1. INTRODUCTION
The National Freight Planning and Programming Conference, held in Memphis, Tennessee, October 1-3, 2001, provided an opportunity for 63 members of the transportation planning community to discuss recommendations and to create an action plan for improving the freight transportation planning process. The conference attendees came from 18 states and Washington D.C. and represented various public and private sector interests, including:
· Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
· Federal Rail Administration (FRA)
· Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
· Maritime Administration
· U.S. Coast Guard
· State Departments of Transportation (DOTs)
· Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs)
· Local Port Authorities
The Memphis conference was one of several freight outreach events planned by FHWA. These outreach events have been planned with the purpose of developing recommendations to improve the consideration of freight in the transportation planning process, with respect to financing and multi-jurisdictional coordination, and to improve the effectiveness of planning and programming from a freight perspective.
Over the past 20 years the transportation planning process has focused on passenger needs. This focus must be expanded to include freight transportation needs, as freight volume is projected to nearly double by 2020 and the current transportation infrastructure is in need of improvement. Several issues must be addressed in order to make improvements to freight transportation:
· Funding, and access to funding, for freight projects is constrained and representation is lacking for certain freight modes
· There is a lack of freight data with which to make informed policy decisions
· There is limited coordination between the public and private sectors, as well as among different jurisdictions
· The public is not well educated about freight transportation and its criticality to the nation’s economy
Each of these outreach events has addressed these issues and generated recommendations for solutions, primarily in the financial and institutional arenas. These recommendations will be reflected in a series of reports, produced by the USDOT, which will influence upcoming legislation in the reauthorization of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, enacted 1998).
The Memphis conference sought to refine and further develop the recommendations generated at previous conferences and to add new recommendations. However, the main focus of the Memphis conference was on moving the ideas and recommendations into actionable steps and implementation strategies. Considerable thought went into planning and organizing the conference in order to maximize its value to the attendees. The Freight Planning Committee, comprised of representatives from the private sector and Federal, state and local entities, designed the agenda to first provide a foundation for discussion and then have one facilitated breakout session to generate effective recommendations for improvement and one session geared toward planning the implementation of those recommendations. In order to lay the foundation for discussion at the conference, the participants:
· Attended a field trip to three Memphis area freight facilities - ComTrak Logistics, United Parcel Service (UPS), and the Union Pacific (UP) Intermodal Yard
· Listened to presentations given by stakeholders in the freight planning process
· Watched a role-play, which highlighted cultural differences and challenges in the freight transportation planning process
Within the breakout sessions, participants discussed the recommendations from previous conferences and added to them, further developed these recommendations, narrowed them down to two priority changes to be made, and then developed “Change Charters” outlining steps and responsibilities for implementing the changes.
The implementation plans were considered the key product of the conference and were the basis on which participants would take action once they returned to their offices. The conference closed with an open mic session, which allowed participants to ask questions, voice additional concerns, and add comments before they began their important task of making changes to the freight planning process.
2. PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE
The conference agenda stated the following four general purposes for the conference:
· Bring together the public and private sectors to discuss a national strategic focus on freight transportation planning and programming
· Recommend new ways to do business, taking into account the public and private disconnect in time horizons
· Bridge the gap between planning and programming in freight, creating public and private partnerships and public and environmental streamlining
· Look toward reauthorization and short-term solutions
More specifically, participants were expected to develop new recommendations, as well as build on ideas from previous conferences and then create a practical plan for the implementation of the recommendations. A key objective of this conference was to instill in participants a sense of how they could contribute to the implementation plan.
The conference also served to enlighten participants on freight trends, issues and forecasts in order to understand the need and the criticality of planning improvements. The field trip exposed participants to real-world perspectives of freight transportation and challenges faced. A panel of speakers representing various transportation interests was
chosen to educate participants on freight issues in general, regional and local perspectives, and modal perspectives. The field trip and stakeholder presentations brought freight issues to the attention of the participants and heightened their awareness and understanding of these issues.
Furthermore, the conference activities illustrated the many different players and perspectives involved in the transportation planning process and the need for those players to work together to make changes to the process. Often the public sector fails to
adequately coordinate with the private sector and vice versa, and multi-jurisdictional organizations find it difficult to work across political boundaries. Similarly, different modes have different interests and may feel their needs are not adequately prioritized. The role-play illustrated this point and brought it to the attention of the participants. It was hoped that participants would leave the conference with the realization that it is possible and, in fact, necessary, to work together in order to make changes to the process. Accountability was a key theme, as it was important that participants understood that they each play an important role in achieving the needed changes to the freight planning process.
3. FOUNDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION
As discussed earlier, the field trip, role-play, and panelist/lunch presentations each provided background on important freight trends and issues. The knowledge gained from these activities allowed participants to make better recommendations and create quality implementation plans that will be highly beneficial in making changes to the freight transportation planning process. Synopses of these foundations for discussion follow.
3.1 Field Trip
The day long field trip to ComTrak Logistics, UPS, and the UP Intermodal Yard was designed to expose participants to freight transportation and to give them a better sense of the challenges faced daily by the freight transportation industry. The field trip was planned as the first activity of the conference so that the knowledge gained could then be used later in the breakout sessions to develop recommendations that would reduce the aforementioned challenges.
Although the field trip was optional, more than half of the conference participants chose to attend.
The first stop was ComTrak Logistics, a multi-modal service provider located in Memphis. ComTrak is one of the largest intermodal drayage facilities in the United States. The company also provides many other services, although the tour of the facility focused on the storage and maintenance of shipping containers for shippers and carriers. Participants viewed the storage yard from the bus and saw the numbered parking spaces, used to store each container, as well as the maintenance bay, where the containers were repaired and cleaned as needed.
The ComTrak facilities demonstrated to participants the diversity of an efficient system. It also highlighted the need for an understanding of the roles played by the many actors in the freight arena. Without understanding these roles, intermodal facilities, such as ComTrak could not exist.
The field trip continued with a visit to the UPS processing facility, also in Memphis. The impressive tour of the facility took participants through the process that a package goes through when it comes in by truck or by plane. A highly sophisticated computer system controls the massive conveyer belts that run through the building, processing thousands of packages an hour. The system is able to detect incorrectly labeled packages and sorts the packages, according to their zip code, into separate bins. Very little human interaction is required to run the system, significantly cutting costs to UPS and to customers.
