Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process: Practitioner’s Guide (2013)

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.

42 5 DECISION POINTS KEY DECISION POINTS FOR FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS The unifying paradigm of the SHRP 2 program is the four-phase decision flow struc- ture: long-range transportation planning (LRTP); programming (PRO); corridor plan- ning (COR); and environmental review and permitting (ENV). The SHRP 2 program has defined more specific steps within the decision flow structure. In response to the interview and case study findings, the freight decision flow diagram outlines the indi- vidual steps of the highway planning process and highlights the most important find- ings in a two- dimensional way. The first dimension highlights the most critical decision points for engaging freight stakeholders among the 11 decision points of the SHRP 2 framework. As shown in Figure 5.1, the shaded cells in the matrix illustrate the relative importance of the decision points for freight. Four points stand out as the most criti- cal and are shaded darkest blue. They include (in order of importance) identification of needs, potential improvements, development of evaluation criteria (note: potential improvements and development of evaluation criteria have equal importance), and project/plan review. More critical points are shaded medium blue, while less critical points are shaded light blue. This relative rating system is intended to help transporta- tion agencies prioritize their outreach efforts. For example, an MPO planner develop- ing a long-range plan may only have available resources to engage freight stakeholders during two of the major decision points. In that case, the planner should focus the outreach during the needs identification and either the identification of potential im- provements or development of the evaluation criteria. The second dimension—illustrated by the Consumer Reports–style circles and semicircles embedded to the left of each cell—depicts the desired level of effort for engaging freight stakeholders during the course of making each decision. The level of engagement ranges from little/no engagement to extensive engagement. At the

43 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Fi g u re 5 .1 . SH RP 2 de ci si on fl ow d ia gr am in cl ud in g st ak eh ol de r en ga ge m en t an d re la tiv e im po rt an ce o f d ec is io n po in ts fo r fr ei gh t.

44 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS extensive engagement level, transportation agencies should ensure that the freight community offers substantial feedback, demonstrating the ideal level of engagement for the freight stakeholders. Note that this guide excludes four decision points in the overall SHRP 2 deci- sion-making framework because those points are procedural and would not involve stakeholder interaction (the most up-to-date overall framework, which includes all the decision points, is at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/170008.aspx). Excluded decision points are ENV 9, Approve Resource Agency Purpose and Need; ENV 11, Approve Final Jurisdictional Determination; ENV 12, Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimization for Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA); and ENV 15, Render Permit Decision and Approve Avoidance and Minimization. The guide reflects the structure proposed in the SHRP 2 program, but the guide- lines should not be viewed as hard and fast. For example, some policy makers may find that combining PRO with the policy topic and placing them before the LRP process makes more sense for their regional conditions. Agencies should not be afraid to tailor these suggestions to suit their needs. This section describes the role for freight stakeholders at each decision point in the planning process across the four phases. While many of the decision points optimally require extensive engagement of freight stakeholders, others require little or none to help guide the planning process and integrate freight considerations into the planning process. Identifying an appropriate freight stakeholder group for each project can be challenging; if there is an existing group or list of stakeholders that can be used for the current planning efforts, using it would save project resources. For example, eliciting support from stakeholders is a very time consuming process as it takes time not only to identify appropriate freight stakeholders who can add value to the planning process, but even more to build the institutional trust for their involvement. At the outset, plan- ners should ask the following initial questions to determine the value of identifying or reconvening a group of stakeholders that has previously offered support: • For the latest iteration of the LRP, was there a separate section for freight trans- portation in the modal discussion and was freight integrated throughout the LRP? • Has there been a recent (i.e., within the last 5 years) statewide or regional freight study that identified or engaged freight stakeholders? • Who are those stakeholders? Did they provide any useful feedback? • Has there been any ongoing contact with those stakeholders either through the DOT or MPO or a partner organization (e.g., economic development organiza- tion, chamber of commerce)? If a freight advisory committee or council does exist, announce the development of the LRP (or STIP/TIP, corridor study, or NEPA document preparation) at a regularly scheduled meeting—or organize a new meeting if the group is inactive—and share the anticipated role for stakeholders (e.g., when they will be called on to provide feedback, identify needs, evaluate criteria, offer strategies) and the time frame. If an ongoing group does not exist, DOT and MPO staff should develop a freight stakeholder list

45 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS most appropriate for the scope and scale of the study (i.e., smaller study likely would yield a smaller list of participants). The list could include major industry participants, motor carriers (or the regional or state trucking association), the railroads, and eco- nomic development stakeholders (such as the chamber of commerce), among others. The FHWA Guidebook for Engaging the Private Sector in Freight Planning provides more detail on forming a stakeholder advisory group for freight stakeholders. LONG-RANGE PLAN Freight projects and issues should be included in the LRP, and their number should be based on the role of freight transportation in either the region or state. Engagement of freight stakeholders during the development of the LRP should involve the formation or activation of a freight advisory committee or other collection of stakeholders to provide feedback during each phase of the process. A kickoff meet- ing at the outset of the project to discuss the scope (LRP 1), vision and goals (LRP 2), and system needs (LRP 4) can help members get acclimated to the process and provide insight into the priorities of system users. The LRP process has four critical decision points for freight. This is not to say that the other decision points are irrelevant; however, in a constrained environment (e.g., time, funding), engagement at these four decision points will yield the greatest value to the MPO or DOT planners in understanding freight interests. The four critical deci- sion points are as follows: • Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures LRP 3. • Approve Transportation Deficiencies, LRP 4. • Approve Strategies (Projects), LRP 6. • Approve Plan Scenarios, LRP 7. The following sections outline the role for freight stakeholders at each decision point in the long-range planning process and describe potential engagement activities and expected feedback from stakeholders following the engagement effort. LRP 1: Approve Scope of Long-Range Transportation Plan1 In many jurisdictions, the scope of the long-range plan includes several chapters or sections describing the role of different modes (e.g., bicycles, transit, airports, high- ways, rail, and pipeline) in the region’s or state’s transportation system. The movement of freight on the transportation system (i.e., the commodity flows on trucks, trains, through the air, through pipelines, and on the water) can generally be evaluated in one of two ways: 1. A separate freight modal section that includes a discussion of goods movement activities in the region on each mode; or 2. Discussion of how freight issues relate to travel on each mode within individual modal sections. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None

46 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Whichever method is selected, discussion should be included on the interconnec- tions between modes. For example, the Existing Facilities or Current Trends sections of the LRP may include information on the roadway network in the state or region, including annual average daily traffic (AADT) or volume to capacity (V/C) ratio data or maps and general trends or issues on the roadway network (i.e., key bottlenecks). To account for freight, the LRP could include an evaluation of data on existing truck routes, annual average daily truck traffic (AADTT), location of major freight facili- ties, and/or tables and charts on commodity flows by truck. The freight elements of the LRP should also consider the relationship of truck trips (and planned facilities) to other modal needs and plans, including bus and bicycle plans for that section of the freight corridor. The level of stakeholder involvement during the initial development of the scope and scale of the long-range plan is focused on marshaling resources and identifying an appropriate strategy for reaching out to the freight stakeholder community. Involve- ment with the freight stakeholder community during the early work is most effective in conjunction with decision points LRP 2 and LRP 4 to give the stakeholders not only the context of the study, but also some substantive information to which they can respond. Most of the efforts at this early stage should be on establishing a diverse and potentially engaged stakeholder group that can maintain involvement throughout the planning process. How to Engage: Engagement with stakeholders may be required at the outset of the study to begin to form or reactivate the group of participants the agency intends to engage throughout the process. This is often done through research and initial telephone and e-mail outreach to gauge interest. Planners should be sure to offer information on how the project would benefit the movement of freight in the region or state or the businesses of specific stakeholders. It should be noted that many chambers of commerce, local trucking organizations, and economic development departments keep lists of their membership and can even recommend stakeholders who might be responsive to queries about their involvement in the planning process. Feedback: Stakeholders can show interest in involvement in a stake- holder group and/or commitment to serve on a stakeholder advisory committee or council. Some might recommend others to serve either as their alternates or as additional members. ÆLRP-1

47 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 2: Approve Vision and Goals Freight stakeholders should also be consulted when developing the long-range trans- portation plan vision and goals, especially when economic development, business at- traction, and quality of life are concerned. Freight system users, like business leaders, manufacturers, and consumers, are able to provide insight into their long-range goals and objectives; and freight stakeholder outreach provides planners with a better un- derstanding of those goals. Certain key stakeholders (such as large BCOs, manufactur- ers, growers, and processors in the region) may provide insight into broader regional, national, or international trade and transportation trends that may affect future in- frastructure needs in the MPO region or state where the LRP is being developed. It is important to recognize and account for the potential incongruence between the plan- ning horizons of freight stakeholders, many of whom represent the private sector, and the planning horizon for the LRP. The LRP will have a planning horizon of 20 years or sometimes more, while many freight stakeholders might consider 2 to 5 years as a long-range planning horizon. Freight stakeholder involvement at this phase can be either minimal or moderate depending on resources or whether an existing freight advisory group can be reen- gaged. As already noted, it is usually best to consolidate the engagement activities, especially when several issues can be addressed at one time. Including the discussion of the scope of work, vision and goals, and other issues can help maximize the outreach effort and maintain goodwill with stakeholders in the freight community who might feel “fatigue” at constantly being asked for information and advice. During the development of the vision and goals, some participants such as major BCOs may be more focused on high-level issues (e.g., regional or national logistics and industry trends) and may be more interested in systemic highway improvements (national policies, connections between states). Motor carriers or local businesses may be more concerned with local access issues such as truck-turning radii, congestion on city streets, delivery schedules, and truck parking. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Insight from the Case Studies Coordinating Freight Stakeholder Engagement Between MPO and State Activities In a recent statewide planning effort—the Maryland Statewide Freight Plan—the Baltimore Metropolitan Council’s (BMC) Freight Movement Task Force (FMTF) was involved in organizing the region’s stakeholder response, which included helping identify members to serve on the advisory task force. The participants in the group were ex- pected to provide insight on evaluation criteria, visioning, and project identification. For other regional or statewide projects that required insight or data from stakeholders, this information has been provided through one-on-one interviews conducted by consultants or the BMC staff themselves.

