unions, and waterfront employers. This multi-stakeholder group, later referred to as CALMITSAC, has been meeting since 2001 to raise awareness of the importance and needs of California’s ports and marine transportation system. One of CALMITSAC’s key success factors has been its ambition to bring a wide range of stakeholders together to ensure that the right individuals participate and contribute to the overall mission of the group. Example 3-2. (Continued) In 2005, the CREATE Program lost its strongest champion at the Federal level when a former member of several subcommittees of the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee, including the T&I Subcommittee on Railroads, retired just before SAFETEA-LU authorization. It was then left to others to champion the project during final Congressional deliberations, which may have resulted in CREATE not receiving the Federal funding anticipated from the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) Program in SAFETEA-LU. It had requested $900 million in Federal funding in addition to state, local and private contributions but, instead, it only received $100 million, which has been released in increments. CREATE’s goals could be advanced with strong champions throughout the nation who recognize the national significance of the program and will support the lobbying efforts to secure more funds in the next Federal transportation authorization. Without a strong champion at the Federal level who will help secure a dedicated funding source, the program will continue to be implemented in phases, resulting in significant delay.

27 Example 4-2. Nation’sPort Nation’sPort is a non-profit organization formed to fulfill the need to create a single organization that would serve as a voice for a full range of freight interests in the Ports of New York and New Jersey region. There was no umbrella organization to bring the needs of these stakeholders together in a cohesive fashion. Therefore, one of its challenges has been to integrate the various public and private sectors’ needs and expectations into one single voice advocating for the Ports of New York and New Jersey. Nation’sPort began primarily as a private-sector group that is now motivated by the desire to encour- age the general public’s interest in the Port. However, it recognized the need to promote the benefits of the Port in terms of economic development, freight mobility, and overall competitiveness at the regional level. To do this, a mix of public- and private-sector members needed to be represented. As a result, Nation’sPort became a more formal structure consisting of five standing committees dealing with specific issues (Inland Transportation, Port, Land Use & Development, Labor & Workforce Devel- opment, and Technology & Systems Integration). Each committee represents a diverse constituency tailored to each issue. For example, the Inland Transportation Committee includes members from trucking, railroads, construction, engineering, communities, and planning agencies, while the Labor & Workforce Development Committee involves representatives from employment and training organi- zations, educational institutions, and a range of employers. Nation’sPort also intends to establish an Advisory Board made up of local and state governmental entities concerned with freight transporta- tion. It expects to get the New York and New Jersey MPOs and state DOTs involved, expand union involve- ment, and build positively on the established working relationship with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In conclusion, Nation’sPort has recognized the importance of including a mix of public and private members in order to have the appropriate stakeholders and resources to encourage a strong regional collaboration and integrate the various constituents’ needs and expectations into a regional logistics strategy for the Port’s region. Example 4-1. (Continued) As a result, CALMITSAC has continued to broaden its membership to include stakeholders who will iden- tify, prioritize, and recommend actions to improve California’s maritime transportation system, making sure they represent affected agencies and companies like the California Chamber of Commerce and the BNSF Railway Company, as well as leaders and decisionmakers such as the California Department of Trans- portation and the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency. Most recently, the group has reached out to a major national environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is working to reduce the pollution levels and community impacts produced by California’s port operations. By identifying and recruiting this wide range of public and private stakeholders, CALMITSAC has proven that it is possible for diverse members to look past their individual agendas in service of CALMITSAC’s overall mis- sion to foster the development of a marine transportation system in California that is safe, secure, efficient, environmentally sound, and capable of expanding to meet the demands of the global economy. Guideline 5. Build political support. The success of an institutional arrangement is directly linked to its political support. Although many institutional arrange- ments are technically driven in nature, the ability to implement specific objectives is directly affected by the support of commu- nity and business leaders. Without political support, it may be more difficult to engage stakeholders, solicit dedicated fund- ing, and implement recommendations. In the most extreme cases, support can result in a mandate that provides the author- ity to implement specific actions. Recommendations from an advisory committee are given more credence when the members are politically appointed. In some instances, legisla- tive bodies can create new funding programs designed to tackle

28 Example 5-2. Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program is a public-private partnership created in 2003 that includes the state and city transportation departments, passenger rail services, and six of the largest North American freight railroads. CREATE is aimed at addressing existing and future congestion issues on the rail system, which are expected to bring adverse effects to the national economy and transportation system if not addressed in the near future. One of the key factors of the CREATE Program’s success in being recognized as a project of regional and national significance has been the strong political support from all of its stakeholders. Since its genesis, a strong leadership presence from political leaders has helped bring private industry into the project design process. Support from communities and freight organizations was also achieved thanks to the political leaders at the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) and at the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) who have actively promoted the benefits of CREATE to gain public support for the projects. Over 15 businesses have produced letters of support stating how the CREATE Program improve- ments will benefit their businesses. To add significant local resident appeal for neighborhoods bisected Example 5-1. Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) is an independent state agency created by the Washington State legislature in 1998 to implement a strategic investment program exclusively for freight mobility needs. The 12-member board evaluates and scores project applications every 2 years using rigorous evaluation criteria that are competitively neutral across jurisdictions and modes. The FMSIB also advocates for funding at the state and Federal levels, in addition to advising the State legislature on freight trends and concerns. Because FMSIB can count on the political support of the State legislature, the private carriers, and the local communities, it has been able to fund and complete strategic investment projects to improve freight mobility in the State of Washington. First, being created by the legislature gave FMSIB clear statutory guidance with defined roles, responsi- bilities, and goals to improve freight mobility in the region and, to some degree, promoted FMSIB as the authority for freight investments in the region. Elected leaders became freight champions, which has been crucial when advocating for funding at the state and Federal levels. In addition, FMSIB has had the support of the private freight carriers (shipping, trucking, and railroads). The Board, appointed by the Governor, includes a member of each private carrier industry and, as such, the private-sector Board members are directly involved in the decision-making and project selection process. This has resulted in a greater willingness of the private carriers to participate in planning and to secure private partners and private funds to leverage the largest amount of non-state funds necessary to improve the movement of freight in the State of Washington. Finally, as its mission states, FMSIB is charged with finding solutions that lessen the traffic and environ- mental impacts on local communities. The project prioritization and scoring process has bonus points for projects that reduce environmental impacts and improve environmental benefits (i.e., reduce vehicle emissions, reduce train whistle noise in crossing vicinity, and improve local air quality). As a result, local communities also support FMSIB’s projects. freight mobility issues. Political support is one of the key suc- cess factors for most institutional arrangements. The degree of political support for the organizations that were studied varied. In some cases (such as, CALMITSAC), this support resulted in a state-legislated mandate. In others, such as TCIFCG, local political support resulted in greater collaboration among members toward their funding goal. Example 5-1 illustrates an organization that employed vari- ous levels of political engagement to rally the support needed to be successful. Example 5-2 shows the effect of having strong political support to bring the public and private sec- tor together.

Guideline 6. Develop information-sharing and outreach venues. Most institutional arrangements specialize in informa- tion sharing, outreach, and education. These activities are responsible for building consensus on needs and priorities, educating communities and stakeholders about the impor- tance of freight transportation, and ensuring that all inter- ested parties are current on developments and activities associated with the institutional arrangement. E-mail distri- bution and website development, along with brochures and newsletters, are effective tools for defining the identity of the institutional arrangement, distributing information, and soliciting feedback and input. Project awareness helps build support and acceptance of an institutional arrange- ment’s mission or purpose. In some instances, this consists purely of information sharing and education relative to freight transportation system needs. It can also consist of orga- nized, formal solicitation of stakeholder input on project identification and priorities within established transportation programs. Information sharing takes on many forms (e.g., the I-95 Corridor Coalition’s development and distribution of “les- sons learned” reports and participation in industry confer- ences). Nation’sPort has provided a forum for all members to provide input into the entity’s strategic planning process. Example 6-1 provides detail on an organization that used an extensive marketing program to reach potential stakehold- ers. Example 6-2 focuses on information sharing as a way to improve the understanding of freight in its region. 29 Example 6-1. Kansas City SmartPort Kansas City SmartPort, Inc. (KCSP) is a non-profit, investor-based economic development organization supported by both the public and private sector. It was formed in 2001 to promote and enhance the 18-county, bi-state Kansas City region as a leading North American logistics hub. KCSP has encouraged regional economic growth by attracting logistics businesses to locate in the region and has promoted the efficient movement of goods by facilitating freight information to key stakeholders. KCSP is a strong example of an organization that has been able to define its mission of positioning the Kansas City region as a top logistics hub thanks to an assertive marketing and media campaign that branded the region as “America’s inland port solution.” The marketing outreach has included marketing trips, trade missions, presentations, brochures, newsletters, and events that have helped build consensus on KCSP’s mission at the local, regional, and national level. Overall, KCSP serves as the clearinghouse for all the freight-related information in the region. KCSP main- tains a comprehensive database of available logistics sites, freight service providers, educational and training opportunities on supply chain management, and relevant news and articles, making it easier for potential logistics business customers or clients to be better informed when they want to relocate to the region. Having all this information available in one location on the KCSP website (www.kcsmartport.com) has facilitated the communication among all freight stakeholders in the region. The website is KCSP main resource to educate public and private stakeholders and to ensure all interested parties are current on developments and opportunities associated with freight-related businesses in the region. The website and outreach venues mentioned earlier have been valuable tools effectively used by KCSP to promote itself as the freight umbrella group of the Kansas City region. Example 5-2. (Continued) by freight lines and obtain their support, several key grade separation improvements were also included in the overall list of projects. In the end, the support of political leaders, private and public partners, businesses, and local communities promoting not only the local and regional benefits but also the national benefits made the case for invest- ing in CREATE projects. This helped position the project to better compete for the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) Program dollars. As a result, CREATE received funding from the PNRS Program and is recognized nationally as a single project that will benefit the movement of goods and passengers.

30 Example 7-1. Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition The Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition (MVFC) is a regional organization created in 2006 to cooperate in the planning, operating, preservation, and improvement of transportation infrastructure in the 10-state Mississippi Valley region. It is administered by one of the University Transportation Centers (UTCs) spon- sored by the U.S. DOT at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, the National Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education (CFIRE). As the administrator, facilitator, and coordinator of the Coalition, CFIRE serves as an external entity that is not associated with any of the state DOTs. In addition, Example 6-2. Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition The Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition (MVFC) is a regional organization created in 2006 to cooperate in the planning, operating, preservation, and improvement of the transportation infrastructure in the 10-state Mississippi Valley region. Its charter specifies three objectives to develop information sharing and outreach venues to support the coalition’s mission of maximizing the operational efficiency of the freight transportation system in the region. These objectives are • Share information to improve the understanding of freight issues and the management of freight services and facilities; • Reach out to and share ideas with the private sector on how to make freight-flow efficient; and • Gather, analyze, and share information on the movement of freight with sister agencies and private sector interests. The MVFC has successfully achieved these three goals thanks to the effective communication that exists within the MVFC committees and outside the Coalition. By having newsletters, workshops, a user-friendly website, and other marketing materials, all parties interested in improving freight mobility in the region are kept informed and involved in the MVFC efforts. Staff reports quarterly on the progress of the MVFC projects and keeps the states in a dialogue on what is happening with the Coalition’s efforts. At least annu- ally, a workshop conference is held to bring all regional freight stakeholders together to share ideas with the ultimate goal of providing a learning experience for all members. By keeping all committee members, the private sector, other public agencies, and advocacy organizations informed of recent news that may affect the Coalition’s efforts or affect freight in the region, the MVFC ensures everyone is engaged with what the Coalition is doing while providing a common voice for the region’s freight transportation issues. Guideline 7. Partner with academia. Over the years, academia has played an important role in many institutional arrangements. In fact, some are housed in or led by transportation research centers at universities. Academia provides many resources, including staff, research funding, stakeholder outreach, and continuity over time. In addition, universities can provide a neutral forum for discus- sions among a diverse set of stakeholders. For many institu- tional arrangements, these resources are critical factors for ongoing success. In addition, some have been the motivator for developing freight transportation coalitions. Academia typically involves itself in institutional arrangements that focus on research, outreach, and consensus-building activi- ties. It is less involved in institutional arrangements designed to prioritize and fund improvement projects or establish new authorities. Fewer examples are available for institutional arrangements that have partnered with academia; however, it is important to note the success of the ones that have reached out to this source. Example 7-1 illustrates how an institutional arrange- ment administered by a university program can benefit from the neutral perspective of the university environment. Exam- ple 7-2 points out the success of other academic opportu- nities through intense study programs in current subject matter related to freight transportation.