The UPS tour provided a good example of intermodalism and the advantage of being located in Memphis. The interaction of UPS’s planes and trucks minimizes the time it takes to get packages to customers. By strategically locating in Memphis, UPS has access to the country’s largest freight airport and is in overnight distance to 60% of America, ensuring the timely delivery of each package. Touring UPS also exposed participants to the necessity for maximum efficiency in freight transportation.
The final stop took participants to Marion, Arkansas, just over the Tennessee border, to the UP Intermodal facility. The UP stop involved a tour of the intermodal yard and a visit to the communications center. The tour of the intermodal yard was potentially the best possible way to illustrate intermodal freight transportation at work. Participants were able to view trucks entering and exiting the yard, the storage of shipping containers to be picked up by the trucks or by freight trains, the tracks running through the yard where trains stop daily, and large cranes picking up containers and stacking them for shipment. The yard operated at incredible efficiency and the magnitude of the operations indicated to participants why changes to the freight planning process must be made in order to maintain this efficiency.
The daily operations of the facility depend on an advanced communications center located near the entrance to the yard. In order for a truck to enter the yard it must go thorough an electronic ticketing system, which requires the driver to enter all pertinent information to be checked to determine if the truck is allowed access to the yard. As the truck goes through the entrance to the yard its container and chassis is photographed and electronically sent to the computers in the communications center, where operators can check for the truck’s identification number, damages and other information necessary to store the container in the yard. The trucks are also photographed as they leave the yard and the operators check to make sure the container is sealed and properly attached to the truck. Similar to the UPS tour, the communication center at the UP Intermodal Yard demonstrated the role that advanced technology plays in the effectiveness of freight transportation operations.
3.2 Panelists/Lunch Speakers
A number of guest speakers were selected to further lay the foundation for discussion in the breakout sessions and the development of the Change Charters. Representatives from FHWA, as well as State, Private, and Memphis-area organizations were chosen in order to give various perspectives on freight and the transportation planning process. Presentations, outlined below in Tables 4 and 5 in the order in which they were presented, were given during the plenary session on October 1st, prior to the breakout sessions and during lunch on October 2nd and 3rd.
Table 4 - Plenary Session Presentations
| Section Reference |
Presenter |
Title, Organization |
Presentation Topic |
| 3.2.1.1 |
George Schoener |
Director, Office of Metropolitan Planning, FHWA |
Purpose of the Conference |
| 3.2.1.2 |
Carter Gray |
Memphis MPO Coordinator |
The Role of MPOs in Freight Transportation |
| 3.2.1.3 |
Bruce Saltsman |
Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Transportation |
Freight Initiatives Taken by the Tennessee DOT |
| 3.2.1.4 |
Gary Maring |
Director, Office of Freight Management, FHWA |
|
| 3.2.1.5 |
Bruce Lambert |
Office of Freight Management, FHWA |
|
| 3.2.1.6 |
Jim Brogan |
Freight Analyst, Cambridge Systematics |
Addressing Freight in the Planning and Programming Process (Discussion of Conference White Paper) |
| 3.2.1.7 |
Chuck Boyd |
Division Administrator, FHWA |
Memphis’ Involvement in Freight Transportation |
| 3.2.1.8 |
Kate Quinn |
Intermodal Freight Coordinator, Office of Freight Management, FHWA |
Summary of Detroit Freight Planning Conference |
Table 5 - Lunch Presentations
| Section Reference |
Presenter |
Title, Organization |
Presentation Topic |
| 3.2.2.1 |
Rick Couch |
President, Osprey Lines |
Maritime Shipping Methods |
| 3.2.2.2 |
Rich Biter |
Acting Associate Deputy Secretary and Director, Office of Intermodalism, Department of Transportation |
The Effects of September 11 on the Department of Transportation |
| 3.2.2.3 |
Jim McCarville |
Executive Director, Port of Pittsburgh |
|
| 3.2.2.4 |
Larry Jensen |
President, Commercial Tennessee |
The speakers were chosen because of their knowledge of freight trends and issues, the transportation industry in general, and familiarity with the Memphis region. The plenary session speakers focused mainly on freight trends and issues, both nationally and in Tennessee, while the lunch speakers focused on a variety of topics, including maritime shipping, transportation security, and the Memphis region.
3.2.1. Plenary Session
3.2.1.1 George Schoener, Director of the FHWA Office of Metropolitan Planning, began the presentations by discussing the purpose of the Memphis conference and the goals that were to be achieved. He issued the charge to the conference participants to focus on the following areas when making their recommendations for improvements:
· Fostering a partnership between the public and private sectors to create a National Freight Agenda
· Reauthorization – look at what is working and why it’s working, as well as what isn’t working and why with current legislation such as ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, enacted 1991) and TEA-21, to determine what changes need to be made
· The need to bridge planning and programming
· Multi-state/multi-jurisdictional issues
· System redundancy – this infrastructure issue needs serious thought, especially after September 11. In most cities there are several bridges that are key to transportation flow into and out of the city; if these bridges were to be eliminated serious repercussions would occur.
· The HOW’s – how to implement the recommendations.
3.2.1.2 Carter Gray, Memphis MPO Coordinator spoke next, with a brief presentation on the role that the Memphis MPO is playing in freight transportation planning and the need for all MPOs to follow suit. The overlying theme to Mr. Gray’s presentation was that although the key issue in transportation today is getting people to and from work, getting freight moved to where it needs to go efficiently and in a planned manner is equally important. Freight movement is critical to the success of the country’s economy and therefore, freight and passenger transportation must co-exist with equal emphasis on improvements in both. Reiterating Mr. Schoener’s point, Mr. Gray stated the need for elimination of system redundancy, illustrating it with the statement that there is only one rail bridge that crosses the Mississippi. If that bridge were to be destroyed it would severely impair the time it takes to move freight from Memphis to a city as close as St. Louis.
Mr. Gray expressed the Memphis MPO’s desire to participate in freight planning and its willingness to take on necessary deeds to improve freight infrastructure, as freight movement is critical to the quality of life for all Memphis citizens. He urged all MPOs to follow Memphis’s example and start paying more attention to freight improvements.
