case study 6

profilecarlillo29
The_Future_of_Intermodal_Freight_Transport_Operati..._----_15._The_role_of_government_in_fostering_intermodal_transport_innovatio....pdf

15. The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations: perceived lessons and obstacles in the United States José Holguín-Veras, Robert Paaswell and Anthony Perl

15.1 INTRODUCTION

Freight transportation systems all over the world make significant contri- butions to the world, regional and local economies. The importance of these contributions is clearly evident in the American case, which provides a good example of the economic importance of freight.

In 1997, business and industry transported cargo worth $6.9 trillion and weighing 11 billion tons. This caused 2.7 trillion ton-miles of goods to be transported across the continental United States (USDOT 1999a). Truck transportation accounts for 71.7 per cent of the value of cargo transported and 69.4 per cent of its tonnage (ibid.). At the personal level, Americans spend more on transportation, freight movement and commuting, than they do on clothing, operating the household, recreation and intercity travel put together. Transportation costs account for 11 per cent of dispos- able income, the fourth largest item in family budgets (USDOT 1999b). Using 1994 gross national product numbers, freight transportation made up 6.3 per cent of total expenditure, which could go up to 10–11 per cent of total expenditure if revenues spent on inventory, warehousing, and logis- tics services are included (ENO 1998). As a percentage of total expenditure, freight transportation represents 38.52 per cent of the total, while passen- ger transportation accounts for the rest (USDOT 1999b).

The impact of freight on the US economy is considerable. Overall, it is estimated that one out of every ten jobs in the American economy is either directly or indirectly related to transportation (ENO 1998), which could increase to one out of four jobs if jobs in logistics and warehousing are taken into account. These numbers roughly translate into 4 million jobs

302

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

directly attributable to transportation. Three million of these jobs are freight related (USDOT 1999a).

The extent and rapid pace of globalization has placed an increasing burden on the entire freight industry. In the new global economy, the freight transportation system, originally designed to operate across national boundaries, will be expected to operate as if national boundaries do not exist. The American freight transportation system is becoming an ever more important piece of the global network. This growth adds pressure to the freight transportation system to increase capacity. Symptomatic of this growth in demand are the needs customers now place on freight services: increasing reliability, cost effectiveness, higher efficiency and, more import- antly, a service tailored to their specific needs (Holguín-Veras and Thorson 2003). Not only will the freight transportation system have to increase capacity, but it will also have to increase the variety of services provided to meet customer needs.

The freight transportation system is also the subject of significant and justifiable concern by environmental and community groups. Epidemiological studies (for example Ostro 1987) indicate that particles less than 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), a size that can reach deep into the lower respiratory tract of the lungs, create significant health problems. Since nearly all diesel particles fall within the PM2.5 range (Godlee 1993), health considerations demand the implementation of trans- portation policies aimed at ameliorating the negative air quality impacts of truck traffic. These concerns are backed by an increasing number of studies that have specifically analysed the health impacts of truck activity (for example Bhatia et al. 1998), and by community-based environmental research that provides indication of the relationship between truck traffic and environmental impacts (Lena et al. 2002).

The confluence of the trends discussed above seems to provide strong reasons to implement proactive policies to foster intermodal transport innovation and, ultimately, enhance the competitive edge of the American economy, foster the role of freight transportation as an agent of economic development and the efficiency of the freight system, as well as reduce the negative environmental and health externalities, and congestion, produced by freight transportation activity. Interestingly enough, both at the inter- national level and in the USA, such intermodal innovation policies, more often than not, are absent at the policy table with only a handful of good examples (for example Singapore, the Netherlands) where far-reaching freight transportation programmes, including the area of freight automa- tion, have been in place for a long time.

In one of the few publications on the subject, Boske (1998) provides a succinct description of ‘best practice’ in multimodal and intermodal

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 303

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

planning, which, by definition, does not represent the typical situation. A separate publication (Boske 1999) provides in-depth analyses of best prac- tice in the US. The analyses of the findings in Boske (1998) highlight a number of interesting patterns. Across the board, in Europe, the United States and Latin America, the main focus of multimodal and intermodal planning is on the definition, programming and investment for projects that foster an efficient and seamless intermodal transportation system. In the US, a handful of states have implemented exemplary planning practices that routinely gather input from the stakeholders about intermodal pro- jects. For the most part, initiatives intended to foster intermodal innovation are not considered to be within the scope of responsibilities of even the most progressive state planning departments. The same applies to the Latin American countries (Boske 1998). In Europe, both at the supranational and the national level, there appears to be an enhanced recognition of the need to foster intermodal innovation. European policy makers appear to have made a linkage between the interconnection of their transport modes and the integration of their economies.

The main objective of this chapter is to conduct a comprehensive analy- sis of the factors that explain the absence of intermodal innovation ini- tiatives in the US. Since the American situation is symptomatic of the state of affairs in most developed (and some developing) countries its analysis may provide insights into how best to tackle the problem of defining and implementing intermodal innovation initiatives. Among other things, analysis of the relatively well-documented American case provides some insights into how best to overcome the typical challenges associated with defining policies and programmes to foster intermodal innovation.

This analysis provides supporting information to assess the role of gov- ernment in fostering intermodal transport innovations through the imple- mentation of a consistent set of policies, programmes and projects, referred to in this chapter as intermodal innovation initiatives. It should be implic- itly understood that research is a necessary and vital element supporting such initiatives.

The chapter is comprised of three major sections. Section 15.2 entitled ‘Effects of institutional diversity and durability on intermodal innovation’ provides a brief description of the institutional structures that influence intermodal innovation initiatives. ‘Challenges’ (section 15.3) presents an analysis of the main obstacles to the implementation of a meaningful set of such initiatives. Section 15.4 entitled ‘Towards a systematic policy of inter- modal innovation’ presents an outline of policy steps aimed at the creation of a set of intermodal innovation initiatives. Section 15.5, ‘Conclusions’, summarizes the main findings.

