Appendix A: Work Group Sessions Summaries

The meeting included three working group sessions, focused on implementing multi-jurisdictional decision making, freight performance measures; and funding and financing freight transportation projects.

The purpose of the implementing multi-jurisdictional decision making work group was to generate insights that will help participants succeed in implementing multi-jurisdictional decision making in their regions/corridors. Participants discussed:

• Why people and organizations make decision to work across boundaries
• Barriers to coordination and implementation
• Key elements that indicate a corridor should advance to a multi-jurisdictional project
• How to define logical break points/corridor definitions
• How to craft an agreement that has continuity over time
• Key stakeholders who need to be engaged

The purpose of the freight performance measures work group session was to develop a list of freight performance measures that can help organizations or regions track progress towards meaningful goals. Groups walked through the following three step process:

• Step 1: Define performance measures
• Step 2: Define what data is needed, from whom, in order to evaluate the measures
• Step 3: Define the measurement/evaluation approach

The purpose of the funding and financing freight transportation work group was to identify successfully-funded freight projects and identify funding needs/opportunities to advance potential freight projects. Participants were asked to share:

• Projects successfully funded (and how)
• Projects unsuccessfully funded
• Barriers to advancing freight projects
• Enablers to allow agencies to advance critical freight transportation projects
• What FHWA can do to help

Summaries from each working group are included below.

• Green 1
• Green 2
• Orange 1
• Orange 2
• Red 1
• Red 2

Green 1 Group

Session 1: Implementing Multi-Jurisdictional Decision Making

1. Why people and organizations make decision to work across boundaries:

• Mutual benefit to each.
• Regional centers – connectivity points crossing state lines.
• Common problems:
  • For example, in Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois there is a two-lane corridor that runs through the three states that is a major travel route. All three states agree that it needs to be upgraded. The agreed to when and how but did not share data with each other. Iowa redesigned their portion of the road based on current travel patterns while Minnesota and Illinois designed their sections for increased truck traffic. Iowa had to repave their section as they did not take into account the additional traffic the upgraded route would attract.
  • Along the I-80 corridor rural states all agreed to work together (Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Iowa) but they could never get Illinois or California to buy in to the collaboration. As such, they were unable to compete for corridor program funding.
  • Minnesota and Wisconsin have begun working together and identified eight areas (from IT to traveler information). The motivation behind this collaboration was to improve efficiency and quality of service and minimize costs.

2. Barriers to coordination and implementation:

Barrier	Strategies to Overcome
Private industry is not engaged – it is hard to make them fully commit to working together when funding is not immediately available.	Work together on smaller, quick fix projects so you can have greater chance of success and funding then build off of that success to get them to commit to long term collaboration. Dedicated funding and sponsorship for freight projects from leadership. Establish a logistics council and involve the private sector. Establish a formal committee that has the ability to assign funding to projects. Prioritize projects so that freight projects can rise to the top.
Project implementation is too slow.	Cost share with the private sector to help streamline projects. Encourage innovate project delivery strategies.
Need to expand thinking beyond highways.	Engage other modal agencies in planning discussions.
Freight industry is not all of the same mindset	Need to define benefits Conduct cost-benefit analysis
Private sector has different needs and requirements than the public sector	Understand the private sector language – communicate with them using their terms. Involve the Chamber of Commerce in discussions Learn from private sector experience
Freight projects may not be shovel ready	Freight benefits from highway and bridge projects Try to incorporate freight into existing projects – see if there is a way to use parallel efforts and resources
Legal restrictions on funding sources	Change the lawsAdvocate constitutional changes Dedicated new funds that can cross state lines
Public opposition	Education on the importance of freight on the economy

3. Key elements that indicate a corridor should advance to a multi-jurisdictional project:

• Conflicting state research projects
• WISDOT has size and weight project where they are looking at 4 truck sizes that do not exist in other states.
• Efficiency
• Bottleneck impacts that occur outside and impact within
• Michigan – issues with Canada – state to state and state to country issues as well
• Detroit region economy changing rapidly – uncertainty about what is coming next is an opportunity to provide a new vision for economic development. Reconfiguration between winners and losers with the modes.
• Ohio – not the center of industry that it once was, a lot of stuff moves through Ohio – doubles-tack trains through Ohio – Panama Canal.
• Short-sea shipping.
• Business model changing – instead of Panama new ports in Canada, St. Lawrence Seaway.

4. How to define logical break points/corridor definitions:

• Manageable segments.
• Intermodal terminals.
• Location and size.
• National gateways, ports, borders, airports.
• Major corridor intersections
• Origin/Destination locations
• Sub-areas of product/economy/delivery
• Common areas for product delivery
• Agriculture, wind farms, manufacturing, timber...

5. How to craft an agreement that has continuity over time (setting priorities, etc.):

• Need to be phased with intermediate steps, incorporate as much flexibility as possible, and recognize milestones are how the group can keep moving forward.
• Change in leadership – how will you ensure this becomes part of their agenda?
• Legal commitment binds.
• Show the value of the commitment
• Performance measures
• Public and industry benefit

6. Who needs to be engaged:

• MPOs
• Regulatory agencies
• Environmental agencies
• RPC
• Public
• Industry/carriers/private sector
• International partners
• Commercial stakeholders

Session 2: Discuss and Develop Freight Performance Measures

Objective	Maximize safety by improving the safety of the freight transportation system
Performance Measures	Number of large truck crashes Number of fatalities in work zones Clearance time for truck related incidents
Needed Data	Crash/fatality data Fatalities before, during, and after work zone Geographic area for collection of data – impact zone Number of crashes in work zones Number of incidents Truck volumes Incident clearance times Queue lengths
Data Sources	Transportation management system. Traffic management center (may not be available in rural locations). Enforcement/Police reports
Approach to implement	Establish your benchmark and monitor to see how it changes – self evaluation.
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Construction choices PI campaign·   DMS
Owner or objective and measure	Some part of the agency is responsible.

Objective	Improve operations of the existing freight transportation system by ensuring travel time reliability
Performance Measures	Travel speed by time of day Travel time by time of day Reliability index Origin-destination Delivery window Congestion – both recurring and non-recurring congestion
Needed Data	OD data ATRI study data Overweight vehicles
Data Sources	Urban transit fleets equipped with GPS Traffic.com Truck travel time Reroute information
Approach to implement	Added capacity Signal retiming Traffic information Mode shift Non-recurring/incident/special events Traveler information

Session 3: Funding and Financing Freight Transportation Projects

1. What projects have you successfully funded and how? How did you quantify public benefit when that needed to be done (i.e., qualifying for STIP funds)?

Project	Crate project in Chicago
Project Description	Eliminate 26 at grade crossing, benefit suburbs Rail to trail flyovers, speed up the metro lines Separating track from joint-use
How funded	Earmark on last transportation bill Railroads also provided some funding
Project	Intermodal connectors and truck access points
Project Description	Extending rail service Improving intermodal connectors and truck access points
How funded	FHWA earmark to improve truck access State revenue Local match
How funding was arranged	Earmark on last transportation bill
Project	Air cargo
Project Description	Trying to get direct air cargo between China and St. Louis
How funded	Dedicated state funds
How funding was arranged	FHWA earmark to improve truck access State revenue Sales tax on jet fuel – increased the cap from 6 to 10 million

2. What projects would you have liked to fund and couldn't?

Project	Barges
Project Description	Would like to get barges and tow boats back on the river and shipping co-op so they can combine loads
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Partnership with other agencies
Project	Double stacked rail
Project Description	Upgrade crossings so they can handle double stacked rail. A major rail crossing will be obsolete without this capability.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Entered into talks with Canadians but have not been successful to date.
Project	Choke point remediation
Project Description	Identified choke point areas.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	STP funding is competitive so it limits their ability to get funding from local sources
Project	Illiana expressway
Project Description	Conducted feasibility study. Want to build a new bypass.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Public does not support the project and cannot see the end benefits of economic growth that may result. It has not been a priority project for either state.
Project	Ohio-Mississippi locks and dredging great lakes ports
Project Description	In major need of repair and maintenance.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Harbor maintenance tax Funding is there but Congress will not release the funds Environmental concerns Army Corps of Engineers funding limited

3. What were/are the barriers to advancing freight projects? Why did some of the projects fall through?

• STP competition/competing funds with other types of projects.
• No dedicated funding for rail and port projects.
  • Deficiencies on the roads overpower focus on rail and ports.
  • There is very little public rail – why aren't rail companies paying for those improvements?
  • New taxation policy at ports is discouraging more freight coming into the great lakes.
• Inability to get matching funding.
• Environmental and legislation blocks.
• Competing needs.
• Public perceptions.
• Accountability.
• Inability to prioritize on a large scale and across modes.

