0 ncfrp 09 – institutional arrangements in the freight transportation system...

Download 0 NCFRP 09 – Institutional Arrangements in the Freight Transportation System prepared for FHWA’s Talking Freight Seminar on Institutional Arrangements

Post on 01-Jan-2016




1 download

Embed Size (px)


  • NCFRP 09 Institutional Arrangements in the Freight Transportation Systemprepared for FHWAs Talking Freight Seminar on Institutional Arrangements

    presented byMichael Williamson, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

    September 16, 2009

  • David L. Ganovski, formerly MDOTRebecca M. Brewster, ATRIChristina S. Casgar, SANDAGJohn Ficker, NITLGary Gallegos, SANDAGArthur Goodwin, ACTAMichael Huerta, ACS Transportation SolutionsThomas O'Brien, CITT- CSUNCRPP 09 Panel MembersGeorge E. Schoener, I-95 CCSotirios Theofanis, RutgersM. J. Fiocco, US DOTElaine King, TRBMartine A. Micozzi, TRBWilliam C. Rogers, TRB - NCFRPCharlotte Thomas, TRB

  • 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 movementDevelop a resource guide that will help agencies and industry representativesDefine an implementation plan to facilitate effective use of the resource guide

    NCRPP 09 Research Goals

  • 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

  • Data collectionLiterature review (Task I report)Stakeholder workshop (May 2008)Follow-up interviews Case study development16 detailed case studiesTypology (three main types of IAs)Input from TRB committees (Jan 2009)Research Elements

  • Assessment of Current Practices StrengthsIntegrating freight into transportation policy, planning, and programming activitiesFreight advisory committees and task forces have been instrumental in helping draft and formulate transportation programsFacilitating freight project prioritization and completionInstitutional arrangements, like FSTED and FMSIB, have been used to direct project funding allocations and implementationImproving operational efficiency of freight movementsPrivate entities have invested in programs to streamline facility access and congestion reductionImproving information dissemination and educationPrograms, like FHWAs Freight Professional Development Program, have facilitated education and dissemination

  • Assessment of Current Practices Strengths (continued)Promoting multi-jurisdictional solutionsMulti-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 bottlenecksJoint powers authorities, like the ACTA, have been created to facilitate the design and construct of key infrastructureLeveraging public/private funding opportunitiesShared funding programs, like CREATE and FAST, have been successful in leveraging funds and talents to get critical projects funded and deliveredPromoting freight system needsTrade associations, like ATA and NITL, serve as advocates to guide policy-shaping forums and funding program allocations

  • Assessment of Current Practices WeaknessesLack of mandate Relatively few arrangements have a definitive mandate for their existence and operationMismatch of scopeFreight institutional arrangements have failed because the scope and scale of their geographic and jurisdictional coverage did not match actual freight-sheds and economic blocsInsufficient fundingArrangements 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

  • Example: CVISNIssue/ScaleFunctionLegal StructureGateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight MultistateNetwork Corridors ..Public Agency Public Authority Not-for-Profit Private Firm ..Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital ImprovementsOperations Regulation/Safety Research/Education/ForumFMCSA CVISN Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks ProgramIssue/Scale Multi-state Network: Part of the National ITS Architecture sponsored by USDOTPrimary Function Safety: Support Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) mission to improve safety and security and reduce the number and severity of CMV crashesSecondary Function Operations: Deploy the CVISN architecture in the 30 statesLegal Structure Public Agency: FMCSAInitial Classification of Institutional Arrangements

  • Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN)National program that provides framework for organizing, funding, and deploying technology to automate regulatory and safety enforcement functionsRequires full participation of FMCSA, state agencies, and industry partnersFunds require a 50% match from state partnersProviding standards, training and technical support has helped states break down internal barriersStates have the flexibility to tailor their CVISN programsIndustry participation helps achieve buy-in to the program and ensure useful functionality

  • Type I Increase the visibility and importance of freight issues and policies in their areaType II Develop consensus on specific project priorities; may score and rank projects competing for fundsType III Responsible for designing, mitigating, constructing, and operating a new system elementRecommended Classification of Institutional Arrangements

  • Spectrum of Institutional Arrangement Types 1. Information Sharing2. Consensus Building3. Education4. Increased Visibility & Awareness5. Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers6. General Advocacy1. Project Evaluation2. Project Prioritization 3. Project Selection and Funding4. Consensus Building at Project Level5. Focused Advocacy6. Leverage Additional Funds1. Project Implementation2. Design and Construction3. Obtain Environmental Approvals4. Managing Financial and Schedule Risks5. Construction Oversight6. Debt Service Payments7. Negotiate Partnership AgreementsType IIType IIIType I

  • Case StudiesType ICalifornia 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)NationsPortNatural 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 III-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 IIIKansas City Smartport (KCSP)Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA)Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE)Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN)

  • Type IType IIType IIIDesignConstructionOperationsNeeds identificationProject prioritizationFunding allocationsProgram establishmentOutreachEducationConsensus building Each set of guidelines builds on the preceding type

    An IA may begin as Type I and progress to Type II or Type IIISpectrum of Guideline Types

  • Type I GuidelinesIdentify need and purposeForm deliberate strategiesSeek the support of a championIdentify and recruit stakeholdersBuild political supportDevelop information sharing and outreach venuesPartner with academiaEngage stakeholders as neededSecure dedicated funding and resourcesUse consensus-based processEnsure short and long term progressDevelop and use performance measuresEncourage cost sharing

  • I-95 Corridor CoalitionAn alliance of transportation agencies, toll authorities, and other transportation-related organizationsMulti-jurisdictional cooperative effort aimed at improving transportation conditions along the corridorProvides an environment to discuss regional transportation management and operations issuesExecutive Board provides overall guidance for project selection; individual projects are identified by program committeesSustained funding and the commitment to being an honest, neutral broker are keys to long term success

  • Define specific program elementsDevelop implementation processEstablish protocols for implementationIdentify evaluation criteriaDefine funding allocation processRequire on-time completion of projectsRequire project auditsPerform site visitsEnsure focus stays on purpose/mission

    Type II Guidelines

  • Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development (FSTED) ProgramPublic agency created to finance seaport transportation and facility projectsFSTED Council oversees program and is made up of all 14 port directors and representatives from 3 state agenciesThe state funds projects on a 50-50 match basis through grants and bonds, currently up to $40 million per yearOpen, collaborative, transparent process is used to identify projects which are evaluated on specific criteriaPoints of successAbility of program to see bigger picture for all portsCollective knowledge of port business model provides flexibility to respond to global market for good of all

  • Type III GuidelinesBuild consensus on specific project parametersSeek out champions and develop a diverse coalition of interest groupsProvide forum for neutral brokerSecure private sector involvement/commitmentDevelop mitigation strategy for project impactsEstablish clear decision-making authorityRemain focused on defined missionAdopt a product orientationIdentify, monitor, and address obstaclesDe

View more >