1

NCFRP 09 – Institutional Arrangements in the Freight Transportation System

prepared for FHWA’s Talking Freight Seminar on Institutional Arrangements

presented byMichael Williamson, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

September 16, 2009

2

David L. Ganovski, formerly MDOT

Rebecca M. Brewster, ATRI

Christina S. Casgar, SANDAG

John Ficker, NITL

Gary Gallegos, SANDAG

Arthur Goodwin, ACTA

Michael Huerta, ACS Transportation Solutions

Thomas O'Brien, CITT- CSU

NCRPP 09 Panel Members

George E. Schoener, I-95 CC

Sotirios Theofanis, Rutgers

M. J. Fiocco, US DOT

Elaine King, TRB

Martine A. Micozzi, TRB

William C. Rogers, TRB - NCFRP

Charlotte Thomas, TRB

3

As defined by NCFRP:

“The objective of this project is to describe successful and promising institutional arrangements for improving freight movement, now and in the future.”

Work plan designed to:• Describe successful and promising institutional arrangements for

improving freight movement

• Develop a resource guide that will help agencies and industry representatives

• Define an implementation plan to facilitate effective use of the resource guide

NCRPP 09 Research Goals

4

Working definition (refined)

A structured foundation that enables relevant parties to advance the general interests of freight mobility – infrastructure, operations, services, and regulations – or particular programs/projects to increase freight mobility

Freight Institutional Arrangement

5

Data collection

• Literature review (Task I report)

• Stakeholder workshop (May 2008)

• Follow-up interviews

Case study development

• 16 detailed case studies

Typology (three main types of IA’s)

Input from TRB committees (Jan 2009)

Research Elements

6

Assessment of Current Practices – Strengths

Integrating freight into transportation policy, planning, and programming activities

• Freight advisory committees and task forces have been instrumental in helping draft and formulate transportation programs

Facilitating freight project prioritization and completion

• Institutional arrangements, like FSTED and FMSIB, have been used to direct project funding allocations and implementation

Improving operational efficiency of freight movements

• Private entities have invested in programs to streamline facility access and congestion reduction

Improving information dissemination and education

• Programs, like FHWA’s Freight Professional Development Program, have facilitated education and dissemination

7

Assessment of Current Practices – Strengths (continued)

Promoting multi-jurisdictional solutions

• Multi-state and regional coalitions, like I-95 Corridor Coalition, have been successful in identifying and addressing key freight bottlenecks

Forming project specific operating authorities to address bottlenecks

• Joint powers authorities, like the ACTA, have been created to facilitate the design and construct of key infrastructure

Leveraging public/private funding opportunities

• Shared funding programs, like CREATE and FAST, have been successful in leveraging funds and talents to get critical projects funded and delivered

Promoting freight system needs

• Trade associations, like ATA and NITL, serve as advocates to guide policy-shaping forums and funding program allocations

8

Assessment of Current Practices – Weaknesses

Lack of mandate

• Relatively few arrangements have a definitive mandate for their existence and operation

Mismatch of scope

• Freight institutional arrangements have failed because the scope and scale of their geographic and jurisdictional coverage did not match actual “freight-sheds” and economic blocs

Insufficient funding

• Arrangements focused on policy and planning functions often operate on shoe-string budgets with limited staff support and compete within larger under-funded programs for allocations

9

Example: CVISN

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

FMCSA CVISN – Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program

Issue/Scale – Multi-state Network: Part of the National ITS Architecture sponsored by USDOT

Primary Function – Safety: Support Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) mission to improve safety and security and reduce the number and severity of CMV crashes

Secondary Function – Operations: Deploy the CVISN architecture in the 30 states

Legal Structure – Public Agency: FMCSA

Initial Classification of Institutional Arrangements

10

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN)

National program that provides framework for organizing, funding, and deploying technology to automate regulatory and safety enforcement functions

Requires full participation of FMCSA, state agencies, and industry partners

Funds require a 50% match from state partners

Providing standards, training and technical support has helped states break down internal barriers

States have the flexibility to tailor their CVISN programs

Industry participation helps achieve buy-in to the program and ensure useful functionality

11

Type I – Increase the visibility and importance of freight issues and policies in their area

Type II – Develop consensus on specific project priorities; may score and rank projects competing for funds

Type III – Responsible for designing, mitigating, constructing, and operating a new system element

