Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 74

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

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 73
73 Table 6-1. Classification of policy examples--availability of impact information. Regulations that Apply Directly to Freight Other Public Policies Carriers HOS for Drivers Truck Speed Limits and Governor Rules Freight System Aircraft Fuel Tank Flammability Rules Impacts Analyzed TWIC for Ports and Inland Towboats Emissions Standards for Diesel Engines Int'l Air Emissions Regulations for Vessels Federal Truck Size and Weight Rules Alien Fingerprint Rules for Outbound Planes Local Land Use Policies and Ships Restrictions on Disposal of Port Dredging Spoil Air Cargo Screening Requirements Local Policy to Oppose a Railroad Acquisition Idling Restrictions for Trucks and Highway Infrastructure Investment Freight System Locomotives Inland Waterway Infrastructure Investment Impacts Water Pollutant Discharge Rules for Vessels Highway Tolls and Other User Charges Generally Not Analyzed State Truck Route Restrictions Lockage Fees for Inland Waterways Local Truck Access and Parking Policies Peak Pricing for Port Trucks Local Restrictions on Locomotive Horns Peak Pricing for Airports State Truck Size and Weight Rules GHG Cap and Trade Renewable Fuel Standards, Incentives to the extent that it might consider moving its facility. In these Policymakers have a relatively high level of concern for cases, state governments may be taking a broader economic freight system efficiency. view, but decisionmakers must also answer to voters for Additional information on freight impacts may be helpful whom quality of life is an immediate, palpable issue and the to policymakers, but is unlikely to change decisions in efficiency of the national freight system is a distant abstraction. most cases. The point is not that these governments are making "good" or "bad" decisions. Rather, it is that differing levels and differ- Case 2 ing types of governments have different concerns and priori- ties, and one has to bear these in mind when analyzing policy Policymakers have a limited understanding of the freight choices. It is generally true that the lower the level of govern- system and the potential impacts of a policy decision. ment, the more officials are concerned with purely local Policymakers have some concern for freight system effi- impacts and the less concern they have for national effects. It ciency. is also true that, the lower the level of government, the less the Additional information could change decisions. impact on the national system of the decisions of any single government. But similar decisions by many local governments Case 3 can affect the national system. One example of this is local parking restrictions coupled with local and state failure to Policymakers have a poor understanding of the freight sys- provide adequate rest and parking facilities. tem and the potential impacts of a policy decision. Policymakers have little or no concern for freight system efficiency. Decision Context Framework Additional information would not likely change decisions. Combining these two elements of the decision-making con- text, the research team can identify three general cases in regard These cases can be summarized as follows: In Case 1, policy- to understanding the freight system, the potential impacts of the makers understand the freight system, and they care about policy, and the priority accorded to effects on the freight system. it. In Case 2, they have partial freight system knowledge; they care some and might care more, if they knew more. In Case 3, they have little or no knowledge of the freight system Case 1 and are unlikely to care about adverse impacts. Figure 6-1 Policymakers have a good understanding of the freight illustrates the relationship between concern about adverse system and the potential impacts of a policy decision. impacts relative to an understanding of impacts.