48 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 3: Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures Performance measures are used in the development of long-range plans to prioritize projects and programs in the jurisdiction and provide ways to vet worthy projects in a constrained funding environment. Strategies for evaluating the efficiency and op- eration of freight-oriented facilities can differ from those used for other modes and should take into consideration the needs and goals of the freight users. Performance measures for evaluating freight projects can include both quantitative and qualita- tive measures. Evaluation criteria could include, among others, mobility or congestion considerations for trucks; access to clusters of manufacturing, logistics, or distribution activities; safety and security; and cost of operations.2 Trucking companies, railroads, and business representatives should be able to review and contribute to the development of performance criteria and evaluation methodolo- gies. Private stakeholders may suggest new metrics or provide access to data sources and other information to determine the impact of the long-range planning program on the existing and future goods movement operations. Smaller-scale freight stakeholders may not have a clear understanding of evaluation criteria or performance measures, but a more active freight advisory group may be able to validate the selection of specific performance measures with a relatively uniform voice. Soliciting the input of a freight advisory group at this point provides a chance to integrate the goals and requirements of system users into the planning process, leading to a better project outcome. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: A stakeholder kick- off meeting should be held to present the vision and goals of the overall long-range transportation plan. It is generally best to have stake holders respond to vision and goals that have already been at least partially devel- oped by staff since many will be un- familiar with the process. The project kickoff meeting to discuss informa- tion at these initial decision points could be combined with others. For example, one meeting could discuss freight needs relating to the scope of work (LRP 1), project vision and goals (LRP 2), and transportation needs (LRP 4). Feedback: Comments should be solicited from stakeholders on outreach strategy, project goals (and consistency with stakeholder goals), and recommendations for additional participants in the stakeholder group. ÆLRP-2

49 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 4: Approve Transportation Deficiencies (Needs Identification) Perhaps the most critical decision point for engaging freight stakeholders is the iden- tification of transportation deficiencies. Highway system deficiencies such as major inter change bottlenecks likely affect both the freight community and passenger com- munity (e.g., daily commutes, leisure travel, school trips). However, freight stake- holders will be able to identify concerns for the transportation system as it relates to truck and other goods movement mobility. These concerns may include geometric short comings (e.g., the turning radii for trucks exceeds the constructed turning apron), Insight from the Case Studies Vetting the Project List with Freight Stakeholders at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) When the LRP is developed, the Goods Movement Task Force (GMTF) at the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is presented with the opportunity to review and comment and provide an endorsement of the draft plan. This provides value to private-sector stakeholders; however, it is important for the public-sector organization to balance the amount of review required with the time constraints and level of inter- ests of certain stakeholders. Many stakeholders are satisfied with a review of the final product as a final check, as opposed to continually reviewing and providing feedback on draft plans. One very important component in the DVRPC outreach method was the distribution of only relevant sections of the draft LRP documents rather than the entire document for the private-sector freight stakeholders to review, saving participants’ time and more efficiently soliciting their feedback in the process. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Discussions with a freight advisory group (or an ad hoc collection of freight stakeholders) can help review and vet the evaluation criteria to be used in the long-range plan. It may be most practical to have preliminary criteria already developed so stakeholders can respond, instead of having them come up with criteria from scratch. This can also be done at a meeting with the goals (LRP 2) and deficiencies (LRP 4). Separately engaging freight-planning staff in other jurisdictions (e.g., cities within an MPO area or neighboring region) can help ensure consistency between identifying and promoting freight-beneficial projects throughout a region or state. Feedback: Private stakeholders can recommend or provide access to data sources and other information to de- termine the impact of the long-range planning program on the existing and future goods movement opera- tions. Freight participants can also help validate performance measures and evaluation framework to assess transportation projects for their rela- tive freight benefit. Æ LRP-3

50 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 5: Approve Financial Assumptions The discussion of financial assumptions (i.e., how the improvements outlined in the LRTP will be paid for) should take into consideration both the short- and long-term needs of the freight community. Explaining the planning and funding horizon (often at least 25 to 30 years) to freight stakeholders can sometimes be a challenge since they generally plan infrastructure and investments on a much shorter (often less than 2 to 5 years) time scale. Taking some time to explain the local, state, and federal funding and project finance processes can minimize confusion down the road (although it is probably best not to overwhelm stakeholders with all the details of highway finance). This decision point probably does not require a separate discussion with stakeholders unless there is significant interest in exploring public–private partnerships (PPP) or all new roads in the jurisdiction are toll roads (to discuss the impact on business). Freight stakeholders are often amenable to discussing PPP solutions to developing projects on a quicker time frame, but generally are only interested in “real” projects (i.e., projects that have dedicated funding or are expected to be completed in a relatively short time frame—3 to 5 years). peak travel demand for freight vehicles (e.g., deliveries, through trips from region to region), safety issues, and conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles. Freight users should be heavily involved in the discussion of needs to provide insight into how transportation infrastructure decisions can affect product flows, logistics, BCO supply chain strategies and decisions, shipment transit times, operating costs, and regional economic development. Some freight stakeholders, such as smaller motor carriers or BCOs that only operate in a small section of the study area, may not have the resources to participate in all these discussions, but they should be able to review and comment on data sources and lists of identified needs once developed. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Data collected through telephone or in-person interviews, charrette or stakeholder workshops, detailed surveys, and simple question and answer sessions in a meeting are effective methods. Meetings can also help validate survey/interview findings. Feedback: Survey/interview responses can include lists or valida- tion of infrastructure needs, specific bottleneck locations, and operational and institutional constraints that could be mitigated by transportation improvements. ÆLRP-4

51 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 6: Approve Strategies (Projects) This is one of the most crucial decision points, probably the second most important behind identification of needs, and the most important to many stakeholders, espe- cially daily users of the transportation system such as motor carriers. Proposed LRP projects and strategies should meet the needs and long-range goals of stakeholders and take into consideration future economic, logistics, and other goods movement trends. This decision point provides the opportunity to ensure that projects in the LRP provide benefit to freight users as well as other constituencies such as commuters, alternative mode advocates, and smart growth proponents. For nonconforming regions for air quality, some engagement of freight stakeholders can help planners develop alternative strategies, including projects to help reach attainment goals. DOTs and MPOs tend to focus on system capacity when determining which projects to put forward. Freight stakeholders need more than adequate system capacity (e.g., a different type of inter- section or grade on a highway on ramp, redundant/alternate routes). Planners should not overlook these other needs during the project design phase. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Input can be provided through the freight advi- sory committee or other stakeholder group as a review and comment item during regularly scheduled meetings or specific off-line discussion with key affected stakeholders. Feedback: There may be no feedback at this stage. However, in many parts of the country, such as in Central Ohio (MORPC), freight stakeholders have helped identify outside funding sources (such as fed- eral grants or partnerships) that may provide opportunities for regionally significant freight-beneficial projects to gain support from decision makers. If there are a lot of projects in the region that require private support, off-line discussion with certain stake- holders (major BCOs, railroads) may yield additional information on fund- ing or partnership opportunities. Æ LRP-5

52 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 7: Approve Plan Scenarios The approval of plan scenarios phase allows freight stakeholders to review the sce- narios that have been developed by staff to cover all issues and constituencies in the LRP process (e.g., transit, bicycles, commuters, land use, air quality, regulatory and other planning considerations). Agency staff involved in working with the freight com- munity and on freight issues should review plan scenarios to ascertain if freight consid- erations are included before presenting the plan to stakeholders. Stakeholders should then be given the opportunity to respond to the scenarios before they are compiled into a draft LRP for public review. The freight stakeholder community can also use this opportunity to prepare a letter of support to decision makers if there is consensus for the LRP to forward. Note that the final four decision points in the LRP process (LRP 8 through LRP 11) are typically administrative steps by the MPO or state transportation commission ensuring that the LRP is approved and adopted according to statute, with adequate public hearing. Freight stakeholders should have the opportunity and be encouraged to comment at public hearings, along with the public at large. Freight stakeholders will likely have little interest in direct engagement beyond this point; however, they may appreciate updates on public hearing times and venues and the status of the plan approval. These updates can be made through the mailing or distribution list associ- ated with the freight advisory committee or other ad hoc advisory group for the LRP process. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Review of the project list or LRP strategies might be a topic of discussion at a freight advisory group meeting. The meet- ing could be coupled with collecting information on needs (LRP 4) or dis- cussing long-term financing (LRP 5). A survey might allow respondents to propose potential solutions (e.g., add additional travel lanes on roadway X between highway Y and highway Z) to connect to a major BCO distribu- tion center. Feedback: Based on the evaluation criteria (LRP 3) and identification of needs (LRP 4), freight stakeholders can provide insight into a specific project and/or improvement strate- gies that would enhance the move- ment of goods in the region or state and meet the state's or region's goals (LRP 2). Many potential solutions to meet freight mobility needs may already be included in the potential project list from previous versions of the LRP not yet constructed. Atten- tion and recognition from the freight community can help highlight those projects with a benefit for goods movement flows. Stakeholders can also propose other projects that may not yet have been identified or considered. ÆLRP-6