4. What would you like to see put in place to enable you to advance critical freight transportation projects?

• Statewide consensus on freight.
• Better set of tools for evaluating freight projects and for incorporating freight into projects.
• Performance measures
• Expand eligibility of funds to benefit freight.
• Increased awareness of the importance of freight
• Dedicated funding for freight development
• Intermodal freight funding
• Public-Private funding – need to simplify the public-private sector funding bridge.
• High level freight champion.
• Increased recognition of economic sub-area (multi-state areas and corridors)
• National marine highway and definition of what this means.
• Innovative ideas
• More interaction with economic development

5. What could FHWA help address at the Federal level to eliminate barriers and create more opportunities (through roles, policies, guidance, outreach, etc.) for funding and financing of freight projects?

• Continued outreach and information dissemination after conferences
• MPO Planning
• Multi-state facilitation
• Regional coordination
• Integrate the modes – encourage collaboration and discussion
• Mulitmodal organization of offices within state level DOTs
• Provide a partner to gather freight data from national rail, truck, and marine carriers
  • Similar to ATRI, an ability to provide general transportation usage at the national level would be helpful to state and MPO/local partners.

Green 2 Group

Session 1: Implementing Multi-Jurisdictional Decision Making

1. Why people and organizations make decision to work across boundaries:

• Organize across a common goal or objective.
  • For example, support for economic development, relieving congestion, or improving the environment.
  • Another example was logical partnering among agencies which results in cost savings or other efficiencies – particularly if these agencies have similar functional responsibilities.
  • Coordination reduces redundancy in planning process, and most likely results in determination of the most cost-effective solutions.
• Maximize and leverage funding sources and opportunities.
  • For example, ear-marks targeted to one jurisdiction may be useful for prompting consideration of extending the proposed investment into neighboring jurisdictions.
  • Coalition groups may also serve an important function, particularly as a mechanism to reconcile public and private section priorities, which may sometimes be divergent.
  • For example, the private sector may more readily focused on transportation investments that may maximize their productivity in the short term, whereas the public sector may be more inclined to look at alternatives in a longer-term context and consider a broader array of potential impacts.
• Desirability of working across boundaries to identify potential allies and partnership opportunities that may improve the likelihood that appropriate alternatives are identified and advanced.
• Ensure continuity in the planning process, and ensure that jurisdictions are working towards alternatives that may achieve synergy to better address transportation system deficiencies.
  • For example, the I-70 Coalition experience, suggests that problems in Kansas and Missouri are inextricably intertwined, and therefore a multi-jurisdictional process is essential.

2. Barriers to coordination and implementation:

Barriers	Strategies to Overcome
Lack of consideration of macro level issues and associated impact of transportation improvements	Education and training More effective strategies to define and describe the extent of transportation problems
Unwillingness to share data and information	Approaches to "mask" sensitive (or confidential) data sources to make them available for a broader set of potential customers Enhanced communication of the benefits/value of data sources, particularly to carriers as a source for insights about potential time/land /or cost savings opportunities
Divergent priorities between public and private sectors	Establishment of coordination strategies/approaches for public agencies and the business sector that illuminate the benefits of sharing information and working together; demonstrate examples of "win-win" solutions from other areas
Lack of "common goals" and plurality of stakeholder interests	More complete identification of needs and impact across potential areas and more rigorous analytical assessment that may consider a variety of potential impacts and benefits
Data limitations	Improved communication across departments and functional areas that may result in data repositories that enable "one stop" data shopping Greater attention to data needs early in the planning process, with practical examples of how low cost or readily available data can be assembled to support planning
Legal authority

3. Key elements that indicate a corridor should advance to a multi-jurisdictional project.

• Not discussed.

4. How to define logical break points/corridor definitions

• Not discussed.

5. How to craft an agreement that has continuity over time (setting priorities, etc.):

• Create an agreement "from the bottom up" that is heavily rooted in data evaluation and analysis.
• Well defined goals with flexibility approach to handle uncertainty.
• Encouraging 'ownership' of the planning process where all members have an equal voice.

6. Who needs to be engaged:

• Not discussed.

Session 2: Discuss and Develop Freight Performance Measures

Objective	Maximize safety by improving the safety of the freight transportation system
Performance Measures	Decrease in crash rates and frequency
Needed Data	Traffic volumes Cost Incident Reports
Data Sources	DOTs MPOs Law Enforcement Agencies Incident Safety Hot Spots
Approach to implement	Identify Safety Hot Spots
What decision making can this measure influence?	Geometric configuration Signalization LOS
Owner or objective and measure	DOTs MPOs coordination with FMCSA

Objective	Improve operations of the existing freight transportation system by ensuring travel time reliability
Performance Measures	Unit of time +/- time change [OD route dependent]
Needed Data	OD route choice Time of Day day of week volume mix
Data Sources	GPS on board Counters Truck classification counts
Approach to implement	Determine the method used to compute reliability
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Resource allocation Identify infrastructure needs Simplify supply chain management Hard numbers of delivery target Identify problem points
Owner or objective and measure	Universities: data access rights are an issue; whoever owns data needs to relinquish proprietary rights

Objective	Ensure efficient networks
Performance Measures	Improvement of truck movement: # of truck units leaving ports
Needed Data	Data from ports Throughput per hour
Data Sources	Meet with report, request truck data from DOT
Approach to implement	Meet with the ports Tell them about data needs Interchange between trucks and ports
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Identify congestion points at nodes coming out of ports Improve efficiency and reduce queuing Will incentivise to make things more efficient (truck and trailer get hooked up) Lower costs, improved emissions
Owner or objective and measure	Seaport Air quality management district

Objective	Improve operations of existing system through maintenance and preservation
Performance Measures	Pavement condition (smoothness): IRI (highways) and equivalent for railroad. Improvement of extension in service life
Needed Data	HMPS for highways Private industry for railroads
Data Sources	HPMS Private railroad National bridge replacement inventory
Approach to implement	Improved routing and access planning
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Change in priority status based on need.
Owner or objective and measure	State DOT

Objective	Better management of environmental impacts
Performance Measures	Increase efficiency by mode of freight/ transition away from fossil fuels
Needed Data	Category: fleet efficiency. Mode split, cost per unit of energy for each mode of freight (e.g electric truck vs. internal combustion)
Data Sources	Manufacturers, most likely not private data. Operators (e.g. how many trucks are hybrids) Advocacy web resources/web sites VIUS can address this topic; needs to be reinstated by census
Approach to implement	Cheap solutions for quick results
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Private sector takes first step, then public can take over
Owner or objective and measure	Whoever collects the data; state DOT? Industry?

Session 3: Funding and Financing Freight Transportation Projects

1. What projects have you successfully funded and how? How did you quantify public benefit when that needed to be done (i.e., qualifying for STIP funds)?