3.2.1.3 Bruce Saltsman, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Transportation began by affirming Mr. Gray’s comments regarding Memphis’s importance to the national economy. He then elaborated on freight initiatives taken by the Tennessee Department of Transportation:
· Contributed financially and with staff to the Latin American Trade and Transportation Study (LATTS)
· Currently halfway through developing a state rail plan – includes an advisory committee with representatives from the freight industry
· Continuing to work on the I-69 project – I-69 will run from Mexico to Canada, connecting the world’s largest free trade zone
· Participating financially and with staff for the proposed Memphis Super Terminal
· Working closely with the Tennessee MPO on improving the freight planning process in urban areas
3.2.1.4 Gary Maring, Director of the FHWA Office of Freight Management,
continued with a presentation entitled “Freight Issues and Policy Options”. He listed the following as the objectives of his presentation:
· To make the audience aware of freight trends and issues
· To summarize what has been learned from previous outreach events
· To inform what needs to be done toward reauthorization
The foundation of the conference derived from Mr. Maring’s presentation, as an understanding of the trends and issues surrounding freight provided the base on which participants built their ideas during the breakout sessions. Mr. Maring summarized freight trends and issues in the areas of Markets/Logistics, Carriers/Transportation Systems and Public Policy. The discussion of these trends helped participants to understand why freight transportation improvements are extremely necessary.
Table 6 - Freight Trends
| Markets/Logistics (Demand) |
Carriers/Transportation Systems (Supply) |
Public Policy |
|
| Trends |
· Movement from national markets to global markets · From a manufacturing to a service economy · From customer dictated to just-in-time (JIT) delivery |
· Increased Department of Defense (DOD) reliance on commercial freight system · From modal fragmentation to cross-modal coordination · From system construction to system optimization |
· From economic deregulation to safety regulation · From modal to multi-modal surface transportation policy · Increased environmental accountability |
Mr. Maring went on to provide some statistics illustrating the need for transportation planning improvements:
· From 1990 to 1998 vehicle travel increased 72% while road miles increased by only 1%
· Freight volumes are projected to double by 2020
· National Highway System (NHS) connectors are in poor physical condition
· Public and Private sectors have different focuses – State and MPO focus is regional and local, private sector focus is increasingly national and global
He then elaborated on the DOT Freight Outreach Events, planned to address these problems. He briefly described what DOT has learned as a result of these events. He categorized the framework for policy improvements, based on the results of the outreach events, as the 4 – I’s:
· Strengthen Institutional arrangements to coordinate decision making and implementation
· Expand the use of Information technology
· Improve Infrastructure decision making and finance needed improvements
· Ensure that the U.S. trade transport system supports International trade development
Finally, Mr. Maring identified the three key problem areas in freight transportation (the presentation is included in the appendix and further elaborates on these areas):
· International gateways
· Multi-jurisdictional cooperation and finance
· Statewide and metropolitan freight programs
He identified several institutional and financing options to address each area and then urged participants to either build on the recommendations he discussed or generate new solutions to further address these problem areas.
3.2.1.5 Bruce Lambert, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations, continued the discussion of freight trends and issues with his presentation, entitled “National Freight Movements -Trends/Issues/Forecasts/Policy Implications”. Mr. Lambert listed the objectives of his presentation as to:
· Discuss emerging trends
· Present national freight analysis efforts
· Present preliminary forecasts
· Identify some of the emerging policy issues toward transportation reauthorization in 2002-2003
He reiterated Mr. Maring’s points on demand, supply and public policy and added his own perspective as well. He focused on the issue that demand for faster moving freight is increasing, while capacity is decreasing, putting more reliance on current infrastructure and leading to the chance of something disruptive happening to the transportation system. Furthermore, with the increasing reliance of the Department of Defense on the commercial freight system, worsening highway congestion problems, and insufficient rail and intermodal terminal capacity, changes to the transportation system are crucial. The reauthorization of TEA-21 must address these inefficiencies and remedy the inadequacy of current planning methods to better handle freight’s unique concerns.
Mr. Lambert moved on to discuss the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF), a tool he helped to develop, which is designed to help local organizations and states highlight the freight issues that they are facing. The FAF focuses on highway, railroad, water and air transportation. It is mostly a database of freight flow data, used to produce freight flow maps, forecasts of U.S. freight flow demand and to perform capacity analyses. All forecasts and maps are made under the assumption that there are no bottlenecks in the system. The FAF can be used to identify areas in need of improved freight transportation and to encourage cooperation between states and regions in order to resolve this need.
Table 7 - Definition and Uses of the Freight Analysis Framework
| What the FAF Is |
What the FAF Is Not |
Uses of the FAF |
| · An enabling device · Highlights the strategic mismatches in national/regional freight demand and capacity · Informs Federal and State legislative development processes on initiatives to address mismatches · Identifies “levers” of change · A tool for corridor, regional and modal interest groups |
· A directive device · A tool to develop a National Transportation System · For port rationalization · For picking corridor and gateway winners · For directing management of the intermodal system |
· Understand the geography of market areas · Understand the regional significance of corridors and modes · “How reliant is the Nation on me…how reliant am I on other areas of the Nation?” · Display future flows, identify changing traffic patterns resulting from different regional growth · Conduct “what if” analyses |
After Mr. Lambert’s presentation, audience members had the opportunity to ask questions.