53 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 8: Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario (Internal) There may or may not be a public comment component to officially selecting the LRP-preferred scenario. If the public is invited to participate in public meetings during this decision point, freight stakeholders may provide feedback to support preferred scenarios or projects. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None LRP 9: Adopt Finding of Conformity by MPO (Air Quality) The freight community is typically underrepresented in MPO and state air quality planning, except when there are major air quality issues and/ or a push for additional regulation on emissions from trucks. Air quality models may estimate truck air quality effects (mostly PM10), but freight stakeholders are not typically consulted, and the finding of conformity is a regulatory decision with no direct role for freight stake- holders. For nonconforming regions, planners should make a special effort to engage freight stakeholders, especially motor carriers, at earlier stages (especially LRP 4 and LRP 6) to help strategize about how to reach attainment goals as part of a broader regional or statewide transportation planning strategy. How to Engage: Freight stake- holder groups should be encour- aged to provide comments on the LRP scenarios or project list as they relate to freight. This could take the form of distributing the draft plan to some or all stakeholders who have been involved in the process and giving them a specific time frame in which to provide feedback. Another strategy would involve conducting a workshop or meeting to explain the final strategies and how stakeholder input was incorporated. Feedback: Freight stakeholders should be given ample opportunity during this phase to promote the plan scenario or project list that best meets their needs. This provides the best "last chance" for freight stakeholders to provide substantive feedback on the contents of the LRP before the administrative approval process begins. Æ LRP-7 How to Engage: Freight stake- holders should be invited to provide feedback on the preferred LRP plan scenario through the traditional pub- lic comment process. Feedback: Freight stakeholders can provide public comments to be com- piled by MPO or state DOT planners, to provide validation to the question: Did we get it right? Æ LRP-8

54 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS LRP 10: Adopt LRTP by MPO If freight stakeholders have participated throughout the planning process and pro- vided comments during the development of the draft LRP products, and especially the approval of plan scenarios (LRP 7 and LRP 8), minimal engagement should be required at this point. Still, stakeholders can be encouraged to remain involved in the public approval process through public comment. This will help ensure that freight needs are properly incorporated into the final adopted LRP. LRP 11: Approve Conformity Analysis (FHWA) This is an administrative decision by the FHWA and other regulatory agencies on the air quality attainment of a particular region. If an MPO is located in a nonattainment area, additional consultation with motor carriers may be needed if mitigation strate- gies would adversely affect transportation operations or costs. Otherwise, there is no role for freight stakeholders during this decision point. PROJECT PROGRAMMING—DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP/STIP) Building on the outreach strategies and findings from the development of the long-range transportation plan, the transportation improvement program (TIP) or state transpor- tation improvement program (STIP) identifies funding opportunities for projects and programs in the short and medium term. Many jurisdictions that construct the TIP or STIP directly from the LRP without much additional analysis and engagement with freight stakeholders should use information previously provided. That information in- cludes outreach performed during the LRP process or from the development of freight- specific plans. For example, if an MPO or state has developed a freight plan, the plan may identify freight-specific projects for potential inclusion in the TIP or STIP. Sometimes, the LRP and TIP/STIP are developed concurrently. Thus, the level of involvement of freight stakeholders during this planning phase should take into con- sideration the scale of the involvement during the LRP. If the processes of LRP and PRO are conducted concurrently, the planner should seek to inform the stakeholders of the process and consolidate interviews and surveys, stakeholder meetings and work- shops, and other engagement opportunities. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Freight stake- holders should be invited to provide feedback on the final LRP through the traditional public comment process. Feedback: Freight stakeholders can provide further public comments beyond the comments provided during the draft LRP review to ensure that freight issues are integrated into the final product. ÆLRP-10

55 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS The four critical decision points for the PRO process are as follows: • Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue, PRO 2. • Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set, PRO 3. • Approve Project Prioritization, PRO 4. • Reach Consensus on Draft TIP, PRO 5. The following sections outline the role for freight stakeholders at each decision point during the project programming phase. More robust levels of engagement during the TIP/STIP development process will likely be based on whether or not substantive in- formation was collected from freight stakeholders during the LRP process. More sub- stantive information collected during the development of the LRP probably will make less engagement with freight stakeholders necessary during the development of the TIP/STIP. PRO 1: Approve Revenue Sources The level of involvement during the approval of revenue sources decision point will de- pend largely on the type of stakeholders affected by the potential project or transporta- tion program. BCOs may have little interest at this early stage unless the transportation improvements or revenue options will cause their freight rates to increase (through higher tolls, longer routing, transit delays, or reduced freight carrier competition). Freight carriers (including the railroads) may want to be included in the discussion at this stage to highlight their opposition to or approval of alternative revenue sources; it may be possible to address this point in conjunction with other issues such as evalua- tion criteria. Different types of revenue proposals such as tolling of a certain roadway (but not a parallel roadway) could provide a competitive advantage for one mode/ BCO/motor carrier over another through changes in travel speed and reliability and cost of shipments. Large or very complex transportation projects might necessitate earlier coordination with key freight stakeholders to identify potential PPP oppor- tunities. Many DOTs and MPOs begin an early dialogue with these stakeholders to solicit private-sector financial support for projects beneficial to private industry. These discussions can take place in either a public or private forum, but potential solutions should be vetted by the overall freight stakeholder community. Revenue supporting transportation projects for the TIP/STIP are based on a variety of sources (federal and state gasoline taxes, air quality improvement funds, congestion management funding sources, and local and regional sales taxes). Freight stakeholders have little role in the approval of revenue sources; however, they should be presented with the revenue information to help them understand a constrained funding environ- ment and convey the importance of project prioritization. This information may best be presented in the context of the next phase, Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None

56 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS PRO 2: Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue Freight projects have the same opportunity to compete for funds as other projects; however, few jurisdictions nationally have a defined TIP/STIP funding category for freight projects, as opposed to having a separate category for rail, transit, bicycle, or other nonhighway modal projects. Finding strategies to ensure that freight-oriented or freight-beneficial projects receive the appropriate designation and attention may improve funding outcomes. Highway projects with more vocal constituencies might be prioritized over freight-oriented projects simply because they garner less support from decision makers. It should be noted that all highway projects serve freight users in some form—even if only by improving the route for a local delivery by the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, FedEx, or other couriers. The methodology for allocating funds should highlight benefits that improve the connection between freight transportation facilities such as warehouses, manufacturing plants, and distribution centers and customers, or enhance the flow of goods on the highway network through capacity improvements and operational enhancements. Insight from the Case Studies The Freight Transportation Improvement Program (F-TIP) The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) is the MPO for Columbus, Ohio. MORPC has focused on ways to better prioritize freight projects using the TIP. Its process has culminated in the development of an F-TIP—a subset listing of projects in the TIP that have a strong benefit for freight. The inclusion of projects in the F-TIP is not a particularly scientific process. Rather, MPO staff—with input from the private- and public-sector freight communities—identify the roads and other facilities in the region that access key freight areas. The F-TIP is developed after the TIP so only those projects expected to be funded are included in the F-TIP. Truck counts and other readily avail- able data including potential fuel consumption reductions from improvements may be used to validate the inclusion of certain corridors. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None

57 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS PRO 3: Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set The decision point during the LRP process that identifies a proposed project list should already have identified a list of freight needs from a combination of stake- holder outreach and data analysis. If the LRP adequately used available data and sought input from the private sector to develop a list for programming consideration, this decision point may not require much additional discussion of freight projects and engagement of freight stakeholders. However, this is a critical decision point with extensive engagement required to ensure that the freight project needs are reflected in the project programming process and that freight stakeholders have been given an adequate opportunity to provide their feedback on the project list. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Outreach can be done during advisory committee meetings or through telephone inter- views with key stakeholders who have relevant knowledge of or interest in the benefits of freight projects. This process can use criteria and metrics similar to those developed for the LRTP. For regions with a large role for private funding of transportation (toll roads), additional interviews can be conducted with motor carrier and transportation industry executives to validate toll and revenue assumptions and potential supply chain impacts. Feedback: Recommendations of the benefits to freight users resulting from improvements to the highway system and/or validation and buy-in of the ranking criteria should be solicited. Æ PRO-2 How to Engage: The project list should be shared with freight stakeholders at an advisory commit- tee meeting or through surveys and interviews. Because several months may have passed since the LRP pro- cess concluded (along with a possible transition of DOT or MPO staff, new political figures, or changing regional economic needs), at this decision point planners can reengage with freight stakeholders and provide them with a tangible list of freight-oriented projects to respond to regarding inclusion in the TIP/STIP. Feedback: Comments on whether all freight needs are accommodated in the existing project list will come at this point. This is especially crucial if the TIP/STIP is developed on a sepa- rate time frame from the LRP, and worthy new projects might need to be integrated into the TIP/STIP. Æ PRO-3

58 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None PRO 4: Approve Project Prioritization Stakeholders should be involved in the development of criteria and prioritization methods to ensure the process reflects economic realities during the PRO 2 decision point. PRO 4 also is a critical decision point and is used for stakeholders to review how the methodology prioritized the projects. It is conceivable at this phase that the evaluation criteria might be modified if it appears that the ranking of worthy proj- ects looks unreasonable. The ranking methodology also could be vetted with some test projects to ensure that the criteria meet the needs of constituents. Since there is often no dedicated funding stream for freight-beneficial projects, these projects need to be highlighted in other ways. Identifying other benefits of the projects, beyond the economic and mobility benefits for trucks such as “improves safety” or “promotes economic development,” is important. The benefits from a freight perspective would have been captured in PRO 2. Insight from the Case Studies Project Prioritization for Freight The Seattle Freight Advisory Board (SFAB), managed through the City of Seattle DOT, has wrestled with properly prioritizing freight projects for many years. The freight project prioritization methodology differs from other modes to some extent. For example, it recognizes challenges such as physical clearances and weight limitations. In this regard, the input from freight stakeholders is essential to ensure that projects accommodate the special needs of certain products, such as overdimensional cargo. How to Engage: The most effec- tive outreach methods during this phase include stakeholder meetings, interviews, or surveys to understand the highway improvements that would best meet stakeholder needs. If stakeholders had previously been involved in the vetting of the evalu- ation criteria, they should not have any issues with the results. Feedback: Freight stakeholders should review the selected projects most beneficial for freight against both other freight-beneficial projects and those projects less important to freight movement. This is especially important if there is no designated freight project category in the TIP. Freight stakeholders could help planners identify the value of proj- ects (e.g., monetary, time) to freight movement. ÆPRO-4

