#  Addressing Freight in the Transportation Planning Process

##  1.0 Introduction

In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA, enacted
1991) and the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21^st^ Century
(TEA‑21, enacted 1998), Congress encouraged the consideration of freight
movement during statewide and metropolitan transportation planning
processes. Congress emphasized the importance of freight movements
because it had seen the impressive improvements in carrier productivity
that resulted from deregulation of the freight transportation industry
in the late 1970s and early 1980s and understood the opportunities that
a cost-efficient and competitive transportation system created for trade
and economic development. Deregulation had freed the freight
trans­portation industry from many modal and jurisdictional barriers
resulting in the creation of new, innovative services and increased
productivity. By encouraging cross-modal coor­dination, Congress hoped to
catalyze another advance in national freight productivity.

Freight was included among the planning factors in TEA‑21, which helped
focus federal, state, and metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
attention on freight issues. There is a growing awareness at the state,
met­ropolitan, and local levels of the importance of freight
transportation and a corresponding push to link state and local
transportation investment, especially freight transportation investment,
to economic development. State DOTs, MPOs, and business leaders are much
more mindful today of the need to maintain and improve the productivity
of the transportation system as a strategic competitive advan­tage than
they were 10 or 20 years ago. The lessons learned from the rapid
expansion of the domestic economy over the last decade, the challenges
of global economic competi­tion, and the prospect of losing market
advantage in a recession have brought home the message that the freight
transportation system, as much as land cost, labor availability, and tax
policy, is critical to economic success.

The MPOs in Chicago, Columbus, Ohio, San Francisco, and Portland, Maine
are examples of MPOs who were early leaders in looking at local freight
needs and reaching out to the freight community for advice and guidance
on freight transportation improvements. In almost all these MPOs, the
push to develop freight planning capabilities and programs grew out of
the freight emphasis of ISTEA and TEA‑21, but without dedicated funds
for staff and projects. Highway and transit planners, engineers, and
economists were re-treaded as freight specialists, and project funds
were cobbled together from multiple pub­lic and private sources. The same
has been true at the state level. Washington State, Wisconsin,
California, Maine, Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, Texas, Ohio, and other
states have all started to build statewide pictures of freight movement
and tie freight policy and transportation investments more closely to
state economic development goals. Multi-jurisdictional coalitions, such
as the I‑95 Corridor Coalition, the Latin American Trade and
Transportation Study (LATTS), and the CANAMEX Corridor have also begun
to play a larger role in the identification of interstate and
interregional freight needs and concerns.

The general process for planning transportation improvements in the
public-sector is described in detail in 23 CFR 450.[^1] These
regulations give states and MPOs broad respon­sibility for planning and
programming transportation improvement projects, including those
projects that benefit freight movements. The process begins by first
identifying the need for future transportation improvements. The
strategies with which to meet these needs are then described in a
statewide or metropolitan long-range transportation plan, a 20-year
outlook of the area's transportation vision and goals, normally updated
every three to five years.

Every two years, the proposed improvement projects, plans, studies, and
other activities expected to occur over the next three to five years are
taken from the long-range plan and enter the programming process, which
culminates in the development of a Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These
statewide and metropolitan programming processes are closely
coordinated, each MPO developing and approving a TIP which lists
prioritized projects for consideration in the STIP which, in turn, is
approved by the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations
(FHWA and FTA, respectively). TIPs and STIPs are fiscally constrained,
so each project identified on these planning documents must include a
cost estimate and an anticipated funding source. To aid in the
development of these estimates, many potential projects undergo an
initial assessment not only of their scope, but also of their
anticipated environmental impacts. Once the STIP is approved by FHWA and
FTA, improvement projects can move to the implementation stage, where
detailed design and construction activities occur.

The public-sector planning process described above has proven to be
slow, inflexible, and disjointed compared to the private sector's
market-driven needs and expectations. The states and MPOs, which are
accustomed to dealing with complex, long-term, and expen­sive highway and
transit investments, have had difficulty responding to the
private-sector freight industry's
innovate-today-or-be-out-of-business-tomorrow environment. The problem
has been compounded by the mismatch between the scale of private-sector
transport operations, which are increasingly regional and global, and
the fixed jurisdic­tions of state and local transportation agencies.
These disparities have aggravated the dif­ficulty of engaging
private-sector freight representatives in state and MPO planning
processes. A decade after ISTEA, freight industry representation and
participation in planning and programming decisions at the state and MPO
levels (and even at the federal level) is lim­ited despite considerable
efforts to bridge the two cultures.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review of the
existing transportation planning processes at the state and metropolitan
level; identify issues and problems in how these processes address
current freight needs; and pose alternative policies and pro­grams that
could be included in future federal surface transportation programs to
address these problems. The paper begins by summarizing the major trends
and issues shaping freight transportation and why these issues are
important to states and metropolitan areas. Next, the general process by
which freight improvement projects are proposed, developed, approved,
and implemented is described, and the common obstacles encountered by
both successful and unsuccessful freight improvement projects as they
navigate through this process are identified and analyzed. Using that
information, exam­ples of the types of actions that could be taken at the
federal level are provided. These examples are not intended to be
specific recommendations; rather, they are provided as a catalyst for
discussions of how the federal government, states, MPOs, and the private
sector can better integrate freight considerations into the
transportation planning process.

# 2.0 Statewide and Metropolitan Freight Trends and Issues

##  2.1 Overview

Several trends and issues are shaping freight transportation planning in
the public sector, including the devolution of the public sector
transportation planning process, the growth in freight traffic coupled
with the stagnation of capacity improvements, and the increasing
importance of freight transportation to local and regional economies.
This section will briefly touch on each of these issues and their
importance to statewide and metropolitan transportation planners.

##  2.2 Expansion of Trade and Devolution of the Transportation Planning Process

Freight movements are becoming increasingly national and global in
scope, as many domestic companies are managing worldwide production and
distribution systems, often locating their production facilities in
areas around the world where goods can be pro­duced more economically.
This increases the need for an efficient, reliable transportation
system, especially to and from international ports and at border
crossings. While interna­tional movements only account for nine percent
of the total tonnage shipped in the U.S. by weight,[^2] this segment is
growing rapidly and is accounting for a larger and larger percent­age of
both U.S. and World GDP, as can be seen in Figure 2.1.

In this increasingly global freight environment, however, addressing
freight in the trans­portation planning process has become the
responsibility of state DOTs and MPOs. While most states and MPOs are
comfortable conducting passenger transportation planning, many are new
to the area of freight planning. Unlike passenger transportation, many
freight movements do not fit within the fixed jurisdictional boundaries
of a state or MPO, making freight movements more difficult to plan for
at the state or metropolitan level. Further complicating planning for
freight movements is the rise of e‑commerce and "just-in-time" inventory
practices. Having a firm grasp on how freight movements fit into the
regional, national, and international framework of transportation is key
to the success of any statewide or metropolitan planning process.

![](media/image1.wmf)

##  2.3 Transportation System Capacity

The growth in freight traffic, especially intermodal shipments to and
from marine ports and intermodal terminals, coupled with the pressure
for improved transportation system performance, have triggered major
concerns about the ability of the transportation sys­tem to handle the
rapidly increasing volumes of freight traffic with existing capacities.
Figure 2.2 shows the increases in transportation system capacity from
1975-1996.

During this 20-year period, highway capacity has increased by
approximately six percent, while Class I (i.e., large railroad) track
mileage has actually decreased. At the same time, truck VMT has more
than tripled and Class I rail ton-miles have increased by 76 percent, as
shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.