Table 8 - Audience Questions and Mr. Lambert's Answers
| Question |
Answer |
| Will estimates of bottlenecks be made at the National level? |
Bottlenecks are identified for internal usage only. This type of analysis has never been done before at the National level, and as the data is not perfect, it is not recommended that it be done. The data is not to be used as a National planning tool, but as a mechanism to create National policy. |
| Can the U.S. port infrastructure handle large ships coming into the area? If not, will it lead to the diversion of freight from U.S. ports to International ports, such as those in Canada? |
If ships move to other ports, those ports will begin to face the same problems as U.S. ports. Many ports in Canada do not have the capacity to handle larger ships. However, it is the ports’ responsibility to make the investment into upgrades, not the Federal Government. |
3.2.1.6 Jim Brogan, Freight Analyst for Cambridge Systematics next gave an important presentation on the conference White Paper, entitled, “Addressing Freight in the Planning and Programming Process”. His presentation was mainly an overview of the White Paper, which was distributed to participants prior to the conference and can be found in the appendix of this report. The White Paper was written to address:
· Freight trends and their implication for States and MPOs
· Freight improvement projects and common obstacles
· Potential actions to be taken
Mr. Brogan discussed the impact that ISTEA and TEA-21 have had on freight planning, as they have pushed the responsibility to the state and local levels, while freight movement increasingly occurs at the national and global level. This presents problems to the state and local agencies, as freight movements differ greatly from passenger movements, due to the nature of their scope of operations. However, the impacts of freight are felt locally, as increased trade and stagnating capacity has contributed to congestion at intermodal transfer points, border crossings and along major trade corridors. For this reason, the state and local agencies must begin to take freight into consideration in the transportation planning process.
An overview of the transportation planning process was given and then Mr. Brogan described the obstacles that different organizations face as they go through this process.
Table 9 - Organizational Obstacles to Freight Transportation Planning
| Organization |
Obstacles |
| Local Implementing Agencies |
· Inability of staff to fully appreciate freight issues and their local impacts · Project eligibility requirements discourage private sector participation in the project idea generation process · Freight improvement projects cannot be properly evaluated due to a lack of appropriate data and tools |
| State DOT Headquarters, MPOs, Coalitions |
· Lack of private sector participation in the planning process · Inability to conduct statewide or regional freight studies due to a lack of resources · Potential economic and other benefits of freight projects are not fully reflected by TIP and STIP criteria · Regional coalitions lack the mechanisms necessary to implement proposed improvement projects |
| Private Sector |
· Project sponsorship requirements create difficulty in moving out of the “needs identification” stage · Loss of interest in the process due to length and time requirements · Resistance to the use of public funds to benefit private projects |
The presentation concluded with a description of the potential actions to eliminate these obstacles to freight planning. The actions fell into three categories and were used as the basis of discussion in the breakout session that occurred later that day.
· Information - gain a better understanding of the freight transportation system
· Coordination – improve communication within and among the public and private sectors
· Process – improve the consideration of freight during the transportation planning process.
3.2.1.7 Chuck Boyd, Division Office Administrator for the FHWA Tennessee Division Office concluded the main Plenary Session presentations with his discussion of the role of the Tennessee Division Office and Memphis’s involvement in freight transportation. Mr. Boyd stated that the Division Office was created to ensure that federal laws, regulations and policies are in place and are being followed. The office has a strong desire to find projects with win-win situations where partnerships can be formed between the public and private sectors, and therefore is ready and willing to take freight projects into consideration.
Mr. Boyd then shifted his focus to the Memphis region and shared his view that Memphis is situated to be the future distribution center of America, as it is in overnight distance to 60% of the country and is located at the crossroads for an international network of rail, ship, air, and ground transportation. He listed other supporting factors, including:
· Memphis is home to the world’s largest cargo airport
· The city is situated at the center of I-69
· NAFTA studies project enormous growth of incoming and outgoing freight in Memphis in the coming years
3.2.1.8 Following Mr. Boyd’s presentation, the role play was performed to provide a different type of presentation on freight related issues. After the role play, Kate Quinn, the Intermodal Freight Coordinator for the FHWA Office of Freight Management gave a brief, last presentation, summarizing the Detroit Freight Planning Conference, before sending participants to the first breakout session. She gave an overview of some of the recommendations developed at the Detroit Conference; these recommendations were also posted on the walls of the breakout session rooms. Ms. Quinn closed the plenary session by restating that the general purpose of these outreach efforts was to work toward reauthorization of TEA-21. She then asked the participants to
keep the following in mind when developing the recommendations and implementation plans:
· Reauthorization responsibility does not rest solely on FHWA – many other organizations are working toward reauthorization
· FHWA will listen to all stakeholders, but it is also the stakeholders’ responsibility to fight for what is important to them
3.2.2 Lunch Speakers
3.2.2.1 Rick Couch, President of Osprey Lines, spoke about maritime shipping methods, focusing on the need for more efficiency in the marine transportation system. As the system currently exists, there are significant infrastructure problems on waterways that must be improved. One of the most noteworthy problems is the current lock system. The system is time consuming and should be restructured to work more like rail switching systems, as barges run on dedicated time and cannot afford to wait for the opening and closing of locks.
Improving the infrastructure is important, as maritime shipping presents a tremendous opportunity for moving freight, especially hazardous materials. There is much less risk to putting hazardous materials on a barge, rather than on a truck or train. Mr. Couch suggested looking to Europe as a model, as they have a less complex river system but more efficient barge system.
Mr. Couch also spoke of the Jones Act, stating that the most significant difficulty for the U.S. Marine Industry is that it is protected by the Federal Government. The Jones Act requires that all vessels used to transport cargo and passengers between U.S. ports be built in U.S. shipyards. It would be highly advantageous for shippers to use ships, in additions to barges, for the movement of freight within the U.S.; but existing U.S. ships are over 33 years old and are not fuel-efficient. Restrictions must be lifted so that ships can be purchased from countries that are more efficient than the U.S. in making ships.
3.2.2.2 Rich Biter, Acting Associate Deputy Secretary and Director of the DOT Office of Intermodalism, somewhat changed the focus of the conference, by speaking about the changes that the September 11 attacks have made on the Department of Transportation. The DOT is not yet sure how the attacks will affect reauthorization. However, President Bush and Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta have ensured that the transportation system will remain safe. Several committees and commissions have been established, covering all transportation modes, to develop and quickly implement increased transportation security measures.