59 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS PRO 5: Reach Consensus on Draft TIP One of the four critical decision points on which to engage stakeholders during the project programming process is the review of the draft TIP. Private-sector stakehold- ers indicated during the development of case studies that this was the most important decision point for many of them, simply because they often did not have the time or knowledge of the planning process to remain involved throughout. Stakeholders may want to review the outcome of the prioritization process to know how well the proj- ects that are most important to them have been ranked. Thus they still have the oppor- tunity to provide input. While members of the freight community may not agree with the methods or procedures the approving body (generally the DOT commission or MPO board) uses to reach its decisions, it is important that they are able to comment before those deliberations. In addition, freight stakeholders should have the oppor- tunity to review how decision makers plan to allocate any freight-specific funds (e.g., funding for National Highway System Intermodal Connectors, TIGER grant monies, environmental mitigation funds). Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Insight from the Case Studies Avoiding Stakeholder Fatigue The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC), in Columbus, Ohio, has ex- tensive experience in engaging the freight stakeholder community. For many years the MPO has cooperated with the regional Chamber of Commerce to promote activity and address needs at the Rickenbacker Inland Port in Columbus. The entity that facilitates this engagement is the Columbus Region Logistics Council (CRLC), on which both MPO and chamber staff serve. In addition to providing feedback during the long-range planning process and TIP development, the CRLC plays a role in soliciting outreach for specific freight-planning studies. The CRLC holds regular meetings and has initiated a range of projects in recent years, including the Central Ohio Logistics Roadmap. In addition, MORPC has con- ducted major studies on access to Rickenbacker. Effective outreach methods with freight stakeholders have included one-on-one discus- sions and interviews, as well as presentations during scheduled meetings. Focus groups have also played a major role in providing feedback from industry, especially during recent studies. Feedback has been much more effective when the stakeholders were responding to a specific product or issue. Before these cooperative engagement efforts were codified, MORPC sometimes re- ceived feedback from stakeholders identifying concerns such as the long duration and occasional lack of focus during stakeholder meetings and a limited understanding of private-sector interests. In response, the MPO set a consistent schedule for meetings, outlined expectations of membership, and developed specific agendas for meetings.

60 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS PRO 6: Adopt TIP by MPO This decision point is a procedural action by the decision-making body (generally the MPO board or state transportation commission) to officially adopt the TIP/STIP. However, the adoption process is sometimes driven by multiple public meetings in which freight stakeholders can take part. Their involvement can help promote desired projects and programs that have a discernible benefit for goods movement flows. The direct involvement by freight stakeholders at this stage is minimal, but planners can encourage and help organize the stakeholders with whom they work to turn out for the public meetings and provide a face to the needs of this important constituency. Some DOTs and MPOs have a specially identified transportation improvement pro- gram for freight; freight-beneficial projects are highlighted through stakeholder input or parallel freight-planning processes. Drawing attention to these projects can help not only in the project prioritization but also can open up the MPO or DOT to additional outside support when freight-specific funding sources become available. Note that the final three decision points in the PRO process are typically admin- istrative steps by the MPO or state transportation commission, ensuring that the TIP/ STIP is approved and adopted according to statute, with adequate public hearing, similar to the adoption of the LRP. Freight stakeholders should have the opportunity and be encouraged to comment at public hearings, along with participants from the public at large; however, they would likely have little interest in direct engagement beyond this point. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: The draft project list should be presented at a freight advisory committee or other stake- holder meeting to gain feedback or solicit responses through direct mail- ings to key stakeholder groups. The list should clearly identify top and secondary priority projects and the expected time frame for implementa- tion, as well as some background on how the project evaluation system was applied. Feedback: Stakeholders should review and provide comment on the draft document to ensure that freight issues and other needs, identified previously, are addressed by projects in the TIP/STIP. ÆPRO-5 How to Engage: Based on previous input, agency staff can invite freight stakeholders to participate in public meetings, write letters of recommen- dation to promote certain projects, and generally support freight benefi- cial improvements through discus- sions with policy makers. Feedback: Public comments from freight stakeholders are compiled by MPO/DOT staff.ÆPRO-6

61 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None PRO 7: Approve TIP by Governor or His Designee and Incorporate into STIP During this decision point, agency staff should review the STIP or TIP to ensure that all projects included meet federal, state, or regional requirements and appropriately represent freight interests in the study area. There is no role for freight stakeholders during this decision point. PRO 8: Reach Consensus on Draft STIP Planning groups at the state DOT will develop consensus on the STIP and prepare draft documents for public review and comment. Freight stakeholders can be invited to comment, along with the general public, although they would already have had the opportunity to do so at a regional level during PRO 6 (this phase presents projects at the statewide level). This decision point can still provide an important opportunity to engage portions of the state (e.g., non-MPO portions) in helping prioritize short-term investments that would benefit freight. For example, agricultural and rural portions of the state could use this as an opportunity to ensure that projects represent their inter- ests and meet their needs. PRO 9: Approve STIP with Respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint This decision point is only a procedural action by DOT commissions or boards to ap- prove the final STIP, along with the U.S. DOT. This decision point does not involve freight stakeholders. CORRIDOR PLANNING Corridor studies, especially those that explore improvements on major freight routes, provide opportunities not only to better understand the movement of goods and logistics patterns, but also to explore both capacity and operational improvements that could meet the needs of system users. Because corridors link production, processing/ storage, and consumption activities that can span vast geographies, corridor studies should be led by the state DOT or a consortium involving the DOT, the MPOs, or other jurisdictions on the route. These efforts may depend on the support of DOT dis- trict office staff, local governments, and other planning organizations such as land use, zoning, or economic development staff in the study. If the corridor study is focused on an important freight corridor (e.g., proposing truck-only lanes or major access improvements to facilities such as a seaport, cargo airport, or rail yard), freight stake- holders should be engaged as early and often in the process as possible. Engagement with stakeholders during the corridor planning process (COR) can build on previous engagement efforts, although it is critical to identify stakeholders who have a defined interest within the study corridor itself (such as operators of warehouses on the cor- ridor or a major facility operator such as an airport, seaport, or rail yard). Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None

62 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Sometimes corridor studies can have relatively short project limits, such as a local truck corridor. When defining the freight corridor—whether it spans hundreds of miles or just a few miles—DOT and MPO planners should recognize that freight corridors are defined by use, not by arbitrary milepost cutoffs. Regardless of corridor length, planners should ensure that stakeholders that actually operate within the study cor- ridor are involved in the corridor planning process. A kickoff meeting at the outset of the corridor study project to talk about the problem statement and opportunities (COR 2) and goals for the corridor (COR 3) can provide a solid foundation for stakeholder engagement. That foundation will be valu- able during subsequent phases of the study when planners seek to identify strategies and solutions for solving the corridor’s issues. There are four crucial decision points for freight in the corridor planning process. These decision points will yield the greatest value to the MPO or DOT planners as they seek to recognize freight interests and mobility concerns along the corridor in ques- tion. The four critical decision points for the COR process are as follows: 1. Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities, COR 2. 2. Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures (Potential Solutions), COR 5. 3. Approve Range of Solution Sets, COR 6. 4. Adopt Preferred Solution Set, COR 7. The following sections outline the role for freight stakeholders at each decision point, as well as engagement activities and strategies and expected feedback from stakeholders following the engagement effort. It is important to note that attention to issues such as tolling, hours of operation, and known regional logistics trends Insight from the Case Studies Engaging a Broad Range of Stakeholders In Atlanta, Georgia, the Georgia DOT planning team for the Georgia Statewide Freight and Logistics Plan has worked to identify appropriate freight stakeholders for its outreach efforts. Before the development of the plan, Georgia DOT generally worked with a relatively small core group of freight stakeholders—including the Georgia Motor Trucking Association, Georgia Ports Authority, and representatives from the major rail and airport sectors—on both its long-range and corridor planning efforts. The elevated profile of freight transportation planning throughout the latter 2000s prompted the governor to initiate a Freight and Logistics Task Force; that group expanded the scope of outreach efforts to include a broader range of stakeholders and a more formal stake- holder advisory group of high-profile industry representatives. For corridor planning in Georgia, if the corridor study includes a major freight interest or issue, Georgia DOT might convene a separate freight stakeholder outreach initiative. Georgia DOT has experienced more constructive stakeholder engagement when out- reach methods are customized for the local environment.

63 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS (e.g., prominent trucking corridors or a situation in which the only way a particular improvement would be funded is through tolls) could influence the scope and scale of the corridor study and might drive additional analysis. An example would be includ- ing a related tolling evaluation in the corridor study to determine stakeholders’ views on the topic. Stakeholder lists from previous planning efforts can be used with special attention paid to coverage within the corridor plan area. COR 1: Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Services The lead agency in corridor studies develops the scope of work of the corridor study based on previous analyses and traffic studies (which often were conducted during long-range planning exercises or regional freight studies) and determines if the cor- ridor requires a more extensive evaluation of specific issues or a specific improvements strategy. The LRP and freight-planning processes will have also helped the DOT or MPO gain a better understanding of important freight corridors in the state. Freight stakeholders can also ask the MPO to initiate a corridor study based on identified needs or growth potential. COR 2: Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities The identification of problem statements and opportunities (i.e., needs) along a par- ticular highway corridor requires extensive engagement with freight stakeholders. De- pending on trade issues or logistics patterns within the corridor (e.g., proximity to a seaport, distribution centers, manufacturing facilities, truck-lane corridor), freight stakeholders may provide immense value by helping define the limits of the study and supplying data on truck volumes at specific interchanges, future business expansion plans, and physical and operational issues. If the corridor is expected to be a tolled facility, freight stakeholders (especially motor carriers) should also be interviewed to validate assumptions and potential supply chain reactions (e.g., will the toll affect the supply chain cost structure in a way that would lead to disinvestment on the cor- ridor?). The identification of needs and opportunities is probably the most important role that freight stakeholders can play during the development of corridor plans and is a critical decision point. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Telephone or in- person interviews or survey outreach should be conducted to determine freight stakeholder needs within the corridor and to recognize existing logistics patterns, planned develop- ment opportunities, and regional commodity flows. Feedback: A list of needs and issues for freight users within the corridor plan area, including a validation of appropriate project limits, access is- sues, and other challenges will result. In some circumstances, freight stake- holders may be able to provide ad- ditional detail on their operations that would aid in the study of the corridor (e.g., key distribution facilities, truck traffic levels at certain interchanges, primary hours of operation for users). Æ COR-2

