Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 8
8
· Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board · There is no one-size fits-all approach; there is a need to
· I-95 Corridor Coalition identify the core underpinnings of successful structure.
· Kansas City SmartPort · Document successes and failures and how they are
· Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory evaluated.
Committee · Provide guidance to the Federal government; national
· Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration freight policy can be an umbrella for actions.
· Explore the transition from planning to implementation.
Each presenter was asked to provide an overview of his or · Provide a primer or educational program.
her organization, describe its strengths and weaknesses, and · Study the application of non-transportation arrangements
define what makes an institutional arrangement successful. already in place.
Following the presentations, small groups were formed to · Provide a better understanding of accessing and using
encourage roundtable discussion on the above questions to
available financing models.
explore lessons learned and best practices in the industry.
Although the small groups were given a specific question to
The lessons learned in each small group session are sum-
address, most followed an unstructured flow of conversa-
marized as follows:
tion allowing these freight transportation experts to share
their thoughts pertaining to each topic. The common themes
· Institutional arrangements can have measurable results.
identified are as follows:
· Institutional arrangements can be highly organized, even if
· Institutional arrangements must anticipate or respond to the structure is voluntary rather than contractual.
dynamic market forces that are changing freight movement · Institutional arrangements with staying power can point to
patterns and technologies. a record of accomplishments that transcend transitions in
· Because freight problems transcend jurisdictional bound- leadership within member organizations.
aries, so must institutional arrangements. · Geographically disparate entities can join institutional
· New, diverse sets of players will expect involvement in arrangements in which all parties may not win equally in
institutional arrangements, but trust must be built among every project selection cycle, but all parties are better off
participants. together than individually.
· Institutional arrangements need to be characterized by clear · A record of delivering projects successfully is useful in attract-
goals and explicit purposes. ing resources to an institutional arrangement.
· Additional institutional arrangement success factors are · Institutional arrangements can use modest investments for
competence, credibility (trust and believability), champions accomplishing bigger results.
(leadership), performance, and accountability. · Rejection of institutional arrangement ideas can cause
· Successful models for institutional arrangements exist within participants to lose desire to make modest contributions.
states or at national level--more examples are needed for · Even if institutional arrangements do not directly imple-
institutional arrangements at the multi-state level. ment projects, they can hold project sponsors accountable
· Institutional arrangements can be advanced through for project performance.
incentives--funding, regulatory simplification, and threat · Some institutional arrangements can be structured to allow
avoidance. multiple ad hoc working groups.
· Different kinds of institutional arrangements with different · Institutional arrangements should balance process and
members may be appropriate and necessary for different
product.
purposes.
· Make simple legal arrangements between equity owners
· Mitigating trends are as follows:
to support complex negotiations with other affected
Environment: fold in issues early in a broader, holistic
interests.
planning effort;
Infrastructure: also focus on maintaining current system;
Funding: create sustainable, viable, national funding 2.4 Follow-Up Interviews and
program; Case Study Development
Education: broaden skills, train entry workers, include
education of public and elected officials; At the workshop, participants offered examples of insti-
Foreign and/or private investment: will investors keep tutional arrangements, in addition to the 36 summarized in
transportation purposes in mind; and the literature review. Fifty-four institutional arrangements
Additional trends to consider: security, eminent domain, in total were identified, providing a broad range of examples,
natural disaster recovery, economic trends. including representation of all levels of governments, all
OCR for page 9
9
modes, and the public and private sector. Seventeen represen- support development of a detailed case study. Interviews
tatives were chosen for follow-up interviews; sixteen detailed focused on two areas of interest:
case studies were developed. As with the literature search
and workshop presenters, these cases were selected not to be · Description of Arrangement
exhaustive or statistically representative, but with the goal of Overview/History
identifying and learning from the best institutional practices, Mandate/Mission
as drawn from the expertise of the workshop attendees and Organization/Participation
the project team. The detailed case studies and the interview Procedures/Activities
guide are provided in Appendix C. The representatives from Resources
Accomplishments/Successes
the following organizations were interviewed:
Challenges/Weaknesses
Lessons Learned
· Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Gill Hicks,
Future Vision/Plans
Gill V. Hicks & Associates
· Input on Study Objectives
· California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System
What is the best definition of institutional arrangement
Advisory Council, Norm Fassler-Katz
for freight?
· Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Effi-
What institutional arrangements are critical for the
ciency Program, Luann Hamilton, Transportation Com- future?
missioner, Chicago DOT How can these critical future institutional arrangements
· Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks, be created?
Quon Kwan, FMCSA; Brad Wright, Cambridge System- What major national and international trends affect
atics, Inc. the formation of freight institutions?
· Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission-Goods What can this project develop that would lead to creation
Movement Task Force, Ted Dahlburg, Delaware Valley RPC of these future institutional arrangements?
· Federal Highway Administration, Tony Furst, FHWA
Office of Freight Management and Operations The case studies provide an in-depth look into the key suc-
· Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, Karen Schmidt, cess factors and challenges for each institutional arrangement.