![](media/image1.wmf)

![](media/image1.wmf) Source: U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, National Transportation Statistics, 1999

![](media/image1.wmf)

These limited highway and rail capacity increases, coupled with the
large increases in annual truck VMT and Class I rail ton-miles and the
globalization of freight trans­portation operations, has contributed to
increased levels of congestion, particularly at landside access points
to marine ports, airports, and intermodal terminals. While these choke
points have a major effect on the efficiency of national and
international freight systems, their impacts are felt locally through
highway congestion, noise, and air pollution.

##  2.4 Importance of Freight Transportation to Local and Regional Economies

There is a growing awareness at the state and metropolitan levels of the
importance of freight transportation and a push to link state and local
transportation investment, especially freight transportation investment,
to economic development. Adequate trans­portation is considered to be one
of several key factors considered in site location decisions (e.g.,
utilities, work-force skills, and tax structure). These factors affect
an area's business costs, markets, and overall competitiveness for
attracting business investment. Essentially, all businesses require some
level of transportation access to labor, materials, and customers in
order to operate and survive. As such, transportation is a factor that
influences the ability of local and regional economic development
agencies to increase their areas' business attractions, expansions,
retentions, and startups. Invest­ments in transportation services and
infrastructure may contribute to the economic vibrancy of a region by:
1) reducing business operating costs and increasing business
productivity; 2) expanding the size of labor markets; and 3) increasing
business access to needed labor, supplies, services, and materials.

Several recent findings address the linkages between public
infrastructure and economic development, including:[^3]

-   **Public Infrastructure as a Business Location Incentive --** The
    quantity and quality of public infrastructure may attract new
    businesses and induce existing businesses in an area to stay or to
    expand. Transportation is a cost of doing business and locations
    that can effectively lower this cost (relative to taxes paid for the
    service) may develop a competitive advantage over regions unable to
    offer a similar savings in business costs.

-   **Public Infrastructure Augments Productivity and Output --** In
    response to public infrastructure, businesses modify processes to
    increase labor and total factory produc­tivity. As efficiency
    improves, unit costs decline and firm profits grow. The output
    elasticity associated with increased public infrastructure was found
    to be roughly double the estimated elasticity associated with
    increased private capital, although the exact causality and
    magnitude are debated. Public capital was also found to have a
    positive impact on investment and employment growth.[^4]

-   **Public Infrastructure Mitigates Negative Externalities --**
    Infrastructure investment aids businesses and adds to productivity
    if it successfully reduces negative external­ities (e.g., traffic
    congestion) that aggravate business costs.

-   **Infrastructure Investment Decreases Production Costs --** A study
    on the impact of infrastructure investment on production costs for
    various industries showed that the costs of doing business decrease
    by approximately four percent for every one percent increase in
    highway capital stock. The reduction in production costs induces
    output expansion in the studied industries.[^5]

In short, an efficient transportation system reduces costs, increases
productivity, and is a key site location factor for new businesses,
increasing the number of jobs available to local residents as well as
the tax revenue collected by local governments. As domestic compa­nies
continue to operate in a competitive global environment, there will be
more pressure on local decision-makers to improve the productivity and
reliability of the transportation system in order to attract and retain
such successful businesses.

# 3.0 The Transportation Planning Process and its Application to Freight Projects

##  3.1 Overview

As discussed earlier, the requirements for statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning are spelled out in 23 CFR 450. These regulations
give states and MPOs broad responsibility for planning and programming
transportation improvement projects, including those projects that
benefit freight movements. Because many state and federally-funded
transportation improvement projects occur in metropolitan areas, the
state and MPO planning processes must be highly coordinated. While
states and MPOs often have separate procedures for identifying the need
for transportation improvement projects and developing long-range
strategies to meet those needs, the programming pro­cesses of the
metropolitan and state projects are intertwined, as projects that appear
on TIPs are combined with other statewide and rural projects to form the
STIP.

When looking at how effectively these existing state and MPO planning
processes deal with projects that improve the movement of freight, it is
useful to describe the entire plan­ning process, from the initial
generation of the idea for a project through full project
implementation, in terms of a generic process framework. Though this
process may vary among states and MPOs, it normally consists of the
following major elements:

-   Needs identification;

-   Plan development;

-   Project programming;

-   Project development; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Implementation.

Figure 3.1 shows the major elements of the process framework. The
details of how each step is accomplished depend on a number of factors,
including:

-   Source of funding for the project;

-   Modes included in the project;

-   Scale of the project;

-   Jurisdictions affected by the project;

-   Degree of control over the process exerted by the state DOT or the
    MPO; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Nuances of each state DOT's and MPO's regulations and procedures.

![](media/image1.wmf)

In the sections of this paper that follow, we will describe each of the
major steps in the planning process as well as the interface between
freight improvement projects and this process. In order to illustrate
key issues associated with this interface, we will present brief case
study examples.

##  3.2 Steps of the Transportation Planning Process

### 3.2.1 Needs Identification

Like most other types of transportation projects, there are a number of
different ways in which projects that improve the movement of freight
are identified, formulated, and take shape. Often, the ideas for
projects that improve freight movements are identified by statewide or
metropolitan freight movement studies, formal or informal consultation
with private sector freight stakeholders, or other sources. This needs
identification process is typically conducted by one of three different
entities:

**Local Implementing Agencies**. Local agencies, such as public works
departments of cit­ies or counties, actually own and maintain roadways
that are not part of the state highway system. Thus, these agencies are
often responsible for the implementation of transporta­tion improvement
projects. When federal transportation funds (highway or transit) are
involved and a TIP is developed, local implementing agencies are often
the only agencies that are eligible to submit project proposals for
consideration by an MPO. As local implementing agencies are normally
member agencies of the MPO, they are generally familiar with all of the
state DOT and MPO procedures for getting projects approved and funded in
a TIP or STIP.

At the state level, state DOT district or regional offices often play an
analogous role to local implementing agencies. District offices are
generally the offices within state DOTs that are responsible for
identifying potential projects and normally play a major role in the
programming and implementation of STIP projects.

Projects initiated by local implementing agencies tend to be single-mode
(generally road­way) and relatively small, with a fairly local focus.
With the exception of a few of the larger cities and counties, local
implementing agencies tend to view freight projects as ways to mitigate
negative impacts rather than promote freight transportation efficiency.
For example, the Miami-Dade MPO in Florida received a proposal for a
truck parking program from a local elected official on the MPO board who
was bothered by the large number of trucks he saw parked in his
neighborhood. The needs identified by state DOT district or regional
offices also tend to be small and locally-focused and often do not
reflect the freight issues of the state as a whole.

While traditional transportation planning projects most often enter the
state or MPO plan­ning process when proposed by local implementing
agencies or state DOT district or regional offices, this seems very rare
in the case of projects that improve the movement of freight and it was
very difficult finding examples of projects that were brought into the
process in this way.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Trunk 13 Highway Improvements, Savage, Minnesota**                  |
|                                                                       |
| Trunk Highway 13 in Savage, Minnesota, provides access to several     |
| barge terminals, including Port Cargill, the flagship wholesale       |
| fertilizer terminal for Cargill, Inc. Port Cargill operates three     |
| high-speed truck load-out systems, serving 650 trucks per day -- all  |
| of which enter and depart the facility via Trunk Highway 13 in        |
| Savage. The city of Savage was con­cerned about the high volume of     |
| truck traffic on the roadway and the potential impact that con­gestion |
| on this critical access route could have to the local economy. The    |
| city hoped to get an improvement project included in the state's TIP  |
| but the project was ineligible because Trunk Highway 13 is not on a   |
| principal arterial (i.e., it does not meet eligibility criteria for   |
| state funding).                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| In order to address the problem, the city asked the MPO to hire a     |
| consultant to conduct an independent analysis of truck movements      |
| along the Trunk Highway corridor. The study showed that nearly five   |
| percent of national grain shipments travel along this road, thus      |
| demon­strating the economic significance to the state and the region   |
| of the facility. The MPO pre­sented these findings to the State        |
| Freight Advisory Committee who, in turn, brought the issue to the     |
| state legislature. The state DOT and the MPO, with the support of     |
| state lawmakers, are currently investigating the use of a             |
| Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)      |
| grant to complete improve­ments along this roadway.                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This case study illustrates several key points about the initiation of
projects by local implementing agencies. The case study shows the
importance of having a local imple­menting agency that understands both
the economic significance as well as the traffic implications of freight
transportation. It also shows the value of information that can
demonstrate broad regional, statewide, and national significance of
freight projects. This understanding of freight issues and the data to
support the analysis of these issues rarely exists within local
implementing agencies. State DOT headquarters or central offices and
MPOs can provide this type of support to local implementing agencies,
but these capabili­ties are often quite thin in these agencies, as well.
Finally, the case study shows the importance of having a strong
political constituency to act as an advocate for local projects because
the process of getting projects funded at the local level often requires
clear sup­port from political decision-makers.