Project:	Intermodal Freight Yard (Fairbanks, Alaska)
Project Description	Statewide projects get scored based on their anticipated benefits, with a substantial emphasis on safety.
How funded	Funded with state bonds
Project:	SR 195 Freight (Arizona)
Project Description	Improves connection between San Luis with the Port of Entry A by-pass at the border crossing
How funded	Funded using CBI and STP funding sources
Project:	Two By-pass projects (303 and South Mountain) (Phoenix, Arizona)
Project Description	New alignments of roads
How funded	CBI Funds
Project:	Intermodal Facility
How funded	CBI Funds
How funding was arranged	PIMA council of government
Project:	G.E. Bridge (Port of LA), BNSF Double-Tracking, Dredging at the Port of Stockton, 36 grade separation projects
How funded	$2 billion funding program (TCIF) for projects Matching funds from local agencies and private sector.
How funding was arranged	Funding source considers regionally significant project >$10 million
Project:	Diesel Retrofitting (Colorado)
Project Description	Diesel retrofitting of vehicles
How funded	EPA
Project:	Bridge and Safety Improvements (Colorado)
Project Description	Monies will be used to address freight related improvements to bridges and safety
How funded	State budget initiatives that include an increase in vehicle registration fees Allocates $160 million for bridge Allocates $100 million for safety improvements
How funding was arranged	State initiatives
Project:	Diesel Retrofitting of Garbage Trucks (Oregon)
Project Description	Diesel retrofitting of garbage trucks that are used around Oregon.
How funded	CMAQ dollars
How funding was arranged	Connect Oregon program allocates lottery funds for some local freight improvements.
Project:	I-15 widening (Utah)
Project Description	$1 billion dollar project to widen I-15 in Utah. Will add truck climbing lanes, intersection improvements at railroad crossings, and WIM technology deployments at ports of entry.
How funded	NHS, STP, and other sources for widening project. Potential for CMAQ funding for diesel retrofits
Project:	Freight Needs at Ports
Project Description	Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) addresses freight needs at ports. Allocated $6 million dollars from these funds to support grade separation and other improvements projects. DOT has $9 billion dollar budget to fund transportation projects, including dredging of Columbia River and rail bank that issues grants for rail improvements (funds can’t be dedicated to private railroads).
How funded	EPA DOT, Army Corps

2. What projects would you have liked to fund and couldn’t?

Project:	Knikarm Rail Crossing Bridge (Alaska)
Project Description	Knikarm Rail Crossing bridge that will improve access by providing a direct connection to main-land Alaksa; direct connection will shorten path from 90 miles to 8 miles.
Project:	Weight Scales and Weigh-in-Motion technologies (Arizona)
Project Description	Use CBI funding to implement weight scales and weight-in-motion technologies at boarder crossings. Currently $10m in unobligated funding.
Project:	Choke point remediation (California)
Project Description	Currently no funding sources for short line rail road improvements, as these projects are typically smaller ($1-2m) and often fall beneath the funding radar screen. Currently a legislative proposal to initiate a funding source for short line railroads.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	STP funding is competitive so it limits their ability to get funding from local sources
Project:	Illiana expressway
Project Description	Conducted feasibility study. Want to build a new bypass.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Public does not support the project and cannot see the end benefits of economic growth that may result. It has not been a priority project for either state.
Project:	Ohio-Mississippi locks and dredging great lakes ports
Project Description	Ohio: In major need of repair and maintenance.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Harbor maintenance tax Funding is there but Congress will not release the funds Environmental concerns Army Core of Engineers funding limited
Project:	Relocation of freight rail line (Colorado)
Project Description	Moved freight rail line from urban areas to the plains, creating a more direct rail alignment along the Front Range.
Project:	Freight Corridor Development (Oregon)
Project Description	Development of high speed, double-tracked, double-stacked freight corridor from Washington to California Oregon: 1-5 Rail corridor improvements
Project:	Truck and ITS (Utah)
Project Description	Truck parking money, truck climbing lanes, and funding to support ITS technologies to provide information about truck parking availability (locations).
Project:	Regional Transportation Improvement District Concept (Washington)
Project Description	Would have funded freight transportation projects in the central Puget Sound region and addressed urban freight mobility issues.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Rejected by voters
Project:	Truck Parking (Wyoming)
Project Description	Truck parking in smaller areas created Additional monies used for rest areas Enhanced clearance for rail structures to enable the transport of wind-mills through tunnels (at least 13') Addition of third lane on I-80

3. What were/are the barriers to advancing freight projects? Why did some of the projects fall through?

• Lack of dedicated funding programs – particularly for off-system types of investments.
• Economic contraction and the impact of transportation budgets.
• Constitutional barriers that do not permit the use of public funds for investments in private railroads and truck stops.
• Geographic equity issues where neighboring jurisdictions may benefit from ‘up-stream’ investments (or experience detrimental impacts).
• Absence of a national freight policy mechanism that identifies standards and expectations for freight planning.
• Lack of sufficient weighting criteria to reflect freight benefits in project planning and decision-making; perhaps the need for additional prioritization schemes?
• Tolling options may not be pursued vigorously due to special requirements/ exemptions.
• Legal challenges to project often contribute to project delays and add additional uncertainty that may result in project cost escalation.
• Often projects need to show a net environmental benefit to move forward, or face the risk of legal challenges.
• Negative public perception of vehicle operators may be used a basis for rejecting freight funding proposals.
  

4. What would you like to see put in place to enable you to advance critical freight transportation projects?

• Increased focus and prioritization given to fleet efficiency improvements that may ultimately result in substantial long-run cost savings.
• Establishment of "mode neutral" performance based funding mechanisms to identify the most cost-effective solutions and provides incentives for selecting those options.
• Standardized approach for evaluating the "total" cost of investment options to system and non-system users [e.g. a "full cost accounting" framework].
• Framing issues and properly educating the public about what freight investments can be expected to accomplish.
• Training on "best practices" on developing a freight plan, with templates and a flow chart that outlines the general process.

5. What could FHWA help address at the Federal level to eliminate barriers and create more opportunities (through roles, policies, guidance, outreach, etc.) for funding and financing of freight projects?

• Establish a dedicated funding source for projects of regional and national significance.
• Improved communication of freight benefits – e.g. telling a "story" about impacts to system (and non-system users) through videos or other outreach mechanism.

Orange 1 Group

Session 1: Implementing Multi-Jurisdictional Decision Making

1. Why people and organizations make decision to work across boundaries:

• Peers are talking about multijurisdictional funding, collaboration, planning & operations for freight corridors.
• Motivations for people to enter-into/agree-on multi-jurisdictional agreements:
  • Similar needs across jurisdictional borders.
  • Answers to strategically important issues.
• Funding. Need to pool resources together and do more with less.
• Leveraging political decisions regarding the movement of goods and economic development
  • Freight view does bring you to multi-jurisdictional perspectives
• No one state is big enough and self-sufficient to handle freight alone.
• Affords us a bigger collective voice.
  • Environmental and quality of life issues across boundaries.