Guideline 8. Engage stakeholders as needed. The success of an institutional arrangement often is driven by its ability to generate ongoing, long-term stake- holder involvement. Although many stakeholders may originally agree to participate in an institutional arrange- ment, it can become increasingly difficult to engage them over time. Showing significant progress and forward mo- mentum is critical, especially for private-sector participa- tion. It is important to take into account the interests of the private sector (e.g., promoting lower shipping costs, improved velocity, and greater reliability of shipments). Considering these issues will help keep the private sector involved. Many programs have adopted short-term quick- fix elements to their programs to ensure that stakeholders remain involved. As programs advance, stakeholders should only be engaged when there is a concrete purpose— i.e., the group should not meet just to meet. A lack of a 31 Example 7-2. I-95 Corridor Coalition The I-95 Corridor Coalition is a group of stakeholders representing various organizations along the length of the I-95 corridor traversing the East Coast of the United States. The organizations include transporta- tion agencies, toll authorities, public safety groups, and transportation industry associations. This multi- jurisdictional cooperative effort aims to improve the transportation conditions along the I-95 corridor. The strength of the Coalition lies in its ability to provide objective analysis in order to address transporta- tion problems in a manner that transcends individual organizations. The coalition is continually working to create an effective approach to an ever-changing political and technological landscape with particular emphasis in areas such as information exchange. The Coalition provides training to further the education of its members. The Consortium for ITS Training and Education (CITE) is an international consortium of universities that is using distance learning technologies to educate professionals in the latest technologies and applications. The Coalition also supports two academies, the Operations Academy and the Freight Academy, that provide participants from Coalition member agencies and others from around the country with opportunities for immersion in current subject matter for periods of a week or longer. Although not housed in a university, the Coalition provides academic opportunities to train and inform its members on current issues in the freight industry to better respond to the constantly shifting environment of freight logistics. Coalition members directly benefit from Coalition investments in education programs. Example 7-1. (Continued) while the center is responsible for research and education efforts for freight infrastructure at a national level, as the Midwest Regional UTC it is in a position to independently facilitate the collaboration of all 10 states rather than one of the states facilitating the Coalition. It is the UTC’s mission to work for the benefit of the region, not a particular state, which brings objectivity to the Coalition’s work. Furthermore, since CFIRE partners with other universities in the region (University of Toledo in Ohio, University of Illinois— Chicago, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, and the University of Wisconsin—Superior), it can provide a comprehensive geographical perspective of the region. CFIRE’s research and technical capabilities are a tremendous asset to the MVFC and have resulted in a win-win scenario. As a research institution, CFIRE is always aware of the latest initiatives, developments, technologies, and tools, and it applies that knowledge to the benefit of the MVFC projects. University research assistants benefit from being exposed to real transportation projects while working toward a graduate degree and are also less expensive than private consultants; therefore, the MVFC can complete more projects within a limited budget. But above all, partnering with academia has offered MVFC objec- tivity and a different perspective to maximize the operational efficiency of the freight transportation system in the region through the university environment.

substantive agenda and program will lead to reduced par- ticipation over time. Many examples exist of entities engaging stakeholders throughout their process, including FMSIB where all stake- holders are part of the decision-making process, thereby keep- ing their interest in the entity’s mission. Also, CALMITSAC holds leadership symposiums and meets across the state to maintain and encourage attendance at its meetings. Exam- ple 8-1 discusses an organization that uses specific strategies to keep members engaged. Example 8-2 describes an advi- sory committee taking deliberate steps to keep its members engaged. 32 Example 8-2. Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee The Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) was created to advise the Miami-Dade MPO Gov- erning Board on issues related to freight movement and truck traffic demands. FTAC members represent freight, logistics, shipping, trucking, warehousing, and intermodal interests. The Committee acts as the institutional voice for freight at the County level by providing a forum for the freight community to dis- cuss transportation needs and integrate freight in the MPO planning process. Although FTAC members are appointed by the MPO Governing Board, it does not necessarily mean members will fully participate and contribute to the freight transportation issues discussions. The FTAC has to make sure its members are engaged and contributing to the Committee. Having MPO staff dedicated to coordinating the committee’s work has been key to the development of FTAC and to keeping members and stakeholders engaged. The FTAC Coordinator develops a substantive agenda for each FTAC meeting and makes sure each meeting centers on topics related to freight mobility need- ing the MPO’s attention. The Coordinator also searches for freight projects being considered by the Florida Department of Transportation or other agencies possibly needing the attention of the MPO. In addition, the Coordinator invites private consultants, public-sector representatives, and other freight stakeholders to make presentations to the committee in order to foster the sharing of ideas about the freight issues being presented or discussed. As a result, FTAC members have engaged in pro- ductive discussions of the issues presented, contributed to recommendations on the freight transporta- tion issues affecting Miami-Dade County, and passed resolutions with suggested actions for the MPO Governing Board. Example 8-1. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission—Goods Movement Task Force The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is the MPO for the greater Philadelphia area covering eight counties plus the City of Philadelphia and spans both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The Goods Movement Task Force (GMTF) is a long-standing freight advisory committee within this MPO. The Executive Committee and members meet quarterly to discuss freight-related issues in the region. The task force strives to keep its members engaged and working together. Because meeting atten- dance is voluntary, the leaders of the task force aim to provide compelling agenda content, including relevant topics and interesting speakers. This provides incentives for both private- and public-sector interests to be involved and encourages regular attendance at the quarterly meetings. Another way the task force keeps members engaged is by including components such as tours of freight facilities, a simulated supply chain re-created in a conference room, tracking several types of freight for a day, and similar activities designed to showcase members’ operations and build awareness and goodwill. Another relationship-building tool is providing a social hour before each meeting for members and guest speakers to interact with the Executive Committee in a relaxed atmosphere. The effort exerted keeping members engaged over time has proven successful for the GMTF given that members feel their time has been used effectively for topics of interest to them and their industry counterparts.

33 Example 9-1. Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) Council The FSTED Council was created by the Florida Legislature in 1990 to finance seaport transportation and sea- port facility projects to further the state’s economic development mission. This program evolved because of the need for flexibility to invest in Florida’s seaport capacity so seaports could better respond to the global marketplace and compete for international trade, which is vital to the state’s economy. Prior to the early 1990s, individual seaports pursued funding independently from state and Federal sources with limited success. The Florida Ports Council (FPC), a trade association representing Florida’s seaports, saw this as an opportunity to encourage a multimodal approach to transportation. In addi- tion, the cruise industry was booming, and the seaports were at the limit of their ability to fund new facility expansion or maintain their current facilities. At this time, the FPC approached the legisla- ture for state money to fund seaport activities. The FPC worked with the 14 seaport directors to collec- tively come to the Florida Legislature and request a dedicated funding source to fund seaport capital improvement projects. They based this request on the fact that seaports had never been allocated state transportation funding but were a huge asset to the state’s economic development. As a result, during the 1990 legislative session, a bill was passed that created the FSTED program and resulted in a dedi- cated state funding source for this program to support and encourage the movement of people and goods through Florida’s seaports. This funding would be provided only for approved projects. This dedicated funding source has been the key to the success and longevity of this program as it keeps the ports engaged and communicating with each other on how to best carry out Florida’s eco- nomic development mission. Without this funding, the continuity and commitment of the stakeholders to discuss and address the combined needs of Florida’s 14 deepwater seaports likely would not exist. Guideline 9. Secure dedicated funding and resources. One of the challenges for many institutional arrangements is the lack of a dedicated funding source. As with any trans- portation program, a dedicated funding source ensures conti- nuity over time, evidence of an ongoing commitment, and resources to advance priorities. Allocation of staff time is often a driving force behind the establishment of freight advisory committees. The lead agency, often an MPO, assigns dedicated staff to an institutional arrangement to ensure development of agendas, distribution of relevant materials, meeting logistics, and technical support to the committee. Statewide programs have been successfully created through funding provided by the state legislature. Larger coalitions have been successful in securing Federal earmarks as well as participant contributions to organize technical research programs, outreach programs, and bottleneck analyses. Still others have found a funding stream through member dues and sponsorships. Dedicated funding often is one of the deciding factors between success and failure for any given institutional arrangement. The need for dedicated funding is one of the most common challenges identified by all types of institutional arrangements. For example, CALMITSAC members had strong political sup- port for a legislative mandate for its program but have not been able to secure funding to pursue its goals. Although the I-95 Corridor Coalition has enjoyed funding for most of its duration, it has not always had a consistent or known amount. Maine IRAP has received strong support for its program’s purpose, but does not always know if it will receive funding each year or for how much. Examples 9-1 and 9-2 illustrate the stability that a dedicated funding source can provide to an organization. Example 9-2. Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks The Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Program consists of a framework for organizing, deploying, and funding the implementation of technology to automate various motor carrier regulatory and safety enforcement functions with the ultimate goal of improving commercial motor vehicle safety. The program is managed by FMCSA; however, deployment, planning, and imple- mentation of the program require the full participation of FMCSA, state agencies with motor carrier (continued)

