Building Freight Capacity Through Better Operations: Defining the National Agenda (Page 1 of 2)
July 26–27, 2001
Long Beach, CA
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
"Building Freight Capacity through Better Operations: Defining the National Agenda" was a workshop held over two days, July 26 and 27, 2001 in Long Beach, California. It was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) with the support of the University of Southern California/California State University Metrans Transportation Center and the California Department of Transportation. Mr. Larry Magid, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Transportation, and Mr. Ed Emmett, President/CEO of the National Industrial Transportation League, were featured speakers.
The event brought together representatives from all parts of the goods-movement chain, including shippers, carriers and infrastructure managers. The ultimate goals of the workshop were to reach consensus among participants on the issues confronting freight operations planners, and identify possible solutions and policy options for the reauthorization of TEA-21.
The workshop was one of many freight outreach events undertaken by USDOT in 2001, culminating in a December national freight forum with the Transportation Research Board (TRB). In all of these events, participants were asked to contribute to the debate surrounding reauthorization of TEA-21 and identify which programs were most successful and where modifications to the reauthorization process made sense.
In Long Beach, the workshop participants were asked to respond to a series of preliminary policy statements outlined in a briefing paper distributed to attendees prior to the workshop. This paper also provided an analysis of freight trends, highlighted key statistics, and suggested strategies for improved freight operations.
The briefing paper concluded that, in order to define a national freight agenda, it is necessary to reconcile the different perspectives of public and private sector actors as well as the perspectives of those actors at the national, regional/multi-state and local levels. The workshop began with a dramatization of the fragmented, but real, world of freight operations as seen by some of these key stakeholders. The keynote speaker, Gary Maring of the Federal Highway Administration, highlighted some of the challenges raised in the dramatization. These include port congestion, an aging highway infrastructure and a changing role for port operators. In a series of four panels following Mr. Maring's presentation, representatives from the stakeholder groups expanded upon the same issues. Shippers, Carriers, Infrastructure Managers, and Operators all identified trends, issues and opportunities from their perspectives.
With the briefing paper and the speaker presentations as a background, the participants were then randomly divided into five breakout groups for the remainder of the workshop. The five groups were organized into three freight-operations focus areas:
- National 1 addressing national and global freight operations issues
- National 2 also addressing national and global freight operations issues
- Regional 1 addressing multi-state issues
- Metro 1 addressing metropolitan and local issues
- Metro 2 also addressing metropolitan and local issues
Each group was asked to review and discuss the preliminary policy options identified in the briefing paper and then modify them as necessary.
At the end of the second day, each group presented its findings. Discussions following the presentations by the two national and two metropolitan groups resulted in consensus findings for each area of concern. A summary of the breakout group discussion is found in Section III. In Section IV is a revised list of policy options agreed upon by all groups. These constitute the workshop's agenda for national freight operations. It broadly categorizes the issues, possible solutions and policy options as follows: Data Related, Education/Training, Environmental, Fiscal, Infrastructure, Institutional Reforms, Regulatory, Technology, and Working Conditions.
There are similar themes running throughout many of the categories. For example, technology plays a central role in proposed changes to freight operations. It is contained in the recommendations made by the participants with regard to education and training. There is a particular concern that public sector planners are unaware of new logistics tools that make freight planning more effective. Technology is also a factor in mitigating the impacts of freight operations on the environment and in changing working conditions.
Another theme is the importance of reliable data. While recognizing the abundance of data collected throughout the goods movement process, the participants expressed concern that it is not easily translated into reliable and valuable information. In identifying next steps, they recommended convening a separate gathering of interested parties on this particular subject.
The question of data is but one example of the need to refine the debate over changing freight operations. The findings from the Long Beach workshop are a valuable contribution to this debate and ultimately the outlining of priorities for the reauthorization of TEA-21.
2. Speaker Overview
The workshop began with a dramatization of the fragmented, but real, world of freight operations from the perspective of key stakeholders. The concerns and frustrations of shippers, carriers and infrastructure managers were portrayed in word and image as participants followed the movement of goods from an overseas production center to the shelf of a US retailer. The dramatization served as an introduction to the challenges of freight operations planning, reinforcing the issues set forth in the briefing paper.