Some of the same problems exist in state DOT district offices. These
offices generally do not include staff who focus on freight issues. As a
result, freight issues and projects are not generally brought to the
table, preventing projects that specifically improve freight movements
from being mainstreamed in the district planning process.

While there are other ways to initiate freight projects, the fact that
local implementing agencies and state DOT district or regional offices
bring very few projects to the planning process is a concern given the
current planning framework. As noted earlier, devolution of
transportation planning responsibilities to states and MPOs has resulted
in a planning process that favors projects that come up from the bottom.
MPO boards are made up of local elected officials from the implementing
agencies and these officials often respond to local political concerns.
Many MPOs even provide for a rough allocation of some portion of their
federal highway or transit funds among member jurisdictions. In some
states, localities have access to their own funding sources through
sales tax revenues. The trans­portation funds that are awarded to local
implementing agencies in response to their local priorities is a
substantial fraction of the total available funding. In addition, while
some freight projects are large, multimodal, and multi-jurisdictional,
many are small, local roadway projects that can be implemented
relatively quickly. If these types of projects do not come up through
the normal needs assessment process, then state and regional freight
transportation goals may not be met.

**MPOs and State DOT Headquarters Planning Offices**. MPOs identify and
initiate freight projects in a variety of ways. Some MPOs have dedicated
freight planning staff who look for regionally significant freight
issues and needs around which to formulate projects. Frequently,
regional freight studies are the starting point for the identification
of these projects. Some MPOs actively engage the private sector in
freight advisory com­mittees or other mechanisms designed to identify
regional freight issues and potential projects. MPOs, particularly
larger ones, are sometimes able to take a broader regional perspective
than are local implementing agencies. Projects that they identify may
involve multiple modes and may be large, regionally significant
projects.

State DOT headquarters planning offices may play a similar role to MPOs
in terms of the identification of freight projects at the state level.
As in the case of MPOs, some state DOT planning offices have dedicated
freight planning staff who conduct special studies and identify needs,
although this seems to be less likely than at the MPO level. However,
freight-planning staff at the headquarters level are often not directly
involved in proposing projects for the STIP. Often these freight staff
exist at the periphery of the STIP process so their ability to generate
ideas that advance to the next stage in the process may be more limited.
In addition, state DOTs often have other modal offices, such as rail and
aviation offices, that conduct their own planning activities. These
offices may have access to special funds (such as grade crossing
improvement funds) which are planned and programmed through a process
that is completely independent of the planning processes for other
modes.

There are many examples of cases in which MPOs or state DOTs have
initiated freight projects. One of these is described below.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **On-Dock Rail and Truck Access Improvements to Marine Terminal,      |
| Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)**                |
|                                                                       |
| The DVRPC established the Delaware Valley Goods Movement Task Force,  |
| a public-private advisory committee to the MPO. Access improvements   |
| to the local marine terminal was one of the potential freight         |
| improvement projects proposed by the Task Force. Unlike some MPOs,    |
| the DVRPC has staff assigned specifically to freight and intermodal   |
| issues that is constantly monitoring potential projects for           |
| consideration by the Task Force. The MPO staff has devel­oped a        |
| substantial amount of data regarding local freight activity and is    |
| developing analytical tools for evaluating the potential benefits of  |
| freight projects. Because the region is focused on the importance of  |
| trade to the regional economy, gaining political support for projects |
| such as the marine terminal access projects is not terribly           |
| difficult.                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

As the case study illustrates, when MPOs have staff and funding
resources, they are able to generate ideas effectively that can move
forward to the plan development and project programming stages. In these
cases, the freight advisory committee becomes a valuable sounding board
but not the primary initiator of projects.

Because of their multi-jurisdictional and regional nature, MPOs are
often better able to think of the broad, long-term regional significance
of projects than are local implementing agencies. Thus, large,
multimodal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are regionally
signifi­cant may be best initiated by the MPO. MPOs may identify these
types of projects in regional freight studies. Both the Miami-Dade MPO
and the Mid-America Regional Commission (Kansas City) described projects
that were initially formulated as a result of their regional freight
studies. The problems encountered by these larger, more ambitious
projects generally occur at later stages of the planning process.

Along the same lines, state DOT headquarters or central offices also
often have a broader perspective of the statewide significance of
freight improvement projects than do individ­ual district or regional
offices. CalTrans, the California State DOT, for instance, is begin­ning
to identify projects designed to improve the intrastate, interstate, and
international movement of freight through its Global Gateways program.
Because of its ability to look at freight movements across the state as
a whole, state DOT headquarters or central offices are often better able
to address the need for projects of statewide significance than are
regional or district offices.

It should be noted that even with the freight emphasis of TEA‑21, many
MPOs have a dif­ficult time initiating freight projects. Many of these
MPOs do not generate many projects of any kind, acting more as a
selector/evaluator of projects submitted by member agencies. Many MPOs
have a difficult time trying to figure out what projects to consider
because they do not fully understand how transportation problems impact
freight opera­tions. Without active participation by the private sector
or outside funds to conduct freight movement studies, these MPOs find it
difficult to move beyond the talking stage. The North Central Texas
Council of Governments (Dallas/Ft. Worth) has a designated freight
planner and has included freight elements and strategies in its
long-range plan. However, staff are having a difficult time figuring out
how to focus limited local funds on the highest priority projects. They
do not have an effective mechanism nor the analytical tools for
evaluating their options and they are not yet convinced that the quality
of meth­ods and data for conducting these evaluations are really up to
the job.

The same can be said about many state DOTs. Many state DOT Headquarters
do not have staff dedicated expressly to identify freight needs. Like
MPOs, many of these state DOTs act more as selectors/evaluators of
potential improvement projects for considera­tion in a STIP, rather than
proposers of projects that relate to freight needs. Again, while freight
movements are addressed in many statewide long-range plans, they are
normally discussions only and have not yet manifested themselves in the
form of a systematic approach by which to address freight needs at the
state level.

**Private Sector.** Private businesses, including shippers and
transportation providers, also identify and initiate freight improvement
projects. In some cases there are formal mecha­nisms for doing this, such
as state DOT or MPO-sponsored freight advisory committees, and the
impetus for creating these mechanisms can come from either the public or
the pri­vate sector. Individual businesses also generate project ideas
that may enter the process via political contacts. Obviously, there are
cases where private businesses initiate, fund, and construct their own
projects and simply deal with public permitting processes.

Projects that are initiated by the private sector often have a difficult
time making it from needs identification phase to the TIP or STIP
because many states and MPOs require that potential TIP or STIP projects
come to them from eligible implementing agencies. This is an area where
freight advisory committees can be particularly helpful to bring private
sector officials together with local implementing agencies to discuss
priorities and to identify projects.