2. Barriers to coordination and implementation:

Barriers	Strategies to Overcome
No one state is big enough to handle freight alone	Break down the smaller jurisdictions/units-of-government and implement stronger regionalism is an answer? Super-region/Mega-region MPOs is necessary? The NYMTC-NJTPA-Connecticut Tri-State MPO format as something that hasn't work. Meeting quorum couldn't be established because member MPOs will not attend the meeting to vote on items that do not concern its own. Council of NE Governors' Association as a working example. Common issues can move ideas and coordination work forward. Also, North Atlantic Transportation Planning Officials is another example for regional collaboration. Think logically about how to categorize regions of the country Some regions are extremely polarized despite geographic proximity. NE is vastly different in approach to life and political bearings; MA is vastly different from NH, for instance. Cannot bunch NE together in a single basket easily.
Actual tangible results are usually beyond the election cycle
Local regulations and legislations that hinder effective collaboration (Multiple MPOs and respective jurisdictions, ordinances, etc.)	Corridor coalitions have been forming and been reasonably effective. Issue with the corridor coalitions are that they tend to work directly with HQ and bypass Division and other state agencies
Even at the same level, agencies have stove-piped disciplines and programs.
Lack of resources with respect to impending needs
Transportation planning and land use planning need to coordinate better to enhance freight considerations	Planning organizations to gather around freight corridor to form a "freight corridor planning" is a suggestion
Lack of understanding (what freight is, what it does for you, what it has to do, and how it impacts you), what is prevalent in the general public; education is key	Need to have people recognize freight corridor Linkage to job retentions as opportunity Design and concept for a multi-jurisdictional freight corridor is easy; the hard part is sustaining a lead state to continue to forge ahead; enable necessary legal/legislative power and work together to see it to the end

3. Key elements that indicate a corridor should advance to a multi-jurisdictional project.

• For I-95 Coalition, the critical junction that brought in the southern states was FL joining.
  • Once FL was on board and address its concerns, other southern states began to see the benefits of working together.

4. How to define logical break points/corridor definitions:

• It is too narrow minded to think that multi-jurisdictional corridor coalitions will have strictly freight-orientation only; the operations piece of any corridor coalition is very important in moving people AND goods via rail AND highway including high-speed passenger rail
  • The I-95 Coalitions was not about freight, but was all about operations.
  • The I-70 work also talked first about widening; then, the discussion of truck-only entered.
• Shared understanding of where common problems exist; sometimes, political boundaries are logical break points.

5. How to craft an agreement that has continuity over time (setting priorities, etc.):

• Look at federal requirements.
  • See what ITS Architecture requirements did to advance ITS nationwide.
• Trust over tests of time and of succeeding administrations.
  • MOU and other agreements are important legal safeguards, but shouldn't deserve the attention they are getting as a bullet that is almost-silver.
  • If you have enough interests and shared concerns, you will find resources and will make things happen..
  • For example, I-95 Coalitions were initially about operations but once trust was gained among participants, it broadened its issues and was successful.
• For selected key concerns such as HAZMAT or EMS, a formal MOU or other agreements are quite necessary.
• Clear and outcome-oriented MOUs and agreements that capture benefits and logics for the state, not necessarily for the given administration.

6. Who needs to be engaged:

• Governor's Office.
  • Director of Infrastructure.
  • Director of Economic Development.
• National Resource Planning Board.
• MPOs, Federal and state agencies, etc.
  • State DOTs, major MPOs, US DOT need to agree on focus.
• Freight Community/Freight Councils.
• General Public.
• The question is: which approach to getting people on board would be best: top-down vs. middle-out vs. bottom-up.
• Recommended steps
  • Get involved State DOTs, major MPOs, US DOT to agree on the focus
• This initial step must have a clear understanding of what private sectors' concerns are.
  • Key stakeholders including other modes, ports, short-line rails, etc.
  • Cast a wide net initially and move forward with what you have, but have a mechanism to bring the larger crowd back when you need them later.

Session 2: Discuss and Develop Freight Performance Measures

Objective	Maximize safety by improving the safety of the freight transportation system
Performance Measures
Needed Data	Number of crashes, of fatalities, of injuries, of damages, of crash types, and location information Insurance rates
Data Sources	State DOTs FMCSA – SAFESTAT database
Approach to implement	Ontario Ministry of Transport – review geometrics of repeated incident locations Exposure to HAZMAT – FHWA reporting requirements to local regulating agencies

Objective	Improve operations of the existing freight transportation system by ensuring travel time reliability
Performance Measures
Needed Data	Number of non-recurring delays (work zones, weather, traffic incidents, etc.) # of trucks and how far they travel # of missed deliveries Reliability over a set period of time (over a month, over weekdays, include weekends, etc.) Routing and time of day Maritime consideration: turn around time of vessels
Data Sources	Technology – truck GPS (how big is the sample?), weigh-in-motion, vehicle classification data, ITS data (sensor based) GPS captures data in 15 min interval; in urban areas, what can appear to be stuck in congestion may actually be making a stop and delivery TTI Reliability Index (it is v/c ratio to create speed; not hardcore observed data)
Approach to implement	Creation of traffic operations center to manage incidents/congestion; management of exogenous factors Freight rail track sharing with passenger rail

Objective	Better management of the environmental impacts of freight of freight transportation
Performance Measures
Needed Data	Emissions per ton-mile move / Particulate matters for both rail and highway scenarios
Data Sources	Air quality monitoring stations VMT for time of freight move
Approach to implement	Diesel retrofits Hybrids Replacing as the fleet ages

Session 3: Funding and Financing Freight Transportation Projects

1. What projects have you successfully funded and how? How did you quantify public benefit when that needed to be done (i.e., qualifying for STIP funds)?

Project:	Route 1 Amtrak Bridge Clearance (Connecticut)
Project Description	Some EMS vehicles could not pass under the bridge
How funded	DOT owns the bridge Amtrak has ARRA funds
How funding was arranged	ITS Improvements
Project:	MPO Freight Study (New York)
Project Description	Binghamton MPO completed a study of the freight situation in the town.
How funded	NYSDOT Industrial Access Program (50:50 state money low interest loan for highway access improvements)
Project:	Rail Sidings (Pennsylvania)
Project Description	New rail sidings were installed in Lancaster County to increase capacity
How funded	CMAQ funds
Project:	Freight Rail Improvement Project (FRIP) (Rhode Island)
Project Description	Tri-car clearance in and out of the port was designed and implemented The project wanted a double-stacked rail, but Amtrak resisted

2.     What projects would you have liked to fund and couldn't?

Project:	Additional Truck Parking at Service Plazas (Connecticut)
Project Description	Connecticut wanted there to be more truck parking at service plazas. Also wanted weigh-in-motion
Project:	Various rail improvements (Binghamton, NY)
Project Description	Binghamton, NY wanted to make more improvements to their rail system.
Project:	Cross-Harbor Tunnel (New York City, NY)
Project Description	New York City wanted a tunnel at the Tappan Zee crossing
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Had earmarks, but there were other issues (e.g. political wills, etc.)

3. What were/are the barriers to advancing freight projects? Why did some of the projects fall through?

• Freight concerns are so intertwined with environment.
  • 1909 Commission study reported that up to 40% of transportation infrastructure costs are due to environmental related expenses.
• In NYC examples, there are proper funding mechanisms in place, but just simply not enough money to go around.

4. What would you like to see put in place to enable you to advance critical freight transportation projects?

• Freight has all modes, is multi-jurisdictional, and must have a national transportation system.
  • Must to tap into FTA, FRA, MARAD and other federal agencies for their ideas and funding resources – break the stovepipe.
  • However, the need is not apparent to many or we haven't fully articulated the needs, and more importantly, the BENEFITS to the broader audience.
• Travel concerns stemming from varying permit requirements/provisions for oversized and overweight trucks across jurisdiction needs to be addressed in future considerations.
• Part of the difficulty is that freight needs a national system, but always is a local issue dealing with local people, local zoning and uses, local politics, and local traffics.
  • In the freight arena, we need a national freight oversight mechanism (analogous to FTC for the now-nationalized banking system).
• Must share the commitment to resolve the concern; otherwise, it is endless talk.
• Must have more innovative funding to better match needs, geography, and multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional linkages.
• Need convictions, champions and commitments.
• National Freight Transportation Policy.
• Need to bring back the Office of Intermodal Policy (or the Office of Modal Neutrality) at OST level.
• Need to have a consensus on what a freight project is – how do we incorporate rail using FHWA funds? Look at what we cannot fund using current funding stream, and make new funding categories/provisions
  • For example: FHWA can pretty much call every single project a safety project; the task, then, is to see what fall outside of the universal safety net and look for ways to fund them.