Guideline 10. Use a consensus-based process. Most institutional arrangements consist of a mix of pub- lic and private stakeholders brought together for a common purpose. A consensus-based process should be used in order to keep the stakeholders engaged and the institu- tional arrangement on track to achieve this common pur- pose. Consensus can be built through collaboration where a committee or coalition works together to define common goals. This is common for institutional arrangements that focus on regional economic development programs de- signed to make their region more competitive for freight- dependent industries. For more formal decision-making activities, such as setting program or project priorities, a voting structure can be used. Although this may fall short of achieving a true consensus, it ensures that all members have an equal voice. This process is useful for allocating funds to multiple stakeholders for specific improvement projects. Many organizations have consensus building as a goal in- cluding (1) MVFC where all state DOT secretaries and freight- related staff collaborate for the same goal, (2) FSTED where all port directors cooperate with each other on what is best for the ports in Florida as a whole, and (3) FMSIB where all members participate in project discussions and come to agreement on project selection. Example 10-1 discusses an organization that makes consensus-building part of its approach to provide objective analyses of transportation problems. Example 10-2 demonstrates the outcome of stakeholders who reached con- sensus on a project list to make their case for funding projects in their region. Example 10-3 illustrates the effective use of advocacy and education reflecting consensus building. 34 Example 10-1. I-95 Corridor Coalition The I-95 Corridor Coalition is an organization created to deal with highway safety, mobility, and efficiency on a multi-state and—jurisdictional basis. The strength of the Coalition lies in its ability to provide objective analysis in order to address transportation problems in a manner that transcends individual organizations. The coalition’s approach is based on the 4-Cs—Consensus, Coordination, Cooperation, and Communication. The I-95 Corridor Coalition’s decision-making process seeks consensus among its members. No member has any more clout than any other. This approach ensures that the Coalition’s work continues to meet the needs of its member organizations. The Coalition’s flexibility in legal structure has allowed for a bottom-up and top-down approach that provides forums for decisionmakers to gather and improve Example 9-2. (Continued) safety or regulatory responsibilities, and the industry. This participation includes providing funds to sup- port the planning, deployment, and operation of CVISN-related systems for all 50 states. In 2005, in order to seed the deployment of CVISN, SAFETEA-LU legislation authorized $100 million in Federal deployment funds to support states’ implementation of CVISN functionality. SAFETEA-LU authorized the U.S. DOT to provide up to $3.5 million to each state to support the planning, deploy- ment, and operation of CVISN-related systems. The legislation dictates that Federal CVISN deployment funds cannot be used to fund more than 50 percent of a project’s total budget. As such, states must identify matching funds that total 50 percent of a project’s budget. The matching funds must be derived from non-Federal (i.e., state or private sector) sources and must be related to the state’s CVISN Program. This 50-50 funding match requirement has enabled Federal and state partners to pool their funds and accomplish more than if they were left to fund the program independently. As a result, as of August 2008, 20 states are considered “Core CVISN Compliant” or have deployed all of the core CVISN capabilities. The dedicated funding source and local match requirement has provided FMCSA and its state and industry partners with the financial resources to identify expanded CVISN func- tionality that is being integrated into the CVISN Program so as to achieve nationwide deployment and continue improvements to commercial motor vehicle safety.

35 Example 10-2. Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) Consensus Group (TCIFCG) The Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) Consensus Group is a new cooperative effort among a group of Southern California county transportation commissions that traditionally had competed for trans- portation funds. They came together with the goal of ensuring that Southern California received a pro- portionate share of the TCIF. This fund included $2 billion designated for infrastructure improvements along trade corridors in the State of California with a high volume of freight movement. The county transportation commissioners had a common goal: to obtain a proportionate share of the TCIF funds in order to complete or advance a consensus list of short-, medium-, and long-term priority freight projects previously identified by the counties in a Southern California Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. When funding for infrastructure investments on the state highway system through the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) was made available in 2007, Southern California counties each fought for their own share of the CMIA funds and most came up short in the fierce competition for funds. Based on this experience, the Southern California county transportation commissioners recognized that a newform of col- laboration among them was necessary in order to compete for the TCIF funds. Since Southern California ports handle over 80% of the state’s containerized cargo, the transportation commissioners formed the TCIFCG and used a consensus-based approach to compete as a region and make the case that Southern Califor- nia should receive a similar proportion (80%) of the statewide trade corridor funding (TCIF) to improve the numerous trade corridors in the region serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. There was internal agreement within the participating group of Southern California counties as to the priority of projects on the regional list, which was individually approved by each commission board. This set of project priorities was then provided as a single consensus communication to the state, whose role was to assign a portion of the state funds available. Despite the collaborative efforts of the TCIFCG, the group was not successful in obtaining its goal of a proportionate share of the TCIF money based on the percentage of the state’s cargo transiting the region. The final share allocated to Southern California was estimated to be about 55% instead of the 80% expected. However, united by a strong common goal, the county members of the TCIFCG achieved one important objective: they successfully demonstrated a new model of regional collaboration in a statewide competition for infrastructure needs. Example 10-1. (Continued) the transportation system collaboratively. The voluntary membership helps to ensure that members are involved for the good of the mission and do not have a personal agenda. This approach makes it possible to strive for and achieve consensus among the members of the Coalition. Without consensus, an organization cannot move forward easily. Consensus facilitates the I-95 Corridor Coalition’s ability to pursue and implement studies and projects that address mutual interests and needs in a timely and cost-effective manner. (continued) Example 10-3. Natural Resources Defense Council The Southern California Clean Air Program of the nationwide nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a small team of attorneys whose mission is to use litigation, advocacy, and public education to pro- mote public policy that reduces emissions of pollutants, including greenhouse gases. The team focuses about half its time and efforts on goods movement, a major source of emissions in the area, and has had some suc- cess in moving toward its goals.

Guideline 11. Ensure short- and long-term progress. A successful institutional arrangement should have short-and long-term elements. The short-term elements will ensure that the stakeholders remain engaged and that the institutional arrangement focuses on remedying the needs of today. The long-term elements ensure that the work undertaken by the institutional arrangement contin- ues to move in an agreed-upon direction and sets a prece- dent for longevity. The long-term elements must also take into account shifts in priorities due to the ongoing evolu- tion of the institutional arrangement. Some institutional arrangements that begin as advisory groups or coalitions evolve into new authorities as their vision gels into specific projects and/or investments. Although the overall mission may remain similar, the specific day-to-day operation of the institutional arrangement, as well as the legal structure, could change significantly. Most institutional arrangements studied have some form of short- or long-term elements; some have both. It is im- portant to document short- and long-term progress, espe- cially from organizations that have been in existence for a while. Example 11-1 describes an organization that had its beginnings in the early 1980s. Example 11-2 discusses an organization that has been around since 1993. Both exam- ples demonstrate short- and long-term elements that have been vital to their success. 36 Example 11-1. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority The Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) is the result of an evolving process to address capacity improvements and environmental concerns along the Alameda Corridor, a 20-mile stretch between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the railroad mainlines near downtown Los Angeles. From concept to reality, the Alameda Corridor project took 18 years to complete (1984–2002). The process began prior to 1984 with a coordinated planning effort focusing on highway and railroad access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In late 1981, SCAG created the Ports Advisory Committee (PAC) to bring together a diverse collection of interest groups to begin the communications and consensus building process. In a step-by-step approach, the PAC initially focused on highway access. After only 5 months, in March 1982, the PAC agreed on a comprehensive list of highway improvements that included widening of Alameda Street from four to six lanes from the ports to State Route 91. From 1982–1984, the PAC focused on devel- oping a railroad access plan for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. By 1985, the next element was to pursue the Alameda Corridor concept, for which the SCAG created the Alameda Corridor Task Force (ACTF), Example 10-3. (Continued) Both the nonlitigation advocacy and public education functions of this Clean Air team are examples of using a consensus-based process to achieve organizational goals. Advocates who work on the team often testify at public hearings for projects relating to goods movement and collaborate in this effort with other like-minded environmental and community-based groups, both formally and informally. The pres- ence of multiple speakers and groups all voicing similar concerns with the potential environmental or public health impacts of a project is a clear influence on public decisionmakers. The team’s public educa- tion efforts, through speaking to various interest groups, also are an example of consensus building. One example of an advocacy partnership is the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, a collaboration of sev- eral national and local environmental groups, including NRDC’s Clean Air Team, social justice groups, and labor unions. Their specific short-term goal was to influence the development of truck fleet replacement programs by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

37 Example 11-2. I-95 Corridor Coalition The I-95 Corridor Coalition was formed in 1993 to facilitate transportation management and operational improvements along the I-95 Corridor region covering the East Coast of the United States. With its successful alliance among transportation authorities, agencies, and related organizations, the Coalition has become a model for cooperative multi-regional transportation planning. Starting with a focus on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology, the Coalition has broadened its approaches as it has expanded to better meet the needs of the corridor. The Coalition’s forward-looking initiatives over the years are designed to save lives, time, and money with technological improvements and inno- vative projects implemented for the benefit of the corridor. Additionally, the Coalition has developed a 2040 Strategic Vision for the I-95 Corridor to assist member agencies in developing their transporta- tion plans and to define the Coalition’s priorities. The Coalition is also exploring various approaches for financing large projects where the costs of the improvements are too great for a single entity to fund and where benefits accrue to the entire region or the nation. Another key factor in the longevity of the Coalition has been the structure of the organization and the non-binding agreement between the transportation authorities, agencies, and related organizations to promote transportation issues in the region through volunteer and participatory activities. The Coali- tion’s structure reflects both a bottom-up and top-down approach that provides a forum for decision- makers to gather and improve the transportation system collaboratively. In the beginning, the Coalition’s primary goal was to develop ITS to enhance the transportation system. Over the years, the Coalition has expanded its focus to include other areas that affect the corridor such as safety, multimodal projects, planning, financing, and information management. The long- and short-term elements described above show the importance of being cognizant of both of these elements when ensuring the focus of the overall mission. This approach has proven successful for the Coalition over the last 16 years. Example 11-1. (Continued) whose membership was similar to that of PAC, with the addition of the California Public Utilities Commis- sion (CPUC) and each of the cities along the corridor. The ACTF evolved into a Joint Powers Authority with design and construction responsibility for the Alameda Corridor. The Consolidated Transportation Corri- dor Joint Powers Authority was created in August of 1989. The agency changed its name to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) in November 1990. Continuing to make long-term progress, ACTA’s Governing Board approved the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project in 1993 and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1996. Construction began in 1997 with the building of the $6 million railroad bridge over the Los Angeles River at the northern end of the corridor. Construction of the main trench section in the mid-corridor started in 1999 and was completed in 2002. This history of ACTA points to the success of ensuring long- and short-term progress. Without the short- term focus the project might not have gotten underway, but without the long-term vision it would never have turned into the success it is considered today.