2.1 Keynote: The Freight Operations Challenge
Gary Maring, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), OPS CBU
Mr. Maring's introductory notes set forth the task for the workshop participants: to define a national agenda for freight operations as part of a national freight productivity program. This program is ultimately to become part of the debate surrounding policy development for the reauthorization of TEA-21. The challenges in doing so are numerous:
- Port congestion continues to increase. At the national level, freight volumes are expected to nearly double between 1998 and 2020. Certain places, including the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, will experience even more rapid growth.
- The highways and NHS intermodal connectors that support freight movement after it leaves the port are in poor condition. Railways that serve the needs of long-haul commercial transporters, passenger rail and the military are increasingly congested. The road network, particularly in urban areas, suffers from tremendous congestion due to both cars and trucks. Coordination among these disparate groups is a huge challenge.
- Stakeholders operate in a complex environment. Apart from the shippers and carriers who move the goods, there are other actors. These include regulators concerned with safety issues and communities seeking to place restraints on port-related activities because of environmental concerns. This complex environment is also becoming global in nature; and regulators will be asked to concern themselves with border clearances for foreign-based trucks that seek access to the nation's infrastructure.
- Constraints are institutional as well. Inefficient modal connections are due to both limited port capacity and excessive paperwork. As a result, policy options must address the operational infrastructure as well as the physical infrastructure. Luckily, this is where policymakers may have the most leverage.
- The role of the public sector stakeholder is changing. Many DOTs are transitioning from port developers to operators. Some are not ready for the challenge of full-time, integrated operations. Still these are needed to reduce delays, improve safety, and mitigate environmental impacts, among others.
- There is a disconnect in the planning process where concerns over mitigating port impacts often conflict with the need to increase the volume of throughput. The same authorities may be responsible for both, and find themselves with limited resources to balance needs accordingly.
Mr. Maring reminded participants that, despite these challenges, there are opportunities as well. Goods movement benefits from innovative and flexible financing mechanisms; and technology-based information systems can improve all aspects of port operations, including intermodal handoffs. There is also great promise in regional coalitions that address freight-related issues across traditional boundaries. The I-95 Coalition for example has become an invaluable forum in which to discuss multi-modal, multi-state flows.
Similar coalitions are needed to work with the government in identifying the gaps in funding and efficiency that must be addressed in TEA-21 reauthorization. All stakeholders must also be concerned with two other questions central to the freight planning process:
- What is the role of the federal government: to maintain the status quo, to be an enabler or to take on added responsibilities?
- What role does freight play in the national economic development strategy?
The answers to these questions and the response to the challenges enumerated above will determine the direction of TEA-21 reauthorization. ISTEA introduced the concept of efficient intermodalism to the transportation planning debate. TEA-21 focused on equity and the importance of state and local government in the process. Reauthorization may ultimately be about effectiveness. It will have to incorporate technology-based solutions but cannot ignore the need for institutional reform. These reforms will allow all stakeholders to make the maximum contribution, in the process creating a safe and profitable national freight infrastructure.
2.2 Other Speakers
Mr. Maring was followed by four panels representing the various stakeholders in the freight planning process: Shippers, Carriers, Infrastructure Managers and Operators. Don Snyder, the Manager of Import/Export Logistics for Mattel, and Rose Bauss, the National Logistics Operations Manager for Toyota Motor Sales, presented the shippers' perspective.
For shippers, there are five critical elements in the goods movement process: time, place, price, productivity and public image. Freight operations must be predictable enough to allow almost anything to be delivered anywhere overnight. Unmet demand will go to a competitor. Also, the product cost must reflect the service provided. Delays due to congestion and driver waiting time make this difficult to achieve. These delays also affect productivity. Delays at the port have a rippling effect on costs throughout the goods movement chain.
For shippers then, the primary concerns have to do with congestion on the roadways and at the ports. There is also a concern over how this congestion interrupts the supply chain, increasing costs for drivers and other workers who leave jobs that do not provide adequate compensation. The solutions to these issues are to be found in changes in operations, particularly at the port. These include an appointment system for container pick-up and delivery. They also include increased coordination among the various stakeholders to develop and standardize procedures that will affect change throughout the system.
