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.