The following case study illustrates some of the issues that are
encountered with private sector initiated projects and why they are
difficult to navigate through the rest of the process.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **UP/Port of Oakland Planning Initiative, San Joaquin County,         |
| California**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| The Union Pacific (UP) railroad wanted to increase piggyback          |
| intermodal movements through the California Central Valley into the   |
| Port of Oakland. The financial risk was very high, how­ever, because   |
| margins on the shipments were very low. Reasoning that there were     |
| potential benefits to San Joaquin County from reduced truck traffic   |
| (shifting intermodal truck traffic to rail), the UP approached the    |
| regional MPO (San Joaquin Council of Governments -- SJCOG) to try to  |
| acquire federal funds for making improvements to rail lines in the    |
| area. Several meetings were conducted and there was much enthusiasm   |
| on both sides. As the planning process unfolded, the UP eventually    |
| pulled out of the project, saying that the margins were too tight,    |
| even with public funding assistance. The UP also voiced their         |
| frustration at how long the planning process was taking and how much  |
| energy it required. The MPO also had a difficult time convincing      |
| local decision-makers (and themselves) to use federal funds to        |
| subsidize a project they perceived to benefit only the private        |
| sector.                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This case study effectively illustrates a number of issues associated
with projects identified and initiated by the private sector. When the
private sector can complete a project prof­itably themselves, they would
generally prefer to do it that way. Hence, projects that are brought
into the public sector planning process generally need some form of
subsidy. An interesting aspect of this project is that a railroad
proposed the project. In recent com­ments, railroad representatives seem
to be indicating that railroads may increasingly turn to public sector
entities to assist with projects because of the difficulties they are
having attracting sufficient capital to meet all of their needs.
However, the frustration that pri­vate businesses express over the long
and cumbersome public sector planning process prevents many private
businesses from becoming more engaged in the process.

The ability of private businesses to stay the course over the long haul,
especially when the discussions are occurring at this early stage in the
process, prevents many freight projects from ever being brought to the
table. Some private businesses, particularly those in the trucking
industry, would like to see their state and national associations become
more involved in these advance planning activities. But staff resources,
particularly for state associations, are already stretched very thin.

The case study also shows how difficult it is for MPOs to justify
investments in infra­structure that primarily benefit commercial
enterprises. This underscores the need to involve MPO staff and elected
officials from implementing agencies in discussions with the private
sector as early as possible in the planning process.

Although they are most often operated by quasi-public agencies, ports
are often thought of as private sector entities in transportation
planning. The degree to which the issues associated with private sector
generated projects apply to ports depends on how formally the port is
engaged in the statewide or metropolitan planning process.

### 3.2.2 Plan Development and Project Programming 

The plan development and project programming phases of the
transportation planning process are separate processes, as indicated in
Figure 3.1. However, since many of the issues associated with these two
separate phases are closely related, they will be discussed
concurrently. The plan development phase occurs after the transportation
needs of the area are identified. Once transportation needs are
identified, initial strategies for dealing with those needs can be
fleshed out. The identification of these strategies results in a
long-term vision for the future of transportation in an area, whether a
metropolitan region or the state as a whole. At the conclusion of the
plan development stage, the area's transporta­tion vision and goals are
described in a long-range transportation plan. This plan covers a
20-year horizon and is normally updated every three to five years.

The development of state and MPO long-range plans is guided by the seven
planning factors listed in TEA‑21. While consideration of freight
transportation needs is called out in several of these planning factors,
states and MPOs have considerable latitude with respect to how freight
issues are addressed in their respective long-range plans. While some
state and MPO plans include clearly-defined freight elements, some do
not; and the format of these freight elements is often inconsistent
among different states and MPOs. The approach used to characterize the
current ability of the transportation system to serve freight needs in
long-range plans also varies considerably. Some states and MPOs may
conduct special studies to support their analysis of freight issues in
the long-range plan, while some conduct formal needs assessments to
support long-range plan development. In short, the consideration of
projects that improve freight movements in long-range plan development
varies from state to state and from MPO to MPO.

When projects are included in a long-range plan they may generate a
variety of supporting studies that are designed to assist in the further
definition of the project, the identification of alternatives, the
project costs, and potential funding options. At the same time, many
projects undergo an initial assessment of their potential environmental
impacts. At this point, potential projects enter the programming phase.

The project programming phase occurs after long-range plan development
and is the phase in which states and MPOs begin the process of actually
implementing transportation improvement projects. First, however,
proposed projects must appear on a TIP or STIP.

The TIP is a planning document developed by an MPO, which lists all
metropolitan proj­ects for which federal funds are anticipated, along
with non-federally-funded projects that increase capacity or are
otherwise regionally significant. This latter category allows MPOs to
include in their planning documents a variety of different types of
freight projects that might not otherwise be addressed formally in the
MPO planning process.

Once the TIP is developed and approved by the MPO, it is sent to the
state DOT. The state DOT is responsible for collecting all the MPO TIPs
in the state as well as those transporta­tion improvement projects
proposed via other planning vehicles, such as the statewide long-range
transportation plan, and other rural and regional planning documents.
The state DOT then assembles all approved projects into the STIP for
approval by FHWA and FTA. Like the TIP, the STIP must include all
projects within the state for which federal funds are anticipated, along
with non-federally-funded projects that increase capacity or are
otherwise regionally significant.

Projects identified in TIPs and STIPs must be consistent with an
approved metropolitan or statewide long-range transportation plan. These
projects must also have an identified funding source, as TIPs and STIPs
are required to be fiscally constrained. Thus, ideas that make it to
this stage in the planning process are on their way to actual
implementation. Some long-range transportation plans include projects
that are considered "lower tier" because their funding sources are less
certain; these are often longer-range projects. Because TIPs cover a
three to five-year timeframe, they include activities that are nearer
term than those in a long-range plan.

MPOs are required to provide an analysis of their proposed plan, but
there is no require­ment that these analyses include freight traffic.
While some MPOs are moving towards the development of truck or freight
modeling, many others are not.

Because TIPs and STIPs are financially constrained, they must identify
the sources of funding, including local matches, that are anticipated to
fund a project. This brings consideration of the eligibility
requirements of other funding sources into the picture. Freight projects
that bring with them specially designated funding sources (e.g.,
TEA‑21's Borders and Corridors Program) may be more likely to be
included in the TIP than those that are competing for other more
traditional sources of funds. Most MPOs and states have well-defined
procedures for including projects in a TIP or STIP.

At the MPO level, projects generally must be proposed by an eligible
implementing agency. This turns out to have significant implications for
certain freight projects, depending on how the ideas were originally
generated. In addition, the criteria used to select projects for
inclusion in the TIP may or may not include special criteria that
prop­erly account for the benefits of freight projects. The tools
available to evaluate freight projects with respect to a standard set of
metrics that could be used in selecting projects are also quite limited.

Once freight improvement projects are proposed, they often encounter
critical problems as they move from the plan development to the project
programming process. One problem is the cost and scope of some freight
improvement projects. Many freight projects are quite large in scale; a
proposed harbor tunnel providing service to the Port of Miami, for
instance, has been estimated to cost between \$400 and \$500 million.
Many MPOs have a difficult time programming projects of this size, as
decision-makers would often rather complete several smaller-scale
projects than a single large scale project. Freight improvement projects
can also be jurisdictionally complex, often requiring input and approval
from other local, state, and federal agencies, the general public, and
the private sector. These various approval layers can sometimes combine
to further hinder MPO efforts. Finally, the long public planning and
approval process required to list projects in a TIP encourages private
sector and other project proponents to look for other ways of acquiring
funding or, in some cases, to abandon the project altogether.