For carriers, the issues are similar although the solutions often differ. Patty Senecal, the Vice President for Sales and Marketing of Transport Express, stated that 90% of freight moves by truck and that the trend is toward more frequent, but small-volume deliveries. Drivers are forced to contend with diminishing returns as a result of stagnant pay rates and increasing costs. The latter include cargo insurance rates which have risen 25-60% over a three-year period.
Trucks carry a majority of freight but are not allowed to operate at night, unlike railroads which can operate 24-hours a day. If extended hours of operation are not possible because of city restrictions, then operations must become more efficient. Pick-up and drop-off appointments will help maximize driver time and relieve congestion at the ports and on the roads. Better technology will also help track inventory and vehicles, and efficiently move goods away from the port.
Carriers also recognize the need for changes in contractual arrangements between carriers, shippers and port operators. Like the shippers, the carriers recognize the costs inherent in driver stand-by time. Flexible arrangements will allow this liability to be shared.
The infrastructure managers' perspective was presented by Philip Wright, the Operations Manager for Hanjin Shipping Co., and Norman King, the Executive Director of the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG). For Mr. Wright, information bottlenecks are a major concern. Information sharing and data exchange should result in improved forecasting and as a result, improved execution. Better information can also be a solution to capacity limitations since it can more efficiently dispatch labor and reduce stand-by time. However, Mr. Wright also suggested the need for physical changes to port operations including increased stacking heights.
Mr. King expressed concern over a lack of funding for needed infrastructure improvements. These include interchanges and grade separations in inland locations. These sites often bear the costs of goods movement without realizing the benefit of funds tied to port operations. A user-based system meant to isolate incentives to make the system more efficient is needed. While technology may be a solution, Mr. King warns that technology also allows ports to impose the costs of doing business over a wider area.
One possible solution is a statewide goods movement strategy, one perhaps formalized through legislation. Separate port development strategies for both northern California and southern California mean that the State's response to national trends is less effective. The JPA model used in the Alameda Corridor could be replicated at a larger level to encourage pooled financing, public/private partnerships and regional collaborations benefiting all parties along the goods movement chain.
The operators' perspective came from Frank Quon, CA Department of Transportation Deputy District Director (District 7), and John Siebert, Project Manager for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) Foundation. For the CA DOT, which owns and operates 15,000 miles of roadway, improved mobility not only improves traffic flow but also enhances safety and reduces incidents between freight carriers and automobiles. Mobility is paramount, because the State is not only confronting a growth in goods movement but growths in population and vehicle ownership as well. When trucks are involved in accidents, the incidents are much longer in duration, making congestion problems worse. The result is an adverse impact on energy and economic productivity.
For the DOT the solutions lie in congestion relief, including freeway widening, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, truck lanes and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications. There are also gains to be made with regard to improved operations (e.g. ramp metering) and improved safety via better enforcement of safety regulations. While recognizing the importance of inter-jurisdictional collaboration in all of these areas, Mr. Quon cautions that both reaching consensus and identifying funds for multi-party efforts is difficult. The JPA model and more academia/research coalitions could prove useful along with new approaches to financing. Mr. Quon offered as an example the Global Gateway Development Project which addresses goods movement needs at the state level.
Mr. Siebert addressed the concerns of truckers who are rarely paid by the hour for their services. In an increasingly congested environment, owner-operators are only maximizing earning potential if trucks are averaging highway speeds. This is rarely the case, at least during the day. Poorly maintained chassis and containers – the responsibility of the shipping company – compound the problem for the operator and impose additional costs on the driver.
As a result, changes are needed in port operations that will bring about improved efficiencies without compromising safety standards. These changes include the expansion of port hours to 24/7 operations, scheduled appointments and changes in arrangements between operators and shippers so that the costs of roadworthiness are better shared.
3. Breakout Group Summaries: Issues, Solutions and Policy Options
The workshop participants considered the policy options outlined in the briefing paper and the comments made by the keynote speaker and the panelists in the breakout groups. The workshop culminated in the presentation of findings by each of the five groups: National 1, National 2, Regional, Metro 1 and Metro 2. Each breakout group was comprised of approximately 15-20 persons representing a cross-section of freight-related interests. In each case, a breakout group spokesperson summarized the issues, solutions and policy options arrived at over the course of the two-day discussion. While each group focused on the particular issues confronting freight planners at a single level, it became apparent that many of the concerns were similar, if not the same. Section IV identifies the categories addressed by the breakout groups and suggests where there was consensus. The categories include: Data Needs, Education and Training, Environmental Concerns, Fiscal-related concerns, Infrastructure Needs, Institutional Capacity, the Regulatory Environment, Technology, and Working Conditions.
