Managing State DOT Freight Programs

1. Managing State DOT Freight Programs The State of Practice in 2013 AASHTO Special Committee on Intermodal Transportation and Economic Expansion Workshop October 18, 2013 Lance R. GrenzebackElaine Croft McKenzie

2. Presentation • Research Question • 2005 Study • Survey methods and key findings • 2013 Update • Survey methods and preliminary findings

3. Research Question • How are state DOTs addressing the challenges and opportunities of managing freight transportation programs? • State DOTs have been organized to plan and build highways • Few state DOTs are organized to plan and implement freight programs across the network of highways, rail lines, waterways, airports, marine ports and distribution centers that constitute today’s intermodal freight system • How are state DOTs managing their evolving freight programs and what are the lessons learned?

4. Research Approach “Surgeon General’s Warning…” • Studies relied on mail-back surveys, on-line questionnaires and one-on-one interviews • Results are representative of a cross-section of state DOTs, but are not based on a statistically random sample • There is considerable variation among the state DOT approaches to managing freight programs that is not captured in this summary • Study looked at management and organizational approaches, not outcomes

5. 2005 Study • Commissioned by AASHTO [NCHRP 20-24(46)] • Reviewed organizational charts of 20 state DOTs • Surveyed trucking association directors in 35 states • Reported findings at executive seminar in Philadelphia in 2007 • Interviewed officials in 13 state DOTs • CA, CO, FL, KY, ME, MD, MN, NJ, OH, OR, PA, TX and WA

6. In 2005, the majority of state DOTs managed freight programs through planning divisions Executive Director Planning Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration Executive Director Planning Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration Freight

7. Other state DOTs managed freight through their operations or modal divisions Executive Director Planning Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration Executive Director Planning Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration Freight

8. Some state DOTs made use of formal freight coordinating committees Executive Director Planning Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration Internal Freight Coordinating Committee

9. A few state DOTs had director-level freight offices Executive Director Freight Office Planning Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration

10. What we heard from State DOTs in 2005 • Must give more attention, visibility and leadership to freight transportation • Need more staff with a broad understanding of supply chains, carrier operations and intermodal freight systems • Require more coordination and accountability across DOT divisions • Must have a primary point of contact and a well-defined process for communicating and negotiating with freight stakeholders • Need multistate coordination to deal with regional freight corridors and cross-jurisdictional issues

11. 2013 Update • Commissioned by AASHTO with funding from FHWA • Reviewed 32 state DOT organizational charts • Surveyed officials in 27 state DOTs (AASHTO web questionnaire) • Conducted roundtable discussion at the 2013 AASHTO-FHWA Freight Partnership meeting • Interviewed officials in 11 state DOTs • CA, FL, IN, ME, MI, MN, MO, ND, PA, TX, WA

12. Framework for Preliminary Findings • Mandate • Legislative authorization… • Organization • Allocation of roles and responsibilities… • Procedures • Methods for analysis, communication, decision-making… • Resources • Budgets, staff, skills, technology…

13. What we heard about “mandate”…(legislative authorization)

14. What we heard about “organization”…(allocation of roles and responsibilities)

15. What we heard about “organization”…(allocation of roles and responsibilities)

16. What we heard about “procedures”…(methods for analysis, communication, decision-making…)

17. What we heard about “procedures”…(methods for analysis, communication, decision-making…)

18. What we heard about “resources”…(budgets, staff, skills, technology…)

19. What we heard about “best practices” • Must have leadership at the policy level • Must view freight as a separate system whose customers have unique needs, but a system that shares infrastructure with cars, transit, rail, air • “A roadway has no purpose by itself – it either moves people or it moves freight, or both.” • Must have stronger accountability across planning, engineering and operations … plans that go nowhere erode the private sector’s willingness to work with state DOTs • Need more coordination among MPOs, states and multistate economic regions because freight crosses state boundaries

20. What we heard about future direction … Would like to move beyond the traditional automobile- and highway-engineering-oriented organizational structure ... Leadership Policy Planning Freight? Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration

21. What we heard about future direction … … to an organizational structure that recognizes freight as a distinct, but parallel and shared system Leadership PEOPLE FREIGHT Policy Planning Operations/Modal Divisions Engineering Administration

22. Managing State DOT Freight Programs The State of Practice in 2013 AASHTO Special Committee on Intermodal Transportation and Economic Expansion Workshop October 18, 2013 Lance R. GrenzebackElaine Croft McKenzie