FMSIB In addition, detailed narratives are provided that document
· Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Devel- mission and mandate, organization, resources, process, and
opment Council, Nancy Leikauf and Toy Keller, Florida funding. Table 2-2 summarizes key input captured through
Ports Council the interview process categorized into three broad purposes
· Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Com- of institutional arrangements: increased visibility and impor-
mittee, Larry Foutz, Miami-Dade MPO tance of freight; project consensus and selection; and a specific
· I-95 Corridor Coalition, Marygrace Parker, I-95 Corridor project focus.
Coalition In addition to the interviews, the 2009 TRB Annual Meeting
· Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program, Nathan was used to present initial project findings and get feed-
Moulton, Maine DOT back. The Annual Meeting offered a unique chance to learn
·
from the transportation professionals who serve on com-
Kansas City SmartPort, Chris Gutierrez, Kansas City
mittees within the sponsoring organization for this research
SmartPort, Inc.
project. TRB's Technical Activities Division encompasses
· Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition, Ernie Wittwer, MVFC
approximately 200 standing committees divided into 11 func-
Facilitator
tional or mode-specific groups, including freight. Among other
· Nation'sPort, David Stein, Nation'sPort
functions, the committees identify research needs, evaluate
· Natural Resources Defense Council--Southern California
and interpret research findings, and encourage the adoption
Clean Air Program, David Pettit, Senior Attorney, NRDC of appropriate findings into practice.
· Southern California National Freight Gateway Collabo- Following outreach to about 20 of the most relevant com-
ration, Lindell L. Marsh, Attorney/Facilitator; Ty Schuiling, mittees, presentations were given to the following commit-
SANBAG tees, which represent 6 of the 12 standing Freight Systems
· Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Consensus Group, committees (AT), 1 of the Rail committees (AR), and 1 of the
Ty Schuiling, SANBAG committees in the Policy and Organization group (AB):
The purpose of the interviews was to collect information · Trucking Industry Research (AT060)
about each institutional arrangement in sufficient detail to · Transportation of Hazardous Materials (AT040)
OCR for page 10
10
Table 2-2. Interview findings: summary of key success factors and challenges.
Broad Purpose of
Institutional Arrangements Key Success Factors Challenges
Increase visibility and importance of Having a common goal and clear illustration of benefits Communication and coordination with a
freight through: wide range of public and private entities
Securing dedicated funding
Information Sharing Effective use of available planning tools
Pursing commitment of executive leadership
Consensus Building No single organization serving as a freight
Creating well-defined and productive meeting agendas
voice
Education
Engaging members in promotion activities
Lack of available lands for expansion of the
Overcoming Distrust and
Ongoing public outreach, communications, and freight system
Competitive Barriers
education regarding the role of freight
Need for more sophisticated, objective project
General Advocacy
Partnering with academia evaluation tools and freight data
Pursuing an aggressive marketing campaign Keeping Task Force members motivated and
engaged in the planning process
Building Federal, state, and local support
Conflicting agency priorities
Allowing flexibility in legal structure
Lack of private-sector involvement
Providing a neutral forum
Securing a dedicated funding source
Building strong partnerships with the Federal
government, across state agencies, and with industry Lack of trust among stakeholders
Focusing on timely issues of public concern
Knowing your partners and their jurisdictions
Determining a common evaluation framework to
determine cost benefit
Convening a commission to determine where freight
corridors are likely to be in the future
Project consensus and selection Gaining continued support from program sponsor Mandate to focus benefits only on strategic
through: freight corridors
Requiring program matching requirement
Project Evaluation Partnerships are difficult to hold together
Considering multimodal, multi-jurisdictional approach
Project Prioritization Inadequate funding
Securing private-sector commitment
Project Selection and Funding Redirection of funding
Effectively leveraging state funds
Consensus Building at Project
Level Determining quantifiable criteria and guidance for
project selection and evaluation
Focusing on Advocacy
Seeking accountability
Leveraging Additional Funds
Providing an open, transparent project funding
selection process
Focus on a specific project through: Establishing funding firewalls and sunset clauses Securing a dedicated institutional funding
source and competition for available project
Project Implementation Carefully allocating risk between owner and contractor
funding
Design and Construction Maintaining cost and schedule control
Agreed-on project definition
Obtaining Environmental Adopting a product orientation
Construction and project delivery
Approvals
Keeping a focused agency mission
Environmental mitigation requirements
Managing Financial And
Schedule Risks Establishing clear decision-making authority
Job training and local participation
Providing Construction Negotiating third-party agreements early
Personnel turnover among leadership and
Oversight Adopting a partnering program staff
Processing Debt Service Maintaining adequate contingency and reserves Lack of a political champion
Payments
Considering design-build procurements Complex multi-institutional committee
Negotiating Partnership structure
Agreements Understanding funding program requirements
Keeping all partners involved and
participating