38 Example 12-2. Kansas City SmartPort Kansas City SmartPort, Inc. (KCSP) is a non-profit, investor-based economic development organization formed in 2001 to promote and enhance the 18-county, bi-state Kansas City region as a leading North American logistics hub. KCSP carries out its mission by engaging in different projects and activities in three main mission areas: Economic Development, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and Business Services. In order to show investors progress and ensure their continued support, KCSP’s performance is evaluated based on the achievement of the goals set for the organization by the board of directors every year. The President works closely with the Chairman of the Board of Directors to lead the organization and achieve the goals set for the organization. KCSP goals for 2008 were to attract new or more freight- Guideline 12. Develop and use performance measures. The use of performance measures has become common practice within the transportation industry and has direct application to institutional arrangements. The ability to show progress helps ensure continued support by stake- holders as well as funding agencies. Performance measures vary significantly by type of institutional arrangement. Ad- visory committees and coalitions can be evaluated by levels of stakeholder participation and meeting attendance, iden- tification and completion of research initiatives, identifica- tion of bottlenecks, and recommendations for improvements. Transportation authorities can be evaluated on schedule, budget, implementation and operation, and resulting effect of a project. Performance measures evolve over time with the institutional arrangement. An annual “report card” on key successes and failures is an effective tool for ongoing performance monitoring. The institutional arrangements studied in this project are at varying levels of developing and using performance mea- sures to monitor the progress of their programs. Some measure completion of projects, some measure meeting attendance, and others do not have a set list of measures to monitor the development of their program. For instance, CREATE monitors expected benefits while FTAC observes the completion of tasks in the Unified Planning Work Pro- gram (UPWP) as a measure of performance. Example 12-1 presents a state-legislated program and its accountability to the legislature on the progress of its program. Example 12-2 shows how an investor-based program stays responsible to the investors. Example 12-1. Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) is an independent state agency created by the Washington State legislature in 1998 to implement a strategic investment program exclusively for freight mobility needs. FMSIB is required to keep the legislature current on the status of all the freight mobility investment projects selected to be funded. Twice a year, the board performs a complete project status review on all of its projects and reviews the progress and any changes for each project quarterly. When a project is unable to fulfill its commitment as communicated to the legislature and the Office of Financial Management (OFM), FMSIB either moves the project to a later biennium or to a deferred projects list. Avail- able funds are then redirected, after approval from OFM and the legislature, to projects that can advance and can fulfill their commitment. Because of this accountability, many key members of the State of Washington’s legislature are pleased with FMSIB. Since its inception, FMSIB has been committed to achieving its legislative mandate and goals. Its annual report highlights how successful FMSIB has been in using the greatest amount of state funds possible by bringing public and private partners together to favor a higher participation percentage match to state funds for each project. The annual report serves as a report card where key successes are highlighted and challenges and opportunities are identified. By keeping the legislature informed on FMSIB’s performance and doing what is required by statute, policymakers have become freight advocates and continue to seek alternatives to provide funding for freight investments in the state.

39 Example 13-1. Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) Council Although Florida’s seaports are public entities, they operate like businesses in order to fulfill their pub- lic purpose. This means they have to be flexible to respond to market demands and customer needs. The FSTED Council was charged with improving the “movement and intermodal transportation of cargo or passengers in commerce and trade and . . . support[ing] the interests, purposes, and require- ments of ports located in the state.” The business of Florida’s seaports is vital to the state’s economic health. Since the creation of this program, state law has provided specific guidelines on what types of projects are eligible for funding under this program, including specific port facility and port transportation projects. The law also specified these projects must be funded on a 50-50 matching basis; funding is available for all of Florida’s deepwater seaports, as defined in law. However, in order to be eligible for funding, a pro- posed project must be consistent with a seaport’s comprehensive master plan as required by law. In 1996 and 1999, the legislature granted the FSTED Council bonding authority in order to provide funding for port and intermodal projects. This matching requirement guarantees that individual ports are ready to invest in the project as well, prevents the state from having to bear the sole financial responsibility for the projects, and ensures the project is a port priority. Guideline 13. Encourage cost sharing. Over the last few decades there have been discussions about public investment in private infrastructure. Although many believe that public funds should not be used to promote for- profit business, others have recognized the public benefits pro- vided by investments in private infrastructure. To mitigate these conflicts, many institutional arrangements have been successful in sharing project costs by requiring a match to pub- lic funds or, at a minimum, prioritizing those projects that have a private match. This approach has enabled institutional arrangements to better use limited public funds for specific im- provement projects, resulting in greater community support. Examples of cost sharing are becoming more frequent as public entities reach out to the private sector. In the case of CREATE, the organization partnered with the private rail- roads and agreed to provide matching funds to aid in alleviat- ing the bottleneck in the region. CVISN, a Federal program, requires states to provide matching funds (which may be pri- vate) in order to share the cost of implementing this program. In Example 13-1, a state program partners with the seaports to provide funding for economic development. Example 13-2 describes a state program sharing costs with the public and private sector to improve economic viability of the state’s railroads. Example 12-2. (Continued) related businesses, measured by the number of payroll jobs created; attract new large logistics businesses to the area, measured by square footage expected to be developed in the region; conduct as much mar- keting and outreach as possible, measured by number of conferences attended, interviews to the media and transportation consultants, and articles in newspapers and magazines among other activities; continue the development of the Trade Data Exchange project (ITS project), measured by the progress on the proj- ect; and maintain the financial health of the organization, measured by the amount of funds attracted from investors and Federal and state grants. By using performance measures to evaluate KCSP’s achievement of its mission goals, KCSP has been able to quantify its level of success and use its performance and accomplishments as another marketing tool to effectively promote the benefits KCSP generates in terms of economic development, ITS, and business services in the region. Ultimately, investors continue to contribute to the organization because they see the return on their investment in the results KCSP has achieved.

4.3 Type II Guidelines Type II guidelines are designed to build on those for Type I and provide additional input for Type II arrangements. Type II arrangements are organizations that seek consensus on specific project priorities. They use quantitative methods to score and rank projects competing for funds. These groups often have active and focused advocacy programs for specific projects but may not be directly responsible for the design and construction of these projects. The Type I guide- lines are essential to the success of Type II arrangements, addressing all the activities required to initiate the institu- tional arrangement, establish a specific mission and set of strategies, and engage stakeholders in the process. Each of the Type I guidelines should be reviewed for applicability to Type II institutional arrangements. Table 4-3 summarizes 40 Guideline F M SI B FS TE D IR A P 14 Define specific program elements 15 Develop implementation process 16 Establish protocols for implementation 17 Identify evaluation criteria 18 Define funding allocation process 19 Require on-time completion of projects 20 Require project audits 21 Perform site visits 22 Ensure focus stays on purpose/mission Table 4-3. Summary of Type II guidelines. Example 13-2. Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program Rail is essential to the economic vitality of Maine. Recognizing the need for continued economic develop- ment and employment growth, in the late 1990s, Maine considered potential opportunities in passenger and freight rail and, as a result, created the Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) in 1997 to better facilitate rail service and intermodal transportation. IRAP was also designed by Maine DOT to promote economic development and expand opportunities for job employment. IRAP is intended to fund projects that will have the most favorable impact on Maine’s economy, the environment, and the transportation system. The main purpose of IRAP is to provide financial assistance, in the form of grants, for the cost of projects that involve rail or rail-related investment in infrastructure. Applications are accepted from private rail- road companies, municipalities, counties, private enterprises interested in freight rail transportation, and non-profit organizations. IRAP procedures allow for financial assistance up to 50 percent of the total eligible project cost. This ensures equal interest and investment by the applicant. Higher ranking is given to projects that emphasize commitment to economic development, promote multimodal initiatives, or show private investment of more than 50 percent of the project. In some cases, Maine DOT may provide an amount of assistance less than applied for, depending on the availability of program funds. The proj- ect applicant also must provide, as part of its application, a commitment letter from all non-state sources from which it anticipates receiving funds for the project. The matching requirement of 50 percent ensures that applicants are willing to invest just as much of their own resources as they are requesting. It also guards against misuse of funds for the same reason. This cost sharing allows the leveraging of public funds while furthering economic development missions critical to both public and private entities.

41 the Type II guidelines. Following the specific guidelines, the case studies listed in Table 4-3 are presented in Examples 4.3-1 through 4.3-3. These cases are particularly focused, clear examples of the Type II guidelines. Full, detailed case studies are provided in Appendix C. Guideline 14. Define specific program elements. As institutional arrangements move beyond the general activities of needs identification, education, stakeholder involvement, and consensus building, it is important to define a specific set of program elements. These program el- ements provide the architecture for implementation activi- ties that will be carried out by the institutional arrangement members. These activities could include project identifi- cation, evaluation and priority setting, funding alloca- tion, and project tracking. As with the development of key strategies discussed above, this process sets the stage for the functionality that will be implemented by the institutional arrangement. Guideline 15. Develop an implementation process. Once the program parameters have been defined, specific attention should be given to developing an implementation process. This should include definition of member respon- sibilities and authority and a step-by-step description of the implementation of the defined objectives, including, but not limited to, a schedule of meetings, application develop- ment and submittal requirements, evaluations, and selec- tion of projects. This process also includes developing nec- essary MOUs to facilitate funding allocations and a process for tracking progress. These process elements help establish expectations for the individual participants so that they un- derstand the time commitment, decision-making protocols, and anticipated outcome. Guideline 16. Establish protocols for implementation. Within the implementation process, members will be asked to participate in discussions and decisions to guide the institutional arrangement’s activities. Clear, well- thought-out protocols should be established to guide this activity so that the institutional arrangement meets its de- fined objectives while building consensus and acceptance of priorities throughout all processes (including individual roles in the approval and selection process). The existence of these protocols will help the institutional arrangement defend its decisions and actions to a full range of stakehold- ers and ensure that the members remain committed to the program. Guideline 17. Identify evaluation criteria. Successful Type II organizations use well-documented pro- cedures for scoring and ranking projects. The objectivity and credibility of the selection process are critical to the success of the organization. These processes measure the degree to which projects address important program objectives by generating project scores that reflect a project’s priority compared with other projects. This includes consideration of anticipated out- come, project cost, funding match, level of community sup- port, inclusion in regional transportation programs (TIP and LRTP), ability to meet defined schedule, and comparison with other eligible projects. In addition, equity across modes and geographic regions often comes into play. The process should be transparent and built on mutual goals and consensus. Guideline 18. Define funding allocation process. A key activity of Type II institutional arrangements is the funding of specific improvement projects. This requires a fund- ing source (preferably a dedicated funding source) and a de- fined mechanism for the equitable allocation of the funding. The protocols discussed above lay the groundwork for a process to guide these decisions; however, it also is important to define the specific steps in the allocation process based on the funding cycle, funding availability, funding eligibility, and established priorities. Each funding source will have requirements that must be understood and integrated into this process. Guideline 19. Require on-time completion of projects. As an “investor” in the project, Type II organizations have an interest in seeing the projects succeed. One way in which this can be accomplished is to provide strict guidelines on project completion requirements. Private-sector participants will only remain involved in arrangements that make progress. Funding often is given for specific time periods. Stipulations can be made that require projects to be completed within an agreed-on timeframe or the funding will be re-allocated to a new project. This ensures that projects are shovel-ready at the time of funding and specific improvements will come on line in a defined time period. These agreements can also set limits on escalation (i.e., regardless of how long the project takes, only the agreed-on funding allocation will be available). In addition, if the project comes in under budget, funding would be returned to the program for reallocation. Guideline 20. Require project audits. The use of performance measures helps ensure an institu- tional arrangement’s success. When an institutional arrange- ment is responsible for selecting and funding improvement