5. What could FHWA help address at the Federal level to eliminate barriers and create more opportunities (through roles, policies, guidance, outreach, etc.) for funding and financing of freight projects?

• National Freight Transportation Plan/Strategy/Policy – US DOT-wide and mode-neutral.
  • National security/military aspects must be considered.
  • Identify facilities and corridors that are strategically important to the nation.
• Preventive Freight Management (similar to Preventative Pavement Management)
  • Give the locals enough leverages to determine what freight is (mode-neutral).
• Articulating institutional barriers.
• Build funding and incentives into all freight programs; need to educate high-level (not just staff-level) staff to earn opportunities to have true decision maker's ear (e.g. governor's and President of the United States' ear).
• Persistence – FHWA needs to be consistent and persistent in advancing freight concerns.
• Partnership IV can be jointly hosted by other modal agencies?
• FHWA should play the current structure and existing strengths – using the Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan Process and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process – in bringing all stakeholders and multi-modal considerations to address freight.
• FHWA should better facilitate states to talk to neighboring states.

Orange 2 Group

Session 1: Implementing Multi-Jurisdictional Decision Making

1. Why people and organizations make decision to work across boundaries:

• Understand commonalities between different groups.
• Business relationships between jurisdictions intra US/inter traffic.
• Subject for infrastructure and business/transactions.
• Impacts on corridor capacity.
• Develop expectations in corridor.
• Coordinate on project development.
• Coordinate goals that may or may not match.
• Give stature to subjects within MPOs/areas a subset.
• Problem-solving in a regional manner leads to greater success.
• The network nature of both problems and solutions means that if organizations coordinate resources, there will be stronger benefits to both organizations.

2. Barriers to coordination and implementation:

Barriers	Strategies to Overcome
Hearing that a neighboring state will benefit disproportionately	Identify relationship between jurisdictions; goal that can be well/clearly articulated
May be a more important issue in one area than another
Policy makers may not have a clear understanding of issues
Time versus capacity	A responsible organization/individual for coordinating keeping things going
Different agencies within one area/ region may have varying positions on same issue	More input from private sector to understand fit from corridor perspective
The number of federal agencies involved with different positions/conflicts—reconciling with local.
For railroads there are regulatory barriers
Funding within a state often in categories and is difficult to use for broader purpose	Intermodal funding mechanism from the feds Federal mandate to states bring all modes of transportation into a unified solution Discretionary funding – examples OR, MS Strategic intermodal initiative plan – TN integration

3. Key elements that indicate a corridor should advance to a multi-jurisdictional project.

• The organizations identify common goals.
• They should identify need first.
• Several states decide not to proceed to next step in a project.
• "Limited lifespan" interest in adding freight capacity to corridor.
• This issue will require a champion to move forward.
• Some states will be interested and some not.
• "Vision casting."
• Champion for a corridor could be Governor or Secretary of Transportation.
  • Must bring money.
  • Must bring authority.
  • Preferably should be a direct report to Secretary of Transportation within state.

4. How to define logical break points/corridor definitions:

• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), terminal points.
• Shared criteria between organizations.

5. How to craft an agreement that has continuity over time (setting priorities, etc.)

• Not discussed.

6. Who needs to be engaged:

• Not discussed.

Session 2: Discuss and Develop Freight Performance Measures

Objective	Maximize safety by improving the safety of the freight transportation system
Performance Measures	Partner with FMCSA and look at their performance measures Trucker package (safety) (delivery, long term) Travel time / reliability Freight impact on emergency response
Needed Data	Random samples or from all How many round trips can driver make per day Tons per trip Connectivity gaps between modes How many moves Total VMT Cost of moving goods Speeds Bottleneck locations Truck parking Level of service
Data Sources	DOTs Weigh stations State Strategic Highway Safety Plan Truck registrations in State Survey drivers
Approach to implement	Enforcement

Objective	Better management of environmental impacts of freight transportation
Performance Measures	Environmental stewardship – tie freight to smart growth
Needed Data	Truck idling times Hot spot analysis Costs
Data Sources	DOT Freight competitive analysis

Session 3: Funding and Financing Freight Transportation Projects

1. What projects have you successfully funded and how? How did you quantify public benefit when that needed to be done (i.e., qualifying for STIP funds)?

Project:	Interchange developed for major car companies (Georgia)
Project Description	Interchange developed for improved access for auto manufacturers Benefits obvious through improved traffic flow and freight movement. This project is completed.
How funded	100% of the funds came from Highway for Life
Project:	Norfolk-Southern Relocation (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Project Description	The Norfolk Southern division was moved from downtown Charlotte to the airport area. This project is in process. Hard to quantify monetary benefits, but there are social and community benefits Some interchange improvements to handle increased truck traffic.
How funded	Federal funds
Project:	Inter-county connector (Maryland)
Project Description	18-mile connector between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore regions.
How funded	$2.5 billion, mostly coming from GARVEE bonds. Connector will be tolled.

2. What projects would you have liked to fund and couldn't?

Project:	Baltimore Tunnel (Maryland)
Project Description	It is a multi-jurisdictional project in Maryland Extends across a very large area / group
Project:	I-81 (Virginia)
Project Description	Project to do the following things: widen and replace roadway, safety improvements. Very expensive project Politically very difficult Hard to manage expectations Checking into rail alternatives
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Going through state budgeting tools VDOT
Project:	New Port in Southport (North Carolina)
Project Description	Infrastructure improvements Attempting to have a PPP to develop port and rail lines and highways Still in early stages of development
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Tolls
Project:	CSX Corridors in DC Region (Washington, DC)
Project Description	Funding for bridges and tunnels ( ~ $140 million) Complexity and size makes it difficult to get approval
Approaches taken to arrange funding	"National Gateway" to get public funding DC resists due to increased rail like through town (HAZMAT) MD difficult to negotiate with railroads and some states have a dedicated pot of money and some don't Ownership of projects and right of way control are significant issues with railroads.
Project:	Santa Teresa rail relocation (international)
Project Description	Project with US and Mexico, with Union Pacific and Mexico Rail. Move point of entry out of the urban area, which is good for Union Pacific and not so good for Mexico Community, environmental, and safety economics, also opportunities for 6 hr/day or 24 hr/day lens Project will probably happen after winners and losers are equalized
Approaches taken to arrange funding	New Mexico offering $40 million earmark to Union Pacific but Texas wants some of the money also Total value is approximately $100 million

3. What were/are the barriers to advancing freight projects? Why did some of the projects fall through?

• Need to manage expectations.
• Public backing is needed.
• Partial project funding doesn't interest some states – a lot of hoops to go through for partial funding.
• Some states have designated rail funds, it can be difficult to negotiate with railroads
• Understanding public benefits
• With railroads, issues of ownership, right-of-way, and how to define the process of working together
• State vs. local liability for funding.

4. What would you like to see put in place to enable you to advance critical freight transportation projects?

• System preservation
• Option to use truck parking funds to help with spot improvements

5. What could FHWA help address at the Federal level to eliminate barriers and create more opportunities (through roles, policies, guidance, outreach, etc.) for funding and financing of freight projects?

• Industry will contribute more as long as it goes toward projects that benefit them.
• Create bank/source for defined projects to allow anyone to contribute.
  • Benefit would be the improvement as a result of project completion.
  • Optional loan or grant concept.
  • Need to ensure authorizing agency spends appropriately.
  • Maybe the private sector would identify projects for consideration.
  • FHWA's new innovative financing group could play a role here.
  • Should probably start with a regional bank/source.
• Transportation lottery that is multi-state.
• Flexible funds between agencies and multi-jurisdictional groups – makes easier.
• Develop a better method of depicting Cost/Benefit ratios of projects.
• Better integrate freight into the overall transportation process.
• Reduce the number of hoops and level of compliance for federal funding.
• Use TOD/Tax-increment finance concept – this is something local government understands.