Some freight projects that do not use federal funds may never pass
through this step in the planning process. Projects that are funded
entirely by the private sector, those that use other state and local
funding sources, and those that do not increase capacity, are not
con­sidered regionally significant, or are small enough that they can be
funded from local maintenance accounts, are not required to be included
in the long-range plan, TIP, or STIP. However, some states and MPOs may
wish to include such freight projects in these plan­ning documents as a
way to coordinate the planning and programming of public-sector projects
that may complement private sector improvements, improving the overall
per­formance of the transportation system.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Freight Rail Double-stack Clearance Project, Pennsylvania DOT      |
| (PennDOT)***                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| In 1993, PennDOT, in conjunction with Conrail, identified the need to |
| remove impediments to double-stack rail operations on Conrail's       |
| east-west route from Ohio to the port of Philadelphia and on Canadian |
| Pacific's north-south route from New York to Philadelphia. As this    |
| project began prior to the passage of TEA‑21, this project was        |
| ineligible to use federal highway funding for construction, though    |
| federal highway planning and research funds were used to sponsor      |
| PennDOT's cost-benefit analysis of the proposed project.              |
|                                                                       |
| PennDOT coordinated the entire project, contributing \$34M while      |
| placing highway and bridge improvements that coincided with           |
| the project on the STIP and accelerating their completion. Conrail    |
| added \$60M to adjust tunnel clearances along the corridor while      |
| several local munici­palities spent \$4M constructing new intermodal   |
| facilities.                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

As described earlier, state DOTs have the overall responsibility for
gathering potential transportation improvement projects from TIPs and
other rural areas and developing a STIP. This case study demonstrates
how states can manage the STIP by accelerating projects that coincide
with private sector developments and benefit the state transportation
system as a whole. It also highlights the potential benefits of working
with the private sector to identify and complete transportation
improvement projects of statewide significance.

As mentioned earlier, one of the biggest problems with keeping the
private sector engaged throughout the transportation planning process is
how long these processes take and the tremendous amount of attention and
energy required to keep the project moving. A number of MPOs have looked
for ways to engage the private sector with quick turn­around projects
that have a high likelihood of success. These projects are often
accom­plished with a separate pool of funding and the project scale is
generally very small.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Freight Forward Program, DVRPC***                                  |
|                                                                       |
| DVRPC operates the Freight Forward program, whereby the freight       |
| community can identify immediately repairable items, such as potholes |
| and poor signage, and bring them to the atten­tion of the MPO with a   |
| phone call. DVRPC, through the local public works agency, can then    |
| program maintenance and operation funding to immediately correct      |
| these problems.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| ***"Jumpstart" Projects, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)***       |
|                                                                       |
| In 1995, MARC attempted to reach out to the freight community by      |
| planning "jumpstart" proj­ects, such as signal timing and signage      |
| improvements, designed to provide immediate benefits to the freight   |
| community. These projects did not fit neatly into the standard MPO    |
| planning pro­cess, however, and very few of these jumpstart projects   |
| were actually completed. The prob­lem was that most of these projects  |
| were between \$20,000 and \$30,000 -- too small and insignificant to  |
| be included in the TIP, but too large to be funded out of the local   |
| implementing agency's maintenance and operations budget.              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

These case studies illustrate clearly that doing quick turnaround
projects outside of the TIP planning cycle can energize the freight
community and give them the incentive to stay the course on longer-range
projects. However, the case studies also point out that MPOs must be
able to deliver these projects or risk alienating the private sector
freight community.

It is also instructive to look at an alternative process for identifying
freight transportation needs and planning the projects. The FAST
Corridor project in the Seattle area provides a number of useful
lessons. This also provides a sense of what a completely independent
freight planning process might look like.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***FAST Corridor Improvements, Seattle, Washington***                 |
|                                                                       |
| The FAST Corridor project is a joint planning activity of the         |
| Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the Puget      |
| Sound Regional Council (PSRC), MPO for the Seattle-Tacoma area, the   |
| Ports of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett, and other county and city      |
| govern­ments.[^6] One of the objectives of the FAST program is to      |
| improve freight mobility along the corridor between Everett and       |
| Tacoma by formulating a package of 15 immediate-priority rail­road     |
| grade crossing and port access projects. These 15 projects (12 rail   |
| grade separations and three port access improvements), totaling       |
| \$470 million, will help improve intermodal con­nections               |
| (ship/truck/rail) in the area.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Potential FAST Corridor grade separation and port access improvement
projects were proposed by local cities, counties, and ports and were
evaluated by FAST members using specifically developed measures of
effectiveness. These measures of effectiveness consid­ered the delay,
cost, proximity to cross-corridor arterials, benefits to mainline rail
opera­tions, and community and environmental impacts. By developing
freight-specific evaluation criteria, FAST members were better able to
evaluate the potential costs, bene­fits, and impacts of proposed freight
improvement projects and provide an accurate pri­oritized list of the
projects most important to the region.

FAST Corridor improvements also have a dedicated funding source,
eliminating the need for the proposed freight improvement projects to
compete with passenger improvement projects for funding. Each of the
members of FAST have approved a Memorandum of Agreement, which outlines
the cost-sharing breakdown among each of the agencies involved. State
funding is provided through Washington State DOT's Freight Mobility
Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB), a state agency responsible for
prioritizing freight improvement projects for funding by the state
legislature. Proposed freight improvement projects can be submitted
directly to the FMSIB for consideration.

### 3.2.2 Project Development

The project development stage of the transportation planning process
includes a more detailed scoping and design of the potential project
along with a more formal assessment of the necessary permitting and
approval activities. This includes activities such as project studies
(e.g., environmental studies), preliminary engineering, design, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews, and any local zoning and land
use approvals. If this part of the process is not conducted properly,
the result can be significant delays in the project programming and
implementation phases as alternatives are re-reviewed and new
stakeholders are brought into the process for the first time. Because
large, regionally significant freight projects tend to be
jurisdictionally complex and often occur in environmentally sensitive
areas, the complexity of coordinating the activities at this stage in
the process is heightened. Some examples of issues faced by freight
projects as they move into the plan development phase are illustrated by
the following case studies.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***North Marine Drive Extension Project, Portland, Oregon***          |
|                                                                       |
| Marine Drive in Portland, Oregon, is a 2.5-mile corridor providing    |
| primary access to Terminal 6, the Port of Portland's international    |
| container facility; it is also a designated NHS Intermodal Connector. |
| The Port of Portland, along with the City of Portland, has proposed   |
| projects to improve truck movement along the corridor, including the  |
| addition of a lane in each direc­tion, the installation of new traffic |
| signals, and the widening of an existing rail crossing. The Port of   |
| Portland is contributing \$10.0M toward the \$15.7M estimated cost of |
| the project.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Several obstacles to the completion of this project were encountered  |
| during the plan develop­ment phase, where freight improvement projects |
| are evaluated for conformity with federal and state environmental     |
| regulations. Like most ports, the Port of Portland is located in an   |
| environ­mentally sensitive area. The Marine Drive improvements, as     |
| originally proposed, would likely have negatively impacted a nearby   |
| wetland area, lake, and certain wildlife species.                     |
|                                                                       |
| In order to meet federal environmental requirements and assuage the   |
| public's concerns about the potential impacts of the project, the     |
| Port of Portland agreed to several additions to the project scope,    |
| including the installation of a noise wall along a wetland preserve,  |
| the construc­tion of new pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities   |
| in the area, and the addition of hazardous spill response facilities. |
| While these mitigation efforts added considerable cost and delay to   |
| the project, their successful negotiation allowed the project to      |
| continue.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This case study illustrates the difficulties some freight improvement
projects encounter while attempting to conform to federal and state
environmental regulations. Many freight projects, particularly those in
and around marine ports, are more likely to encounter sig­nificant delays
and cost increases due to environmental concerns, as ports are often
located in environmentally sensitive and air quality non-attainment
areas (along waterfronts, in metropolitan areas, etc.). In addition,
projects that benefit truck move­ments, such as the Marine Drive
widening, also raise noise pollution and hazardous mate­rial transport
concerns in the affected communities. The potential environmental
impacts of these freight improvement projects often lead to more
complex, time-consuming, and expensive permitting and environmental
impact mitigation requirements.

