Managing State DOT Freight Programs
The State of Practice in 2013
presented to
AASHTO Special Committee on Intermodal Transportation and
Economic Expansion Workshop
presented by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Lance R. Grenzeback
Elaine Croft McKenzie
October 18, 2013
Transportation leadership you can trust.
Presentation
Research Question
2005 Study
» Survey methods and key findings
2013 Update
» Survey methods and preliminary findings
2
Research Question
How are state DOTs addressing the challenges and
opportunities of managing freight transportation
programs?
» State DOTs have been organized to plan and build highways
» Few state DOTs are organized to plan and implement freight
programs across the network of highways, rail lines, waterways,
airports, marine ports and distribution centers that constitute
today’s intermodal freight system
» How are state DOTs managing their evolving freight programs
and what are the lessons learned?
3
Research Approach
“Surgeon General’s Warning…”
Studies relied on mail-back surveys, on-line
questionnaires and one-on-one interviews
Results are representative of a cross-section of state
DOTs, but are not based on a statistically random sample
There is considerable variation among the state DOT
approaches to managing freight programs that is not
captured in this summary
Study looked at management and organizational
approaches, not outcomes
4
2005 Study
Commissioned by
AASHTO [NCHRP 2024(46)]
Reviewed organizational
charts of 20 state DOTs
Surveyed trucking
association directors in
35 states
Reported findings at
executive seminar in
Philadelphia in 2007
5
Interviewed officials in 13
state DOTs
» CA, CO, FL, KY, ME, MD,
MN, NJ, OH, OR, PA, TX
and WA
In 2005, the majority of state DOTs managed
freight programs through planning divisions
Executive Director
Planning
Operations/
Modal Divisions
Engineering
Administration
Executive Director
Planning
Freight
6
Operations/
Modal Divisions
Engineering
Administration
Other state DOTs managed freight through their
operations or modal divisions
Executive Director
Planning
Operations/
Modal Divisions
Engineering
Administration
Executive Director
Planning
Operations/
Modal Divisions
Freight
7
Engineering
Administration
Some state DOTs made use of formal freight
coordinating committees
Executive Director
Planning
Operations/
Modal Divisions
Engineering
Internal Freight Coordinating Committee
8
Administration
A few state DOTs had director-level freight
offices
Executive Director
Freight Office
Planning
9
Operations/
Modal Divisions
Engineering
Administration
What we heard from State DOTs in 2005
Must give more attention, visibility and leadership to
freight transportation
Need more staff with a broad understanding of supply
chains, carrier operations and intermodal freight systems
Require more coordination and accountability across
DOT divisions
Must have a primary point of contact and a well-defined
process for communicating and negotiating with freight
stakeholders
Need multistate coordination to deal with regional freight
corridors and cross-jurisdictional issues
10
2013 Update
Commissioned by AASHTO
with funding from FHWA
Reviewed 32 state DOT
organizational charts
Surveyed officials in 27
state DOTs (AASHTO web
questionnaire)
Conducted roundtable
discussion at the 2013
AASHTO-FHWA Freight
Partnership meeting
11
Interviewed officials in 11
state DOTs
» CA, FL, IN, ME, MI, MN,
MO, ND, PA, TX, WA
Framework for Preliminary Findings
Mandate
» Legislative authorization…
Organization
» Allocation of roles and responsibilities…
Procedures
» Methods for analysis, communication, decision-making…
Resources
» Budgets, staff, skills, technology…
12
What we heard about “mandate”…
(legislative authorization)
2005
Freight seen as having a relatively weak
mandate
“We are an engineering organization. We
build highways for cars.”
ISTEA, SAFETEA and SAFETEA-LU
mandated that state DOTs address the
“… intermodal movement of people and
goods,…” but provided few specifics
beyond the policy statement in the
preamble
2013
MAP-21 has focused attention on freight
Of the 27 state DOTs surveyed:
• 63% have increased focus on freight
• 30% have seen no change
•
7% shifted focus of freight programs
“It is a culture change, but only a
beginning.”
“The recession was a wake-up call to tie
transportation to economic development.”
“State freight plans are becoming the
norm.” … “But we need to learn to look
beyond our own back yard.”
13
“What is a ‘freight project’? Not well
defined.”
What we heard about “organization”…
(allocation of roles and responsibilities)
2005
“We do freight plans, but nobody in
engineering or operations owns the
responsibility for implementing them.”