Recommended Classification of Institutional Arrangements

12

Spectrum of Institutional Arrangement Types 

1. Information Sharing

2. Consensus Building

3. Education

4. Increased Visibility & Awareness

5. Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers

6. General Advocacy

1. Project Evaluation

2. Project Prioritization

3. Project Selection and Funding

4. Consensus Building at Project Level

5. Focused Advocacy

6. Leverage Additional Funds

1. Project Implementation

2. Design and Construction

3. Obtain Environmental Approvals

4. Managing Financial and Schedule Risks

5. Construction Oversight

6. Debt Service Payments

7. Negotiate Partnership Agreements

Type II Type IIIType I

13

Case StudiesType I

California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC)

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission – Goods Movement Task Force (DVRPC-GMTF)

I-95 Corridor Coalition (I-95CC)

Kansas City Smartport (KCSP)

Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC)

Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition (MVFC)

Nation’sPort

Natural Resources Defense Council - Southern California Clean Air Program (NRDC)

Southern California National Freight Gateway Collaboration Agreement (SCNFGC)

Trade Corridors Improvement Fund Consensus Group (TCIFCG)

Type II

I-95 Corridor Coalition (I-95CC)

Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Council (FSTED)

Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB)

Maine DOT Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP)

Type III

Kansas City Smartport (KCSP)

Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA)

Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE)

Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN)

14

Type I Type II Type III

Design

Construction

Operations

Needs identification

Project prioritization

Funding allocations

Program establishment

Outreach

Education

Consensus building

• Each set of guidelines builds on the preceding type

• An IA may begin as Type I and progress to Type II or Type III

Spectrum of Guideline Types

15

Type I Guidelines

1. Identify need and purpose

2. Form deliberate strategies

3. Seek the support of a champion

4. Identify and recruit stakeholders

5. Build political support

6. Develop information sharing and outreach venues

7. Partner with academia

8. Engage stakeholders as needed

9. Secure dedicated funding and resources

10. Use consensus-based process

11. Ensure short and long term progress

12. Develop and use performance measures

13. Encourage cost sharing

16

I-95 Corridor Coalition

An alliance of transportation agencies, toll authorities, and other transportation-related organizations

Multi-jurisdictional cooperative effort aimed at improving transportation conditions along the corridor

Provides an environment to discuss regional transportation management and operations issues

Executive Board provides overall guidance for project selection; individual projects are identified by program committees

Sustained funding and the commitment to being an honest, neutral broker are keys to long term success

17

14. Define specific program elements

15. Develop implementation process

16. Establish protocols for implementation

17. Identify evaluation criteria

18. Define funding allocation process

19. Require on-time completion of projects

20. Require project audits

21. Perform site visits

22. Ensure focus stays on purpose/mission

Type II Guidelines

18

Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) Program

Public agency created to finance seaport transportation and facility projects

FSTED Council oversees program and is made up of all 14 port directors and representatives from 3 state agencies

The state funds projects on a 50-50 match basis through grants and bonds, currently up to $40 million per year

Open, collaborative, transparent process is used to identify projects which are evaluated on specific criteria

Points of success

• Ability of program to see bigger picture for all ports

• Collective knowledge of port business model provides flexibility to respond to global market for good of all

19

Type III Guidelines23. Build consensus on specific project

parameters

24. Seek out “champions” and develop a diverse coalition of interest groups

25. Provide forum for neutral broker

26. Secure private sector involvement/commitment

27. Develop mitigation strategy for project impacts

28. Establish clear decision-making authority

29. Remain focused on defined mission

30. Adopt a product orientation

31. Identify, monitor, and address obstacles

32. Develop partnership agreements

33. Negotiate third-party agreements early

34. Allocate risk between owner and contractor

35. Establish funding firewalls and sunset clauses

36. Consider Design-Build procurement

37. Understand how bond rating agencies make decisions

38. Establish cost sharing structure

39. Maintain adequate contingency and reserves

40. Maximize use of available funding cycles

20

Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE)

Regional program made up of public/private partners and implemented and managed through a variety of committees

Program initiated due to the rail system breakdown, maintenance needs, limited expansion opportunities, and growing traffic

CREATE project list covered large and small projects totaling $1.35 billion (2003); initial program predicated on $900 million earmark from SAFETEA-LU

Program operating off of a prioritized list (32 of 78) with a fraction of the anticipated funds (public and private)

Program success driven by a common goal and promotion of national significance

21

Leader/champion must step forward

Identify potential stakeholders

Facilitate open forum

• Identify need for institutional arrangement

• Identify preliminary opportunities and challenges

• Define draft purpose of institutional arrangement

Develop action plan

Getting Started

22

Release of Final Report

Final Report currently being edited by TRB; release anticipated late 2009

For further information, contact:

• Bill RogersTransportation Research Boardwrogers@nas.edu202-334-1621

• Michael WilliamsonCambridge Systematicsmwilliamson@camsys.com954-315-3817