The North Marine Drive Extension case study demonstrated how freight
improvement projects can overcome environmental obstacles through close
coordination among plan­ning agencies, environmental agencies, and the
general public during the plan develop­ment phase to highlight potential
environmental concerns and possible mitigation activities. The following
case study demonstrates how failure to address environmental concerns
early in the planning process can derail potential improvement projects.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***Sears Island/Mack Point Cargo Facility, Maine***                   |
|                                                                       |
| As part of its three-port strategy, the Maine DOT proposed to develop |
| a two-berth dry cargo port on Sears Island to complement activities   |
| at a nearby petroleum and cargo port at Mack Point. Though the        |
| original proposal was for a two-berth facility, it was expected to    |
| eventually expand to six berths. Sears Island consists primarily of   |
| forested land; Mack Point is 50 per­cent developed with industrial and |
| port facilities.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Two Mack Point sites were originally included as potential sites for  |
| the proposed facility, but both were considered impractical given the |
| projected need for six berths at the facility. As MDOT regarded the   |
| Sears Island site as the only viable alternative, it was the only     |
| site consid­ered when developing the initial Environmental Impact      |
| Statement (EIS). After the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the |
| National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Department of Fish  |
| and Wildlife questioned the findings of the original EIS, a           |
| supplemental EIS, including a full analysis of the proposed Mack      |
| Point sites, was completed. At the same time, the EPA hired its own   |
| consultant to prepare a study on the viability of the Mack Point      |
| sites.                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Despite the concerns of the EPA, NMFS, and the Department of Fish and |
| Wildlife, MDOT's final EIS was accepted and necessary permits were    |
| obtained by FHWA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Coast     |
| Guard. Prior to construction of the Sears Island facility, how­ever,   |
| another supplemental EIS was prepared, showing that the 6-berth       |
| facility would require 124 acres of upland, rather than the 50 acres  |
| originally estimated. Subsequently, the project was determined to be  |
| economically unfeasible, 14 years after it had been originally        |
| proposed.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This case study demonstrates two points. The first is the importance of
considering the environmental impacts of potential improvement projects
early on in the plan develop­ment phase. This is particularly important
for port improvement projects which, as dis­cussed above, often occur in
environmentally-sensitive areas. Had the potential environmental impacts
of the Sears Island facility and its Mack Point alternatives been
assessed earlier in the transportation planning process, the resulting
14 years of environ­mental disputes may have been avoided. Secondly, the
case study highlights the complex interagency coordination that must
occur when planning and programming a major transportation improvement.
In addition to the general public, no fewer than six federal agencies,
including the Federal Highway Administration, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department
of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S.
Coast Guard, were involved in the planning and approval of this project.
Coordinating the activities of these agencies during the planning
process is a challenge often faced by state DOTs and MPOs when planning
large freight improvement projects.

As noted previously, some projects, particularly those identified and
initiated by the pri­vate sector, may bypass the identification of needs
and development of strategies phase and move directly into the plan
development step in the process. When this is the case, it sometimes
happens that mitigation activities are identified as conditions to be
met prior to the granting of the necessary project approvals and
permits; these mitigations may gener­ate new transportation projects or
are themselves transportation projects that come back into the
transportation planning process for funding and programming. While it
may seem expeditious in the case of privately planned and funded
projects to bypass the public transportation planning process altogether
and simply apply for the required permits and approvals, the potential
to "grease the skids" by working with state DOTs or MPOs during the plan
development step in the process should be considered. The following case
study examples illustrate these points.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ***UP and BNSF Intermodal Terminals -- San Joaquin County,            |
| California***                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| San Joaquin County, California is home to two major intermodal        |
| facilities, serving the Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington             |
| Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads; both intermodal facilities were   |
| privately planned and funded.                                         |
|                                                                       |
| The **UP Intermodal Facility** was constructed near Lathrop,          |
| California in 1993. While San Joaquin County negotiated mitigation    |
| requirements for this project, the SJCOG was not con­sulted, as the    |
| project was happening outside of the normal metropolitan planning     |
| process. The new facility was a success, winning a National           |
| Transportation Design Award in 1995 for its efficiency and            |
| innovativeness. The facility's efficiency, however, has led to large  |
| increases in intermodal traffic -- much larger that either the UP or  |
| the county of San Joaquin anticipated -- resulting in longer trains   |
| entering the facility. These trains are often delayed while entering  |
| the facility and because of their length, block two major             |
| intersections in the city of Lathrop.                                 |
|                                                                       |
| As this project was being planned and funded outside the normal       |
| transportation planning proc­ess, the SJCOG had little opportunity to  |
| conduct the types of plans and studies, such as travel demand         |
| modeling and freight flow studies, that normally occur during the     |
| project preparation phase. While the MPO may not have anticipated the |
| increases in intermodal traffic at the new facility, their regional   |
| perspective may have been helpful in addressing the potential         |
| regional impacts of such a project.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| The **BNSF Intermodal Facility** was recently constructed along State |
| Route 99, seven miles southeast of Stockton, California. Like the UP  |
| Intermodal Facility, this project was also pri­vately planned and      |
| funded.                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| The BNSF Intermodal Facility was also planned and programmed outside  |
| of the traditional transportation planning process. In this case,     |
| however, SJCOG closely tracked the progress of the project and was    |
| heavily involved in the negotiation of mitigation requirements with   |
| the railroad. Anticipating the increase in truck traffic to and from  |
| the new facility, as well as the potential for increased rail grade   |
| crossing conflicts, the SJCOG recommended that BNSF be required to    |
| provide funding to complete interchange improvements in the area as   |
| well as include several grade separations in their construction       |
| plans. These improvements, when completed, may further enhance        |
| freight movements in the area.                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

### 3.2.4 Project Implementation

As discussed earlier, the first three steps of the generic process
framework constitute the transportation planning process. The final step
in the process framework is project imple­mentation. After FHWA and state
DOT approval of the proposed transportation improve­ment project is
obtained, detailed construction plans are developed, and right-of-way
(if necessary) and construction permits are acquired. Finally, a
construction contract is let and awarded and work on the project begins.
Though freight improvement projects often encounter obstacles during
this phase of the process, those obstacles occur outside the scope of
the transportation planning process and are best addressed in a separate
discussion.

##  3.3 Common Obstacles Encountered during the Planning Process

The case studies highlight several common obstacles and issues facing
freight transporta­tion improvement projects as they navigate through the
transportation planning proc­esses. To supplement the information
provided by the case studies, interviews were conducted with statewide
and metropolitan freight planning practitioners and private sector
freight stakeholders. The purpose of the interviews was to further
define the impediments to the consideration of freight in statewide and
metropolitan planning proc­esses; determine the extent of private sector
understanding of and involvement in those processes; and discuss ways in
which statewide and metropolitan freight planning could be improved.

An analysis of both the case study vignettes and the interviews with
public and private freight stakeholders resulted in the identification
of common issues which, individually and in combination, hinder the
planning and programming of projects that improve the movement of
freight. These issues are described under four broad areas: planning
requirements, organizational and procedural issues, data and analytical
tools issues, and resource issues.

### 3.3.1 Planning Requirements

**TEA‑21.** The Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^ Century
(TEA‑21)[^7] emphasizes the consideration by states and MPOs of projects
and strategies that "increase the accessibility and mobility options
available to people and freight and enhance the integration and
con­nectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for
people and freight." However, TEA‑21 provides little specific guidance
as to how or to what extent states and MPOs should consider freight
interests when developing their transportation plans. As a result, many
state DOTs and MPOs address freight generally in their long-range plans,
but are uncertain about their role and responsibility for generating and
championing improvement projects that specifically benefit freight
movement. MPOs frequently look to states to generate ideas for freight
projects, arguing that state DOTs have the proper scope and scale of
perspective to understand freight movement. Conversely, state DOTs often
look to MPOs to generate freight improvement initiatives, arguing that
MPOs are more closely in touch with the freight movement needs of
specific industries.

