NCFRP 09 – Institutional Arrangements in the Freight Transportation System

1. NCFRP 09 – Institutional Arrangements in the Freight Transportation System prepared for FHWA’s Talking Freight Seminar on Institutional Arrangements presented by Michael Williamson, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. September 16, 2009

2. 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 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

3. NCRPP 09 Research Goals • 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

4. Freight Institutional Arrangement 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

5. Research Elements • 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)

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. Initial Classification of Institutional Arrangements Example: CVISN Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program FMCSA CVISN – Multi-state Network: Part of the National ITS Architecture sponsored by USDOT Issue/Scale – Safety: Support Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) mission to improve safety and security and reduce the number and severity of CMV crashes Primary Function – Secondary Function – Operations: Deploy the CVISN architecture in the 30 states Public Agency: FMCSA Legal Structure – Issue/Scale Gateway/Port Metro Freight State Freight Multistate Network Corridors ….. Function Policy/Advocacy Planning Capital Improvements Operations Regulation/Safety Research/ Education/Forum Legal Structure - - Public Agency Public Authority Not for Profit Private Firm ..

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. Recommended Classification of Institutional Arrangements 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

12. Spectrum of Institutional Arrangement Types  Type I Type II Type III 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

13. Case Studies 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) Type 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)

14. Spectrum of Guideline Types Type II Type I Type III Program establishment Needs identification Design Outreach Project prioritization Construction Education Funding allocations Operations 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

15. Type I Guidelines • Identify need and purpose • Form deliberate strategies • Seek the support of a champion • Identify and recruit stakeholders • Build political support • Develop information sharing and outreach venues • Partner with academia • Engage stakeholders as needed • Secure dedicated funding and resources • Use consensus-based process • Ensure short and long term progress • Develop and use performance measures • 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. Type II Guidelines Define specific program elements Develop implementation process Establish protocols for implementation Identify evaluation criteria Define funding allocation process Require on-time completion of projects Require project audits Perform site visits Ensure focus stays on purpose/mission

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 Guidelines • Build consensus on specific project parameters • Seek out “champions” and develop a diverse coalition of interest groups • Provide forum for neutral broker • Secure private sector involvement/commitment • Develop mitigation strategy for project impacts • Establish clear decision-making authority • Remain focused on defined mission • Adopt a product orientation • Identify, monitor, and address obstacles • Develop partnership agreements • Negotiate third-party agreements early • Allocate risk between owner and contractor • Establish funding firewalls and sunset clauses • Consider Design-Build procurement • Understand how bond rating agencies make decisions • Establish cost sharing structure • Maintain adequate contingency and reserves • 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. Getting Started • 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

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