Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Managing State DOT Freight Programs The State of Practice in 2013 AASHTO Special Committee on Intermodal Transportation and Economic Expansion Workshop October 18, 2013 Lance R. Grenzeback Elaine Croft McKenzie

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 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 “Surgeon General’s Warning…”

2005 Study Commissioned by AASHTO [NCHRP (46)] Reviewed organizational charts of 20 state DOTs Surveyed trucking association directors in 35 states Reported findings at executive seminar in Philadelphia in 2007 Interviewed officials in 13 state DOTs »CA, CO, FL, KY, ME, MD, MN, NJ, OH, OR, PA, TX and WA 5

In 2005, the majority of state DOTs managed freight programs through planning divisions 6 Operations/ Modal Divisions EngineeringAdministrationPlanning Executive Director Operations/ Modal Divisions EngineeringAdministrationPlanning Freight Executive Director

Other state DOTs managed freight through their operations or modal divisions 7 Operations/ Modal Divisions EngineeringAdministrationPlanning Executive Director Operations/ Modal Divisions EngineeringAdministrationPlanning Freight Executive Director

Some state DOTs made use of formal freight coordinating committees 8 Operations/ Modal Divisions EngineeringAdministrationPlanning Executive Director Internal Freight Coordinating Committee

A few state DOTs had director-level freight offices 9 Operations/ Modal Divisions EngineeringAdministrationPlanning Executive Director Freight Office

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 Interviewed officials in 11 state DOTs »CA, FL, IN, ME, MI, MN, MO, ND, PA, TX, WA 11

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) 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 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.” “What is a ‘freight project’? Not well defined.”

What we heard about “organization”… (allocation of roles and responsibilities) “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 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

What we heard about “organization”… (allocation of roles and responsibilities) About half the states made use of standing or project-specific freight advisory committees (FACs) or task forces Most stakeholders found advisory committees to be too time-consuming Stakeholders favored a single point of contact on policy issues “State DOTs are ‘balkanized.’ Some offices know the industry; others don’t talk to us or to each other.” Of the 27 state DOTs surveyed: 44% currently have no FAC or freight task force 26% use FACs for specific projects 22% consult FACs regularly “Advisory committees are useful for the occasional, big, statewide policy initiative, but project-specific task forces get much better attendance and participation.” “Multistate coalitions are useful to exchange best practices and coordinate investments.”

What we heard about “procedures”… (methods for analysis, communication, decision-making… ) “Supply chains…?” FAF commodity flow data helpful, but not detailed enough for most state projects Only the largest MPOs do any freight planning 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 Urban freight movement is important, but there are no data

What we heard about “procedures”… (methods for analysis, communication, decision-making… ) 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 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 Interest in, but considerable uncertainty about, the availability and use of freight performance measures

What we heard about “resources”… (budgets, staff, skills, technology…) 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 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)

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 highway- engineering-oriented organizational structure Planning Engineering Operations/Modal Divisions Administration Freight? Leadership Policy

What we heard about future direction … … to an organizational structure that recognizes freight as a distinct, but parallel and shared system 21 Leadership FREIGHTPEOPLE Planning Engineering Operations/Modal Divisions Administration Policy

Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Managing State DOT Freight Programs The State of Practice in 2013 AASHTO Special Committee on Intermodal Transportation and Economic Expansion Workshop October 18, 2013 Lance R. Grenzeback Elaine Croft McKenzie