Red 1 Group

Session 1: Implementing Multi-Jurisdictional Decision Making

1. Why people and organizations make decision to work across boundaries:

• When each organization has an agenda that both groups can meet and agree upon.
• Recognition that bigger than state problem such as transportation and freight.
• The decisions require coordination (modal decisions are often 500 miles).
• When the organizations want support from federal governments for such efforts
• Perception that additional funding can be leveraged by forming coalition – federal funds may be available
  • For example, Lancaster, PA was angry about trucks going thru – stated a Lancaster Wilmington freight study to get to the bottom of it.
• Strengthening major corridors can lessen impact of local communities by channel to appropriate facilities.
• Technical aspect – recognize what data is saying about projections for the future
• They want to be at the table so they can be part of solution be at the table.
• Share best practices – an opportunity to lean from others.
• Gain jobs in the region – manufacturing/logistics sector as an employment base sells the region on this benefit of freight.
• Cost efficiencies – play off of others work so work and research is not duplicated.
• Helps increase momentum.
• Region able to be more competitive globally which could result in a greater share of market sector.
• Gaining ground in the private sector – give customers a competitive advantage by implementing a better system.
  • Ability to expedite freight.
• Want to know what is happening with freight and the system.
• Common Problems:
  • Different motivation for pub and private sector.

2. Barriers to coordination and implementation:

Barriers	Strategies to Overcome
World is not set up that way – only customer sees is that way
Get trust of private sector show shared interest why are you in my business
Different interest with in the government b/t states, within state – state v. local, local. Local
Environmental perception that freight is not good for the environment – lack of understanding of system and impacts
Long term stability – how to survive culture change with new administration with different interest	Institutional agreement – formalize it on paper. This is especially important if you are doing capital or financial. If the agreement is more planning related it is not as important. This can help to eliminate turf battles and protects each partner's interest.
Lack of understanding of Regionalism
Large drives of logistic system are based outside the region their corridors may leave a region out of the equation (steamship lines, class 1)
Stove piping organizations not talking outside the family	Federal authorization to get rid of stovepipes – multi-modal and allow states to share funds
Timeframe discord 18-24mounts of private sector v. public sector in multiple years. Pub sector can turn around as quickly	Reward the private sector Take opportunities for showing progress, quick wins – small CMAQ projects. RR came to table with these projects and then stayed engaged
Money – problem in one state but affects other states. Too much for one state to tackle would there be an interest from other states to fund
No mechanisms to share money state to state
Need for analytics to make case	Performance based analysis
Personalities of key decision makers
How to get private sector engaged when it is costing money for them to attend – impact bottom line
Difference b/t state – (size and weigh) impacts private sector b/c of all the various differ set of rules	Develop one stop shop
Lack of communication with legislators	Get everyone invited to the conversation
Need for agency coordination USACOE doesn't look at highway impact in lock and dam projects

3. Key elements that indicate a corridor should advance to a multi-jurisdictional project.

• Forced by traumatic experience
  • For example, a bridge collapse or the PA Valentine's Day snow storm shutdown.
• Congestion that has become intolerable economically or otherwise.
• Fuel prices.
• NIMBY goes away.
• The project can't wait too long and the organization needs to get some low hanging fruit to keep people at the table.
• People volunteer to do something.
• Group reaches agreement on major elements.
• You have core group.
• Coalesce around potential opportunity – new baseball stadium, prep for authorization.
• Got grant for something to kick-start.
• Clearly defined scope of problem and list of stakeholders.
• You find that one name that brand the project.
• One influential champion says yes.

4. How to define logical break points/corridor definitions:

• Look at traffic data where does it pick up and drop off.
• Define the problem and what you are trying to solve.
• Investigate the politics and find out who gets along.
• Categorize areas experience similar problems.
• Look at O/D patterns.
• Gage receptivity.
  • For example, the Ben Franklin corridor – expanding e/w corridors.
• Vision based concept.
• Economic relationship.
• Manage the size of the corridor – long corridors can be difficult to administer.
• Ask the question: How do you managed a corridor where the modes move different distances i.e. rail v. truck?
• Analyze the constituent base – ear of governor
• Look at it from an economic perspective – what commerce is happening in corridor.
• Pull data on land use patterns along the corridor.

5. How to craft an agreement that has continuity over time (setting priorities, etc.):

• Not discussed.

6. Who needs to be engaged:

• Organizations.
• USACOE?
• Congress/Top Political support.
  • Legislative Support.
• State DOT.
• FHWA.
• Governors.
• Port Authorities.
• ATA.
• AAR.
• Other private sector stakeholders.
• Chambers of Commerce.
• MPOs.
• Environmental Community/ State EPA.
• Private rail/facility owners.
• Commitment at the top of the organization.

Session 2: Discuss and Develop Freight Performance Measures

Group observations on performance measurement:

• Should be tied to specific decisions-to often are general and vague and don't really influence anything or tell us anything we do not already know (our roads are congested).
• Sometimes focusing performance measures to identify location-specific deficiencies can be more meaningful from a planning perspective-we can really do something about those issues sometimes.
• Should be defined within our span of control-this may mean minimum measures, but measures that get results.
• Resources can be very limited for doing performance measurement. We'd ideally use performance measures to influence our TIPs and other plans but we just don't have the time. (some do, DVRPC and WILPAC both do use performance measures in their planning and prioritizing of resource investments).

Objective	Maximize safety by improving the safety of the freight transportation system
Performance Measures	Recurring reliability Non recurring reliability seasonally, incident management Vehicle volumes axle counts peak v. non-peak Travel time/delay Avg. delivery time by commodity or area Percent of on-time deliveries Time delivery deviation Incident management/response rates
Needed Data	Volume of freight shipments Vehicle traffic analysis % On Time Delivery Deviation in Delivery Window Modal Capacity / efficiency
Data Sources	Shippers State DOT Federal DOT HOS implications use GPS for sit time
Approach to implement	Focus on economic growth Track incidents Look at relocation / land use Promote corridor approach

Notes:

• Don't do general measures- if we don't have more funds what can we do
• Need specificity
• Locational Deficiencies
• Stay within measures you control
• Public institutions has little influence on program decisions
• Establish common ones start small so that all size MPOS – even to those with small staff can implement
• Intermodal connectivity
• CVSN
• Volume/thruput
• On-time deliveries
• Congestion and travel time reliability are top interest areas

Session 3: Funding and Financing Freight Transportation Projects

1. What projects have you successfully funded and how? How did you quantify public benefit when that needed to be done (i.e., qualifying for STIP funds)?

Project:	Allentown, PA Rail Projects (Pennsylvania)
Project Description	Metro area funded rail projects using PA funds Roadrailer terminal on brownfields south in Bethlehem – stole from NJ about 60 miles away.
How funded	Capital spending, mostly
	Some components under PA Rail Assistance Grant, competitive part
How funding was arranged	Reached out to legislature
Project:	PPP Shellpot Bridge (Delaware)
Project Description	Swingbridge giving access to Port of Wilmington, Delaware. Was stuck open, so freight trains were taking alt route through the city. DelDot wanted t fix this so it was a rail car toll to pay for repairs to the bridge. Sliding scale on toll. Got them off AMTRAK line for improved safety, took trucks off the road, opened up markets in southern PA commodities that required rail access. Quantified wear and tear on tracks.
How funded	State put $11 m up front to fund it. Tolls paying it back ahead of schedule
How funding was arranged	Legislature
Project:	University Drive Penn State at Harrisburg, PA
Project Description	Had 200 trucks a day going through campus. Connects industrial park behind campus with major state highway PA230. Benefits talked about conflict with college kids want to avoid didn't require detailed quantification of benefits.
How funded	Used stimulus money to free up other moneys that indirectly allowed this project also pushed FHWA/PennDot.
Project:	Road from airport to Pittsburgh, PA
Project Description	Don't have an interstate highway – hurting international competitiveness b/c doesn't look like adequate facility. Want to get it interstate I 373. Need to improve interchange improvements to bring it up to standards. One of two most important corridors in region.
How funding was arranged	Took legislative interest at state level to make it happen. Got support by tri-county airport authority – formed 5 years ago. Pushed economic development – airport area is economic growth area.