This summary offers an overview of the presentations and discussion that led to these categorizations. In the case of the National and Metropolitan groups, the discussion occurred after both teams had presented their findings. This was done in order to identify consensus items and points of disagreement.
3.1 The National Perspective
3.1.1 National 1 Presentation
The National 1 breakout group organized its presentation around the following themes: finance, technology, data, education and training, labor, the environment and safety. There were many recurring themes throughout, including the need to modify both finance mechanisms and operations to improve the efficiency of goods movement. The group saw the need for dedicated funding to reflect the importance of freight but also the need to reduce delays in intermodal transfers that cause inefficiencies for shippers, operators and carriers.
There was general agreement that any change in the structure of funding and operations required a widescale educational program designed to educate legislators on the importance of goods movement to the economy at all levels. Education must also include outreach to truckers and the public at large on the need to make operational changes that facilitate the flow of goods and mitigate impacts of freight operations. These impacts include increased highway congestion and extended delays for truckers at the ports. Logistics training must also be part of any educational strategy.
National 1 saw tremendous opportunity in increased use of technology to capture reliable data needed for benchmarking, planning and evaluating. Key data needs include foreign manifests, reliable Origin-Destination counts and reliable waybills. The standardization of this data becomes more critical with NAFTA and increasing global trade. There is a similar need for the standardization of performance measures. While the group saw a role for the federal government in creating standards, it also emphasized the importance of providing incentives to the private sector to make already available data public. Other challenges including work zone safety, freight distribution management and the environment are also appropriate areas in which to test the effectiveness of technology-based innovations. Vehicular navigation systems are an example.
With regard to labor, the National 1 Group was concerned that driver turnover rates were an obstacle to seamless goods movement. Poor pay rates and benefits do not contribute to a stable and qualified labor force. This has a negative impact on the environment, since drivers do not have incentives to maintain vehicles in a manner that contributes to clean operations. High driver turnover and poor vehicle maintenance are also a safety-related concern. Lax enforcement by state officials compounds the problem.
In all of these matters, National 1 saw an increased need for public/private partnerships, particularly at the local level. The Group presented the format for a matrix showing the perceived levels of public benefit, private investment, federal involvement and state/local involvement for sample freight-related issues. For an area such as intermodal operations, both the public benefit and level of private investment are high. The level of federal involvement is moderate but the level of state and local involvement is low. While there is a moderate level of state and local involvement in securing access to intermodal transfer connections, the matrix generally suggests a need for increased state and local involvement in all areas of freight operations.
The Group's policy recommendations emphasize the need for modified financing mechanisms and increased and better use of data to improve freight operations. Key recommendations include dedicated funding as part of TEA-21 reauthorization and tax incentives and tax credits, particularly in areas of job training and the adoption of cleaner fuels. The Group also encourages technology tests and demonstrations that will prove applicable to goods movement. With regard to data, the Group recommends incentives and financial support to collect and distribute data but raised concerns about how best to protect the confidentiality of data sources. Finally, the Group returned to the concept of public/private partnerships as a means of maximizing throughput and minimizing the impacts of freight operations.
3.1.2 National 2 Presentation
The National 2 Group echoed many of the themes presented in National Group 1, including the need for funding dedicated to freight operations and infrastructure. One of the stated goals was to identify mechanisms that would ultimately lead to reduced costs in operations and increased profitability for all parties involved. One specific recommendation was to expand federal aid program eligibility to cover areas such as maintenance. Another was to highlight the importance of intermodal connectors by making them eligible under the borders and corridors program.
National 2 also echoed the concerns about data availability and called for a freight database to support planning at all levels of the goods movement chain. The group also suggested funding a freight operations R&D program to respond to data needs with better modeling and tools for analysis, as well as the development of freight-data interchange standards. There was also concurrence with National 1 on the need for continuing education programs, particularly in the area of logistics.