Mr. Biter also addressed the issue of freight transportation security, stating that work on better end to end container tracking had been going on, even prior to September 11th, as over 13 million freight containers, transported by a number of modes, pass through the U.S. each year. These containers originate in all parts of the world, but only a small portion actually go through U.S. customs, due to the magnitude of volume. Increased measures are being taken to ensure that all containers and carriers that pass through the U.S. are secure. Mr. Biter listed several of these measures:
· Lists of all HAZMAT drivers are being sent to the FBI – every driver must have a valid commercial driver’s license (CDL)
· Federal Rail Administration (FRA) is working with railroads to ensure the security of the rail system
· Maritime security has been increased at all U.S. Ports – all vessels entering U.S. ports must provide 96 hours advance notice before entering the port (previously it was 24 hours) and every crew member on the vessel is checked through the FBI
Although these measures are for the safety of the Nation, Mr. Biter reminded the audience that the issue exits of balancing the need for security with freedom for efficient trade. This issue must be continuously thought about as new security measures are put in place.
 |
3.2.2.3 Jim McCarville, Executive Director of the Port of Pittsburgh, took the time during lunch to enlighten participants on the Port of Pittsburgh, the largest inland port in the U.S. in terms of tonnage. Although the port is so large, Pittsburgh is not in a feasible location for intermodal transportation. Most of the containers are delivered to the port by truck, as there is no point to stopping a train in Pittsburgh due to the city’s close proximity to the railroads of New York and Chicago. However, transportation planners are currently looking at opening up a gateway between Pittsburgh and Texas.
Mr. McCarville is working to get waterway transportation recognized in the reauthorization of TEA-21 and encouraged participants to work for this cause as well. He believes that marine transportation is one way to eliminate highway congestion, as shown in Figure 1, illustrating that 58 truckloads of freight can fit on a single barge.
Addressing the issue of funding
for increased maritime freight transportation, Mr. McCarville asserted that
funding for freight projects should be predicated on the quantifiable public
benefits of the project. He suggested that a dedicated portion of highway
gas tax funds be used for port projects. In order to get those funds, research
will have to prove that maritime transportation will bring a tremendous reduction
to greenhouse gases, highway fatalities and congestion. The statistics that
have been found to date seem to be in the ports’ favor, as shown in Figure
2, illustrating the fuel savings brought by shipping on barges. (Graphics
are copied from Mr. McCarville’s
presentation, which can be found in the appendix.)
3.2.2.4 Larry Jensen, President of Commercial Tennessee gave the final presentation of the conference and spoke about the Memphis economy. He stressed the need for people to look at Memphis not just as a political jurisdiction, but also as a global economic competitive unit. Memphis is not an isolated city; it is part of a large, global competitive community. Mr. Jensen illustrated this with the fact that from an economic perspective, there is no state line between Mississippi and Tennessee or Arkansas and Tennessee. Citizens of the Mississippi and Arkansas cities that border Memphis look to Memphis for their cultural identity – for shopping, air transportation, newspapers, television channels, and even doctors. Memphis and its surrounding cities and counties need to work together to operate as one region.
The citizens of these surrounding communities also look to Memphis for employment. Known as “the city that works 24 hours a day”, the Memphis economy is driven by the logistics industry. Large companies, such as BMW and International Paper, have chosen to locate their North American operations in Memphis due to its logistics infrastructure. Mr. Jensen listed several factors that make Memphis attractive to many businesses:
· Location – Memphis is in overnight distance of 60% of America and is centrally located on Route 69
· Large telecommunications infrastructure, driven by Federal Express
· Memphis International Airport has been the world’s top cargo airport, in terms of volume, for the past eight years
· A Super Terminal, connecting highway, rail, and maritime transportation, is being built 2.5 miles from the airport; it will be one of the anchors of the Memphis logistics corridor
In order to make Memphis even more attractive to businesses, the city is working toward the creation of a rail bypass to protect the freight that currently flows through the center of Memphis. Freight trains would be rerouted around the city, while the existing internal tracks could possibly be used for a light rail system.
Mr. Jensen closed by reiterating his point that Memphis and its surrounding cities and counties need to operate as one region, and urged for other metropolitan areas to follow the same model.
3.3 Role Play
Near the end of the plenary session, the agenda shifted away from the presentations and toward a role play exercise, realistically illustrating the issues and frustrations that occur with freight transportation planning. The role play, entitled “All Aboard”, characterized the views of both the public and private sectors in response to the idea of building an urban railroad corridor in a fictional city. It highlighted both the barriers and opportunities to reaching a common ground among the various stakeholders involved in with the project. Pre-selected conference participants acted out the roles of these stakeholders, in order to get the audience to think about how the public and private sectors can move past their differing views and opinions and work together to plan and implement freight transportation projects.
The role play introduced 11 key players involved in the city’s transportation planning process. The president of the city’s Chamber of Commerce presented a proposal to build an urban rail corridor, linking two existing class I railroads, served by a shared intermodal yard with access to the city’s adjoining port facilities. The corridor would divert rail traffic currently running through the city and improve freight travel times. The highlight of the project was to be a rail/highway bridge spanning the river that ran through the area. The project was proposed with promises of:
· More competitive rates for intermodal shipments – attracting businesses to the city
· The creation of many new jobs
· Safety improvements
· Reduced congestion delay for passenger and freight traffic
Although the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development director, along with the Transit Authority Director and the representative from the Port Commission, found the project to be promising, many others involved opposed the project.
Environmental, time frame, and financing concerns arose, with each player wanting what was best for their industry. In addition, as concerns were brought up, the scope of the project seemed to grow, as the promoters of the project tried to please all involved.
The role play continued with a second meeting of the stakeholders, with more players present than at the previous meeting. Representatives from the trucking and transit industries attended the meeting and agreed that the project could be beneficial, but only if it helped them directly. The project then further expanded in scope, as the ideas of adding a truck-only lane to the bridge and including a light rail line in the corridor were presented. After some convincing and urging to approach the issue with an open mind, all stakeholders agreed to move forward in the process and to try to make the project a win-win situation for all.
The final act of the role play demonstrated the process involved in beginning to plan for the project. Roles, such as that of the Chairman of the Corridor Committee, were assigned and contact points from the public and private sectors were chosen. The goal was to facilitate communication between all groups involved. The issues of funding and public education and the need for data to support the project were also discussed, as well as issues that were important to each individual and industry involved.
The role play brought some of the issues to the forefront that would be focused on by audience members in the breakout sessions to follow. Although many of the conference participants may have actually been in similar situations in their own work within the transportation industry, the role play provided a hard hitting final example of the need for all players to work together in order to make freight improvements happen. The participants were ready to move to the breakout sessions, to begin to develop their own recommendations, and ultimately implementation plans, for these necessary improvements.