64 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS COR 3: Approve Goals for the Corridor The goals for the corridor will be developed in consultation with planning staff, as well as a broad range of stakeholder interests (including local governments; pedestrian, bicycle, and transit interests; freight users; and commuters). As willing participants in the planning process, freight stakeholders, along with other users of the system, have a role in approving those goals. Whether or not the corridor is a major truck route, freight stakeholders can help in the planning process and validation of goals by pro- viding data on logistics patterns, truck volumes, and expectations for future growth in business within the project limits of the corridor plan. This information is beneficial during the previous decision point, and the engagement efforts should be combined. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Insight from the Case Studies Freight Stakeholders’ Role in Evaluating Projects During a Corridor Study Often when the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in San Diego, California, is undertaking a corridor study (especially along a major truck route), freight stakeholders are involved in forming evaluation criteria and vetting projects. SANDAG currently uses evaluation criteria for projects that provide additional “points” for freight benefit(s); this practice allows those projects to gain increased recognition in project prioritization. Additionally, freight considerations are included in the multimodal project evaluation framework, and freight projects have the opportunity to compete for Propo- sition 1B funds (a source of state funding) to reduce air pollution emissions in California. How to Engage: It is important to discuss goals during the outreach efforts from COR 2, including one- on-one interviews and surveys. Feedback: This phase allows stake- holders to share insights into how corridor improvements might affect their cost structure and operational activities and benefit not only the freight community, but the motoring public as well. For example, freight stakeholders can guide the develop- ment of goals for a truck-only lane corridor study revolving around not only operational improvements but also a reduced risk for accidents involving trucks. The level of engage- ment with freight stakeholders at this decision point depends greatly on the importance of the corridor to regional and statewide freight movement. ÆCOR-3

65 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS COR 4: Reach Consensus on Scope of Social, Cultural, Natural, Environmental Review and Analysis The work of planning staff to reach consensus on the scope of the social, cultural, natural, and environmental review does not require any engagement with the freight stakeholder community. However, during this decision point, planners should high- light those traffic operational issues—including the movement of freight—that might lead to environmental impacts from noise, hazardous waste, and air quality. The deci- sion on the scope of environmental review is made by planners based on the perceived impacts from a project. COR 5: Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures (Potential Solutions) The approval of the evaluation criteria and performance measures for a corridor study is a critical decision point for freight stakeholders and requires extensive engagement. Suggested performance measures that are important to industry stakeholders include traffic and/or truck volume, velocity (average mph), capacity (existing and future truck or rail volume), congestion levels (during normal and peak traffic periods—which, for freight, may differ from traditional commute times), pollution index (carbon emis- sions, especially diesel particulates), and safety considerations (crashes/fatalities or highway/rail grade crossings). Performance measures used by the DOT or MPO orga- nization may not accurately account for logistics considerations or goods movement flows on major freight corridors; efforts should be made by planners to better under- stand the influences of logistics patterns within the corridor study area, with insight from specific stakeholders. Listening attentively to freight stakeholder input improves project outcomes. Insight from the Case Studies Freight Stakeholders' Role in Defining Goals During Corridor Planning During the corridor planning process for the I70 truck lanes in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, the lead proponents of the study made the effort to reach out to the trucking community. In 2009, after preliminary discussions on the project purpose, the state DOTs from each of the coalition states met with representatives from each of the four state trucking associations, an owner-operator association, and one large motor carrier to introduce the project and obtain initial feedback. Stakeholders expressed interest in gaining more information about the project focus and how it related to individual state planning efforts. The coalition states did not form a formal freight advisory committee for the project, instead utilizing ad hoc meetings and focus groups to identify needs and explore opportunities for the corridor, such as the use of longer-combination/higher-productivity vehicles. Representatives from the private sector revealed their priorities for the corridor early on in the project development process. Those priorities included identifying operational and access issues from the project, resolving revenue and cost issues, and improving the understanding of benefits from the project (e.g., safety benefits). Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None

66 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS COR 6: Approve Range of Solution Sets Potential solution sets to address corridor issues could include capacity improvements, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), or other safety improvements; classification upgrade or downgrade; or any other combination of these solutions. Solution sets will drive the improvement program or allocation of funding, as well as influence the potential for PPPs. This is a critical decision point for freight stakeholders; however, distinct freight stakeholder groups may find value in different solutions depending on their own operational needs. For example, some motor carriers proximate to the cor- ridor may support a certain type of access improvement based on their own routing needs; a BCO may have more interest in a broader solution that provides mobility benefits for motor carriers traveling through the study area. There does not necessarily have to be consensus from all freight stakeholders; however, BCOs and carriers may want their preferred solutions to be highlighted by the DOT or MPO during the next decision point. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Planners should prepare potential evaluation cri- teria and provide them to freight stakeholders through e-mail, mail, or posting on a project website to solicit feedback. Since many freight stakeholders may be unfamiliar with the process for evaluating transporta- tion projects, a workshop or other activity (participants may include only a specially invited subset of the larger stakeholder committee) to discuss, validate, and approve evaluation criteria may be necessary. Feedback: Freight stakeholders can validate selected performance measures or suggest other measures to evaluate the effects of projects on the movement of freight throughout the corridor (e.g., the potential for diversion from truck to rail). ÆCOR-5 How to Engage: If there is an active freight stakeholder group, this en- gagement can include a presentation to the group on the various potential solutions for improving the corridor. Surveys or other outreach tools can be used to allow freight stakeholders to rank the solutions based on the previ- ously vetted evaluation criteria and other input collected throughout the development of the corridor study. Feedback: Freight stakeholders can provide feedback and recom- mendations for the solution(s) that best support economic development and their operations (e.g., routing, other logistics considerations). Each participant can rank the solution sets, allowing planners to winnow the list of preferred solutions and promote those most beneficial to the freight community. ÆCOR-6

67 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS COR 7: Adopt Preferred Solution Set The adoption of the preferred solution set provides the final opportunity to engage freight stakeholders and also is a critical decision point. During this decision point, DOT and MPO planners propose that the board of the organization adopt a particu- lar solution set. This decision point takes on additional urgency if previous outreach efforts have not provided the opportunity to vet all the potential solutions. The COR 7 decision point thus allows freight stakeholders to review those solutions promoted through the MPO and DOT staff analysis and outreach with other stakeholder groups. Freight stakeholders should be engaged again to confirm the preferred solution that would be meeting the needs of freight users. Ideally, this engagement would occur dur- ing the approval of solution sets (COR 6). Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None COR 8: Approve Evaluation Criteria and Methodology for Prioritization (Implementation) The last two decision points require only minimal engagement with freight stake- holders. Decision point COR 8 involves the approval of the evaluation criteria for the selected solution set. Outreach with freight stakeholders during COR 5 would have provided adequate information for determining stakeholder views on appropriate cri- teria. If freight stakeholders have provided adequate feedback during COR 5 (or other previous phases), there is little need for further interaction. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: In addition to vali- dating the preferred solutions during COR 6, freight stakeholders should be encouraged to submit comments along with the general public when the final solution is being considered for adoption. Feedback: Stakeholders can provide feedback on their preferred solution either during COR 6 or in response to a separate outreach effort. Some- times, if the stakeholder group represents more homogeneous inter- ests, a letter can be produced to the planning board promoting a particu- lar solution as best representing the interests of the freight community. Æ COR-7 How to Engage: This can be a confirmation item during regularly scheduled stakeholder meetings. If there are no ongoing meetings, stakeholders do not necessarily have to be reengaged for this decision point unless the MPO or DOT plan- ners feel there is a particular dearth of input from freight stakeholders on evaluation criteria. Feedback: Stakeholders can provide valuable insight into the economic impacts of decisions as well as pro- vide background data and informa- tion on how sequencing of projects may affect logistics decisions. How- ever, this information may be more valuable during the identification of potential solutions. Æ COR-8

68 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS COR 9: Adopt Priorities for Implementation The adoption of the solution sets recommended in the corridor study is at the discre- tion of the MPO or DOT staff. These agencies should already have considered the input, including priority areas for improvements of all stakeholder groups, including freight stakeholders. There is minimal involvement with freight stakeholders during this decision point. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PERMITTING (NEPA PROCESS) There is a growing body of literature on integrating freight into the NEPA process, most notably the 2010 FHWA planning guide, Integrating Freight into NEPA Analysis (http:// ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight). These resources describe not only the data and information needed for proper evaluation of freight interests during a NEPA study but also provide some insight into how to assimilate freight stakeholder outreach into the already robust public involvement process. The critical decision points for engaging freight stakeholders during the NEPA process correlate with those identified during the LRP, PRO, and COR phases: identifying needs and appropriate evaluation criteria, determining appropriate solutions, and reviewing and validating the draft document—in this case, a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. The following sections outline the role for freight stakeholders at each decision point, as well as engagement activities and strategies and expected feedback from stakeholders following the engagement effort. ENV 1: Reach Consensus Scope of Environmental Review The first decision point in the environmental review process is to reach consensus on the scope of that environmental review. Although the lead agency role in the NEPA process for highway projects generally falls to the FHWA, state DOTs play a major role in coordinating technical studies and environmental analysis. Depending on the perceived level of impact of the project, FHWA and the state DOT staff work with other participating and cooperating stakeholders (e.g., federal, state, and local his- toric preservation organizations; federal and state departments of fish and wildlife; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to determine the level of environmental document and permitting approvals required. While there is no legal requirement for stakeholder participation at this point, it may be good practice to involve shippers, carriers, and goods receivers when determining the scope of the environmental review. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Freight stake- holders, as part of the general public review and comment, should be invited to submit feedback on the final corridor plan. Feedback: Public comments from freight stakeholders are compiled by DOT planners.ÆCOR-9

