MULTI-STATE INSTITUTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING IMPROVED FREIGHT MOVEMENT IN THE U.S.

ASSESSMENT BY A NATIONAL ROUNDTABLE

On June 18, 2009, the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight convened a Roundtable of national experts for a full day in Washington, DC to review a draft of this paper and assess the current applicability of the institutional options. An opening presentation by the paper's author summarized the purpose of the paper, the key capabilities needed to improve freight movement throughout a multi-state freight corridor, and the nature of the eight institutional options studied. The institutional options were illustrated by highlighting a few of the most familiar and most notable institutions described in the paper. In addition, a new graphic (see the following page) was presented to help the Roundtable participants visualize the clear differences in capabilities among the eight types of institutions and to help sharpen the comparisons provided in the rather complex table on page 28 of this paper. The author emphasized that the capabilities shown for each institution represent his own assessment of likely potentials. There are no guarantees that the capabilities will be available in any given institution, because each existing institution is likely to have been individually tailored to fit the situation at the time and place the institution was created.

Some of the main differences in typical capabilities between the types of institutions were summarized as follows:

• Interstate compacts clearly have the greatest potential for providing all the capabilities needed by a multi-state freight corridor. However, they are very difficult to create and to change. The exact same language must be agreed to by the state legislature and governor of each state included in the compact, and also by the U.S. Congress and President. This difficult process usually takes many years to complete, and may not incorporate all the capabilities originally proposed. Nevertheless, some interstate compacts (such as the Great Lakes Commission) already have broadly stated purposes that might be interpreted to allow undertaking new functions. For example, water-related compacts might be able to address "marine highway" program needs.
• Federal agencies and corporations also have the potential to provide most of the capabilities needed. However, the generalized fear of Big Government far from the communities where individual projects are built and operated, and the federal government's current financial bind, both make it difficult to create new federal roles, programs, and agencies at this time.

Voluntary coalitions typically offer the next most capabilities for a multi-state region or corridor. And they have the added advantage that they are relatively easy to establish. However, their biggest disadvantage is that it is difficult for them to achieve implementation of their recommendations. They generally do not have any governmental powers to raise money, build facilities, or operate them.

Thus, their implementation record depends on their power to persuade the members of the coalition to implement the coalition's recommendations. This record is often spotty—for a very wide range of reasons.

• Commercial companies, of course, provide the primary freight services throughout the nation—by operating railroads, trucks, barges, ships, and air-cargo services. They are essential institutions in freight corridors. However, they often depend on public infrastructure, public policies, and public financing to support

some of their operations. In addition, they are constrained by market forces. So, their ability to help serve public needs is limited unless they have constructive partnerships with governmental institutions.

• The other institutions also provide valuable, but limited, capabilities.

In general, it can be said that multiple institutions operate together to provide the wide range of capabilities that must be available to satisfy multi-state freight needs.

Against that backdrop, the Roundtable participants were asked to assess the prospects for institutional options to improve multi-state freight movements in the U. S. Although no votes were taken and no one was asked to commit either themselves or their organization to any specific position, the following points of consensus emerged:

• It is urgent for the nation to place greater emphasis on improving multi-state corridor performance for freight movement. Such improvements are vital to keeping the United States competitive in the global marketplace—and their benefits are clearly demonstrable.
• However, this message is not getting through to policymakers with sufficient urgency and force. The message needs to be re-crafted and inserted more effectively into the pending process for reauthorizing the nation's Surface Transportation programs.
• Only one institutional option was supported by a clear consensus of this group—the Federal Agency option. This need not necessarily be a new agency, but somewhere within U. S. DOT greater leadership is needed to:
  • Define and designate multi-state transportation corridors
  • Promote intermodal coordination

It was emphasized that this stepped-up federal leadership should be exercised collaboratively, not unilaterally. The collaborative processes used in designating the Interstate Highway System (in the 1950s) and the National Highway System (in the 1990s) might be instructive.

• Federally induced collaboration also was seen as legitimate and needed. This concept was not tied directly to a specific type of institution, but it is consistent with federal funding of existing voluntary corridor coalitions (institutional option #4), which already occurs to some extent.
• The other institutional models were felt to be too situational to produce a consensus. Interest was shown in several of these models, but pros and cons were cited and no general prescriptions emerged. Time did not permit digging into any individual option in detail. It was agreed, however, that any option that might be adopted should be crafted to be nimble, adaptive, or temporary—not rigid or prone to become a roadblock to future progress.
• The group felt that it might be better in many cases to focus on providing specific capabilities needed—potentially added to an existing organization—rather than creating a new institution. It was observed several times that the nation already has a very large number of institutions—maybe too many. The more separate institutions that need to be involved, the more complex and slow coordination becomes.

A summary of the Roundtable proceedings was prepared separately. In keeping with the "no recommendations" intent of this paper, the Roundtable summary also contains no recommendations.

previous | next