42 projects, additional accountability is required. This account- ability should consist of project-specific audits designed to ensure that (1) funding is being spent on agreed-on activities, (2) the contractor is completing the project as designed, and (3) there are no significant discrepancies regarding how the funds are accounted for. The results of these audits, in con- junction with other performance measures, should be used to help describe the overall success of a project. Guideline 21. Perform site visits. Institutional arrangement activities can often be character- ized as a group of like-minded stakeholders brought together as needed to discuss and implement a program. However, often the members are not involved in the actual construction of an improvement project. To help members better under- stand the needs and the resulting improvements, field visits should be scheduled to review bottlenecks and support needs prioritization. Such visits help educate the members and build morale by confirming progress. Given that site visits can be costly and time consuming, the group should consider annual or semiannual trips to review select bottlenecks and projects. By visiting project sites, members get a first-hand look at the projects and become more engaged in the process. Guideline 22. Ensure focus stays on purpose/mission. Although all of the above guidelines address specific imple- mentation activities, it is critical the stakeholders remain fo- cused on their ultimate mission or purpose. As the group be- comes engaged in selecting, funding, and monitoring projects, an operational mentality can take over, particularly as the group navigates the unavoidable politics that accompany fund- ing decisions. Throughout the process, and particularly from cycle to cycle, the mission of the group should be revisited and reviewed. This will serve two critical functions. First, as the group membership changes, it ensures that all members are in agreement. Second, it allows the group to modify its mission over time to reflect changes or shifts in priorities. This may be necessary based on changes in funding, a new or changing set or type of needs, or evolution to a Type III arrangement. Example 4.3-1. Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) is an independent state agency created by the Washington State Legislature with the mandate to implement a strategic investment program exclusively for freight mobility needs by evaluating and scoring project applications every 2 years using rigorous eval- uation criteria that are competitively neutral across jurisdictions and modes. The 12-member board also advocates for funding at the state and Federal levels in addition to advising the State legislature on regional, state, and national freight trends and concerns. FMSIB was created in 1998 by statute to identify and recommend funding for strategic prioritized freight investments that reduce barriers to freight movement, maximize cost-effectiveness, yield a return on the state’s investment, require complementary investments by public and private interests, and solve regional freight mobility problems. This statutory guidance provided the board with specific direction, responsi- bilities, and unique objectives. The specific program elements are to identify and select, evaluate and pri- oritize, and recommend and create funding partnerships for strategic freight investments. To implement the defined program objectives, a program implementation process was included in the statu- tory guidance. By statute, FMSIB may only fund the freight-related portion of a given project. Therefore, a qualitative and quantitative selection process and criteria are used to identify projects that are ready to go into construction and that have clearly identified freight benefits. This prioritization process measures the degree to which projects address important program objectives and generates a project score that reflects a project’s priority compared with other projects. At the end, projects are prioritized based on their benefits and their ability to provide matching funds or partnerships. A number of protocols or actions are established and fulfilled to guide the program implementation process. First, to maintain a 6-year list of active projects, the board issues a call for projects every other year, or more frequently if warranted. Announcements are sent to every city, county, WSDOT region, and port in the State of Washington. All project proposals received, regardless of mode (i.e., rail, road, and waterway), are evaluated according to 10 weighted qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria. These broad evaluation criteria include regional, general mobility, and environmental benefits. Each proposed project is submitted to a board selection team and a technical team for review, evaluation, and scoring.

43 Example 4.3-1. (Continued) The selection teams discuss whether the project should advance for final consideration and be added to the FMSIB list based on the project’s numerical score, fact verification, and determination of benefits. The funding allocation process provides recommendations to the full board about the percentage contri- bution or level of state participation determined based on the freight share of the project benefits. First, the full board reviews all submitted applications during a public meeting, and each recommended project is discussed. Both the recommendation to adopt the project and the specific recommendation of the appropriate state freight share of the financial partnership are considered. The board votes on the recom- mendations, adopts the prioritized list of projects, and establishes the appropriate dollar and percentage amount awarded to each project. The prioritized recommendations are then submitted to the legislature for funding consideration. FMSIB funding may not exceed the state freight share identified by the board when the project is added to the FMSIB list. The remaining cost of the project must be funded by the local sponsor and other public and private financial partners in compliance with FMSIB’s charge to use the great- est amount of non-program funds possible. Although a minimum 20-percent match is required, the board has not approved a match amount below 50 percent in the last three calls for projects. Once adopted, proj- ects cannot apply again or have the amount awarded increased, even if costs go up. If project costs go up, the dollar value assigned is used to determine the level of project funding and if project costs go down, the percentage assigned is used, thus protecting the state from unanticipated cost increases. In the end, proj- ects are prioritized based on their benefits and their ability to provide matching funds or partnerships. Once projects are funded, they are monitored to ensure on-time and on-budget completion. FMSIB works with all partners to develop workable cash flow plans that enable a project to move forward without hindrance. Funded projects are required to enter the construction phase within 12 months of receiving notification that they have received funding approval. This 12-month rule is enforced to ensure the proj- ect advances and to provide accountability to the legislature. If a project is not ready within 12 months of receiving funding, or if it has not made significant progress toward its construction schedule, FMSIB can remove the project from its funded list. To keep projects advancing, FMSIB holds regular site visits and works with project sponsors to develop phasing of certain projects, when appropriate, to keep the project on schedule. A project starts with a groundbreaking and ribbon-cutting ceremony. Once the project is under construction, it must display sig- nage at the construction site indicating the partnership funding of the project. The legislature is kept current on the status of all projects. The board performs a complete project audit on the status of all of its projects twice a year and reviews the progress and any changes for each project quarterly. When a project cannot fulfill its commitment as communicated to the legislature and Office of Financial Manage- ment (OFM), the board either moves the project to a later biennium or to the deferred projects list. Avail- able funds are then redirected, after approval from OFM and the legislature, to projects that can advance and can fulfill their commitment. Because of this accountability, the OFM and the Senate and House trans- portation committees have become freight advocates at the regional, state, and national level and continue to seek alternatives to provide funding for freight investments in the state. Since its inception, FMSIB has been committed to its legislative mandate and goals by staying focused on its purpose and its mission. FMSIB has had a successful record of delivering strategic freight investment projects with most projects completed on time or early and on or under budget. FMSIB has also success- fully used state money and forged partnerships while attracting other funds from public and private part- ners and sources, including Federal, county, city, port districts, and private capital. In 10 years of existence, FMSIB has funded and completed 31 projects and stand-alone phases of projects across the state of Washington totaling more than $247 million, of which FMSIB contributed $76 million. It is currently lever- aging $5 for every dollar it invests. In conclusion, FMSIB has developed a comprehensive and coordinated state program to strategically invest in projects that facilitate freight movement within the state and enhance trade opportunities among local, national, and international markets.

44 Example 4.3-2. Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council The Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) Council was created by the Florida Legislature in 1990 to finance seaport transportation and seaport facility projects to further the state’s eco- nomic development mission. This program evolved because of the need for flexibility to invest in Florida’s seaport capacity so the seaports could better respond to the global marketplace and compete for interna- tional trade, which is vital to the state’s economy. The program is administered through the FSTED Council which consists of 17 voting members: the port director, or the port director’s designee, of each of the ports; the secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) or a designee; the director of the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development (OTTED) or a designee; and the secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) or a designee. Florida statutes charged the FSTED Council with improving the “movement and intermodal transportation of cargo or passengers in commerce and trade and . . . support[ing] the interests, purposes, and require- ments of ports located in the state.” Program elements were defined in statute to create a program that fosters the economic growth as well as the future potential of the seaports. Specific program elements include the FSTED Council to oversee the program, a project identification process, rigorous evaluation criteria, funding allocation from a dedicated source, and project review. The FSTED Council’s main task is to review and approve project applications in order to distribute the state funds for seaport infrastructure improvements and intermodal access projects. To implement the program, the FSTED Council meets at least twice a year to review these project applications and decide on approved projects. To be eligible for funding, a proposed project must be consistent with a seaport’s comprehensive master plan as required by law. In addition, to further the economic development goal of this program, each seaport requesting funds from this program must develop a procedure to ensure that jobs created as a result of the state funding are subject to equal opportunity hiring practices as required by law. After thorough review, the FSTED Council determines a list of eligible projects. Once a list of eligible projects has been final- ized, the FSTED Council submits the list to the FDCA, FDOT, and OTTED for their statutorily required review. All FSTED Council meetings are public and allow for transparency in the selection process. In anticipation of these meetings, the individual seaports prepare an application for the seaport improvement projects for which they plan to request funding. Applications must be submitted by August 1 of every year. The application requires a detailed description of the project and each project is then evaluated on a set of specific criteria. This rigorous evaluation process allows for each project to be thoroughly vetted, ensur- ing accountability and transparency. The FSTED Council considers all projects for their statewide economic benefit and selects projects based on what is good for all and not necessarily an individual seaport. State law provides specific guidelines on what types of projects are eligible for funding under this program and specifies they must be funded on a 50-50 matching basis. Protocols were set in statute to guide the actions of the FSTED Council. As required by state statute, the FSTED Council consists of the 14 seaport directors and a representative from FDOT, FDCA, and OTTED, with mem- bers representing these agencies having independent veto power over any project. The FSTED Council elects a chairperson from the group of seaport directors along with a vice-chairperson, a secretary, a treasurer, and a ways-and-means position each serving 2-year terms. Under the direction of the FSTED Council, a project review committee, an environmental management committee, and a security committee provide more spe- cific review and understanding of projects being considered. Each committee has a chairperson appointed by the FSTED Council chair. The Council is required to meet at the call of the chairperson, at the request of the majority of the members, or as prescribed by the bylaws; however, they must meet at least twice a year. The FSTED Council began with a dedicated funding source as identified in state law for all eligible deep- water seaports. The funding allocation process requires a minimum of $8 million a year to be allocated to FSTED from FDOT for seaport capital improvement projects. All of these program funds are to be used to match, on a 50-50 basis, funds from any deepwater seaport as defined in law. In addition, the funds can be

45 Example 4.3-3. Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program The Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP) was designed by the Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) to promote economic development and expand opportunities for job employment. It is im- plemented through the Office of Freight and Business Services (OFBS) and is intended to fund projects that will have the most favorable effect on Maine’s economy, the environment, and the transportation system. In recent years, Maine DOT has consistently developed and funded projects that have benefited rail projects within established regional transportation corridors. These investments in rail infrastructure and operations were considered to potentially increase commerce and create employment opportuni- ties. In 1997, to better facilitate rail service and intermodal transportation, IRAP began. After creation of the program and securing initial funding, the first list of approved projects came in 2000. IRAP is not a statutorily required program but rather a program offered through and administered by OFBS within Maine DOT. The purpose of IRAP is to provide financial assistance, in the form of grants, for up to 50 percent of the cost of projects that involve rail or rail-related investment in infrastructure for private, public, and non-profit organizations. Specific elements of the program include stimulating eco- nomic and employment growth through generation of new or expanded rail service, preserving essential rail service where economically viable, enhancing intermodal transportation, and preserving rail corridors for future transportation uses. To implement the program, the OFBS provides specific descriptions of the projects eligible for this program. Eligible projects are defined in four categories: rehabilitation, new siding improvement (capital project), right-of-way acquisition, and intermodal facility construction. Projects that enhance rail trans- portation without capital-intensive investment, such as rail track, are eligible to apply for consideration and have been considered in the past. Applications are accepted from private railroad companies, municipalities, counties, private enterprises interested in freight rail transportation, and non-profit organizations. To apply, interested organizations must submit a completed application before the annual deadline, generally in early spring. An original Example 4.3-2. (Continued) used to develop trade data as necessary to assist Florida’s seaports with issues of global trade. An individual seaport’s distribution of funds after their matching commitment is made cannot be more than $7 million in 1 calendar year and not more than $30 million over 5 calendar years. The Legislature authorized the FSTED Council to issue revenue bonds to be used for funding FSTED projects at a 50-50 match. When intermodal projects became more significant in the late 1990s, the FSTED Council was granted additional bonding authority, for these intermodal projects, which provides $10 million at a 75-25 match. All seaport capital improvement projects completed with funds from the FSTED program are subject to a final audit by FDOT. The structure of the FSTED Council reaches out to multiple seaports and across modes. The vetting process each project must go through ensures that all projects are considered collectively. The cooperative nature of all seaport directors considering what is best for the state instead of their own port promotes the ability to see the bigger picture. This is also the case as the intermodal projects reach out to other modes to encourage a seamless transportation system. The ability to see the bigger picture across modes helps the FSTED Council stay focused on its mission. The seaport directors that meet as part of the FSTED Council are business persons first. Their knowledge of the industry gives the FSTED Council first-hand insight and expertise to allow for greater flexibility. As the market changes, the FSTED Council can respond quickly because the seaports are keenly aware of the global market and the necessary financial moves needed to keep pace with other domestic and international seaports. (continued)

