Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 80-93
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 80... ...
80 4.1 Introduction An important theme that emerged from this research, and one that is not surprising, is that no single governance model has proven to be particularly effective for advancing passenger rail. However, the following models have proven successful in addressing one or more of the elements of an effective passenger rail program as represented in the conceptual framework: • Coordinated state efforts • Coalition/partnership • Single state agency contracting with or on behalf of other states • Public-private partnership • Multi-state commission • Multi-state special authority • Federal-state commission • Freight railroads Table 18 summarizes these models, which are described in more detail in this chapter.
|
From page 81... ...
Decision-Making Models for Intercity Passenger Rail 81 during the visioning and planning stages of project development. Often, one of the states is selected to lead grant applications or accepts other lead agency roles where necessary.
|
From page 82... ...
82 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs In the SCHSRC, Texas and Oklahoma established a legal agreement for conducting the ongoing TOPRS. The agreement designates Texas as the lead agency for the study and defines roles and responsibilities for both states, including Texas funding the cost of the study and Oklahoma providing in-kind services and data.
|
From page 83... ...
Decision-Making Models for Intercity Passenger Rail 83 receive government funds and private contributions. Examples of this model, found in the NEC and Midwest case studies, were the I-95 Coalition, CONEG, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan Working Group, the Midwest High-Speed Rail Steering Group, and the MWRRI Steering Committee.
|
From page 84... ...
84 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs • A coalition/partnership model is highly flexible, making it easy to engage a large and diverse range of stakeholders, including local entities that may not otherwise be represented in decisionmaking bodies. 4.3.5 Disadvantages • The coalition/partnership model is generally limited to planning and policy issues for which consensus can be reached.
|
From page 85... ...
Decision-Making Models for Intercity Passenger Rail 85 passenger rail service. To date, there has not been a prescribed need for an operations agreement among the state partners.
|
From page 86... ...
86 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs 4.5 Public-Private Partnership FHWA's Office of Innovative Program Delivery defines public-private partnerships as "contractual agreements formed between a public agency and a private sector entity that allow for greater private-sector participation in the delivery and financing of transportation projects" (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/defined, accessed February 23, 2015)
|
From page 87... ...
Decision-Making Models for Intercity Passenger Rail 87 and maintain a high-speed intercity passenger rail system within one of 11 specified corridors. FRA deemed 8 of the 100 expressions of interest substantive and credible.
|
From page 88... ...
88 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs • This model permits flexible implementation structures. • This model can convert upfront public-sector capital investment into a stream of payments over the project life.
|
From page 89... ...
Decision-Making Models for Intercity Passenger Rail 89 4.6.3 Governance Structure The governing body is the commission, which has representation from the state partners. The commission may be supported by a small staff that can be funded by one or more of the states participating in the partnership.
|
From page 90... ...
90 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs and collect revenues in order to conduct the mission for which they have been tasked. Some can also exercise specified fiscal powers, such as issuance of bonds, imposition of special taxes, levying benefit assessments, and charging service fees such as fares and tolls.
|
From page 91... ...
Decision-Making Models for Intercity Passenger Rail 91 4.8.2 Powers and Responsibilities A federal-state commission can have a multitude of powers and responsibilities. It can often be empowered to issue funds in the form of grants to participating states.
|
From page 92... ...
92 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs along with one member from Amtrak or the U.S. DOT could result in an affirmative action of the NEC Commission.
|
From page 93... ...
Decision-Making Models for Intercity Passenger Rail 93 4.9.2 Powers and Responsibilities The powers and responsibilities of freight railroads can be broad and depend largely on the nature of the freight railroads involvement in the passenger rail service. Full privatization of a corridor results in the most power and responsibility, although these will be tempered through regulatory oversight and the desire or need for passengers to connect to other rail systems and/ or share stations and facilities with other railroads or Amtrak.
|
Key Terms
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.