NCFRP 09 Institutional Arrangements in the Freight Transportation

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 0

NCRPP 09 Panel Members David L. Ganovski, formerly MDOT George E. Schoener, I-95 CC Rebecca M. Brewster, ATRI Sotirios Theofanis, Rutgers Christina S. Casgar, SANDAG M. J. Fiocco, US DOT John Ficker, NITL Elaine King, TRB Gary Gallegos, SANDAG Martine A. Micozzi, TRB Arthur Goodwin, ACTA William C. Rogers, TRB - NCFRP Michael Huerta, ACS Transportation Solutions Charlotte Thomas, TRB Thomas O'Brien, CITT- CSU 1

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 2

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 3

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) 4

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

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 • 6 Trade associations, like ATA and NITL, serve as advocates to guide policyshaping forums and funding program allocations

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 7

Initial Classification of Institutional Arrangements Example: CVISN FMCSA CVISN – Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program Multi-state Network: Part of the National ITS Architecture sponsored by USDOT Safety: Support Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Primary Function – 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 Issue/Scale – Legal Structure – Public Agency: FMCSA 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 . . 8

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 9

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 10

Spectrum of Institutional Arrangement Types Type III 1. Information Sharing 1. Project Evaluation 1. Project Implementation 2. Consensus Building 2. Project Prioritization 3. Education 3. Project Selection and Funding 2. Design and Construction 4. Increased Visibility & Awareness 5. Overcoming Distrust and Competitive Barriers 6. General Advocacy 4. Consensus Building at Project Level 5. Focused Advocacy 6. Leverage Additional Funds 3. Obtain Environmental Approvals 4. Managing Financial and Schedule Risks 5. Construction Oversight 6. Debt Service Payments 7. Negotiate Partnership Agreements 11

Case Studies 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-95 CC) Kansas City Smartport (KCSP) Miami-Dade MPO Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) Mississippi Valley Freight Coalition (MVFC) Nation’s. Port 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) 12 Type II I-95 Corridor Coalition (I-95 CC) 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)

Spectrum of Guideline Types 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 13

Type I Guidelines 14 1. Identify need and purpose 8. Engage stakeholders as needed 2. Form deliberate strategies 9. Secure dedicated funding and resources 3. Seek the support of a champion 10. Use consensus-based process 11. Ensure short and long term progress 4. Identify and recruit stakeholders 5. Build political support 6. Develop information sharing and 12. Develop and use performance outreach venues measures 7. Partner with academia 13. Encourage cost sharing

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 15

Type II Guidelines 16 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

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 17

Type III Guidelines 23. 24. 32. Develop partnership agreements 33. Negotiate third-party agreements early 34. Allocate risk between owner and contractor Seek out “champions” and develop a diverse coalition of interest groups 25. Provide forum for neutral broker 26. Secure private sector involvement/commitment 35. Establish funding firewalls and sunset clauses 27. Develop mitigation strategy for project impacts 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 28. 29. 18 Build consensus on specific project parameters Establish clear decision-making authority Remain focused on defined mission 30. Adopt a product orientation 31. Identify, monitor, and address obstacles

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 19

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 20

Release of Final Report currently being edited by TRB; release anticipated late 2009 For further information, contact: • Bill Rogers Transportation Research Board wrogers@nas. edu 202 -334 -1621 • Michael Williamson Cambridge Systematics mwilliamson@camsys. com 954 -315 -3817 21