46 Example 4.3-3. (Continued) application and three copies are to be submitted to the OFBS, containing a summary application page, a project description, and cost estimates with site plan, track chart, or valuation map; a rail carrier survey; rail freight shipper and receiver surveys; and a benefit-cost analysis. Incomplete applications are not reviewed; however, if an applicant wishes to supply additional information to explain or clarify the pro- posed project, this information will be accepted and considered. If the OFBS determines it needs clarifi- cation from the applicant, OFBS will request such information. The OFBS has established procedures to evaluate and select projects using criteria that reflect the pur- pose and intent of the program as well as the top priorities and initiatives of the state while keeping in mind the limitations of available funding. In order to be considered during the evaluation process, applicants must demonstrate the public benefit of their proposed projects. The OFBS assesses each proj- ect proposal to determine if it meets minimum requirements by using an objective process that evaluates projects on the merits of IRAP’s goals, department needs, consistency with the Integrated Freight Plan, and support of public interest. Due to budget constraints, not all projects receive funding. Upon receipt, each application is rated in ten categories: (1) job creation or retention; (2) new investment; (3) inter- modal efficiencies; (4) private share of project cost—the greater the share the higher the rank; (5) antici- pated decrease in air emissions; (6) anticipated decrease in highway maintenance costs; (7) anticipated decrease in highway congestion; (8) transportation and logistics cost savings; (9) improvements in rail service; and (10) benefit-cost ratio. Higher ranking is given to projects that emphasize commitment to economic development, promote multimodal initiatives, or show private investment of more than 50 per- cent of the project. The OFBS also gives consideration to project proposals that demonstrate financial need, feasibility of project implementation, and operability of the rail carrier. Implementation protocols for this program include providing a timely evaluation and response to each applicant for the IRAP funding. The OFBS staff reviews the application and ranks each project. An objective evaluation process is used that follows established criteria and ensures that each project selected for funding is in line with the intent of the program, meets the needs of the Maine DOT, is con- sistent with the State Integrated Freight Plan, and shows public benefit. The OFBS has the authority to grant projects financing pending final approval by Maine DOT. The amount of funding allocated to IRAP determines the size of the program distribution each year. In some years the program has not received funding and has not been able to award any projects. If the program does not receive funding in any particular year, the OFBS does not solicit applications. However, since the inception of the program there have only been 2 years that the program did not receive funding. IRAP pro- cedures allow for financial assistance up to 50 percent of the total eligible project cost. This ensures equal interest and investment by the applicant. The project applicant also must provide, as part of its application, a commitment letter from all non-state sources from which it anticipates receiving funds for the project. After the OFBS has approved the project proposal, the applicant undergoes a required project inspec- tion before the contract can be executed. The final inspection must pass State approval, site inspec- tion, and an environmental evaluation before work can begin. A follow-up evaluation is conducted by Maine DOT to monitor the performance and investment strategy of the IRAP for all projects that receive funding. The State has recognized the need for capital investment in railroads for the overall productivity of the transportation system. Staying focused on its mission has allowed the program to contribute to the economic development and growth of many businesses in Maine by increasing accessibility to rail. A key success factor has been the program’s ability to connect public interests with rail operations and investment. Funding this program encourages new job opportunities, allows businesses to be more competitive, may reduce greenhouse gases, and maintains state-owned track and connections to national Class I carriers.

4.4 Type III Guidelines Type III guidelines build on the Types I and II guidelines and specifically address the needs of Type III institutional arrangements. Type III arrangements are organizations that implement freight-related projects. These differ from Type II in that they typically represent a formalized organization designed to address one particular need or program, rather than competing projects or programs. These organizations are responsible for need identification, project definition, and project implementation. Project implementation en- tails environmental approvals, design, right-of-way acquisi- tion, utility relocation, construction, mitigation of project impacts, and financing. In addition, some arrangements transition into operating authorities following completion of construction activities. Construction activities can range from physical capacity improvement projects to new uses of technologies to streamlined operations. Type I through III guidelines represent a progressive process that grows more specific and detailed as the mission of an institutional arrange- ment becomes more focused and specialized. Most, if not all, Type III institutional arrangements should follow all the defined guidelines as they work through their development. In fact, many begin as a Type I and progress to a Type III over time. Therefore, the Type I and II guidelines presented should be reviewed for applicability to Type III institutional arrangements. Type III guidelines focus on consensus build- ing, organizational structure, leadership, risk reduction, cost and schedule control, and ongoing mitigation of challenges or obstacles. Table 4-4 summarizes the Type III guidelines. The examples presented in Table 4-4 are described in detail in Examples 4.4-1 through 4.4-3; full detailed case studies are given in Appendix C. Guideline 23. Build consensus on specific project parameters. Consensus on the scope of the project is essential. If there is uncertainty about the scale or location of the project, de- lays will occur and costs will rise. Key considerations include project design, development of the preferred alternative, and identification of specific costs and benefits. Having a clear un- derstanding of the distribution of benefits is necessary for productive negotiations on project design, location, and funding responsibility (including funding responsibility for mitigation measures). Unfortunately, many projects never get beyond this stage. 47 Guideline A CT A CR EA TE CV IS N 23 Build consensus on specific project parameters 24 Seek out champions and develop a diverse coalition of interest groups 25 Provide a neutral forum 26 Secure private-sector involvement/commitment 27 Develop mitigation strategy for project impacts 28 Establish clear decision-making authority 29 Remain focused on defined mission 30 Adopt a product orientation 31 Identify, monitor, and address obstacles 32 Develop partnership agreements 33 Negotiate third-party agreements early 34 Allocate risk between owner and contractor 35 Establish funding firewalls and sunset clauses 36 Consider Design-Build procurement 37 Understand how bond rating agencies make decisions 38 Establish cost-sharing structure 39 Maintain adequate contingency and reserves 40 Maximize use of available funding cycles Table 4-4. Summary of Type III guidelines.

Guideline 24. Seek out “champions” and develop a diverse coalition of interest groups to support the project. Champions are people in positions of authority (e.g., elected officials, major industry owners, and agency Board presidents) who can advocate the merits of the project. Such champions are often helped in their lobbying efforts when they are supported by a broad coalition of interest groups (e.g., chambers of commerce, individual companies, major shippers, carriers, and environmental groups). Supporters of a project can write letters to key decisionmakers to pro- mote the project. Although the need for a champion was in- troduced in the Type I guidelines, it is re-emphasized in Type III to address the complexities of project development and construction. Breaking ground on a project often de- pends on the consistent efforts and commitment of one or more champions. Guideline 25. Provide a neutral forum. Major new projects affect a vast array of stakeholders in- cluding system users, local communities, and funding and op- erating entities. By providing a neutral forum, a level of con- fidence can be built among the stakeholders that will minimize conflicts and help ensure that the final outcome will provide the most equitable situation for all affected. The neutral forum provides a venue to ensure that all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to provide input regarding development of acceptable solutions. Guideline 26. Secure private-sector involvement and commitment. Specific projects and/or new organizations and authori- ties must provide new or improved conditions for the af- fected stakeholders. For example, a new tolled truck-only corridor will be used by industry only if the benefits out- weigh the additional user costs. As projects are designed and constructed, these stakeholders must be involved to ensure the outcome adds value. A commitment by these stakehold- ers to use the new capacity or program requires outreach throughout the process. Guideline 27. Develop a mitigation strategy for project impacts. One of the key challenges of a major infrastructure project is the required mitigation activities. Mitigation often refers to environmental impacts, but can also include quality-of-life and community impacts as well as traffic impacts. For a project to address these requirements successfully, a strategy should be developed. This strategy should detail all the activities that will be required to conform to the requirements. A team of experts should be developed to lead the implementation of this strategy. Having a visible strategy will also communicate to key stakeholders that mitigation activities are being given the necessary focus. Guideline 28. Establish clear decision- making authority. In the public works arena, it is critical to know who has authority to make what decisions so that the project is not delayed while waiting for decisions to be made. Within each organization it is important to clearly identify at what level in the organization decisions can be made. Guideline 29. Remain focused on the defined mission. Over the course of project design and construction, there often is pressure from stakeholders to broaden the scope of a project in order to spread the benefits. This can lead to an in- creased scope, resulting in cost increases and schedule lapses. Although not analyzed in this study, the “Big Dig” project in Boston is often cited as a project that allowed many additional scope changes in response to constituents’ demands, leading to cost overruns and schedule delays. Guideline 30. Adopt a product orientation. Many arrangements are process driven, designed to bring stakeholders together for a common purpose. However, for Type III arrangements, the focus must be on the defined product. Agencies that are more interested in achieving ex- plicit goals and producing well-defined products are often more successful in controlling costs and keeping on sched- ule than agencies that are primarily process oriented. Fol- lowing bureaucratic procedures is important, but when pro- cedures hinder producing the project on time or on budget, adjustments to the processes should be considered. Being focused on specific goals will foster concurrent, rather than sequential, processing of key activities. Guideline 31. Identify, monitor, and address obstacles. It is important to continually monitor potential obstacles and develop action plans to resolve them in a timely manner. There often is a tendency to put off defining and implement- ing solutions. Such delay wastes money and can result in the termination of the project. 48