69 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS ENV 2: Approve and Publish the Notice of Intent This decision point involves a procedural action by the lead agency. The notice of intent (NOI) to begin the NEPA process and prepare an environmental document is placed in the Federal Register, typically by the FHWA for highway projects. When the NOI is published, planners should advise their regional freight stakeholders that the NOI is in the Federal Register. Freight stakeholders should take note of the level of environmental document approved in the register to determine the time frame for ap- proval and the level of stakeholder outreach recommended during the environmental review process. No addi tional engagement is needed with freight stakeholders at this point in the NEPA process. ENV 3/PER-1: Approve Purpose and Need/Reach Consensus on Project Purpose The approval of the purpose and need is a critical decision point for the engage- ment of freight stakeholders during the NEPA process. At this point, stakeholders of all kinds, including those representing the goods movement community can describe the importance of the project to economic development, improved regional logistics, and enhanced flows of goods and services to, from, and within the community. The purpose and need is the justification for the project and is a critical decision point to promote worthy projects for freight. Stakeholders should be encouraged to provide feedback on what information should be included in the purpose and need to repre- sent freight interests. Since the statement of purpose and need is sometimes composed with technical language more familiar to environmental professionals, it might help to have stakeholders respond to the purpose and need once it has been developed, rather than trying to develop a freight purpose and need from scratch. This is espe- cially critical if the project is intended to support economic development or retain Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Insight from the Case Studies Freight Stakeholder Outreach During the NEPA Process The Columbia River Crossing (CRC)—a project of the DOTs for Oregon and Washington State in the Portland, Oregon/Vancouver, Washington, area—formally entered the NEPA process in 2005. As part of the public outreach process for the project, a 39-member task force was established to determine the project’s vision, values, purpose, and needs. The task force comprised freight stakeholders on both sides of the river, including the ports of Portland and Vancouver USA, motor carriers, BCOs, and business people, as well as environmental groups, neighborhood associations, municipalities, and other govern- ment agencies. In 2007, a freight working group with approximately 13 members was established to ensure that freight needs were adequately addressed. Members served on the working group until 2011, and the group continued into 2012 on an ad hoc basis to help inform final design and construction planning of the CRC bridge alternative. The group helped educate CRC staff, government officials, and the public about the nuances of how freight moves in the Portland/Vancouver metro region and how the multimodal transportation system is used.

70 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None business and increase jobs under a competitive funding program such as TIGER. Freight stakeholders should be engaged by the DOT or MPO planners to promote the case of industry. MPO staff can play an invaluable role in identifying appropriate stakeholders to participate in advisory committees or working groups throughout the duration of the NEPA process. ENV 4/PER-2: Approve Public Notice/Reach Consensus on Study Area This decision point involves an administrative action by DOT or MPO planners and is a regulatory requirement for Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permitting. There is no role for freight stakeholders during this decision point. However, during the approval of the purpose and need, freight stakeholders will have had the opportunity to review the study area limits for the environmental review to ensure that logistics consider- ations are accounted for (i.e., the study area for the project encompasses or is directly adjacent to key regional or statewide freight transportation facilities such as bridges, rail yards, or major manufacturing activity clusters). ENV 5: Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures As with the other three phases in the highway planning process—long-range plan- ning, project programming, and corridor planning—the confirming of the evalua- tion criteria and performance measures is a critical decision point for freight stake- holders. If available, information should be collected from previous planning efforts on evaluation criteria that have been used in the jurisdiction during other phases of the planning process. Moderate engagement of freight stakeholders provides insight on appropriate data sources that allow planners to properly evaluate project alterna- tives and costs and benefits. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Especially for projects with an important freight interest, such as a major trucking corridor, freight stakeholders should be involved to help the lead agency develop and review the purpose and need for the project. Since this is an early part of the NEPA process, the discussion of purpose and need can take place during a kickoff meeting or other introductory presentation associated with the NEPA process. Freight stakeholders might partici- pate as part of a larger community advisory group for the project or as a stand-alone group representing goods movement interests alone. Feedback: At this decision point, freight stakeholders can describe the importance of the project for regional economic development, as well as mobility, safety, and other benefits for freight in the region. They can provide source data, such as the number of trucks on a certain corridor or the anticipated reduction in delay from an improved highway. Stakeholders can also share insight on potential disbenefits associated with not completing the project. ÆENV-3

71 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS ENV 6/PER-3: Approve Full Range of Alternatives/Approve Resource Agency Public Notice This decision point is one of the most crucial and provides freight stakeholders the oppor- tunity to review and comment on the proposed project alternatives before they have been winnowed down to a few to be carried forward for detailed evaluation. Freight stake- holders may have a unique ability to identify project alternatives that hold a key interest for goods movement, which might not be recognized by other stakeholder groups or planning staff. Stakeholders can then provide a range of project preferences and justifica- tion as to the benefits and impacts associated with one alternative or another. Insight from the Case Studies Freight Stakeholders Help Develop Evaluation Criteria During the public outreach process for the CRC EIS, DOT and MPO staff from Oregon DOT, Washington State DOT, and other agencies used several different methods to evaluate alternatives to ensure they met the project’s purpose and need statement. These methods included actively soliciting stakeholder feedback at meetings, encour- aging official public comment, and establishing the freight working group (the freight advisory committee for the project). The freight working group was the first group to review early design details of the bridge and evaluation criteria for project alternatives to ensure freight needs were addressed. A performance measures advisory group was formed, as well as a focus group to evaluate various plans for the Marine Drive Inter- change between I5 and the Port of Portland and industrial areas. Freight stakeholders participated in both of these groups. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Freight stake- holders should be invited to provide feedback on already-de- veloped performance measures and data that can be used to evaluate construction and traffic impacts, as well as long-term routing decisions resulting from the highway improvement. This can be done during ongoing stakeholder advisory committee discussions or through targeted outreach (letters, surveys) to potentially affected freight stakeholders. Many organiza- tions use a subgroup of freight stakeholders who may have a clearer understanding of, or more experience with, the public planning process to vet performance measures and evaluation criteria. Feedback: Validation of the perfor- mance measures and data used in the alternatives evaluation results.Æ ENV-5

72 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None ENV 7/PER-4: Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward The decision point to approve alternatives to be carried forward for full environ mental review takes into consideration feedback from the lead agency, participating and coopera ting organizations (including resource agencies), interest groups, and stake- holders. Often, the lead agency starts with a very large list of distinct alternatives, some having strong similarities with one another and with a range of implementa- tion strategies, costs, perceived impacts, and benefits. To provide a more comprehen- sive evaluation of project alternatives, planners often screen a list of full alternatives (ENV 6) and develop a more manageable list of alternatives for the comprehensive environmental review. For example, the full list might include eight project alterna- tives, but only three—including a no-build alternative—might receive full environ- mental evaluation.3 To determine which alternatives are desired by the widest group of stakeholders, freight community representatives can continue to be engaged in a freight advisory committee or be included on a larger community advisory committee. Insight from the Case Studies Developing Goods Movement Alternatives for the I-710 Corridor in Los Angeles County, California During the course of developing the I-710 major corridor study in 2005 (a precursor to the NEPA document), the study team conducted interviews with private-sector freight stakeholders to help identify traffic/air quality impacts and to screen alternatives. Their input helped create several goods movement alternative scenarios to be evaluated in the environmental analysis. These scenarios maximized goods movement benefits within the corridor through both capacity enhancements and transportation system management and technology alternatives. How to Engage: During both the alternatives analysis and development of a preferred alternative, the lead agency should identify a group of freight stakeholders representative of a variety of interests (e.g., BCOs, motor carriers, alternative modes such as rail and ports) and conduct direct engage- ment activities (such as charettes or workshops on project benefits) to help the group understand each alternative. Feedback: Ideally, stakeholders can classify those alternatives that have the greatest benefit for freight interests, to help planning staff consolidate the list of alternatives. Stakeholders may also simply identify acceptable alternatives that meet their needs. ÆENV-6

73 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS ENV 8/PER-5: Approve Draft EIS/Reach Consensus on Jurisdictional Determination During the development of the draft EIS, environmental professionals should continue to engage freight stakeholders to help properly measure the costs and benefits associated with the preferred and/or other alternatives. The draft EIS includes an explanation of the environmental impacts, as well as the recognized costs and benefits associated with each alternative, and recommends a preferred alternative from the lead agency’s perspective that best meets the needs of the organization and considers input from all constituents. The public review period for the draft EIS can range from 30 to 90 days, depending on the complexity of the project and the range of issues. Freight stakeholders have no role in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for permitting purposes (PER-5) because the responsibility for securing permits lies with the lead agency. However, if issues related to right-of-way, encroachments, or other constraints might affect a freight stakeholder representative, DOT staff would best be served by engaging those stakeholders early. An example of a project that would warrant such engagement is a bridge or over- pass improvement that crosses over a railroad right-of-way. Environmental impacts (in this example) would have to include the potential impacts on rail operations dur- ing design, staging, and construction, and this information would be included in the environmental document. Publishing the draft EIS provides not only the stakeholders who are directly engaged but also the general public the opportunity to comment on potential impacts from the project that may or may not already have been addressed. The review of the draft EIS is a critical decision point for freight, and it is important for the DOT to engage stakeholders to ensure that the project alternative most benefi- cial for freight is properly highlighted. It is possible that the alternatives with the most benefit for freight do not “make the cut” during the alternatives screening process. If so, this decision point provides another opportunity to review and comment on the conclusions of the environmental document. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: Stakeholders should be encouraged to participate in the alternatives analysis process, by attending public meetings and mak- ing their preferred alternative known to the lead agency through targeted freight outreach (i.e., one-on-one or telephone interviews). Both the approval of the full list of alternatives and the alternatives to be carried forward can be reviewed at the same meetings or interviews. Feedback: The preferred alternative(s) for the freight commu- nity (i.e., the most beneficial project alternative) will be identified. Æ ENV-7