4. BREAKOUT SESSIONS
After significant exposure to the issues and trends surrounding the need
for changes in the freight planning process, participants were given the chance
to voice their thoughts and impressions and ultimately create the plans for
improvement. Two breakout sessions were held over the course of the conference,
with the objective being to develop the recommendations for change and more
importantly, the plans to implement those rec 
ommendations.
The sessions were designed to first give participants the chance to finalize
the development of recommendations and then move away from the idea generation
phase and head toward the next step of implementation. The first breakout
session sought to build on or add to recommendations generated from previous
conferences in terms of how freight planning can be proved. Numerous ideas
were generated during this session and were eventually narrowed down to seven
final recommendations along the lines of institutional, financial, and jurisdictional
changes. Two of these recommendations were selected for further development
in the second breakout session, in which participants were charged to create
“Change Charters”, detailing the implementation plans for the recommendations.
These charters were the stepping-stones to facilitate movement from the idea
generation phase to actual implementation and allowed participants to better
understand the role that they play in making the changes happen.
4.1 Breakout Session 1
Two breakout groups were created, equally comprised of people from the public and private sectors. With lists of key ideas generated from the previous outreach efforts hanging on the walls to facilitate the discussion, participants were asked to answer the following question:
How can the transportation planning process be improved at each level (local, state, federal) to address freight needs, both commercial and defense, and better incorporate freight perspective?
Thirty-four initial recommendations were generated between the two groups. After each group refined their ideas, nine recommendations (six from Group 1, three from Group 2) were developed within a “What and How” matrix. These recommendations were even further consolidated in the second breakout session, as the two groups suggested several similar ideas. The “What and How” matrix served as a mechanism for participants to further develop the recommendations. The matrix identified:
· The defined idea for improving the planning process to better address commercial and military freight needs
· Significant challenges to implementing the idea
· Suggested solutions to overcome challenges
· Timeframe
The matrices can be found in Appendix C. The nine recommendations were as follows:
Table 10 - Recommendations Generated in First Breakout Session
| · Eliminate the current modal administration structure and move power toward intermodalism (state, local, federal) |
| · Develop multi-jurisdictional coalitions |
| · Create a National Freight Board, dominated by large shippers. If this works, then similar boards can be created at the state, regional and local levels. Create freight PACs, as well, at all levels. |
| · Create enabling legislation for regional coalitions along major corridors |
| · Establish a dedicated federal funding source for freight projects – potentially a freight trust fund |
| · Develop a mechanism to use public funds for private projects of public benefit |
| · Improve freight financing in terms of creating new funds and expanding the eligibility of existing funds |
| · Develop an education program that will improve the public outreach component of the planning process to better address commercial and military freight needs |
| · Improve freight data, ensuring it is up to date, reliable and consistent across all modes |
4.2 Breakout Session 2
The ideas developed during the first breakout session were further consolidated into seven recommendations. Participants voted during the morning of day 2 to determine the top two recommendations for which the “Change Charters” would be created. Each participant was given three votes to allocate as they felt necessary. Table 11 shows the allocation of the votes.
Table 11 - Allocation of Participant Votes for Change Recommendations
| Change Recommendation |
Number of Votes |
| ü Improve freight education – develop an education program to improve public outreach for the planning process |
19 |
| ü Eliminate the modal administration – move power to an “intermodal” structure |
7 |
| ü Create enabling legislation for regional/multi-jurisdictional coalitions along major corridors · Evaluate criteria for coalition scope · Receive/disburse funds other than earmarks · Allow construction contracts · Simplify accounting procedures |
27 |
| ü Improve freight data · Consistency · Reliability · Aggregation · Proprietary use · Age |
22 |
| ü Create a national freight board (regional/state/local) and freight PACs (federal, regional, state, local) |
5 |
| ü Improve the financing of freight projects through the expansion of eligibility of existing funds or creating new funds, such as a freight trust fund |
24 |
| ü Allow public funding to fund private projects to be used by private entities that can show quantifiable public benefit |
15 |
As shown in Figure 3, Participants clearly chose to develop implementation plans for change recommendations involving freight financing and the creation of regional or multi-jurisdictional coalitions. This was predictable, as these were the only two recommendations that overlapped between the two breakout groups during session 1, indicating that they should be a high priority on the list of proposed changes.
After assigning a recommendation to each breakout group, participants were asked to answer the following questions in the second breakout session:
What steps are necessary to implement this recommendation? Which implementation steps are within the purview of your organization to implement? Are there any constraints to your organization’s ability to implement those steps that are within your organization’s purview? If so, what if anything, might be a solution to the constraint?