### 3.3.2 Organizational and Procedural Issues

**Project Sponsorship.** In many state DOTs and MPOs, freight
improvement projects must be "sponsored" by an MPO member agency or
developed in-house. This discour­ages private-sector freight stakeholders
from proposing freight projects during the needs identification phase of
the transportation planning process because it forces the private sector
to lobby members of the state DOT or MPO in order to ensure that their
project proposals are entered into the formal planning process. This
adds an extra layer of work to a process that the private sector already
perceives as overly bureaucratic.

**Modal Office Coordination.** Many state DOTs are organized modally,
which hinders cross-modal communication and leads to fragmented freight
planning. It is not uncom­mon to find significant variation with respect
to freight improvements among the long-range plans and programs
developed by state DOT statewide planning offices and state DOT modal
offices. Further complicating freight planning efforts is that fact that
some state DOTs and MPOs have very little influence over non-highway
modes. Many MPOs, especially those in smaller metropolitan areas, deal
strictly with highway improvement projects, leaving the responsibility
for non-highway and multimodal planning to other (typically state)
agencies.

**Headquarters-District Communications.** Interviewees cited
communication between state DOT headquarters and local district offices,
especially in large states, as sometimes ineffective and an impediment
to freight planning. Local district offices play a large role in
proposing, developing, and implementing transportation improvement
projects; how­ever, headquarters planning staff are normally limited to
developing statewide planning and policy directives, and may have little
direct influence over the types of projects being proposed and approved
at the district level. Without frequent and strong communica­tions to
build a common understanding of freight needs, headquarters and district
offices develop diverging visions of freight needs and improvements.
Headquarters sees sys­temic improvements; divisions see spot
improvements. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that local district
offices are normally staffed by highway engineers, most of whom are not
trained in freight logistics and freight economics.

**Multi-Jurisdictional Coalition Programming and Implementation of
Projects.** Multi-jurisdictional coalitions, such as the I‑95 Corridor
Coalition, the CANAMEX Corridor, and the Latin American Trade and
Transportation Study (LATTS), have been instrumental in identifying
regionally-significant transportation improvement projects. Though they
are excellent forums for generating transportation improvement ideas,
many of these regional coalitions find it difficult to actually
implement improvement projects, as they often have little controlling
authority to address the issues and concerns raised by coalition
members[^8] or provide funding to projects that may address those
concerns. This often limits the influence these coalitions wield in
providing solutions to regional transportation issues.

**Interagency Coordination.** Finally, freight improvement projects are
often delayed in the project development phase because of the need for
elaborate interagency coordination. Intermodal freight improvement
projects are often complex projects involving several agencies.
Interlocking requirements for coordination, permit approvals, hearings,
etc., can significantly expand the time required to plan and implement
projects, often driving up the cost of a project significantly. Port
projects, in particular, are complex and costly for public agencies.
They are usually located in environmentally sensitive waterfront areas;
are adjacent to older, often low-income communities; and may generate
additional truck or rail trips in air quality non-attainment regions.
The problems of managing freight improvement projects in these areas is
further complicated by pressures to "reclaim water­fronts" by replacing
low-revenue generating developments, such as warehouses and distribution
centers, with higher-revenue generating development patterns, such as
housing and high-value commercial/industrial land uses. Without
effective interagency coordination, freight improvements in such complex
areas often stumble and die.

### 3.3.3 Data and Analytical Tools Issues

**Commodity Flow Data.** Effective freight planning depends on the
availability of good public and private sector data on freight flows.
The lack of affordable, disaggregate, commodity flow data is a major
concern for states and MPOs. The U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation
Statistics conducts and publishes the national Commodity Flow Survey
(CFS). The CFS provides data on commodity flow patterns, but the data
are often aggre­gated and reported for large areas (e.g., 83 national
transportation analysis regions) to comply with Census regulations that
data on individual businesses and facilities not be identifiable. This
limits the usefulness of the data for state and metropolitan planning,
especially for modeling and forecasting truck trips. To address this
problem, several states and MPOs have supplemented the information
provided by CFS by purchasing detailed commodity flow data from private
sources. By using a combination of data sets, states and MPOs are better
able to understand county- and local-level commodity flows, build local
truck origin-destination tables, and understand local and regional
logistics patterns. The more detailed data allows states and MPOs to
pinpoint congestion and capacity problems, and identify needed freight
improvements. However, the purchase of these privately maintained data
sets is often costly, and some MPOs lack the funding and staffing
resources to utilize them to their full potential.

**Freight Flow Modeling.** Several states and MPOs have developed or are
developing freight modeling techniques to estimate future commodity and
vehicle flows; however, freight transportation modeling capabilities in
many states and MPOs are still limited. Unlike passenger movements, the
underlying factors driving freight shipment patterns and mode choice
vary considerably across different industries and commodities. These
factors are less readily understood than the factors that affect
passenger travel. As a con­sequence, many states and MPOs find it
difficult to adapt traditional automobile and tran­sit modeling
techniques to predict freight movements. Truck freight movements are
often modeled as passenger car movements (with trucks counted as
equivalent to two or three cars depending on the mix of truck types and
sizes) rather than modeled as a separate mode. This approach is adequate
for estimating overall volumes and travel time effects, but the impacts
and benefits of transportation improvements cannot be traced back to
specific types of trucks and the industries they serve.

**Evaluation Criteria.** Finally, most freight improvement projects are
evaluated for inclu­sion in TIPs and STIPs using the same set of criteria
that are used for evaluating non-freight improvement projects. These
criteria typically consider how a proposed project will improve highway
volume-to-capacity ratios, highway level-of-service ratings, and safety.
Some freight improvement projects receive decent scores for these
criteria, but most fail because, for example, a freight connector
improvement project typically serves fewer total vehicles than a
competing suburban intersection improvement. Missing are evaluation
criteria that reflect the other economic and business development
benefits of freight improvement projects such as how they may improve
shipping-time reliability or the extent to which they may attract or
retain businesses and jobs in an area. States and MPOs are beginning to
consider such criteria during their project evaluation processes, but
most do not do so today, with the result that many freight projects
never appear on a TIP or are ranked very low.

### 3.3.4 Resource Issues

**Staffing.** The first resource issue is one of staffing. State DOT and
MPO staff are an important resource in identifying potential improvement
projects and moving those proj­ects through the general transportation
planning process. While most state DOT and MPO transportation planners
hold advanced degrees in transportation or planning, few have formal
training in freight planning. Rather, they gained their expertise
through Transportation Research Board programs, FHWA and Eno Foundation
continuing-profes­sional-education courses, and on-the-job training.
While state DOT and MPO technical staff may take advantage of the
freight training courses, decision-makers do not normally receive
training on freight transportation issues and often do not fully
appreciate the complexity of freight movements and their associated
local impacts.

**Private-Sector Participation.** The private sector freight community
can provide the back­ground, training, and expertise necessary to address
freight in statewide and metropolitan planning processes. The public and
private sector planning processes have vastly differ­ent timelines,
however. The public sector thinks in terms of producing 10- and 20-year
capital improvement plans while the private sector thinks in terms of a
12- to 18-month operating horizon. This mismatch in planning horizons
("generational" versus "quar­terly"), and the fact that the private
sector perceives the transportation planning process as overly
cumbersome and bureaucratic, makes it difficult to keep the private
sector engaged in the public sector planning process. Further hampering
private sector participation is the considerable time investment
required to become full participants in the public plan­ning process.
Many potential private-sector participants do not have the staff time or
resources to fully commit themselves to the process, preventing them
from realizing the potential long-term benefits of participation.

