The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 4-14

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 4... ... Institutional arrangements have been created for various reasons, including policymaking, planning efforts, capital improvements, operations and maintenance, regulation, research, and education. Most arrangements have been formed in large part to ensure private-sector needs are included in the public freight planning process, with an ultimate goal of improving freight mobility. Read the entire page →
From page 5... ... DOT-Framework for a National Freight Policy National Public Policy National Advantage I-75 State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional Canamex Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional I-95 Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional PrePass Nonprofit Corporation Multi-state/ Jurisdictional West Coast Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council State/Multi-state Public Agency State Florida DOT Strategic Intermodal System State/Multi-state Public Agency State Florida DOT Transportation Regional Incentive Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board State/Multi-state Public Agency State Maine DOT – Industrial Rail Access Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Maine DOT – Small Harbor Improvement Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Port Authority of New York and New Jersey State/Multi-state Public Agency State Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Public Authority Regional/Local Atlanta Regional Council Freight Advisory Task Force Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Table 2-1. Freight institutional arrangements. Read the entire page →
From page 6... ... • Improving information dissemination and education. Most arrangements have a self-appointed role in infor6 Name Category Area Covered Bridging the Valley Project Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission – Goods Movement Task Force Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local International Mobility and Trade Corridor Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Miami Dade MPO-Freight Transportation Advisory Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local New York Metropolitan Transportation Council – Freight Transportation Working Group Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local PierPASS Nonprofit Corporation Regional/Local Port of Miami Tunnel Joint Venture Company Regional/Local Puget Sound Regional Council – FAST Corridor Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Puget Sound Regional Council – Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Susquehanna Economic Development Association Council of Governments Freight Advisory Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments – Freight Subcommittee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Wilmington-Harrisburg Freight Study Steering Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Table 2-1. Read the entire page →
From page 7... ... Although less common, creating a joint powers authority, like the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, can be used to tackle the design and construction of major infrastructure projects. • Leveraging public-private funding opportunities. Read the entire page →
From page 8... ... Although the small groups were given a specific question to address, most followed an unstructured flow of conversation allowing these freight transportation experts to share their thoughts pertaining to each topic. The common themes identified are as follows: • Institutional arrangements must anticipate or respond to dynamic market forces that are changing freight movement patterns and technologies. Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... • Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission-Goods Movement Task Force, Ted Dahlburg, Delaware Valley RPC • Federal Highway Administration, Tony Furst, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations • Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, Karen Schmidt, FMSIB • Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council, Nancy Leikauf and Toy Keller, Florida Ports Council • Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee, Larry Foutz, Miami-Dade MPO • I-95 Corridor Coalition, Marygrace Parker, I-95 Corridor Coalition • Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program, Nathan Moulton, Maine DOT • Kansas City SmartPort, Chris Gutierrez, Kansas City SmartPort, Inc. • Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition, Ernie Wittwer, MVFC Facilitator • Nation'sPort, David Stein, Nation'sPort • Natural Resources Defense Council -- Southern California Clean Air Program, David Pettit, Senior Attorney, NRDC • Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration, Lindell L Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... 10 Broad Purpose of Institutional Arrangements Key Success Factors Challenges Increase visibility and importance of freight through: Information Sharing Consensus Building Education Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers General Advocacy Having a common goal and clear illustration of benefits Securing dedicated funding Pursing commitment of executive leadership Creating well-defined and productive meeting agendas Engaging members in promotion activities Ongoing public outreach, communications, and education regarding the role of freight Partnering with academia Pursuing an aggressive marketing campaign Building Federal, state, and local support Allowing flexibility in legal structure Providing a neutral forum Building strong partnerships with the Federal government, across state agencies, and with industry Focusing on timely issues of public concern Knowing your partners and their jurisdictions Determining a common evaluation framework to determine cost benefit Convening a commission to determine where freight corridors are likely to be in the future Communication and coordination with a wide range of public and private entities Effective use of available planning tools No single organization serving as a freight voice Lack of available lands for expansion of the freight system Need for more sophisticated, objective project evaluation tools and freight data Keeping Task Force members motivated and engaged in the planning process Conflicting agency priorities Lack of private-sector involvement Securing a dedicated funding source Lack of trust among stakeholders Project consensus and selection through: Project Evaluation Project Prioritization Project Selection and Funding Consensus Building at Project Level Focusing on Advocacy Leveraging Additional Funds Gaining continued support from program sponsor Requiring program matching requirement Considering multimodal, multi-jurisdictional approach Securing private-sector commitment Effectively leveraging state funds Determining quantifiable criteria and guidance for project selection and evaluation Seeking accountability Providing an open, transparent project funding selection process Mandate to focus benefits only on strategic freight corridors Partnerships are difficult to hold together Inadequate funding Redirection of funding Focus on a specific project through: Project Implementation Design and Construction Obtaining Environmental Approvals Managing Financial And Schedule Risks Providing Construction Oversight Processing Debt Service Payments Negotiating Partnership Agreements Establishing funding firewalls and sunset clauses Carefully allocating risk between owner and contractor Maintaining cost and schedule control Adopting a product orientation Keeping a focused agency mission Establishing clear decision-making authority Negotiating third-party agreements early Adopting a partnering program Maintaining adequate contingency and reserves Considering design-build procurements Understanding funding program requirements Securing a dedicated institutional funding source and competition for available project funding Agreed-on project definition Construction and project delivery Environmental mitigation requirements Job training and local participation Personnel turnover among leadership and staff Lack of a political champion Complex multi-institutional committee structure Keeping all partners involved and participating Table 2-2. Interview findings: summary of key success factors and challenges. Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... There is a need to refine and expand transportation planning institutions at all levels, enable MPOs to deal with all aspects of urban freight transportation, encourage states to create freight offices and/or institutions, fill the gap at the multi-state level, and strengthen the national freight program. There is a strong need for more effective multi-state institutional arrangements. Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... On the simplest level, freight institutional arrangements can be a public agency, a public-benefit corporation, or a private-sector company. • Public-agency-based arrangements are identified by their location in government. Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... Legal structures underpinning freight institutional arrangements. Issue/Scale Function Legal Structure Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/Education Forum PANYNJ – Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Issue/Scale – Gateway/Port: Port of New York/New Jersey Primary Function – Operations: Manages and maintains the seaport in addition to bridges, tunnels, bus terminals, airports and PATH. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... Legal Structure – Public Agency: FMCSA Issue/Scale Function Legal Structure Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/Education Forum CVSA – Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Issue/Scale – Multistate Network: Association of state, provincial, and Federal officials responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier safety laws in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Primary Function – Policy/Advocacy: Provide leadership to enforcement, industry and policymakers. Read the entire page →

