Office of Operations Freight Management and Operations
Table of Contents

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

EXAMPLES OF MULTI-STATE TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITY

The group was asked to describe examples of multi-state successes based on their own experiences. A number of examples were cited, including several mentioned in the background paper's analysis. To assist comparisons, a table in the background paper listed examples of each of the eight types of institutions examined, as well as some of their key characteristics. In addition, McDowell's opening presentation suggested the following five "Key Considerations for Selecting Appropriate Institutional Options," which he characterized as "institutional design principles:"

  • "Form follows function"—be clear about the purposes of the institution and which institutional capabilities are most needed in the corridor
  • 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—so they will fit comfortably and effectively within the prevailing political culture
  • The most important capability sought is "boundary crossing"

The following institutional examples were mentioned by participants to illustrate a number of key elements in implementing a successful multi-state project—based on their own experience:

  • The Appalachian Regional Commission. It operates effectively across 13 states under joint federal-state leadership, has a federal statutory foundation and long-term financing, and has almost finished implementing a major multi-year, multi-project highway system that supplements the Interstate System within a previously inaccessible region.
  • The I-69 corridor (a supplement to the Interstate Highway System designed to improve north-south trade connections between Mexico and Canada) is being implemented in some segments, and continues to be promoted along other segments.
  • Exclusive truck toll lanes are being developed on I-70 through four Midwest states. In addition to improving truck movements on I-70, it could divert truck traffic from I-80 and improve passenger vehicle movements on I-70 and I-80.
  • The Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement in the Washington, DC metropolitan area was a joint effort of Maryland, DC, Virginia, FHWA, and Congress. It was a mega-project involving a significant National interest—both because of the large federal workforce that depends on it and because it is a central link in the Maine-to-Florida I-95 Corridor.
  • The Heartland Corridor freight-rail improvement project, involving Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and a major private freight railroad, has provided more cost-effective freight movement between the Midwest and the ports of Norfolk and Portsmouth. This multi-state project was railroad-led, but received significant federal funding. Other similar projects are being proposed by other railroads, but they do not appear to be coordinated.
  • The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (an interstate compact representing several state legislatures) has been working for many years, and is one of the first to present its plan for using the new federal Stimulus money designated for high-speed rail. A parallel executive branch organization in the states is providing technical support to the Commission.
  • Improved rail transit access from New Jersey into New York City is being implemented by a joint project of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and New Jersey Transit. This project was proposed originally to include New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Amtrak, and to provide frequent, inexpensive transit access as far south as Philadelphia. However, MTA, Amtrak, and U.S. DOT did not participate to make that possible. The more limited project was portrayed as a success, but as having missed an opportunity to be much more successful.
  • The Mid-Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission was mentioned as a potentially helpful example of a federal organization that incorporates state representation and might provide some helpful lessons for the transportation community. It has recently had considerable success in restoring stripped bass (rock fish) stocks to commercially viable levels by regulating over-fishing in each of the region's states. The actions this federally chaired and federally staffed commission took were based to a large extent on scientific studies, but they were imposed by means of a federal-state decision process. The federal "arbitrator" role, along with its scientific resources and regulatory clout, facilitated the overall outcome.
  • The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation example (mentioned in the background paper) was further explained during the Roundtable discussion. It is not just federally chartered, but it also has two other very important features not generally associated with federally chartered non-profit organizations. First, its board of directors is nominated by the Secretary of the Interior, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Second, it may receive direct federal appropriations (but may not use such funds to cover its administrative costs). These provisions allow the NFWF to be a more effective project implementer than many other federally sponsored non-profits.
  • The National Air-Space System (NAS) encompasses the infrastructure network of the airspace, air traffic control, and airports used by a mixture of commercial service and private operators of aircraft. The NAS is managed on a daily basis by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which operates air traffic control (through the FAA's Air Traffic Organization), provides support to the funding and operation of state and local airports, and devises rules for the safe and efficient operation of the commercial and private users of the airspace. The FAA uses the monies available through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to prioritize investments in personnel, air traffic equipment, and airport capacity that support the overall goals of the NAS.
  • The Federal Food Stamp Program is funded and governed significantly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but it is administered through the states, which may exercise a fair degree of discretionary authority. When the federal government decided to provide an option for electronic food stamps—rather than money-like paper stamps—a massive voluntary effort was mounted to get as much state and retailer buy-in as possible as quickly as possible. The incentive was cost and administrative efficiency. Leading states (early adopters) led the way, and a great deal of adoption of the new practice was achieved within a relatively short time without a mandatory federal requirement.
  • State-Driven Passenger Rail Service Expansion has occurred in recent years on the West Coast. The states of California, Oregon, and Washington planned and funded the expanded services, and Amtrak worked with the private railroads to arrange for track usage and operates the new service.
  • The Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) is a European-wide program run by the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport of the European Commission in Brussels—an organization roughly equivalent to a combination of U.S. DOT and the U.S. Department of Energy. The program is designed to build missing links, remove bottlenecks, unblock major transport routes, and ensure sustainable transport (including major technological projects in the EU transport infrastructure). This Network is considered a key element for competitiveness and employment in Europe. The growth in traffic between Member States (the nations of Europe) is expected to double by 2020 and the investment required to complete and modernize a true trans-European network in the enlarged EU amounts to some EUR 600 billion. Given the scale of this investment, the EU had to prioritize these projects carefully (in consultation with the Member States), concentrating on major projects to complete networks designed and implemented largely by the nation states. The EU identified a series of 30 transnational corridors, on the basis of proposals from the Member States. Criteria for designating these priority corridors included their added value, their contribution to the sustainable development of transport, and their role in integrating the new Member States in Eastern Europe. The EU program is now funding priority projects in the corridors through a process by which the Member States apply for EU grants and loans, which may total 30 percent of the project costs. The Member States are responsible for construction and operation. The overall process is somewhat similar to the U.S. process for establishing the Interstate Highway System—except that it is multimodal and the cost-sharing ratio is different. The EU uses similar programs to improve its energy (TEN-E) and telecommunications (eTEN) networks.

The I-95 Corridor's 2002 Mid-Atlantic Rail Operations Study was cited to illustrate the difficulties of implementing project proposals identified in voluntary multi-state studies. It is not a success story like those cited above, but it does have a lesson to teach. Rebuilding the Howard Street railroad tunnel in Baltimore, Maryland was identified in the study as a national-interest project that is too expensive for one state to finance alone. The very old existing tunnel creates a major East Coast freight bottleneck, but no national program is designed to address this challenge. The Maryland and New Jersey state DOTs have negotiated with the private railroads in an attempt to arrange joint public-private funding, but the railroad parties preferred to bypass Baltimore, seeking less expensive routes. So the bottleneck remains unaddressed and there does not appear to be any feasible path to change the situation.

previous | next
Office of Operations