**Freight Project Eligibility and Funding.** The final resource issue is
funding. Some states and metropolitan areas commit a large portion of
their budgets to the maintenance and preservation of their current
highways systems. There are limited resources for freight-specific
improvement projects. Highway-related freight improvement projects are
usually eligible for funding under federal and state highway programs,
but multimodal and intermodal projects must often be shoehorned into
air-quality mitigation (e.g., CMAQ) or safety pro­grams (e.g.,
highway-rail grade-crossing separation programs). Rail improvements to
private rail terminals and lines are usually not eligible for public
support except indirectly through loan credit-support programs. Despite
the obvious link to economic develop­ment and jobs, some states and MPOs
find it is difficult to justify spending money on non-highway projects,
projects that are perceived to inordinately benefit the private sector
freight community, or projects whose costs are local, but whose benefits
accrue regionally or nationally. (The issues involved in funding freight
improvement projects are discussed in more detail in a separate
FHWA-sponsored paper.[^9])

# 4.0 Opportunities for Improvement

The federal legislation governing surface transportation must be
reauthorized when TEA‑21 expires in September 2003. Over the next two
years, MPOs, the states, and the U.S. DOT will have an opportunity to
explore and debate changes to the federal legisla­tion that could improve
and strengthen freight planning and programming. This section summarizes
changes suggested in the literature and the interviews. The list is not
exhaustive. The changes are ideas for discussion, not recommendations.

##  4.1 Transportation Planning Requirements

Some states and MPOs find the freight elements of TEA‑21 to be unclear.
The states and MPOs may wish to consider one or more actions to provide
more precise direction regarding freight planning:

-   Reaffirm and strengthen the national emphasis of ISTEA and TEA‑21 to
    address freight issues and link freight improvements to economic
    development and trade strategies.

-   Define more specifically the freight transportation elements to be
    included in state­wide and metropolitan long-range transportation
    plans.

-   Require more and closer coordination of statewide long-range
    transportation plans and state rail, port, and air plans to
    encourage multimodal planning.

-   Extend the freight mandate to cover explicitly freight operations,
    consistent with the U.S. DOT's emphasis on state and local
    leadership in operations and ITS (intelligent transportation
    systems).

-   Create a freight transportation improvement program (FTIP). The FTIP
    would collate, consider, and rank all freight improvement projects
    before integrating them into the conventional STIPs and TIPs.

##  4.2 Organizational and Procedural Improvements

The planning process used by states and MPOs to develop, fund, approve,
and implement transportation improvement projects is relatively slow and
complicated. The process often does not encourage consideration of
freight projects. Additionally, many state DOTs and MPOs are organized
in ways that hinder cross-modal communication and planning. The states
and MPOs may wish to consider one or more actions that address these
organ­izational and procedural issues:

-   Add private-sector freight representatives to MPO boards to ensure
    representation of freight issues and concerns.

-   Encourage state DOTs to take a more pro-active role in analyzing
    freight flows and proposing specific freight improvement projects
    for inclusion in STIPs and TIPs, espe­cially freight projects of
    statewide and national significance.

-   Encourage states and MPOs to participate in
    multi-state/multi-jurisdictional coalitions examining freight flows
    and issues at the multi-state trade-corridor or trade-area scale.
    These coalitions may wish to work on developing a consensus to
    ensure proper fol­low-up and implementation of potential
    transportation improvement projects.

-   Establish state and MPO freight advisory committees. The private
    sector is often dis­couraged from proposing potential freight
    improvement projects because such proj­ects must be "sponsored" by an
    MPO member agency or the state DOT. All states and MPOs could
    consider establishing freight advisory committees with
    representatives from all appropriate modes to ensure that projects
    proposed by the private sector get at least an initial hearing.

-   Establish a freight transportation office or group as an "umbrella
    office" (modeled after cross-cutting safety and environmental
    offices) with the responsibility of over­seeing and coordinating the
    progress of freight projects as they move through state DOT (and
    large MPO) modal and planning offices.

-   Provide for a separate approval and funding process for freight
    projects, modeled after Washington State's Freight Mobility
    Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB). States could consider bringing
    together transportation, economic development, and trade interests
    to determine the need and feasibility of such a process.

-   Institute a "short-range" freight transportation improvement
    program, listing only small projects that can be completed within 18
    months, to narrow the gap between the public and private sector
    planning horizons.

-   Institute a National or Regional Infrastructure Bank, modeled after
    the State Infrastructure Bank program in TEA‑21. Such a program may
    encourage states and MPOs to plan and program freight improvement
    projects of regional or national significance.

##  4.3 Data and Analytical Tools Improvements

The data and analytical tools necessary to conduct effective statewide
and metropolitan freight planning are not readily available to state
DOTs and MPOs. There are several ways by which the federal government
actions might address this issue:

-   Assign to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the U.S. DOT
    modal administra­tions an expanded role and responsibility for the
    collection, collation, and dissemina­tion of more detailed commodity
    flow data for use by states and MPOs.

-   Coordinate the purchase of commodity flow data from private sources
    and their dis­tribution to state DOTs and MPOs. Consider using
    pooled-fund studies to encourage use and ensure equitable
    cost-sharing.

-   Commission the U.S. DOT to develop freight analytical and modeling
    tools that can be transferred to state DOTs and MPOs. Again,
    consider using pooled-fund studies to encourage use and ensure
    equitable cost-sharing.

-   Revise and re-weight project evaluation criteria to give more
    recognition of and emphasis to freight projects that advance
    metropolitan, state, regional, and national economic development and
    trade strategies.

##  4.4 Resource Improvements

MPOs, states, and the federal government may wish to consider increasing
the resources available for planning and programming freight improvement
projects:

-   Provide dedicated funding for state DOT and MPO freight planners.
    Over the years, states and MPOs have established disciplines in
    highway engineering, transportation planning, transit planning,
    environmental analysis, etc. For many state DOTs and MPOs it may be
    time to recruit, hire, and train freight planning specialists.
    States and MPOs may want to sponsor "team-training" for freight
    planning, whereby teams of DOT, MPO, and private-sector
    representatives are brought together as a group to receive training
    in both the public and private sector freight planning issues and
    operations. This type of training helps the private sector better
    understand the constraints of the public-sector planning process
    (and vice versa), fostering relation­ships that have long-term
    benefits.

-   Establish "quick fix" freight improvement programs targeted at
    low-cost capital, operations, and maintenance projects. The private
    sector freight community often responds very well to "quick-fix"
    improvement projects that deal with issues such as fixing potholes,
    improving signage, optimizing signal timings, etc. These projects
    not only satisfy the need of the private sector to see immediate
    improvements, but also foster a positive relationship between the
    public and private sectors, increasing the chance that they will
    work together on more long-term issues.

# 5.0 Summary

ISTEA and TEA‑21 were helpful in focusing federal, state, and local
attention on freight transportation issues and concerns. Though many
states and metropolitan areas have enhanced freight components of their
long-range transportation plans and more actively consider freight
movements during their transportation planning activities, there still
exist many barriers that prevent the full integration of freight
interests into the public sector transportation planning process and the
proposal, approval, funding, and implementation of transportation
improvement projects that specifically benefit freight movements.
Through a literature review and interviews with public and private
freight stakeholders, this paper identified those barriers and where
they tend to occur within the general trans­portation planning process,
while highlighting suggested changes that may improve freight planning
and programming in the public sector. Again, while these changes are not
recommendations, they are designed to launch further discussion by
freight planning practitioners as to the best ways to improve the
consideration of freight in the public planning and programming process.

[^1]:

[^2]:

[^3]:

[^4]:

[^5]:

[^6]:

[^7]: ^6^

[^8]:

[^9]: ^8^