2. What projects would you have liked to fund and couldn't?

Project:	Wilmapco
Project Description	On NEC freight can only move at night in Cecil County. A third set of tracks is needed to accommodate freight rail and local passenger rail. Cecil Co only places that doesn't have local commuter rail.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Spoke to everyone and everyone supports it but no one wants to pay for it. Have support of local MD delegate Rudolph. AMTRAK is hesitant b/c of improvements.
Project:	Intermodal connectivity disconnect
Project Description	Have a lot of heavy industry along the river. Not a lot of highway access. "Ferry streets" – intermodal connectors has trucks parked on both sides of the street. Difficult to efficiently get to facility b/c of geometric design, etc.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Never gets high enough on TIP process TIP is full. Tried for CMAQ or specific line item but not success. Concern about brown fields not a big deal by its self but in aggregate
Project:	Last portion of the interstate system: I-95 and PA turnpike (Pennsylvania)
Project Description	I-95 and PA turnpike do not connect. Problem for 50 years. Been advocating for it for 20 years. Now starting to take small bites out of the elephant.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Issue was agency/funding barriers toll revenue and limits on use of federal funds and EIS problems – started and stopped had to go back and redo
Project:	Freight is competing with transit projects
Project Description	Transit ridership went up in double digits due to fuel cost.
Approaches taken to arrange funding	SOV is seen as a much bigger problem.

Other projects that have not received funding:

Project:	Philadelphia Airport (Pennsylvania)
Project Description	Direct rail line serve to airport to supplement truck service help CO2 issue
Project:	KAL (New Jersey)
Project Description	NJ get clearance for 286k cars in NJ Howard street tunnel
Project:	Wilmapco
Project Description	Filling in gap Newark to Perryville increase freight capacity for freight and highways Howard St tunnel
Project:	Dover/Kent MPO (Delaware)
Project Description	Improve rail line, for service, improve track, additional siding, line to airbase taking trucks off road
Project:	DVRPC – I-95 reconstruction (Pennsylvania)
Project Description	Looking at freight rail system 1 antiquated bridge from PA to NJ, freight rail capacity into south jersey
Project:	Leihigh Valley
Project Description	Planning expanding of capacity on Rt. 222 help improve freight and passenger
Project:	Lansdale Warehousing
Project Description	King of Prussia to Landsdown area 1994 project for 10 mile line to get better rail access NS side
Project:	FHWA
Project Description	FHWA – work with state and MPO for set aside for freight and intermodal type projects
Project:	Harrisburg, PA Rt. 60
Project Description	Rt. 60 and related improvements due to NS intermodal facility expansion as part of Crescent corridor
Project:	Pittsburgh Dam (Pennsylvania)
Project Description	Lock and dam on Ohio River
Project:	NJTPA
Project Description	Freight rail bottlenecks Liberty Corridor Marion Junction in Jersey City
Project:	DVRPC – I-95 reconstruction (Pennsylvania)
Project Description	Looking at freight rail system 1 antiquated bridge from PA to NJ, freight rail capacity into south jersey
Project:	Bayonne Bridge
Project Description	Not high enough short sea shipping

3. What were/are the barriers to advancing freight projects? Why did some of the projects fall through?

• Champion issues local project but it is actually a regional issue.
• Local entities make decision and want their priorities and not these big freight projects that don't directly benefit their community.
  • Success – South Street bridge.
  • PennDOT has districts with their own bike / pedestrian coordinator. There is no freight person at the district office that is dedicated. No attention to it at central office.
• Stalemate on who is contributing and who is subsidizing system. Perception that we are subsidizing rail/freight) too much, however, this perception is evolving over time.
• Nebulous concept of impact of freight. People don't like trucks and complain about trucks and want something done, but don't know what the impact of not having trucks on the roads.
• ISTEA – intermodal discussion began, but it has always been about the passenger side. Need equal or some treatment.
• CMAQ:
  • Funding programs have had geographic limits CMAQ – has to stay within the region. Other projects have to stop at state lines.
  • Criteria for CMAQ based on # of vehicles removed from the road. It hurts rail projects in competition. So these projects fall out. Now freight rail comes asking for money and public wants to know why we are paying freight rail for project when they ate making a profit and roads are falling apart.
• There is support for projects where people understand the link between freight and economic development.
• People understand project as it is described at freight facility; it gets nebulous when the trucks are off facility and you are showing freights benefits.
• MPO goes to county to look for advocate.
• Sometimes our structure is worst enemy.
• Most county planners don't understand freight/freight industry.

4. What would you like to see put in place to enable you to advance critical freight transportation projects?

• Changing around rules and incentives for funding.
  • CMAQ example
• Freight does well in competitive programs but doesn't do well in earmarks where pet projects are funded.
• Projects that are PNRS needs to go to special pot with competitive process.
• How well with the States and MPO be able to absorb projects and get it done.
  • Project delivery what types of impacts are we equipped to handle it.
• Need to get states to dedicate freight staff to get projects done.
• DOTs need to be more willing to rely on MPOs for this.
• How does a state or MPO engage to make the contribution to the national system????
• Disconnect between national need and implement at local level.
• Need to change dialog so we incorporate into the conversation in a bigger way.
• Increasing awareness on freight and integration of freight into all of the modes.
• Freight lacks structure that other transportation systems have – people know roles and responsibilities with the.
  • Need to develop national freight system and Tiers so everyone knows where they fit in.
• Build it in to the framework of all MPO and State DOTs – build this in to university system curriculum. Stop civil engineers from only teaching highways.
• Need to get discussion out beyond the advocates.
• Force new thinking ITS into the mainstream, now we need to mainstream freight.
• Get in universities for research.
• Programs need to evaluate job preservation not just job creation.
• Help to get people to believe that rail projects will get funded, not just highways.

5. What could FHWA help address at the Federal level to eliminate barriers and create more opportunities (through roles, policies, guidance, outreach, etc.) for funding and financing of freight projects?

• More outreach to and thru DOTs and MPOs support for education and projects.
• Submit list of PNRS every two years that need support in your area see where there are synergies.
• National map of identified national PNRS.
• Define what projects are eligible – PPP clarify the guidance.
• Submit a list of projects not in your area that need funding.
• Need FHWA to get states together to discuss this.
• Planning not the issue funding is the issue allocation is the problem.
• Advocate removing stovepipes and red tape.
• Use friends in high level to reach out to industrial groups at the national level.
• Authorization is not geared towards a single mode.
• Get people who don't advocate educated through FPD.

Red 2 Group

Session 1: Implementing Multi-Jurisdictional Decision Making

1. Why people and organizations make decision to work across boundaries:

• Common goals.
• Want to make collaborative decisions.
• Self-interest.
• Corridors cross boundaries.
• Avoid duplication of effort.
• The primary users of the freight systems are cross-jurisdictional.
• Global network – way we do business.
• Economies of scale.
• Corridors lend themselves to being multi-jurisdictional.
• Common problems.