National 2 also highlighted some new areas of concern, including the institutional capacity of so many disparate actors involved in freight planning. The Group called for the establishment of a national freight council to advise on nationally significant operations across all modes. One area of particular concern is the need to coordinate use of the commercial intermodal system with the military. Better coordination will positively influence the volume of goods and people moved via the various modes and also enhance security and data sharing. One of the goals of coordination, echoing the findings of Group 1, should be more public/private partnerships.
3.1.3 Response to the National Group Presentations
The workshop participants concurred with the findings of the two National groups in large part. They determined that both groups focused on dedicated funding, innovative financing, and data. Both groups also called for changes in these areas to positively influence the security of freight operations and the environment in areas adjacent to ports and along transportation corridors. There was discussion of the following items:
Enforcement: There was a comment on the need to emphasize the role of regulation enforcement, not just reform. It was agreed that this was in line with some of the concerns raised, in particular, by National Group 1.
Regional Cooperation: There was support for the notion of innovative coalitions taking part in the freight planning process. This speaks to the institutional concerns raised by National Group 2. Specific mention was made of the need for an I-5 International Trade Corridor to address issues that transcend political boundaries.
Funding: While the participants supported the need for dedicated funding, there was also a request to emphasize the role of existing programs and the need to enhance them through better oversight.
Aviation: There was a concern expressed that neither group specifically included the role of aviation when discussing intermodal operations. It was suggested and agreed upon that, where appropriate, recommendations should refer to multi-modal and not intermodal operations to include aviation when discussing infrastructure, security, productivity, etc.
Incommensurable recommendations: There was a comment that some recommendations may be at odds: enhanced productivity and improvements to the environment for example. The participants concurred but agreed that it was important to note where there was consensus even if some objectives appeared to be in conflict.
Military: National Group 1 concurred with the need for increased coordination with military movement operations.
The participants accepted the findings of both the National 1 and National 2 breakout groups with the above modifications.
3.2 The Regional Perspective
3.2.1 Regional 1 Presentation
There was a single breakout group addressing the regional perspective. In the context of this workshop, "regional" was defined to mean multi-state and corridors involving more than one state entity. The Group made it explicit that its issues transcended the confines of a single corridor. It was impossible to separate the local (metropolitan) and national from the regional with regard to freight operations.
It is not surprising then that the issue statements raised by this group reflected those first put forth by National 1 and National 2. Data is one example. The Regional Group expressed the need for better data on the intermodal flow of cargo. It added a new emphasis however in stating that collaborative efforts surrounding data should use a bottoms-up approach and that data should be used to enhance goods movement and not to assign blame.
There was also support for increased public/private partnerships and more multi-state/corridor coalition involvement in the planning process. In some cases, these two ideas converged. The Group expressed the need for more private sector involvement from the beginning in corridor studies. This requires modifications to the funding process. Coalitions need to be allowed to pursue funding directly and not only respond to the agendas of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the States, whose interests tend to be more localized. Regional coalitions are particularly appropriate agencies to implement pilot projects that could demonstrate benefits to all levels of government. They offer an added benefit as checks on anti-trust tendencies of single interest groups. Multi-state coalitions tend to include representatives of all interests and both the public and private sectors.
The Regional Group also discussed the need for institutional reform and for specific roles to be played by the federal government. One of these roles is as implementer of national surveys on freight movement; another is as developer, with other parties, of standardized performance measures. The federal government should also play a central role in mitigating environmental impacts. At the national level, it can help establish fuel standards.
The Regional Group echoed the need for education on freight-related issues. This includes educating the public on the benefits of freight operations to the local economy. Too often the debate centers on the costs imposed by goods movement on local communities. Education also includes efforts to work with industry and the MPOs on freight logistics. This type of outreach encourages cooperative efforts and fosters the perception that benefits accrue to all parties (community, shippers, carriers, planners, etc.) if freight planning is performed effectively.
The solutions and policy options suggested by the Regional Group support those put forth by the National Groups. Existing programs which are already effective should be extended to include regional coalitions. Beneficial projects like the Alameda Corridor might prove successful at the multi-state level if corridor authorities could take the lead. Since these coalitions already include representatives from the public and private sectors, this could formalize the kind of partnerships called for by the workshop participants and encourage data sharing.
