Click for next page ( 23

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 22
22 Table 2.2. Interest/perspectives of stakeholder types. Interest/Perspective Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Stakeholder Type (Direct Financial) (Indirect Financial) (Major Nonfinancial) (Tangential) Asset Provider Service Provider End User * Other Impacted Party * End users that are shippers or consignees generally translate all impacts into revenue or cost (Category 2) changes. However, infrastructure improvements also may affect passenger travel, in which case, there may be personal time or convenience impacts that fall into Category 3. Table 2.2 describes the interest/perspectives of different focuses on effective core functionality, rather than long lists stakeholder types. of project types. Sample projects that may be included for dif- ferent modes for each of these four project types are summa- rized in Table 2.3. 2.2 Evaluating Different Investment Types 2.3 Evaluating Projects Previous research has focused on classifying freight proj- of Differing Scales ects into three types: infrastructure enhancements, capacity upgrades, or operational improvements. However, this struc- The size, scope, and timeline of freight investment projects ture does not fully account for the sophistication of freight can vary considerably. In the past, freight projects have been decision-making processes, the relationships among different completed by stakeholders working independently and on an project types, and the sheer number of stakeholder types that as-needed basis--for example, railroads have traditionally they can include. prioritized investments and fully funded their most pressing Despite the growing sophistication of freight investment capital projects and rolling stock purchases as their revenue decisions and partnerships, the justification for any invest- streams allowed. However, the increased prevalence of new ment is still fairly simple and usually can be explained in institutional arrangements and strategies, such as multistate terms of enhanced capacity. In fact, although different types coalitions and public-private partnerships, has created new of freight stakeholders may explain it using different terms opportunities to engage multiple stakeholders on projects of (e.g., carriers may discuss improved reliability, while shippers varying scope, timeline, and cost. Projects such as the may talk of a decreased need to hold inventory and a DOT Alameda Corridor, although a rail infrastructure project, are may refer to system efficiency) these stakeholders are all, in able to bring other public and private partners into coordina- essence, concerned with enhancing the capacity of the freight tion with the railroads to plan and finance a large infrastruc- system within the following four typical project types: ture project with benefits to numerous stakeholders. The project team has categorized freight investments Physical infrastructure projects that enhance the capac- according to three different scales, described as follows and in ity, design speed, or volume of freight infrastructure; Table 2.4. Productivity projects that increase the size, weight, or vol- ume of freight vehicles; Site and local--Projects that involve a single site/facility or Reliability and density projects that affect the utilization infrastructure element, or otherwise benefit freight mobil- or safety of freight vehicles; and ity on a local scale; Integration and consolidation projects that allow for Statewide and regional--Projects that involve statewide more efficient communication or transfer of materials or regional operations or infrastructure, or benefit freight between freight vehicles, infrastructure, and facilities. mobility on a statewide or multicounty scale; and Multistate or national--Projects that involve infrastruc- Dividing projects into these four types allows viewing the ture or operations that span several states or the nation, or many types of freight investments in a simpler context that that benefit regional or national freight mobility.