The questions were answered through the development of “Change Charters”, which were created with the following purposes in mind:
· To define a practical plan for implementing the recommendations
· To encourage accountability for implementation of these recommendations at all levels
· To enable participants, in their various roles that collectively contribute to effective transportation planning, to “see” how the various roles and organizations will need to come together to collectively make these improvements happen, and to realize everyone has a role
Before developing the Charter, each breakout group further developed their assigned recommendation, to create a final, specific change recommendation. They then created the Charters, detailing the specifics for implementing the recommendation. The Charters describe:
· Recommendation champions (federal, state, local, private)
· Measures of Success
· Implementation Steps
· Timeframe for the Steps
· Who needs to be involved at each step
· Constraints to each step
· Solutions to the constraints
The charters are shown in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 12 - Charter 1
|
Create federal legislation allowing and empowering regional/multi-jurisdictional coalitions of public and private partners to plan and implement freight transportation improvements. |
|||||
| Recommendation Champion(s) |
Role Accepted? |
||||
| Federal: US DOT/other Inv. Agencies, DOD, FEMA, International partners |
|||||
| State: DOT, Ports, Rail, Economic Development, Governors, State legislature, other “authorities”, International partners |
|||||
| Local: ports, rail, MPOs, local governments, Chambers of Commerce, RPOs, International partners |
|||||
| Private Sector: major shippers, major importers/exporters, rail, ports, carriers, associations, ATA, AAR |
|||||
| Change Objective/Measures of Success (How will we know when we’ve succeeded?) 1. There is legislation 2. Freight is moving more productively 3. There is evidence that the private sector is participating 4. Coalitions are formed 5. Re-evaluate yearly what has been accomplished to determine the level of success |
|||||
| Rationale for Recommendation (Why is this important?) Freight is Global National Security Freight is related to economic growth/vitality |
|||||
| Implementation Steps: |
|||||
| IMPLEMENTATION STEP DESCRIPTION |
BY WHEN |
WHO |
CON-STRAINT |
SOLUTION TO CONSTRAINT |
|
| 1. Review similar existing legislation, policies and coalitions and identify all policy legislative changes needed. |
Short term (3 months – 1 year) |
1. OST – DOT Administration, other Federal Legislation 2. States – coordinate office of planning, office of legislation, other state agencies 3. MPO – coordinate with states |
· Time · Making it a priority · Limited funding |
· Make it a priority · Obtain specialized funding for this plan · Increase staffing |
|
| 2. Create educational marketing campaign |
Short (3 months – 1 year)/ med (1-2 years) /long (3 years – lifetime of project) Concur-rent with step 1 |
Every stakeholder – private, state, MPO, locals, IANA, CLM, ATA, AAR, NITL, AASHTO, AMPO, APA |
· Time · Priority Money · Getting a coordinated effort among the stakehold-ers |
· Define audiences · Develop technologies · Structure marketing package · Early communication between partners |
|
| 3. Sell to/get buy-in from Congress, politicians, stakeholders, states, federal agencies and private industry. |
Short term 6 months – 1 year |
DOT, private, state, MPO/municipality, Governors |
· USDOT doesn’t lobby (ethics) · Institutional ownership |
· Identify/prove benefits · Gain private sector involvement · Identify appropriate champion(s) |
|
| 4. Write legislation |
6/20/02 – Feds Associa-tion Study? Changes Jan. 2004 |
Association Feds. |
Tough to come to agreement |
· Build partnerships · See #3 · Communications |
|
| 5. Create structure/criteria multi-modally – what is a coalition? Define the activities of the coalition. |
3-6 months |
HOFM – champions – MPO, private, state, see #2, AASHTO, AMPO, IANA, NITL, CLM |
· Money, · Resistance to required structure, · Reaching consensus, · Too much bureaucracy · Market competition |
· Step 2 · Language/Level of detail · Establish process for reaching consensus · Look at other models (KISS) · Establish ground rules – equality strong champion role of private industry |
|
| 6. Provide an informational package on models of “how to” at all levels |
States, MPOs, private sector, feds, associations |
· Prioritizing · Timing · Staffing · Communi-cation amongst all partners |
· Prioritize · Set up a communication network (web based) |
||
Table 13 - Charter 2
| Change Recommendation Improve financing of freight through expanded eligibility of existing funding mechanisms, and creation of new funds (create a “freight” mechanism, i.e., “freight trust”) |
|||||
| Recommendation Champion(s) |
Role Accepted? |
||||
| Federal: USDOT, US Chamber of Commerce, Congressional Committees |
|||||
| State: |
|||||
| Local: Chambers of Commerce |
|||||
| Private Sector: AASHTO, other associations |
|||||
| Change Objective/Measures of Success (How will we know when we’ve succeeded?)
|
|||||
| Rationale for Recommendation (Why is this important?) Currently, funding for freight projects is heavily constrained. Federal and state law (may need to change state constitutions) must be changed to specify “transportation” projects vs. “highway/transit” projects” AND to permit public funds to be used for privately owned projects. |
|||||
| Implementation Steps: |
|||||
| IMPLEMENTATION STEP DESCRIPTION |
BY WHEN |
WHO |
CONSTRAINT |
SOLUTION TO CONSTRAINT |
|
| 1. Develop education/advocacy strategy and plan |
Oct 2001-Jan 2002 |
Task Force |
1. Timeline |
· Get the right players from the start for task force. · Secure commitment from task force players to work it as a priority through completion. |
|
| 2. Educate public and decision makers on CMAQ success stories |
Oct 2001-Jan 2002 |
Champions (AASHTO and U.S Chamber of Commerce as lead) |
2. Message consistency |
· Tell story in plain English. · Have an information dissemination strategy to control what is sent and when. · DOT can help by providing an information baseline. |
|
| 3. Build a constituency for change |
Oct 2001-Jan 2002 |
Champions (AASHTO and U.S Chamber of Commerce as lead) |
3. Resources (time and $$) |
·
Organizations will provide
resources if benefit is self-evident. · Show how benefits self-interest of this topic and this process. · Show benefits of a coalition vs. working individually. |
|
| 4. Develop the win-win story to support the education/advocacy effort |
Oct 2001-Jan 2002 |
Task Force |
4. Modal, state, and special interest self-interest |
· Show how participation could lead to more $$ downstream. · Document and emphasize the “win-win”. · Understand and target the mod-specific interests and issues. · Look for opportunities to talk at the working level. · Have an AASHTO person on task force. |
|
| 5. Identify Congressional committees with the greatest impact and match the stories so they can be enlisted (Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) ask for hearings on freight. |
Oct 2001-Jan 2002 |
Champions (AASHTO and U.S Chamber of Commerce as lead) |
5. Congressional interests – possible leadership changes |
· Consistency of message. · Identify/have relationships with likely downstream candidates. · Articulate bi-partisan value. |
|
| 6. DOT to push this language, as appropriate, in reauthorization to meet with private sector stakeholders to coordinate this awareness effort. (U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AASHTO may be the best place to start, local Chambers would also be able to get to the locally-elected Congressional leaders) |
Oct 2001-Jan 2002 |
DOT/FHWA |
|||
5. KEY THEMES AND ACHIEVEMENTS
As the conference came to a close, the “Change Charters” were presented to all participants and an open mic session was held for any further discussion. It was apparent that several themes emerged from the conference, and for each theme, achievements occurred that were in line with the conference planners’ overlying goal of improving the freight planning and programming process. The themes and achievements are described below and are also summarized in Table 11 at the conclusion of the document.