The majority of state DOTs managed
freight programs through planning
divisions
Of 13 state DOTs interviewed:
• 62% had Freight in Planning
• 23% had Freight in Operations/Modal
• 15% had Freight in Freight Office
2013
The majority of freight programs are still
managed through planning divisions, but
states are experimenting (cautiously) with
other organizational arrangements
Of the 27 state DOTs surveyed:
• 62% had Freight in Planning
• 19% had Freight in Operations/Modal
• 19% had Freight in “Other”
“We are in a holding pattern.”
• 67% anticipated no org. changes
• 30% were planning org. changes
Organizational change very dependent on
high-level freight “champions” within the
state DOT
14
What we heard about “organization”…
(allocation of roles and responsibilities)
2005
2013
About half the states made use of
Of the 27 state DOTs surveyed:
standing or project-specific freight
• 44% currently have no FAC or freight
advisory committees (FACs) or task forces
task force
• 26% use FACs for specific projects
Most stakeholders found advisory
• 22% consult FACs regularly
committees to be too time-consuming
“Advisory committees are useful for the
Stakeholders favored a single point of
occasional, big, statewide policy initiative,
contact on policy issues
but project-specific task forces get much
better attendance and participation.”
“State DOTs are ‘balkanized.’ Some
offices know the industry; others don’t talk “Multistate coalitions are useful to
to us or to each other.”
exchange best practices and coordinate
investments.”
15
What we heard about “procedures”…
(methods for analysis, communication, decision-making…)
2005
“Supply chains…?”
FAF commodity flow data helpful, but not
detailed enough for most state projects
Only the largest MPOs do any freight
planning
2013
Seeing more outreach and coordination
with industry, state economic development
agencies and MPOs
Of the 27 state DOTs surveyed:
• 85% worked with private sector groups
• 85% worked with MPOs
• 78% worked with other in-state
agencies
• 67% worked with other state DOTs
• 60% participated in multistate
coalitions
Freight needs a systems approach, but at
the same time the first- and last-mile are
critical
16
Urban freight movement is important, but
there are no data
What we heard about “procedures”…
(methods for analysis, communication, decision-making…)
2005
Project selection and prioritization criteria
are oriented to highways and cars, not
freight
Limited use of freight performance
measures beyond truck volumes and
pavement/bridge loadings
2013
Freight is being considered more often
and more comprehensively
Of the 27 state DOTs surveyed:
•
1 said freight fully mainstreamed
• 18 said freight partially mainstreamed
•
6 said freight in selected activities
•
1 said freight is not a consideration
Very dependent on leadership and
personalities to drive mainstreaming and
insure accountability.
Procedures for considering freight needs
are not institutionalized
17
Interest in, but considerable uncertainty
about, the availability and use of freight
performance measures
What we heard about “resources”…
(budgets, staff, skills, technology…)
2005
Little or no freight funding beyond
dedicated modal funds for rail, waterways,
air
Need staff with a broad understanding of
supply chains, carrier operations and
intermodal freight systems
2013
Still very limited funds
A continuing challenge to spend money
across modes and across state lines
TIGER grants have been effective in
leveraging public and private attention and
money for modal and intermodal projects
Some increase in freight staff despite
DOT-wide staffing cuts and consolidation
Shift towards quantification of freight
project benefits (e.g., benefit cost
analysis, return on investment)
18
What we heard about “best practices”
Must have leadership at the policy level
Must view freight as a separate system whose customers have unique
needs, but a system that shares infrastructure with cars, transit, rail,
air
» “A roadway has no purpose by itself – it either moves people or it moves freight,
or both.”
Must have stronger accountability across planning, engineering and
operations … plans that go nowhere erode the private sector’s
willingness to work with state DOTs
Need more coordination among MPOs, states and multistate economic
regions because freight crosses state boundaries
19
What we heard about future direction …
Would like to move beyond the traditional automobile- and highwayengineering-oriented organizational structure ...
Leadership
Policy
Planning
Operations/Modal Divisions
Engineering
Administration
20
What we heard about future direction …
… to an organizational structure that recognizes freight as a distinct,
but parallel and shared system
Leadership
PEOPLE
Policy
FREIGHT
Planning
Operations/Modal Divisions
Engineering
Administration
21
Managing State DOT Freight Programs
The State of Practice in 2013
presented to
AASHTO Special Committee on Intermodal Transportation and
Economic Expansion Workshop
presented by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Lance R. Grenzeback
Elaine Croft McKenzie
October 18, 2013
Transportation leadership you can trust.