Specific policy recommendations include some already offered by the National Groups. The Regional breakout group called for the establishment of a national freight database, recognizing that data is already out there but not accessible in a standard format. Similarly, national information policy should include a national clearinghouse for studies and web pages addressing freight-related issues.
Not surprisingly, given the emphasis on regional coalitions, the Group's financing recommendations specifically call for the use of a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) model for accepting funds and building projects. The model, already used by some MPOs, would be extended to allow fund pooling among states for use in all aspects of freight operations, not just planning.
3.2.2 Response to the Regional Group Presentation
The workshop participants agreed that the Regional Group placed an emphasis on integration, including integration of data but more importantly integration of regional institutions currently underutilized in the freight planning process. If one of the objectives of reauthorization is risk and benefit sharing, than as many types of agencies as possible should be part of the process.
The participants sought clarification on the question of data, not only with regard to the Regional Group but for all data-related recommendations emanating from the workshop. While everyone agreed on the need to make data accessible in a cost effective manner, there was some concern that different groups meant different things by the term. For ports, data are commodity-based records used for forecasting. The data is there but may not be in a format that is useful as information for others. The question becomes how to turn an abundance of data into an informational tool useful to state, regional and local policymakers and planners.
This led to a discussion on the differences between day-to-day exchanges of data and macro level data (metadata) often sought out by universities and MPOs. Recognizing this difference may play a critical role in making the generators of the data (shippers, e.g.) comfortable with shared access policies. Encryption tools will increasingly guarantee confidentiality in day-to-day data exchanges and manipulation. This will make it easier to blindly aggregate and standardize data at the federal level which the National and Regional Groups have recommended.
There was also concurrence on the need for increased education, particularly with regard to freight logistics. The California State University at Long Beach certificate program was cited as an example of a model program. Similar programs could educate public sector planners on the need to consider short-term planning objectives in addition to the longer-term goals (8-10 year horizon) traditionally used in MPO plans.
The participants accepted the report of the Regional Group but encouraged the report to explicitly address the definition of data.
3.3 The Metropolitan Perspective
3.3.1 Metro 1 Presentation
Like the Regional Group, Metro 1 began by emphasizing that issues and solutions at the metropolitan level cannot be divorced from the other levels. Local solutions can and do have impacts on the competitiveness of other regions and the nation as a whole. Furthermore, local networks are part of regional and national networks, and any efforts at creating seamless transportation across modes must be undertaken in a collaborative fashion.
The presentation also underscored key concerns raised by the other groups. These include the need to quantify costs and benefits and assign them accordingly. There was a decidedly different focus to the discussion however. The Metro 1 Group emphasized roadability issues. The Group agrees that low driver wages and turnover in the industry are problems. They add equipment maintenance and the age and state of equipment, in particular chassis, to the debate.
The Group raised the question of who should be responsible for maintenance costs and suggested that there is a safety loophole. This loophole allows vehicle owners to take part in maintenance and safety programs but requires the operator to pay for any violations. The Metro Group argued for a means of passing costs on to those who receive benefits, including customers. This will help create a level playing field for all parties involved in the movement of goods. A related concern is driver stand-by time which allows for great inefficiencies in the system.
One possible response is a more formalized freight planning process at the MPO level. Currently freight operations are peripheral matters in the regional planning process and not the subject of individual elements in the way that land use and air quality are. Integrating and institutionalizing freight planning and programming will make it easier to benchmark projects for funding and incorporate groups such as freight operations councils into the debate.
The Metro 1 Group also recommended making funding available for use across all modes and incorporating technology where feasible to make freight operations as multi-modal as possible. The funding concerns and responses reflect in many ways the approaches taken by the other groups. These include more flexible funding such as changes in the minimum requirements for loans under the TIFIA program. The group did offer some new recommendations. It encouraged use of funds to develop mega-rail sorting yards, advocated extended hours of operation at ports where feasible and changing federal taxation and state taxation tidelands law to permit port authorities to pay for port improvements. It also recommended a possible per-container surcharge to be used for freight transportation projects.