The overlying theme for the conference was the need to move past the idea-generating phase and to begin to take steps toward implementing the recommendations developed throughout each of the freight outreach efforts. Therefore, the key achievement of the Memphis conference was the creation of two “Change Charters”, outlining the steps to be taken for implementing two important recommendations. These Charters allowed participants to recognize their accountability in making freight changes happen and also allowed them to understand their specific roles so that all generated recommendations, not just those that the Charters were developed for, could become reality. Furthermore, the conference ended with a discussion of the next steps to be taken and what can be done to follow up on all generated recommendations to ensure that they are implemented. The next steps identified were:
- Do not wait for the Federal Government to take action – ownership must lie in all involved: state DOTs, governors, Chambers of Commerce, other private stakeholders, etc.
- Using the conference mailing list, set up a conference call with Leo Penney, of AASHTO, to discuss what needs to be done to begin implementing the recommendations. A deadline must be set for the call to ensure that it takes place.
- Use the National Electronic Freight Dialog on the HOFM website as a forum to discuss the recommendations. The dialog will be used to determine what a freight program should actually look like.
The second theme concerned the need for cooperation between the public and private sectors in order to make improvements to the freight planning process. This theme was discussed several times, as the limited coordination between sectors is a major cause for inefficiencies in freight project planning. Much was done to highlight this obstacle to planning and implementing freight projects and to encourage participants to begin to think of ways to remedy the problem. As a result of the field trip, presentations, and especially the role play, the participants were able to understand the dire need for improvements in the freight planning process, and the benefits of working together as a whole, instead of as individual groups or sectors.
The third theme revolved around the need for institutional changes in order to improve freight planning and programming. Several recommendations were made that suggested changes to current institutional structures and the inclusion of freight coalitions to make freight improvements. The most common suggestion was the necessity for the development of regional or multi-jurisdictional coalitions comprised of public and private partners. Freight movement is not limited to a single region or jurisdiction, so cooperation among adjacent areas is necessary in order to properly plan, fund, and gain support for freight projects. A “Change Charter was” developed for the implementation of regional/multi-jurisdictional coalitions as participants found it to be important to improving freight planning because the current institutional structure inhibits cooperation among regions and jurisdictions.
Other recommendations in the realm of institutional changes were also generated, including the need for a National Freight Board and taking a one DOT approach to transportation planning. Most participants felt that modifications need to be made to the current modal administration in order to get transportation planners to stop thinking in terms of individual modes. Although “Change Charters” were not developed for these recommendations, participants understood their importance and were encouraged to take responsibility for further action.
The need for improvements in freight financing was also thoroughly discussed and found to be a central theme of the Memphis conference, as well as several of the other outreach efforts. All participants agreed that expansion of eligibility needs to occur for existing funds and that new funds need to be created as well. The second “Change Charter” addressed this recommendation. The need for a mechanism to use public funds for private projects of public benefits was also found to be important to the improvement of freight financing and to the expansion of fund availability. As funding is key to the planning and implementation of freight projects, participants understood the importance of these recommendations and the need to take action to ensure they are addressed in future reauthorization bills.
The theme of freight education and public outreach also surfaced during the conference, as many participants found public education to be necessary for making freight transportation improvements. Currently there is little outreach to make the public aware of the need for freight improvements. Making the public aware of the role that freight movement plays in the well being of the economy, both national and local, will generate more support for freight improvement projects. Additionally, educating the public about freight will allow MPOs and other regional planning organizations to make more informed decisions about freight projects. Often these groups do not understand freight needs and rely on freight outreach efforts for guidance and advice on making freight transportation improvements. As a result of the conference, participants gained a stronger knowledge of freight transportation and needs, and could use this knowledge to coordinate outreach efforts in their local region.
The final theme to emerge from the conference was the need for more detailed freight data to be used for project planning. As a result of the plenary session presentations, participants were enlightened on the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) and began to think about freight data and how it can help in making well-informed planning and programming decisions. Several initial recommendations were generated relating to the need for freight data. These recommendations were combined into one specific recommendation, which ranked high in importance according to participants’ votes during the second breakout session. Although the freight data recommendation was not developed in a “Change Charter”, participants realized that, like the other recommendations, they had the power to make the recommendation a reality.
The outcome of the focus on each of these themes could be seen as a conference achievement, whether a tangible product, like the “Change Charter”, was developed or not. As a result of the field trip, the speakers during the plenary session and the lunches, and the role play participants gained a greater knowledge of freight trends and needs and could use this knowledge in their work to make freight transportation improvements. By working together with people from many different organizations, participants were able expand their way of thinking by listening to views and opinions that differed from their own. Furthermore, the breakout sessions generated a number of recommendations that participants can now focus on in their workplace. Finally, the “Change Charters” developed in the second breakout session accomplished the main goal of the conference, to encourage participants to take accountability for implementation of the recommendations. Although only two Charters were developed, they enabled the participants to understand what role they play in improving freight transportation and therefore, pointed participants in the direction of implementing all recommendations.
The conference ended with the ball in the participants’ court – the recommendations had been chosen and the roles for implementation were defined. It was now up to them to take the next steps toward improving freight transportation planning and programming.
Table 14 - Summary of Conference Key Themes and Achievements
| Theme |
Conference Achievement |
| 1. Moving past the idea generation phase and on to implementing recommendations |
ü The creation of the “Change Charters”, which gave participants specific roles for making changes ü Discussion of the next steps to take in making the recommendations become reality |
| 2. Everyone involved must work together in order to make freight improvements happen |
ü Participants from both sectors worked together in the breakout sessions and gained a better understanding of each sector’s needs |
| 3. Institutional changes are necessary to making improvements in freight transportation planning |
ü “Change Charter” developed for implementing regional/multi-jurisdictional coalitions ü Participants understood the need for institutional changes and accepted the responsibility for follow up in order to make these changes |
| 4. Improvements in freight financing are important |
ü “Change Charter” developed for instituting new or expanding current funding mechanisms ü Participants generated several other recommendations for financing improvements and now understand their responsibility for taking further action to begin to implement the changes |
| 5. Increased public awareness and education on freight projects is necessary |
ü Increased awareness of the National Electronic Freight Dialog to give participants a forum to further discuss this need ü Generation of several recommendations to improve public education |
| 6. There is a need for more detailed freight data to be used for project planning |
ü The discussion of the Freight Analysis Framework enlightened participants on newly created means to access much needed freight data ü Generation of several recommendations related to increased freight data |