2. Barriers to coordination and implementation:

Barriers	Strategies to Overcome
Funding (Jurisdiction-mode specific and State allocations)	Common Funding Multi-jurisdictional Coalition MOU User – proportionality (cross border)/benefit
Competing priorities	Comprehensive plan Project selection criteria Identify goals (common) Identify problems
Political Barriers	Create entity with equal votes/oversight board Independent authority
Legal jurisdictional	Shared risk
Time horizon
NEPA process	Logical termini Segments of independent utility Tiered EIS
Consistency with Divisions	Lead state/Division Offices Alignment of Agency regions
Communication within and among states and others	Project website Newslette Meetings – in person Communications champion
Limited resources – travel	Share resources
Trust	Lessons learned – shared stories/success Face to face meetings Consistency/stability Increased communications

3. Key elements that indicate a corridor should advance to a multi-jurisdictional project.

• Earmark with national significance.
• Each organization is making slow progress individually.
• Public support.
• Common goal/problem.
• Data (congestion, flows, etc.)
• Impacts spread along corridor.
• Political support.
• Interregional ITS architecture.

4. How to define logical break points/corridor definitions:

• Investigate hubs.
• Look at O-D.
• Check on physical barriers that might be present.
• Pull data on traffic volumes.
  • Freight vs. passenger.
• Check for multi-modal linkages.
• Funding availability.
• Operational optimization.

5. How to craft an agreement that has continuity over time (setting priorities, etc.):

• Tie to UPW and review periodically.
• MOU easier than MOA.
• Have funding categories spelled out.
• Bring all parties together.
• Gather benefit and usage data.
• Have a MPO role/champion.
• Try to ensure impartiality,
• Document roles/responsibilities of team members.
• Be flexible.
• Make it an agency-wide initiative, not just a personal initiative.
• Identify results/outcomes.
• Have identical legislation in each state.
• Board members set per state.
• Law says how get out (out clause).
  • Includes conflict resolution.
• Ensure equity.
• Project consensus/selection criteria.
• Common vision.

6. Who needs to be engaged:

• Resource agencies (Federal, state, local).
  • For example, EPA, DEQ, ACE.
  • How they should be engaged:
    • Advisory role.
    • Stakeholders.
• DOT.
  • How they should be engaged:
    • Funding.
    • Champion.
• MPO/RPO/local.
  • How they should be engaged:
    • Communication coordinator.
    • Conduct studies.
• Elected officials.
  • How they should be engaged:
    • Funding.
    • Economic development (jobs).
    • Public support.
    • Media.
    • Tax revenue.
• Public authorities.
• Chamber of commerce / economic development.
  • How they should be engaged:
    • Funding.
    • Tax revenue.
    • Jobs.
    • Benefits.
• Business owners / intersecting modes (public or private).
  • How they should be engaged:
    • Benefits.
    • Funding.
    • Capacity.
    • Profit.
• Public interest groups and communities.
  • How they should be engaged:
    • Safety.
    • Advocacy.

Session 2: Discuss and Develop Freight Performance Measures

Objective	General Freight Information
Performance Measures	Tons per trip Connectivity gaps between modes On time deliveries Intermodal facilities Intermodal connectors-condition Investments Performance List updates Investment in system Security delays Flight delay – ATC Modal interchange time Off peak deliveries Delays at locks – condition Drivers get lost (last mile)
Needed Data	Number Ships Number Trucks Number trains Number planes Number pipes Tons by mode or TEU # miles by mode
Data Sources	Shipper/hauler/carrier AADT FAA
Approach to implement	Relationships Public money Public facility Freight planning model
What decisions making can this measure influence?	What mode chose When to change mode Why change mode Money or time
Owner or objective and measure	Shipper Hauler Carrier

Objective	Improve the operations of the existing freight transportation system by maintaining and preserving the infrastructure.
Performance Measures	Inventory deficiencies Lifecycle of facility Weight limits – posted bridges Overweight citations Over size posted MPO freight funding (maintenance) Condition and investments – Locks and dams (dredging) Condition and investments – Rail Condition and investments – Airport Condition and investments – Intermodal Condition and investments – Pavement condition
Needed Data	Define baseline data and methodology to record it
Data Sources	TIP Long range plan STIP
Approach to implement	National evaluation of current funding levels by mode
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Dollar amount committed to freight and divisions among modes
Owner or objective and measure	Transportation policy committee of Regions–State DOTs

Objective	Better management of environmental impacts of freight transportation
Performance Measures	Alternate energy infrastructure CMAQ for freight Alternative modes (truck diversions) Measured pollutants Gallon of diesel Mobile source air toxics Number of spills (all modes) Number of CMAQ "green" freight programs and projects
Needed Data	Number of diesel retrofits Waterway retrofits Fleet conversions
Data Sources	National CMAQ database
Approach to implement	100 % match (no S/L source) Federal regulation (policy)
What decisions making can this measure influence?	MPO ranking of projects State DOT ranking of projects
Owner or objective and measure	State DOT MPOs Private fleet owners

Objective	Maximize safety by improving the safety of the freight transportation system
Performance Measures	Geometrics – turn radii Grade crossing accidents Truck involved accidents (at/not fault) OS/OW OS/OW citations Accident types (intersections, ROR, injuries, work zone) Length of closure Bridge hits (waterway) Derailments – due to weight Pipeline spills Dams (condition)
Needed Data	Crashes Trucks turning over Bridge heights Curb cuts/mile
Data Sources	HPMS Anecdotal evidence Accident data DOT inventory Municipalities/DOT ICAT
Approach to implement	Focus on economic growth Track incidents Look at relocation / land use Promote corridor approach
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Coordination between agencies Input data into project selection process
Owner or objective and measure	DOT

Objective	Improve operations of the existing freight transportation system by ensuring travel time reliability
Performance Measures	Travel time delays Regulatory delays Bottlenecks – hot spots Length of delivery window and timing Toll delay ITS investment and inventory (corridors interoperability)
Needed Data	Actual travel time–in excess of travel time
Data Sources	Travel time per route Company records (travel logs)
Approach to implement	Relationship Building
What decisions making can this measure influence?	Project – bottlenecks / hot spots Prioritization
Owner or objective and measure	Transportation operator – air, rail, water

Session 3: Funding and Financing Freight Transportation Projects

1. What projects have you successfully funded and how? How did you quantify public benefit when that needed to be done (i.e., qualifying for STIP funds)?

Project:	Mobile Port
Project Description	Mobile Port
How funded	Earmark + formula +authority match
Project:	LA– 1 Elevation
How funded	TIFIA + FBR (w/ tolls to repay)
Project:	Gulfport Connector
How funded	Earmarks, county monies, AARA

2. What projects would you have liked to fund and couldn't?

Project:	New Orleans Rail Gateway
Project Description	$485 million + mitigation Community impacts Rail extension (to port) Bridge connection Bypass
Approaches taken to arrange funding	Not priority by state Legislative requirements Rail – Hwy competition Public – private benefits

3. What were/are the barriers to advancing freight projects? Why did some of the projects fall through?

• Port competition.
• Federal strings.
• The system is too big.
• Class I resistance.
• Competing priorities.
• RR permit process.
• Funding never comes through and people give up over time.
• USDOT – modes don't work together.
• NEPA.
• Lead agency – nobody wants it.
• Community impacts: people look at costs not benefits.

4. What would you like to see put in place to enable you to advance critical freight transportation projects?

• One-stop shopping.
• Non-modal funding.
• Trustworthiness of discretionary program.
  • (history, credibility)
• Fairness.
• Transparency in process.
• State constitutional barriers that vary by state.
• National Performance Measures.
• National Plan.

5. What could FHWA help address at the Federal level to eliminate barriers and create more opportunities (through roles, policies, guidance, outreach, etc.) for funding and financing of freight projects?

• Last mile program.
• National Freight Rail Program.
  • Any amount would show importance; state freight rail programs
  • Sell using safety = public benefit
• Pay use costs (truck damage).
• Multi-modal analysis of use costs (pay fair share).
• Allow investment on private when public benefit.
• Nationalize – Privatize.
• National plan for 21st century freight transportation system.
• National transportation planning perspective, but not supersede states.
• Local impacts – National benefit.
• Use National information (FAF) to put $ where need to go.
• Better information sharing.
• Cost / benefit methodology (public-private balance).

previous | next