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

Part IV: INSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE BILL'S 2009 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FREIGHT AUTHORIZATION PROVISIONS

Anticipating congressional reauthorization of the nation's surface transportation legislation during 2009 (to replace the current SAFETEA-LU legislation which expired in September 2009), several national organizations established policy statements containing provisions they advocate—including those related to freight. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure drew from many of these proposals to develop a bill in the fall of 2009 that would, if enacted, significantly strengthen the nation's freight programs. The bill's main provisions affecting freight are summarized earlier in this paper. This part of the paper considers the bill's institutional implications for freight corridors.

The House bill has the following three direct institutional implications for freight corridors:

1. Freight Corridor Coalitions: The bill would allow the U.S. DOT Secretary to designate and fund up to ten freight corridor coalition organizations across the nation within the first year after enactment of the reauthorization. The bill also would provide some guidance about the representative nature of the coalitions' membership and the purposes for which funding can be provided. But the form of the organization is left open ended. As pointed out earlier in this paper, about 20 multi-state transportation coalitions currently exist, but they are not all freight-oriented, some have multiple purposes, and the existing organizations are of several different types—including interstate compacts, voluntary coalitions, and non-profit corporations.

Institutionally, the situation is similar to MPOs in some ways, and different in other ways. Similarities include the option to chose different forms of organizational structure for the federally designated Freight Corridor Coalitions (FCCs) and to imbed this designation in either a single purpose freight organization or a multiple-purpose organization—just as MPOs are found to be of five different types (organizationally) and some are single purpose (MPO only) while others serve diverse programs within their region. Unlike the MPOs, however, not all the existing coalitions will be funded even if they manage to meet the requisite representational requirements and agree to perform the required freight program purposes. In fact, only half of the existing coalitions will be funded. Thus, there is likely to be a competitive race for federal designation and a wide variety of organizational proposals presented for consideration by the Secretary.

2. National Transportation Institutions. Rather than establishing a new national freight program, the House bill would elevate and re-empower the Office of Intermodalism within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to work on intermodal policies and plans more comprehensively. So, instead of designating a new National Freight Network, as some groups have urged, the House bill would opt for an intermodal transportation policy framework, within which more effective freight systems could find a place. This appears to be a pragmatic response to the reality that a large proportion of freight is carried on roads and highways, which are already elements of federally designated systems. And, other freight movements are carried on a wide variety of other transportation modes that include rail and marine corridors that need to be effectively interconnected with the highway system. Thus, many freight improvements are likely rely on better intermodal connections that the Office of Inermodalism (and the Council of modal administrators) is designed to enhance using strategically prioritized investments in Projects of National Significance. Many such projects are expected to be identified by state DOTs and MPOs, but setting relative priorities among them at the national level, based on relative costs and benefits in addition to inputs from the state and local officials and private transportation companies involved, as proposed in the House bill, reflects a strategy for optimizing the positive achievements of the funds invested by all parties.

One very important issue concerns reconciliation of passenger and freight rail issues. High speed rail transportation is becoming more important than ever, and some of the transportation corridor coalitions are focused more on this mode of transportation than on freight rail. In many parts of the nation, freight and passenger rail services rely on the same tracks—placing limitations on both. Reconciling these two overlapping needs will require serious attention by corridor coalitions and others. The Federal Railroad Administration is well positioned to lead this reconciliation effort, but the newly enhanced DOT Office of Intermodalism could help, along with state DOTs, MPOs, and RPOs.

The state DOTs undoubtedly would want to influence the network design, but so would all the private freight carriers and the localities through which the corridors would run. The federal government, of course, would need to provide balance and ensure that international trade treaties would be honored. This assignment involves developing a very broad consensus and resolving many competing interests within a constrained timeframe. The national significance of this process could become equivalent to such policy initiatives as establishing the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s, restructuring the freight railroads in the Northeast in the 1970s (Conrail), and replacing private rail passenger service across the entire nation in the 1970s (Amtrak).

3. State DOT and Regional Institutions. The new freight program enhancements proposed in the House bill would be administered within each state by the state DOT, and funded with federal money as well as funds from other public and private sources that the state would identify and mold into a flexible strategy. The proposed multimodal state system might be designated in a way similar to how the interstate highway system and the National Highway System were designated at earlier points in history. It would consist of specific routes that would fit together to provide connectivity within the state and beyond. The investment strategy would be similar to and based upon the present State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the MPO Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). The overall program would be primarily state-led, although the U.S. DOT would have a hand in approving the final designation of routes on the system and projects of national significance. The leading institutional structure would be the state DOT, perhaps with a new office of freight within it and a federally required freight advisory committee. The addition, the House bill would require RPOs and federal designation of secondary freight routes to help fill rural gaps in the system.

Institutionally, the state DOTs may need to establish or strengthen their freight offices and add the freight advisory committee. And, the RPOs (many of which already exist) may need to establish greater capacity to deal with freight issues.

This is a very significant institutional agenda. Fortunately there are institutional precedents for tackling it. This paper has provided options to consider.

previous | next