74 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS ENV 9: Approve Preferred Alternative The approval of the preferred alternative following the production of the draft envi- ronmental document is the responsibility of the lead agency. By this point, freight stakeholders have had several opportunities to offer recommendations for the alterna- tives that best meet their needs (i.e., ENV 6 and ENV 8). There is no additional role for freight stakeholders during this decision point. ENV 10: Approve Final NEPA Document Similar to the previous decision point, the approval of the final environmental docu- ment is the responsibility of the lead agency. That agency provides responses to the comments from stakeholders (including freight and the public at large), incorporates comments into the document (including whether or not the conclusions of the envi- ronmental document were changed as a result), and publishes a final NEPA document for final approval. The final environmental document should include copies of the public comments along with any feedback from freight stakeholders. Once the final document has been prepared with all the constituent parts, it can be approved by the lead agency. Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None Critical Decision Point Level of Stakeholder Involvement < Extensive Moderate Minimal Little to None How to Engage: During the public comment period for the draft EIS, freight stakeholders should be encouraged to review and comment on the draft document. Feedback: Public comments can be compiled by DOT staff and may have support at the local level from MPO staff and other participating and cooperating organizations. Æ How to Engage: Freight stakehold- ers should be encouraged to review the final EIS to ensure that their comments made during the draft EIS process were incorporated, especially if the project has a key freight inter- est. DOT and MPO staff should keep their freight stakeholders informed as to the progress of the approval of the environmental document. Feedback: Any final public com- ments from freight stakeholders should be compiled by DOT staff.ÆENV-10 ENV-8/PER-5

75 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS ENV 11/PER-6: Approve Record of Decision/Render Permit Decision The record of decision (ROD) for the final approval of the NEPA document is issued by the lead agency, generally the state DOT or FHWA for highway projects. The ROD includes the alternatives considered (ENV 7), selected alternative (ENV 9), and justifi- cation for the selection, and provides information on the strategies to mitigate identi- fied environmental impacts from the project. Following this approval, permits can be collected from regulatory agencies; the freight community may play a small role in the approval of permits if there are private property right-of-way concerns. There is gen- erally no other role for freight stakeholders during this decision point and no engage- ment activities necessary. The review and approval process proscribed by NEPA provides the opportunity for DOT environmental professionals to engage freight stakeholders and understand how their interests are met by different project alternatives. Because public engage- ment during this process can sometimes be a very large undertaking—especially if the project is extremely complex or affects diverse interest groups—engaging freight stakeholders at the four critical decision points helps environmental professionals con- serve resources and maximize the interest and availability of the freight community. If the process is handled properly, freight stakeholders can provide valuable insight on not only the need for the project and the effect of the project on local and regional businesses and supply chains, but also the most appropriate strategies to promote the project’s benefits from a perspective that is not always evident—that of private-sector transportation users. PRIVATE-SECTOR PERSPECTIVE To effectively engage private-sector freight stakeholders in the collaborative deci- sion-making process, it is critical to understand their preferences and perspectives. Throughout the case studies are examples of times when engagement provided the desired results and other times when it was less successful. Building on the critical deci- sion points for each phase in the highway planning process, the following box gives a fictitious account of a typical “day in the life” of a BCO supply chain executive, who describes the decision points for the NEPA process from her own perspective. This fictitious but highly realistic representation was prepared by one of the con- sultants to illustrate why and at what points in the planning processes it is important for public-sector officials to gain the input of BCOs. This consultant previously man- aged international supply chain activities for two large importers of fast moving con- sumer goods and has participated on tasks forces and committees involved in large public-sector transportation infrastructure projects.

76 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS A Year in the Life of a Freight Stakeholder I am Jane Smith, Vice President of Supply Chain and Logistics, at Rainbow Kids Apparel Inc., a 15-year-old privately held company located in an urban center in the Pacific Northwest, which sells high-end products in over 400 chil- dren’s boutiques across the United States. In large part because of economical labor rates, our company contracts with suppliers in China and Vietnam to produce our designs, which we import through the ports of Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle as well as San Francisco International Airport, Portland International Airport, and Sea-Tac International Airport. Last year we imported 5,000 40-foot equivalent units (FEU) via ocean and 100,000 kilos of air freight. Our sales are growing rapidly; imports are forecasted to increase 25% annually during the next 5 years. We control selection of logistics service providers and pay the international transportation costs because of our buying terms with suppliers. We negotiate service and rate agreements with three containerized ocean carriers, two air freight forwarders, and two motor carriers that transport the ocean containers after clearance by U.S. Customs and Border Protection from the West Coast marine terminals to our only distribution center (DC) adjacent to our headquarters. Orders from our retail customers are filled by our distribution center staff. Out- bound shipments are moved via truck or UPS Ground or UPS Air based on the routing decisions of our customers, since they pay the domestic shipping costs from our DC to their facilities. For 5 years I’ve served on my city’s Freight Committee, an organization comprising business people across a wide range of industries, all having a great interest in advocating for freight mobility. My committee colleagues work for local manufacturers (e.g., electronics and computers), importers (e.g., footwear, apparel, and department store merchandise), exporters (e.g., recycled metals and agricultural products), logistics service providers (e.g., motor carriers, ocean carriers, air freight forwarders, warehouse operators, ports, barge operators, and railroads), business and industry trade associations, transportation consultants, commercial real estate companies, and local government agencies (e.g., the city transportation bureau, regional MPO, and economic development agency). A representa- tive of the state DOT usually attends the monthly 2-hour meetings. The Freight Committee, which was established 8 years ago by the mayor, provides advice and service to the mayor, city council, and city bureaus on multimodal transportation issues affecting the region. Some issues we’ve recently weighed in on include recommending how and when lanes should be closed on a critical freight route to minimize truck delays during construction, suggesting where a lane should be added to a stretch of highway to increase freight mobility and how truck turning radii should be considered when repairing and constructing new intersections, and analyzing whether establishing a travel demand management (TDM) policy in the city center would reduce congestion during peak periods. Initial members of the Freight Committee were appointed by the mayor based on recommendations from his staff and community business leaders. New potential members are usually recruited and voted onto the commit- tee by existing members. The organization often submits letters of support to the mayor on various initiatives that would improve freight mobility and furnishes input during the planning phases of public transportation infrastruc- ture projects within the city limits. Moreover, members provide testimony on behalf of the committee at public hearing on projects and educate government officials and private citizens whenever possible about the impor- tance of freight mobility and its positive impact on the regional economy. Because of my reputation as a supply chain and logistics expert, 2 years ago, the state DOT director invited me to serve on the Freight Advisory Committee, which advises the DOT director and State Transportation (continued)

77 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Commission on issues, policies, and programs that affect multimodal freight mobility across the state. This includes identifying high-priority freight mobility projects for consideration in the DOT’s statewide transportation improvement program. The Freight Advisory Committee also advises on transportation policy related to goods movement. The advisory committee is a high visibility group that is well respected by the transportation commis- sioners, DOT director, and staff and has the ability to positively influence transportation-related decisions made at the state level. Two-hour meetings are held every other month. Similar to the city Freight Committee, members of the state Freight Advisory Committee are leaders in their industries and are primarily BCOs, logistics service pro- viders, and business and trade association representatives. Recently, the Freight Advisory Committee was enlisted to determine the most crucial highway corridors in the state for freight and to identify the top road and highway bottlenecks that cause delays in transporting freight. The CEO and CFO of my company support my participation on these two committees and believe that through my service and advocacy, the multimodal transportation system in our region, the Pacific Northwest, and further afield will be enhanced. We hope that freight mobility will be improved and our firm’s profitability will be positively affected over time through reductions in highway congestion. Peak-period congestion has had a detri- mental effect on our company, driving up our transportation costs. We’ve had to make adjustments in our opera- tions as a result. Because our headquarters and DC are located between the port and downtown, where road congestion is heavy, we decided last year to start operating our DC around-the-clock 4 days per week so that we can meet the stringent on-time delivery demands of our customers. We would prefer to operate only during the day shift, but I’ve expressed my opinion to executive management that that will not be efficient until such time as traffic flows improve. Improvements could be accomplished through such methods as better signal synchroniza- tion, creation of alternate truck routes that trucks can use if their primary route is congested, and expansion of lanes on critical freight corridors, especially on the city’s east side. During our regular biweekly meetings, I report to our CEO about the activities and initiatives on which both freight committees are working. He likes being informed about the progress being made as a result of my com- mittee work and also gains a better understanding of the impediments to freight mobility that continue to exist. His key interest lies in improving traffic flow on the major highways on which our inbound goods travel to the DC. He realizes congestion also affects the ability of our workers to get to work on time. Though I derive satisfaction from serving on the freight committees, I have a great deal of responsibility within my company; so I must carefully budget my time on activities which will likely result in some benefit to my company. I cannot waste time sitting in endless freight project meetings while mind-numbing data are pre- sented but few positive outcomes result. At the beginning of 2011, the DOT director invited me and three other members of the Freight Advisory Com- mittee to participate on a 26-person task force charged with providing input during the NEPA process for the rede- sign of Port Road, which connects the port with the interstate highway. This is a critical connector heavily traveled by trucks and is located not far from my company’s headquarters and DC. Because this is a big public works project governed under NEPA regulations, the state DOT understood that soliciting public input was not only required but beneficial to the entire process and would result in a road design more acceptable to a wide range of users. The state DOT succeeded in recruiting task force members from varied stakeholder sectors to ensure the most diverse opinions, experiences, and expertise were represented. The task force comprises the local MPO, (continued)

