Upload
kelley-rogers
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 [email protected]
• Michael WilliamsonCambridge [email protected]