49 Guideline 32. Develop partnership agreements. Partnering agreements among the owner, designer, and contractor can minimize disputes and shorten the time to resolve differences that may arise. These agreements estab- lish responsibilities and ensure each partner is vested in the project. These agreements are similar to MOUs; however, they go a step further by putting key stakeholders on an equal platform, with defined responsibilities for ensuring project success. Guideline 33. Negotiate third-party agreements early. Agreements with utilities for relocation or protection of fa- cilities affected by the project can be time-consuming and costly. Typically, these discussions focus on who has prior rights and thus who is responsible for paying for the reloca- tion or protection. Another time-consuming task is negotiat- ing with municipalities for city permits for work involving city-owned facilities (e.g., sewers, water lines, traffic signals, curbs and gutters, and striping of streets). Cities often use these negotiations to request extra mitigations such as urban design improvements, aesthetic treatments, landscaping, and other enhancements. All of this takes time, so project owners do well to address these issues early. Without agreements in place early in the program, the risks to the project can be much greater. These agreements can take the form of MOUs, which specify the responsibilities of the various parties as construc- tion proceeds. Guideline 34. Allocate risk between owner and contractor. Before signing a construction contract, it is important to de- cide how risks will be shared between the contractor and owner for unexpected cost increases due to constructability issues, unknown conditions, hazardous materials encountered, miti- gation requirements, and so forth. For example, depending on the scale of the project, it might be appropriate to agree that the first $X million cost of addressing an unknown condition would be the contractor’s responsibility, the next $X million the owner’s responsibility, and anything beyond that a 50-50 responsibility between owner and contractor. Guideline 35. Establish funding firewalls and sunset clauses. For projects that involve user fees or tolls, it is critical to provide safeguards to reduce investor risk. No one likes to pay fees, but the risk to the private sector can be reduced if there are assurances that the funds will only be used for their stated purpose and that after the project is completed, the fees will go away. Stakeholders responsible for paying these user fees must understand how the funds will be used and how long the fees will be charged. This helps build accept- ance for the cost. Building support for these fees is critical. If the project does not provide significant benefits, the costs will not be accepted and facility users will find alternate routes. Guideline 36. Consider Design-Build procurement, particularly for revenue- driven projects. With Design-Build procurement, design activities can over- lap construction to some degree, thus saving valuable time. In addition to saving time, Design-Build procurements can allow for contractor innovation. Guideline 37. Understand how bond rating agencies make decisions. Many agencies need to borrow funds in order to fund a major project fully. When asked to assess credit risk, the bond rating agencies (Fitch, Moody’s, and Standard & Poor’s) re- view all potential risks to a project. Project management skills and ability to control costs and keep on schedule are just a few of the items reviewed by rating agencies. It is prudent to un- derstand what these agencies look for and to plan accord- ingly. This management advice is useful for any project, even if revenue bonds are not involved. Guideline 38. Establish a cost-sharing structure. The construction of a major project probably will rely on a mix of funding sources. It may include issuance of private or municipal bonds, local or state transportation funding, private-sector funding, or user fees. The success of the project will depend on the ability to provide funding on an as-needed basis throughout construction. Delays can hinder the schedule, support for, and overall outcome of the project. A plan should be in place to effectively manage the available funds, including match requirements, contracting requirements, and flexibility to address issues that arise during the project. Guideline 39. Maintain an adequate contingency and reserves. The success of many large infrastructure projects depends on adequate funding. In many instances, initial resources fall short of total costs because of unforeseen circumstances (e.g., complications with environmental mitigation requirements

50 or changes in design). To keep a project on schedule, it is nec- essary to have access to contingency funding. Guideline 40. Maximize the use of available funding cycles. Project sponsors should seize on all potential opportuni- ties for funding and not let deadlines for applying for grants slip away. Sometimes agencies believe that they are “not ready” to apply or think that the competition is too great. As a result they often miss out on funding opportunities. It is im- portant to get the project in queue, get the project known, in- crease the project’s visibility, and tout the merits of the proj- ect at every opportunity. Requests for project information from key decisionmakers should be met. Each opportunity provides a new opportunity for success. Example 4.4-1. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority The Alameda Corridor in Southern California is one of the nation’s largest and most successful public works projects. Combining capacity improvements and environmental enhancements, the project dra- matically improved railroad access to the largest port complex in the United States. The purpose of the project was to consolidate harbor-related railroad traffic onto a single 20-mile corridor between the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the railroad mainlines near downtown Los Angeles. The project was designed to build consensus on the following project parameters: impacts of trains on grade crossing delays (e.g., vehicular delay, emergency vehicles), noise impacts in residential areas, air quality concerns, efficiency of train operations, potential challenges to future port growth proposals, and facilitation of international trade. To get the process started, the Southern California Association of Gov- ernments (SCAG) created a Ports Advisory Committee (PAC). This committee brought together a diverse coalition of interest groups to begin the communications and consensus-building process. PAC members included local elected officials, as well as representatives of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, affected railroads, the trucking industry, and the Los Ange- les County Transportation Commission (LACTC). During this phase, the effort could have been described as a Type I institutional arrangement, dedicated to consensus building, information sharing, identifying obstacles, and building trust. As the concept for the Alameda Corridor progressed, the arrangement transitioned to Type III—one focused on implementing a specific project. SCAG created the Alameda Cor- ridor Task Force (ACTF), with a membership similar to the PAC but including the California Public Utili- ties Commission and each of the cities along the corridor. The ACTF created the Consolidated Transporta- tion Corridor Joint Powers Authority in August of 1989. The agency changed its name to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) in November 1990. In 1995 ACTA hired a program management entity called the Alameda Corridor Engineering Team (ACET), which is a joint venture of four major engineering firms. This joint venture and its subcontractors were responsible for preliminary design, environmental reviews, engineering and construction oversight, and other key aspects of the project. Staffing for ACET has varied over the life of the project in response to the need for engineering and construction services. This project management team established decision- making authority and made it clear at what level in the organization a decision could be made. ACTA’s primary mission was to design and construct the Alameda Corridor Project. There was a strong mandate to complete the project on time and on budget. The dedicated focus on the primary mission of the project helped keep it from costly overruns and schedule delays. The commitment to the product, as opposed to just the process, also helped ACTA accomplish its mission in April 2002 when the project opened for service. ACTA had a reputation for focusing on the principal objective of completing the proj- ect on time and on budget. ACTA awarded consulting contracts through a qualifications-based selection process. Traditionally, con- struction projects are awarded through the Design-Bid-Build process; however, ACTA’s largest contract for the mid-corridor trench was awarded on a Design-Build basis. In 1997, ACTA evaluated the pros and cons of the Design-Build approach for the Mid-Corridor contract. It was estimated that with the traditional

51 Example 4.4-1. (Continued) Design-Bid-Build approach the project could not be completed until 2003. ACTA concluded that, in order to make the project financially feasible, an earlier delivery date was required. Considering Design-Build procurement allowed ACTA to (1) reduce the overall completion time by approximately 18 months by enabling the design and construction phases to overlap; (2) facilitate a bond sale through earlier identi- fication of total project cost and shift much of the project risk to the contractor; and (3) encourage con- tractor innovation through early participation in the development of the project. ACTA paid special attention to the risk allocated between the owner and the contractor. They devel- oped a risk-allocation matrix as a framework for negotiation of design-build construction contracts. It was especially important to decide ahead of time how risks would be shared between the contractor and owner for unexpected cost increases due to constructability issues, unknown conditions, hazardous mate- rials encountered, and other issues that might arise. ACTA negotiated several complex agreements with corridor cities, utilities, railroads, and other stakehold- ers. For example, when SCAG adopted the plan for the consolidated railroad corridor in 1984, the railroads were generally opposed because they had their privately owned tracks and they thought the government should not attempt to force them to share a common right-of-way. Improving the efficiency of the rail line and facilitating the movement of international cargo were important objectives, along with the goals of reducing vehicular delays at grade crossings, improving emergency vehicle access, reducing noise in res- idential neighborhoods, and reducing air pollution. Negotiating agreements with the railroads took sev- eral years. A major issue was the competitive nature of the private railroads. The ports and railroads also negotiated construction and maintenance agreements and use and operating agreements. Without these third-party agreements in place early in the program, the risks to the project would have been much greater. In addition, it was important to have the right assurances in all agreements such as establishing funding firewalls and sunset clauses. ACTA built these guarantees into its agreements with the railroads. Although there was no public opposition to the project, during the environmental review process, there were local disagreements over project design. The corridor cities preferred a lowered railway—i.e., a trench—but the ports preferred an at-grade railway with standard grade separations. During this debate over project definition, ACTA faced significant funding shortages. ACTA used the EIR and EIS processes to compare and contrast alternative project designs and to identify mitigations for environmental impacts. Several variations of the at-grade and the depressed railway options were analyzed. In the end, the final configuration included standard grade separations at the north and south ends and a lowered railroad in the mid-corridor. Other important compromises were negotiated on alignment and design, including aesthetic treatments along the entire 20-mile corridor. These agreements could not have been reached without extensive technical studies, including preliminary engineering and the EIR/EIS, and painstaking negotiations with project stakeholders. ACTA faced several critical challenges and issues during the course of this project, including project defini- tion, governance structure, relations with corridor cities, railroad cooperation and participation, funding, construction and project delivery, environmental compliance, disadvantaged business enterprise participa- tion, job training, and local participation. ACTA continually identified and monitored all potential obsta- cles and then addressed them early to determine resolutions as soon as possible. In addition, with a com- plex project like the Alameda Corridor, ACTA deemed it prudent to maintain an adequate contingency. It had a $200 million contingency fund to start, which provided a mechanism to pay for unforeseen obstacles. One of ACTA’s biggest challenges was to raise additional funds beyond the initial seed money provided by the ports. ACTA acted on any opportunity to maximize the availability of a funding cycle in order to raise all the funds necessary for the Alameda Corridor Project. For example, in the early 1990s, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) was responsible for programming state and Federal funds in (continued)

52 Example 4.4-2. Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE), a public-private partnership created in 2003, includes the state and city transportation departments, the passenger rail services Metra and Amtrak, and six of the largest North American freight railroads (i.e., BNSF, CN, CP, CSX, NS, and UP1). The CREATE Program consists of approximately 78 projects of national and regional significance aimed at addressing existing and future congestion issues on the rail system, which, if not addressed, are expected to adversely affect the national economy and the transportation system. The CREATE Program is an excellent example of engaging private industry in capital investments that will intrinsically benefit them as well as the public sector. CREATE represents the first time the public sector (state and local government) has partnered with the railroad industry to solve the urban rail congestion problem in Chicago on such a large scale. It is an example of successful consensus building, because it is the first project where private railroads overcame competitive issues and reached agreement on a list of improvement projects to increase the efficiency of an urban rail network. These are primarily functions of a Type I institutional arrangement; hence Type I guidelines would have been helpful to the effort at this point in its evolution. Six of the seven Class I railroads operating in North America pass through Chicago and all six are partners in the CREATE Program. All have pledged to contribute funds to com- plete the necessary improvements that will benefit all six railroads as well as the commuter rail (Metra), the intercity rail service (Amtrak), and the highway network—all public benefits. The CREATE Program has also set new parameters on private-sector commitment for public-private partnerships. The freight railroads are committed to providing $212 million, based on an estimate of the economic benefits that the private sector will gain with the implementation of the program, as determined through analysis con- ducted by the railroads. Example 4.4-1. (Continued) Los Angeles County. Initially, ACTA was frozen out of the competition for these funds because there was no category in which to compete. The Alameda Corridor was not a freeway project, a light rail project, or any of the other categories established by the LACTC. For 2 years ACTA lobbied for a new category on the basis that goods movement projects such as the Alameda Corridor are essential for reducing congestion and air pollution and for maintaining a healthy economy. Ultimately, the LACTC and its successor agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), provided a major financial contribution to the project. For projects funded with revenue bonds, it is necessary to understand how bond rating agen- cies make decisions. Many aspects of a project are reviewed by these organizations and can make a differ- ence in what type of and how much credit might be available and at what interest rate. The Alameda Corridor cost $2.43 billion. Much effort was given to secure this large sum of money. In addition to never missing an opportunity to apply for a funding cycle, a cost-sharing structure was estab- lished to secure necessary funding from various sources. The largest component of ACTA’s funding came from a $1.1 billion revenue bond sale in January and February of 1999: $520 million in tax-exempt bonds and $643 million in taxable bonds were sold. Funding also included a $400 million Federal loan. This loan later became the inspiration for the Federal credit program for transportation projects of national or regional significance authorized by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA). In 2004, ACTA pre-paid and replaced the Federal loan by issuing $475 million in tax-exempt bonds and $211 million in taxable bonds. The ports contributed $394 million for the purchase of needed railroad right-of-way. The MTA provided $347 million in Federal, state, and local grants. Of that amount, the Federal government provided only $80 million of grant funds (3% of the total project costs). Another $130 million came from miscellaneous sources, including income from investing bond and loan proceeds.