78 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS environmental groups, and neighborhood associations. My Freight Advisory Committee colleagues and I were the voices of the business community, which was important because, through our participation, we gave freight stakeholders a seat at the table. When the state DOT director wrote to potential task force members inviting us to participate, the letter included background information on the project. It also informed us of the critical roles we would play in moving the NEPA process through to the stage at which the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) is approved and submitted to the federal government. The task force was charged primarily with helping create the purpose and need statement, laying out metrics by which the project would be measured, vetting a range of potential alternatives, determining and voting on the most favorable one (the locally preferred alternative), and finally, reviewing the draft EIS. Expecta- tions were set in the invitation letter: 3-hour meetings would be held once a month, and the task force was expected to be engaged for a year and a half. During the first task force meeting, which was held about a month after the invitation letters were sent, the project director and staff furnished additional project details and elaborated on what was expected of members. They showed us the project planning process timeline and key decision points in which the task force would be involved. The project director introduced the project coordinator, who would function as the formal liaison between task force members and project staff. Staff also made it clear that all task force meetings would be held in a public forum and videotaped for airing on the local public TV station; and toward the end of each meeting, time would be allotted for public comment. We were told that if we needed to miss a meeting, we could assign an alternate to attend on our behalf to take notes and provide comments; however, the alternate would not be allowed to vote on critical decisions. The task force was assembled after the first two decision points of the NEPA process—Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review, and Approve and Publish Notice of Intent—had been completed, since those decision points were more administrative in nature and didn’t require the input of the task force.4 The third decision point—Approve Purpose and Need/Reach Consensus on Project Purpose (PER-1)—was the most critical for freight stakeholders’ involvement. This is particularly true because freight stakeholders like me prefer to be engaged in planning public infrastructure projects as early in the process as possible so that the end product actually benefits our companies. This part of the process, however, was a bit challenging for me: the environmentalists and several neighborhood association representatives on the task force had their own agendas and sometimes seemed disinterested when freight stakeholders explained why this project is so important to BCOs, logistics service providers, and the regional economy. We freight stakeholders felt we clearly identified the issues that exist on Port Road from a freight user’s perspective and what we thought the project goals and desired outcomes should be. DOT staff seriously listened to our input; and as a result of lots of discussion during the first three meetings, the task force finally reached consensus and adopted a purpose and need statement that, for the most part, addressed the freight industry’s concerns and will guide the entire project over the next 5 years as it moves from planning through NEPA to completion of construction. Before the third meeting, the project coordi- nator e-mailed task force members a draft purpose and need statement formulated from our discussions, which we revised slightly before voting for its adoption. The task force was not involved in the fourth decision point: Approve Public Notice (PER2)/Reach Consensus on Study Area. However, the DOT staff solicited our feedback during the next two meetings on decision point five: (continued)

79 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures. As business professionals and freight stake- holders, we are used to having metrics assigned against which our performance is measured. Often our personal compensation rests, at least in part, on meeting those standards. Task force members appreciated that the DOT staff recognized the importance of establishing criteria and methods to evaluate how well the project will meet the pur- pose and need statement and asked us to be part of this decision step. A couple of metrics that we felt were impor- tant for the project were reduction in congestion during peak travel times and reduction in the traffic crash rate. Decision point six—Approve Full Range of Alternatives/Approve Resource Agency Public Notice (PER-3)—was also an important decision step in which the DOT engaged the task force. Once the engineers produced 10 poten- tial alternatives, task force members had the opportunity to vet the alternatives, which occurred over the course of three meetings. We all spent a great deal of time learning about the alternatives and analyzing them based on our experiences and needs. We were shown drawings and data on the computer screen and were invited to ask questions. In addition, project staff prepared binders containing the basic technical specifications and sketches of each design so we could review the materials outside the meeting. This was the decision point for which freight stakeholders on the task force were able to provide valuable technical input during the meetings. We described how freight actually moves in the corridor and educated DOT staff and other stakeholders about BCO supply chain dynamics. We provided information such as the necessary turning radii needed for trucks, as well as how grade elevation affects truck acceleration. I was even asked by project staff to present a 20-minute primer on my com- pany’s supply chain flow from Asia to our DC and on to a large customer in Chicago. Though there was lots of material to wade through and three formal meetings at which staff presented technical design data, I was glad to have the time to gain an understanding of and form my own opinion about the best potential alternatives. A few times I e-mailed the project coordinator to request an explanation of some finer engineering points related to one alternative and was satisfied with the explanations provided. I did hear two freight stakeholders complain that we were bombarded with too much information; but in the end, these people were glad they had the opportunity to weigh in on the final alternative selections. Each of us was asked to rank the 10 alternatives in order of most- to least-favorable on an Excel spreadsheet template before the meeting at which the vote for the three highest-ranked alternatives would be taken. At that meeting, the project coordinator displayed our individual rankings on the computer screen and collated our voice votes. The task force ultimately voted to discard six alternatives that likely wouldn’t be feasible or desirable, and recommended the three most promising alternatives that warranted further study. At that point, it was up to the DOT to complete decision point seven: Approve Alternatives to Be Carried Forward (PER-4). The task force had a chance to weigh in during decision point eight—Approve Draft EIS/Reach Consensus on Jurisdictional Determination (PER-5)—which we felt was important to ensure the DOT had thoroughly addressed the concerns of all stakeholders. The project coordinator e-mailed us the entire draft EIS and asked us to embed comments directly into the document and e-mail our revisions back. If an individual had only a few comments to make, he or she was invited to simply e-mail them to the project coordinator. To my knowledge, the coordinator received written feedback from at least 20 task force members. We asked that the draft EIS be revised in several areas to provide more clarity and correct some glaring errors. The freight stakeholders particularly wanted the connection between freight mobility and a healthy economy emphasized in the draft EIS and also specified that alternative 6 provided the highest chance for increased velocity and improved safety for trucks. (continued)

80 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS It was not the job of task force members to engage in decision point nine—Approve Preferred Alternative— since that was the responsibility of other project stakeholders such as the MPO, which met on their own to discuss and approve the preferred alternative. At our most recent task force meeting, the project coordinator explained that the task force had no official authority to be part of this design approval step. Once that took place, we arrived at decision point 10—Approve Final NEPA Document—and the task force was called on to officially vote on whether the final document addressed all our concerns. That was the task force’s last official act. Now that we have reviewed the final NEPA document, the task force has been sunsetted. The DOT will shepherd the project to decision point 11: Approve Record of Decision/Render Permit Decision (PER-6). Soon after that, construction should commence. Overall, I found participating on this task force rewarding and know my contribution of time and expertise was valued by project staff. But the project was lengthy and intense at times. Because of the diversity of stakehold- ers, needs, and views, we encountered some rough patches during which consensus among task force members was difficult to reach. However, the project director, coordinator, and staff did a great job in keeping the task force members on track to meet the timeline milestones; smoothing over the bruised egos of certain members; and ensuring every task force member had opportunities to ask questions, provide feedback, and raise concerns, whether during task force meetings or privately via phone or e-mail. Staff kept us informed on how the task force was doing along the way against expectations and made some suggestions about how we could help make the process more efficient. They also were quick to answer our technical and administrative questions. I knew when agreeing to serve on the task force that the process would take a lot of time and effort and would not always be easy. Still, I must admit that during these many months of meetings, analysis, and discussion, I occasionally wondered if the process would ever end. The sheer volume of technical data presented was often overwhelming. My sentiments were shared by other task force members, but each of the 26 people who joined the task force stayed on till we completed decision point 10. Project staff seemed to sympathize with our frustra- tions, but in the end, I don’t think much could have been done to shorten the time the task force was engaged in the NEPA process. The nature of the decision steps in the process and the amount of information we had to review because of the project’s complexity took time. All the task force members genuinely wanted the NEPA process to be done right and the best possible alternative identified and carried forward. I firmly believe the final outcome will be better than if the DOT had not engaged a task force and that freight stakeholders will benefit from the task force’s efforts to improve freight mobility through this important freight corridor.

81 INTEGRATING FREIGHT CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE HIGHWAY PLANNING PROCESS Figure 5.2. Key decision points from a hypothetical BCO’s perspective. Note that critical decision points are consistent with Figure 5.1. This diagram reflects a more active stakeholder group that might have greater resources for engagement during additional decision points. If the Freight Advisory Committee was convened to address a specific project, then it will likely be sunsetted once the NEPA process has been completed. Some- times an existing freight advisory group is brought in to provide advice and service while the group continues its routine advocacy work. Decision Point Decision Points for Environmental Review (ENV) 1 Reach Consensus Scope of Environmental Review 2 Approve and Publish the Notice of Intent 3 Approve Purpose and Need/Reach Consensus on Project Purpose (PER-1) 4 Approve Public Notice (PER-2) Reach Consensus on Study Area 5 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures 6 Approve Full Range of Alternatives/Approve Resource Agency Public Notice (PER-3) 7 Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward (PER-4) 8 Approve Draft EIS/Reach Consensus on Jurisdictional Determination (PER-5) 9 Approve Preferred Alternative 10 Approve Final NEPA Document 11 Approve Record of Decision/Render Permit Decision (PER-6) Attend kick-o meeting to better understand advisory committee or task force role, and discuss and vote to approve Purpose & Needs Statement (previously developed by sta). Review Draft EIS and attend meeting to discuss and vote on approval of Draft EIS (sta would have highlighted the most pertinent sections for review by stakeholders including preferred alternative, impacts to freight facilities, etc). Attend meeting to discuss, agree and vote to adopt Evaluation Criteria, Methodology & Performance Measures (draft evaluation criteria would have already been prepared by sta and stakeholder meeting would validate). Stakeholder Actions (critical decision points) Review materials describing alternatives in preparation for attending a meeting to learn more about, discuss and vote to approve Full Range of Alternatives (sta would disseminate information on project alternatives to stakeholder group). Task Force or Freight Advisory Committee Assembled Task Force or Freight Advisory Committee Sunsetted More active groups might also discuss and approve a nal NEPA document but it is not a critical decision point. More active groups might also discuss and vote on the alternatives to be carried forward but this is not a critical decision point. Taking into account the perspective offered by Jane in “A Year in the Life of a Freight Stakeholder” box and other research conducted for this project, Figure 5.2 presents the decision-making process from the private-sector viewpoint. NOTES 1. A thumbs-down symbol denotes that this is not a critical decision point for freight stake- holders; a thumbs-up symbol suggests that this is a critical decision point. 2. The SHRP 2 report Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making (http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/161859.aspx) contains additional examples of appropriate freight performance measures. The statewide freight plans for Maryland and Minnesota and MPO freight studies from MARC (the Kansas City MPO) and DVRPC (the Philadelphia MPO) also include some excellent examples. 3. More information on the NEPA process for alternatives analysis can be found on FHWA’s website at http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/index.asp. 4. Although the SHRP 2 C15 decision flow diagram and planning framework was not used in the outreach directed to this task force, the research team was involved in many of the same steps to meet the project’s goals.