From page 4...

... Institutional arrangements have been created for various reasons, including policymaking, planning efforts, capital improvements, operations and maintenance, regulation, research, and education. Most arrangements have been formed in large part to ensure private-sector needs are included in the public freight planning process, with an ultimate goal of improving freight mobility.

Read the entire page →

From page 5...

... DOT-Framework for a National Freight Policy National Public Policy National Advantage I-75 State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional Canamex Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional I-95 Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional PrePass Nonprofit Corporation Multi-state/ Jurisdictional West Coast Corridor Coalition State/Multi-state Public Agency Multi-state/ Jurisdictional Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council State/Multi-state Public Agency State Florida DOT Strategic Intermodal System State/Multi-state Public Agency State Florida DOT Transportation Regional Incentive Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board State/Multi-state Public Agency State Maine DOT – Industrial Rail Access Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Maine DOT – Small Harbor Improvement Program State/Multi-state Public Agency State Port Authority of New York and New Jersey State/Multi-state Public Agency State Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Public Authority Regional/Local Atlanta Regional Council Freight Advisory Task Force Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Table 2-1. Freight institutional arrangements.

Read the entire page →

From page 6...

... • Improving information dissemination and education. Most arrangements have a self-appointed role in infor6 Name Category Area Covered Bridging the Valley Project Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission – Goods Movement Task Force Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local International Mobility and Trade Corridor Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Miami Dade MPO-Freight Transportation Advisory Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local New York Metropolitan Transportation Council – Freight Transportation Working Group Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local PierPASS Nonprofit Corporation Regional/Local Port of Miami Tunnel Joint Venture Company Regional/Local Puget Sound Regional Council – FAST Corridor Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Puget Sound Regional Council – Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Susquehanna Economic Development Association Council of Governments Freight Advisory Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments – Freight Subcommittee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Wilmington-Harrisburg Freight Study Steering Committee Regional/Local Public Agency Regional/Local Table 2-1.

Read the entire page →

From page 7...

... Although less common, creating a joint powers authority, like the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, can be used to tackle the design and construction of major infrastructure projects. • Leveraging public-private funding opportunities.

Read the entire page →

From page 8...

... Although the small groups were given a specific question to address, most followed an unstructured flow of conversation allowing these freight transportation experts to share their thoughts pertaining to each topic. The common themes identified are as follows: • Institutional arrangements must anticipate or respond to dynamic market forces that are changing freight movement patterns and technologies.

Read the entire page →

From page 9...

... • Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission-Goods Movement Task Force, Ted Dahlburg, Delaware Valley RPC • Federal Highway Administration, Tony Furst, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations • Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, Karen Schmidt, FMSIB • Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council, Nancy Leikauf and Toy Keller, Florida Ports Council • Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee, Larry Foutz, Miami-Dade MPO • I-95 Corridor Coalition, Marygrace Parker, I-95 Corridor Coalition • Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program, Nathan Moulton, Maine DOT • Kansas City SmartPort, Chris Gutierrez, Kansas City SmartPort, Inc. • Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition, Ernie Wittwer, MVFC Facilitator • Nation'sPort, David Stein, Nation'sPort • Natural Resources Defense Council -- Southern California Clean Air Program, David Pettit, Senior Attorney, NRDC • Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration, Lindell L

Read the entire page →

From page 10...

... 10 Broad Purpose of Institutional Arrangements Key Success Factors Challenges Increase visibility and importance of freight through: Information Sharing Consensus Building Education Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers General Advocacy Having a common goal and clear illustration of benefits Securing dedicated funding Pursing commitment of executive leadership Creating well-defined and productive meeting agendas Engaging members in promotion activities Ongoing public outreach, communications, and education regarding the role of freight Partnering with academia Pursuing an aggressive marketing campaign Building Federal, state, and local support Allowing flexibility in legal structure Providing a neutral forum Building strong partnerships with the Federal government, across state agencies, and with industry Focusing on timely issues of public concern Knowing your partners and their jurisdictions Determining a common evaluation framework to determine cost benefit Convening a commission to determine where freight corridors are likely to be in the future Communication and coordination with a wide range of public and private entities Effective use of available planning tools No single organization serving as a freight voice Lack of available lands for expansion of the freight system Need for more sophisticated, objective project evaluation tools and freight data Keeping Task Force members motivated and engaged in the planning process Conflicting agency priorities Lack of private-sector involvement Securing a dedicated funding source Lack of trust among stakeholders Project consensus and selection through: Project Evaluation Project Prioritization Project Selection and Funding Consensus Building at Project Level Focusing on Advocacy Leveraging Additional Funds Gaining continued support from program sponsor Requiring program matching requirement Considering multimodal, multi-jurisdictional approach Securing private-sector commitment Effectively leveraging state funds Determining quantifiable criteria and guidance for project selection and evaluation Seeking accountability Providing an open, transparent project funding selection process Mandate to focus benefits only on strategic freight corridors Partnerships are difficult to hold together Inadequate funding Redirection of funding Focus on a specific project through: Project Implementation Design and Construction Obtaining Environmental Approvals Managing Financial And Schedule Risks Providing Construction Oversight Processing Debt Service Payments Negotiating Partnership Agreements Establishing funding firewalls and sunset clauses Carefully allocating risk between owner and contractor Maintaining cost and schedule control Adopting a product orientation Keeping a focused agency mission Establishing clear decision-making authority Negotiating third-party agreements early Adopting a partnering program Maintaining adequate contingency and reserves Considering design-build procurements Understanding funding program requirements Securing a dedicated institutional funding source and competition for available project funding Agreed-on project definition Construction and project delivery Environmental mitigation requirements Job training and local participation Personnel turnover among leadership and staff Lack of a political champion Complex multi-institutional committee structure Keeping all partners involved and participating Table 2-2. Interview findings: summary of key success factors and challenges.

Read the entire page →

From page 11...

... There is a need to refine and expand transportation planning institutions at all levels, enable MPOs to deal with all aspects of urban freight transportation, encourage states to create freight offices and/or institutions, fill the gap at the multi-state level, and strengthen the national freight program. There is a strong need for more effective multi-state institutional arrangements.

Read the entire page →

From page 12...

... On the simplest level, freight institutional arrangements can be a public agency, a public-benefit corporation, or a private-sector company. • Public-agency-based arrangements are identified by their location in government.

Read the entire page →

From page 13...

... Legal structures underpinning freight institutional arrangements. Issue/Scale Function Legal Structure Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/Education Forum PANYNJ – Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Issue/Scale – Gateway/Port: Port of New York/New Jersey Primary Function – Operations: Manages and maintains the seaport in addition to bridges, tunnels, bus terminals, airports and PATH.

Read the entire page →

From page 14...

... Legal Structure – Public Agency: FMCSA Issue/Scale Function Legal Structure Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/Education Forum CVSA – Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Issue/Scale – Multistate Network: Association of state, provincial, and Federal officials responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier safety laws in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Primary Function – Policy/Advocacy: Provide leadership to enforcement, industry and policymakers.

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.