NATIONAL ROUND TABLE:
INSTITUTIONS FOR IMPROVING FREIGHT MOVEMENT IN MULTI-STATE CORRIDORS

C. INSITUTIONAL OPTIONS for IMPROVINGMULTI-STATE TRANSPORTATION

Summary of Options
Dr. Bruce D. McDowell, FAICP

Presented to
Roundtable of National Experts
Washington, DC
Thursday, June 18, 2009

MAIN PURPOSE OF THE PAPER

Assist in building INSITUTIONS capable of improving MULTI-STATE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE

WHAT THE PAPER OFFERS

• Identification of 7 key capabilities needed to improve performance in multi-state Transportation Corridors
• A survey of cross-border institutions
  • 8 types of institutional options examined
  • Nearly 80 illustrative examples, summarized (transportation and non-transportation)
• Considerations for deciding which institutional options might be most helpful in any given multi-state Transportation Corridor
• No recommendations

KEY CAPABILITIES

	Multi-State Scope
	Multi-Modal Scope
	Strategic Planning & Goal Setting—Public Policy
	System Management to Achieve Improved Outcomes
	Implementation of Projects & Operational Improvements
	Strong & Reliable Financing
	Ease of Establishment

INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS (AND EXAMPLES) EXAMINED

Interstate Compact	Interstate Compact	Interstate Compact	Interstate Compact
Port Authority of NY & NJ Wash. DC Metro Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission	Alameda Corridor Authority	California High-Speed Rail Authority	Transportation Corridor Coalitions MPOs
Non-Profit Corporations	Commercial Companies	Federal Corporations	Federal Agency; Commission, or Project Office
Fed Chartered: TRB National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Privately Chartered: Intelligent Transportation Society of America North American Electrical Reliability Corporation	Railroads Truckers Barge Operators Shipping & Delivery Companies	Conrail Amtrak St. Lawrence Seaway	FHWA Office of Freight FRA Office of High-Speed Ground Transportation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (waterways & ports) Appalachian Regional Commission

No single institution may possess all the capabilities needed

But each may have an important contribution to make

THE TASK AHEAD

Select the most appropriate "glasses" for meeting the corridor's needs

Fill each glass selected as full of capabilities as you can

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS

• "Form follows function" (be clear about which institutional CAPABILTIES are needed)
• No single institution may have all the capabilities needed
• Look to existing organizations first to find and utilize needed capabilities
• Tailor MULTI-STATE TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTIONS to their time and place
• The most important capability sought is "boundary crossing"

Based on your experience:

Which institutional options do you believe offer the greatest potential for improving the performance of multi-state Transportation Corridors?

Institutional Options to Strengthen Multi-state Transportation Corridor Performance

Types of Institution	Examples	When Appropriate		Factors for Evaluating Suitability
				Formation & Modification (Degree of Difficulty)	Governance (Inclusiveness/flexibility)	Financing (Size & reliability)	Public Purpose/ Performance/Powers/ Authority (strength & scope)
		Lead	Situation
1. Interstate Compact	Port Auth. of NY & NJ Delaware River Basin WMATA Midwest Interstate Pass.Rail Commission	State	Well recognized permanent function of govt.	Problematic: Difficult politically Time consuming Not easily modified Requires consensus	Suitable: State oriented Always interstate	Uncertain: Potentially strong Depends on political consensus when created	Suitable: Real Power (potentially) Probably limited to narrow functions May be viewed as loss of state power
2. Joint Services Agreement	• Interstate waste- water treatment at Blue Plains	Local	Economy of scale Voluntary Coord. May not be used	Suitable: Relatively easy Flexible State laws determine	Problematic: Contractual agreement Joint Services org. Seldom interstate	Uncertain: Regular public funds pooled by agreement Uncertain/uneven	Uncertain: Powers previously established by law Uncertain/uneven
3. Special District or Authority	Airport & Port Auth. Highway Dist. CA High-Speed Rail Authority	State or Local	Vital function of govt. Service area diff. than local govt.	Suitable: Fairly easy where political consensus exists Some states regulate formation	Problematic: Usually narrow functions Seldom interstate	Suitable: Strong	Uncertain: Strong, but narrow Can be effective bldg.block
4. Voluntary Coalition	Transp. Corridor Coalitions MPOs	Innovators & Fed. incentives	New or uncertain function Large # diverse partners Intergovernmental & public/private	Suitable: Easy to start May not have full participation May not last	Suitable: Flexible/potentially inclusive Easily interstate	Problematic: Usually must beg for $ Potentially very weak Depends on strong consensus building skills	Problematic: Flexible but weak Not dependable Depends on strong consensus bld. Skills
5. Non-Profit Corps. & Foundations	Fed. Chartered TRB, NFWF,NIBS Privately Chartered, ITSA, NAGRC, foundations	Special interests	Helpful in many situations	Suitable: Very Easy Very flexible	Suitable: Not necessarily inclusive: not representational Easily interstate	Uncertain: Potentially strong Privately decided Dependent on others and on market fluctuations	Uncertain: Self-defined purposes; not publicly or govt.. defined Can be guided by govt. contracts
6. Commercial Companies	Railroads Trucking Cos. Barge Cos. Other shipping & delivery companies	Private	Private market is strong and aligned with public purposes	Suitable: Contract negotiations Relatively quick & easy	Suitable: Private decision making Govt. can regulate & contract with Easily interstate	Uncertain: As strong as the market Can grow with the market (big is better) Weak or absent in weak markets, unless subsidized	Suitable: Strong performers in strong markets Keep up w/ market demand Growth oriented
7. Federal Corporations	TVA Conrail U.S. Railway Assoc. Amtrak St. Lawrence Seaway Authority	Federal	Relatively rare Unique circumstances	Uncertain: Can be shaped as desired Potentially quick to establish May be viewed as loss of state power	Suitable: Congress determines May subsidize, or not May be public-private May be backed by federal guarantees Easily interstate	Uncertain: Federally specified; at least in part Market based Opportunity for Congress to adjust support	Uncertain: Strong Wide variation in powers & authority Criticized as "big govt."
8. Federal Govt. Agency, Commission or Project Office	ICC/STB Corps. Of Engineers Appalachian Reg. Commission EPA CBPO Bonneville Power Administration	Federal	Generally requires a crisis Project office is relatively easy; may require only a new appropriation	Uncertain: Congressional discretion for major new ones & for major re-org. Project office may only require administrative discretion May be viewed as loss of state power	Suitable: Federal only, in general Commission form can bring diversity to governance FACA can provide stakeholder advice (not governance) Can be linked to a diverse non-federal decision-making body Easily interstate	Uncertain: Potentially strong Designated revenue stream (Trust Funds) Federal appropriation not reliable any more Criticized as "big govt."	Suitable: Potentially powerful & effective Directly Indirectly thru grants and/or regulations Can be linked to a judicial decision process

previous | next