The Metro 1 Group also made specific recommendations with regard to driver, equipment and infrastructure safety. These include performing equipment inspections at the terminal and establishing a chassis safety-check system at the national level. The Group also encouraged use of driver ID cards and expressed the need for an inventory of unsafe infrastructure.
3.3.2 Metro 2 Presentation
The Metro 2 Group began by identifying trends in freight operations at the metropolitan level. These include an increasing need for separated grade crossings but a lack of funding to pay for them. The trends also reflect some of the concerns raised by Metro 1. Both see local facilities as part of a much larger network and recognize the need to balance costs and benefits as they accrue along the chain. Metro 2 also saw the need for more inland distribution facilities to relieve congested urban centers of some of the burden of goods movement. This echoes a concern raised previously. Trucks dominate intercity goods movement but are also the weakest link in the chain because of poor maintenance.
Metro 2 also sees the need for greater use of short haul rail and redevelopment of brownfields as possible distribution centers. The latter addresses concerns over decreasing land availability where it is needed most, in the city center and near ports. There are related concerns over the "last mile" of the goods movement chain. Limited land availability means more constrained off-loading for trucks. This has a negative impact on the efficiency of goods delivery. The group also had particular concerns with the role of Chicago in the transportation network. Bottlenecks at such a critical node have tremendous impacts on efficiencies at the local level.
In all of these cases, Metro 2 saw potential in increased use of technology, better data sharing arrangements, educational efforts and strengthening coalitions among public and private sector participants. The group was also explicit about the need to incorporate labor into the process.
Like National 2, Metro 2 considered particular solutions and policy options involving institutions. It asked if there was a benefit in reorganizing the Department of Transportation to improve the freight planning process. Like the other groups, it also called for more involvement on the part of coalitions, and made specific mention of the need for a Southern California Freight Coalition to more aggressively lobby for the State's infrastructure needs.
With regard to the federal government, Metro 2 also saw the need for its involvement in developing fuel standards but with allowances for regional differences. The federal government should also be involved in funding a national truck network. There was also a recommendation to make better use of water transport for hazardous materials since there is less likelihood of accidents and this helps relieve congestion on the highways.
Finally Metro 2 made recommendations that are consistent with previous recommendations to improve data collection. The Group recommended a pilot program to create a new transportation information system. Previously mentioned education policies were also supported. These include programs to create a cadre of public sector officials with formal freight logistics training. Metro 2 also proposed a federal incentive for universities to develop freight systems planning programs.
3.3.3 Response to the Metro Group Presentations
The participants recognized the emphasis placed by both Metropolitan groups on bridging gaps between local and national perspectives. There was also a consensus that these two groups identified roadability issues more so than the others. There were however comments and, in some cases, disagreements surrounding some of the recommendations made:
Increased use of short haul rail: One participant identified problems with increased use of rail, particularly at the local and regional levels. There is an inability to fund projects at the State level since this is largely seen as the purview of the federal government. It might be more efficient to investigate where existing rail right-of-way is underutilized and make adjustments in operations instead of funding new rail projects. The participants also discussed the justification for public investment in private rail networks. Can public benefits be quantified? Another participant commented that while short haul is not eligible for funding under the RRIF credit program, other mechanisms are available and the issue should not be tabled. There was no consensus on this matter.
Definition of trucker: There was a request to make the definition of trucker more explicit, so that there is a clear distinction between owner/operators and drivers.
NAFTA: There was a request to incorporate global trade and NAFTA into the local planning process and into the debate over how costs and benefits are quantified and assigned. In a related matter, there was a request to make language with regard to costs neutral, i.e. questions should address WHO should pay for costs not assume that one of the parties involved will bear the costs.
Private sector input: There was a general concern that shippers had minimal input into the recommendations of the metropolitan breakout groups. This concern was then extended to the workshop as a whole.
Data: There was a request to add a section to the metropolitan report endorsing the data-related recommendations of the National and Regional groups. This was suggested for consistency purposes.
Tidelands reform: There was a comment that the proposed reforms to the tidelands taxation law were unnecessary since shippers already pay a harbor maintenance tax. A more appropriate question is how is that tax spent. There might be more support for allowing tax revenues to remain where they are generated to fund local infrastructure improvements.
next