53 Example 4.4-2. (Continued) In addition to the commitment by private railroads and the strong political support from all of its stake- holders, CREATE is recognized as a project of regional and national significance. Since its genesis, a strong leadership presence from political leaders has helped bring private industry into the project design process. Support from communities and freight organizations was also achieved thanks to the political leaders at the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) and at the Illinois Department of Trans- portation (IDOT) who have actively promoted the benefits of the CREATE Program to gain public sup- port for the projects. Over 15 businesses have produced letters of support stating how the CREATE Program improvements will benefit their businesses. To add significant local resident appeal for neigh- borhoods bisected by freight lines and obtain their support, several key grade separation improvements were also included in the overall list of projects. In the end, the political support of a diverse coalition of interest groups like political leaders, private and public partners, businesses, and local communities pro- moting not only the local and regional benefits but also the national benefits made the case for the sig- nificance of investing in CREATE projects and positioning it to better compete for the Projects of National and Regional Significance (PNRS) Program money. As a result, CREATE received funding, although not the amount requested, from the PNRS Program and is recognized nationally as a single project that will produce great benefit to the movement of goods and passengers. Having a common goal and clear benefits has made it easier for CREATE partners to work together and cooperate with each other in order to see the CREATE Program completely implemented. The CREATE Program has successfully remained focused on its mission which is to proactively address and invest in the numerous railroad bottlenecks in the Chicago region to streamline operations and allow rail cars (freight and passenger trains) to move more efficiently through the regional network. All CREATE part- ners are working toward the same goal, even competing private railroad and public-sector partners. CRE- ATE’s focus on implementing a consensus set of projects typifies a Type III arrangement. The CREATE Pro- gram has effectively articulated how the main stakeholders (i.e., freight shippers, railroads, passenger rail services, and highway users) will benefit. It has also identified the significant local, regional, and national benefits CREATE will produce. In the end, all will benefit from an improved Chicago railroad network that will generate national and regional economic benefits, reduce congestion, improve trans- portation safety, enhance the national transportation system, and help protect the environment. To ensure the program’s implementation, a partnership agreement or “Joint Statement of Understanding” (JSOU) that identified the roles and responsibilities of the partners, created a governance structure, and defined the private funding contribution levels was signed in June 2003 by the program partners. The CREATE Program’s 78 projects were divided into three categories, which also defined partner responsibilities: (1) railroad improvements, excluding rail-rail separation (Railroad Components); (2) rail-rail separation (Metra Components); and (3) public improvements, including separation of at-grade highway-rail crossings, viaduct improvements, and grade crossing safety enhancements (Public Component—IDOT and CDOT). A multi- institutional committee structure, including a series of groups with specific roles, was created to imple- ment and manage all CREATE improvement projects. All together, these committees and groups make sure CREATE projects are completed on time and on budget, partners continue to advocate for additional funding at all levels (i.e., Federal, state, local, and private), and communities are informed of the progress of each project. Given its complex multi-institutional committee structure, the decision-making authority falls to several committees that manage the program, resulting in a somewhat cumbersome and slow process. The Stake- holder Committee sets policy for the CREATE Program and approves any changes in scope or budget. This committee provides final resolution on all stakeholder issues and makes decisions by unanimous agreement. The Management Committee reviews and approves project designs, project cost estimates, and construc- tion assumptions and makes decisions regarding scope, schedule, and budget based on recommendations (continued)

54 Example 4.4-3. Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks The Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Program consists of a framework for organizing, deploying, and funding the implementation of technology to automate various motor carrier regulatory and safety enforcement functions with the ultimate goal of improving commercial motor vehicle safety. The mission is to support the U.S. DOT and FMCSA’s performance goals in high- way vehicle safety, hazardous materials safety, homeland and national security, transportation relia- Example 4.4-2. (Continued) from the Implementation Team. The Implementation Team tracks budget and construction progress and recommends project changes. The Finance and Budget Committee identifies sources of public funds, mon- itors project cost estimates versus actual expenditures, and assists project managers with financial manage- ment issues. The Advocacy Committee is responsible for all CREATE communications, addressing commu- nity concerns, and advocating for CREATE. Each project in the CREATE Program was delegated to one or more partners, who become the Project Managers. The Component Project Managers are responsible for all phases of development through implementation, including design and construction, and are responsi- ble for tracking project status and potential scope and cost changes. The Project Office is responsible for tracking all projects, approving final designs and cost estimates, assisting with grant applications, and act- ing as a liaison between the Component Project Managers and other groups. The Project Office identifies, monitors, and addresses potential obstacles; initiates requests related to changes in project scope and/or costs; and advises the Management Committee of proposed actions. Some have suggested that the CREATE Program would benefit from a separate institutional structure (i.e., Joint Powers Authority) to build the CREATE Program rather than this complex multi-institutional committee structure. The total cost of all CREATE projects was estimated at $1.5 billion in 2003. In December 2008, the CREATE partnership updated the program cost and the new, total unfunded CREATE Program cost is estimated at $2.6 billion. The CREATE Program did not receive the $900 million in Federal funding anticipated from SAFETEA-LU in 2005. Instead, it received $100 million with the remaining funding coming from a mix of funding sources (private-sector contributions and state and local funding). As a result, the project list was prioritized and will need to be implemented in phases, which has slowed the program and significantly delayed its benefits. Phase I includes only 32 projects that are programmed to be in design or construction by 2009. Funding for Phase I comes from the following sources: SAFETEA-LU Programs of National and Regional Significance—$100 million; State of Illinois—$100 million (unsecured to date); Freight Railroads— $100 million; and City of Chicago—$30 million. These amounts will be insufficient to complete all 78 CREATE projects. Federal funding is necessary to complete all projects. Otherwise, all other partners will have to increase their contributions or projects will be delayed until funding becomes available. Continued delays will result in higher project costs due to inflation, especially the increased costs of construction materials. CREATE stakeholders continue to move Phase I projects into construction. At the same time they have begun obtaining consensus and drafting the next phase (Phase II) of projects. CREATE partners will con- tinue to participate actively in the national debate on freight policy and maximize the opportunity of the next available funding cycle at the Federal level. CREATE will seek additional funding in the next Fed- eral transportation authorization. The partnership will engage the shipper, business, and passenger com- munities in order to generate more advocates supportive of CREATE goals. CREATE will continue to work to complete all the critically needed rail improvements included in the program in order to make the Chicago freight hub the country’s model for safe, productive, and efficient railroad operations. 1Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Canadian National (CN), Canadian Pacific (CP), CSX, Norfolk Southern (NS), and Union Pacific (UP).

55 Example 4.4-3. (Continued) bility and productivity, and organization excellence. The core CVISN Program capabilities focus on three program areas: Safety Information Exchange (automated roadside vehicle and driver inspections), Electronic Screening (transponder-based systems), and Electronic Credentials Administration (automatic application, processing, and issuance of credentials and permits). The program is managed by FMCSA; however, deployment, planning, and implementation of the program require the full participation of FMCSA, state agencies with motor carrier safety or regulatory responsibilities, and private industry. Effective planning and deployment of CVISN projects in all three program areas has required effective part- nership agreements at all levels, including Federal-state partnerships, regional partnerships, inter-agency partnerships within states, and public-private partnerships. On the Federal and state level, FMCSA cannot achieve its mission of reducing crashes involving trucks and buses without the support of states responsible for administering and enforcing commercial vehicle regulations. States, on the other hand, typically cannot fully finance the technology infrastructure required for CVISN, nor are individual states well suited to coor- dinate activities across states for purposes of promoting uniformity and standards. States wishing to receive Federal CVISN funds must enter into formal partnership agreements with FMCSA. These agreements spec- ify what is required of states in order to qualify for and receive CVISN grant money and outline what they can expect from FMCSA. As the champion, FMCSA’s primary responsibility is managing and overseeing the CVISN Program at the national level. States are responsible for planning, deploying, operating, and maintaining their CVISN architecture and services. Multi-state coalitions, like the I-95 Corridor Coalition, have supported the CVISN program on a number of fronts, including providing funding to support (1) CVISN training and program planning activities and (2) design and implementation of specific projects of regional signifi- cance. State agencies with commercial vehicle operations (CVO) responsibilities like the Departments of Transportation, Revenue, Public Safety and/or State Police often are engaged in CVISN planning and deployment activities. Given the distributed nature of CVO regulatory and enforcement functions, most states participating in CVISN have executed formal memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to identify cost-sharing agreements, designate the lead agency, and clarify the responsibilities of all partners to the agreement. The funding contributions of the MOU participants vary depending on the functional- ity that a state is electing to deploy. For example, systems such as the Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window (CVIEW) provide functionality that is beneficial to all agencies in a state. As such, the agencies may agree to share in the costs to deploy a CVIEW equally. Certainly MOUs between or among multiple state agencies have helped to solidify working relationships and memorialize commitments that have been made, even when administrations change. Public-private partnerships and private-sector involvement have played a significant role in advancing the CVISN Program and have taken on many different forms. For example, motor carriers have been asked to participate in discussions about the design of software that will allow them to apply for and receive certain credentials electronically. As the systems are built or customized, carriers also have been asked to review or participate in pilot testing of the systems to confirm that they have been built around the needs of industry and are operating as intended. These informal partnerships between states and industry whereby motor carriers and motor coach operators are engaged in the planning and design of CVISN systems to ensure that the systems are built in a manner consistent with the needs of industry exemplify how CVISN has reached out to the private sector to build consensus on specific project parameters. Formal partnerships include cost-sharing agreements among carriers, vendors, state agen- cies, and other third-parties that are memorialized in writing. Some of these contracts have resulted in cost sharing between the parties whereby vendors will provide in-kind services at a reduced fee or will implement their systems at no cost to the state in exchange for the opportunity to deploy their systems and collect future revenue based on user fees. (continued)

56 Example 4.4-3. (Continued) All 50 states have begun to deploy some of the core CVISN capabilities. As of August 2008, 20 states are Core CVISN Compliant or have deployed all of the core CVISN capabilities. These states have shown a more pro- nounced CVISN deployment progress because of their strong partnership with the Federal government, across state agencies, and with private industry. FMCSA and its state and industry partners have been critical to the overall success of the program and continue to support the development of the program. They have identified a series of expanded CVISN functionalities that are being integrated into the CVISN program while remaining focused on its mission to support FMCSA’s ultimate goal of improving commercial motor vehicle safety.

Next: Chapter 5 - Application of Guidelines »
Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) Report 2: Institutional Arrangements for Freight Transportation Systems explores successful and promising institutional arrangements designed to improve freight movement. The report examines 40 guidelines, reflecting lessons learned from existing arrangements, that are designed to help agencies and industry representatives work together to invest in and improve the freight transportation system.

Appendices, consisting of a literature review, workshop material, detailed case studies, and interview guide, contained on a CD-ROM (CRP-CD-72), which accompanies the printed version of the report and is available for download as an ISO image online.

Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large and may take some time to download using a high-speed connection. Any software included is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively “TRB”) be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.)

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!