304 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

15.2 EFFECTS OF INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY AND DURABILITY ON INTERMODAL INNOVATION

As befits the world’s most mobile society, the United States is a major pro- ducer of transportation research and innovation. However, amidst this bounty of analytical output, it is not easy to identify a consistent or coher- ent focus on the systemic challenges of freight transportation. Part of the reason for that can be found in the institutional diversity and durability of American transportation finance, planning and operations.

American transportation innovations have traditionally reflected the institutional structure of transportation planning and development. When the private sector took charge of railroad development in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it took the lead in creating proprietary tech- nical, and to a lesser extent economic, research that facilitated innovations in moving freight and people by rail. When state and federal government agencies began developing America’s national highway network, their tech- nical and socio-economic research was similarly focused on that mode, but public dissemination of results became a means of diffusing technical and administrative innovations. A longer time horizon was also introduced to US transportation research, with at least some investigations correspond- ing with state and national ‘master plans’ for road, and later public trans- portation programmes.

Through the course of the twentieth century, the scale of research efforts by universities, governments and private industry has grown considerably, and with it has come a growing diversity of issues in, and perspectives on, improving mobility. Each sponsor of transportation research brings different objectives, timeframes and techniques to their work. Such diver- sity is not, in itself, problematic.

However, when this tendency toward such fragmentation is combined with the American propensity to create exceptionally durable transporta- tion institutions, the ability to advance the understanding of systemic issues that cut across organizational boundaries and to integrate findings from dis- parate investigations into innovative results becomes limited. Intermodal innovation is constrained by this durability in transportation policy – the tendency for American government to create administrative and financial arrangements that ‘lock in’ particular organizational arrangements and relationships between politics and technology (Perl 1991).

This institutional durability, and its modally based nature, has a significant impact on the freight transportation research priorities. This can be appreciated in the way in which research funding has been approached by the different agencies. The list of agencies that, in one way or another,

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 305

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

engage in freight transportation research encompasses federal, state and local agencies. This section identifies the major agencies that sponsor or directly conduct freight transportation research in the United States, and highlights their influence and role.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has sponsored a number of research projects on different facets of freight transportation. For the most part, the projects sponsored by the NSF are those with potential to make significant contributions on basic research across multiple disciplines. A partnership between the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the NSF has opened new opportunities for funding of high- risk, high-pay-off basic transportation research. This partnership fills a void in transportation research because high-risk, high-pay-off basic research has not been considered a priority by traditional funding sources in transportation, for example Departments of Transportation. The NSF is interested in expanding the partnership with the USDOT, as well as others based upon the successful model of public–private research part- nership in the semiconductor industry.

The United States Department of Transportation spent a total of $192 million on research and development contracts in 2001 (US Office of Management and Budget 2001, p. 27). Although no budget breakdown is available, a number of agencies within the USDOT do conduct research with a more or less explicit focus on freight transportation.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the largest and best funded of the USDOT agencies dealing with surface transportation. The FHWA is responsible for managing the Federal Aid Highway Program which distributes revenues collected from automotive excise taxes to desig- nated road-building programmes in the states, as well as the Federal Lands Highway Program which directly constructs roads on federal lands. The Research, Development, and Technology Service Business Unit at FHWA oversees direct and sponsored research on highway technology, manage- ment and planning innovations. Much of this research is technically ori- ented, focusing on materials and design of road infrastructure and carried out by the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. But some of it also addresses operational and administrative questions.

The FHWA’s Office of Freight Management is the agency within the US government that is most focused on research that can contribute to enhanc- ing the movement of goods. The FHWA is pursuing a Freight Productivity Program to examine the needs of freight mobility and begin to offer support for new policies. A freight analysis framework has been created to offer:

a methodology to estimate trade flows on the Nation’s infrastructure, seeking to understand the geographic relationships between local flows and the Nation’s

306 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

overall transportation system. The framework will help identify areas of improvement to increase freight mobility, including highlighting regions with mismatched freight demand and system capacity, and encouraging the develop- ment of multistate and regional approaches to improving operations. (USDOT 2002)

The FHWA has also sponsored a ‘National Freight Dialogue’, which is aimed at fostering dialogue among public and private participants in the movement of freight (see http://www.icfhosting.com/fhwa/nfd_disc.nsf/ Splash?OpenPage). It is replete with discussion of the need to give freight transportation a higher priority, and to build understanding of obstacles and opportunities to freight transport innovations, presumably through research. However, a detailed research agenda that encompasses a systemic analysis of how to enhance the productivity and sustainability of America’s freight transportation system remains to be added to this dialogue.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was split off from the FHWA in 2000, with a ‘primary mission . . . to prevent com- mercial motor vehicle-related fatalities and injuries’. While the FMCSA conducts research into safety-related topics such as operator fatigue whose results have a significant influence on freight transportation, there is little attention paid to how alternative practices and new technologies like automation might transform freight system performance and hence safety. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) also conducts research pri- marily in the area of safety, and also organizes this around particular chal- lenges and risks posed by current operating patterns and technology.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) is America’s primary repository of data on all aspects of mobility. In cooperation with the US Census Bureau, the BTS conducts a Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) approximately every five years (since 1993). Unfortunately, the reductions in the sample size of the CFS (from 200 000 in 1993, to 100 000 in 1997, and 50 000 in 2002) have severely undercut its ability to produce detailed tabulations of commodity flows. The BTS provides periodic analytical overviews of the trends in goods movement, with an emphasis on encapsu- lating the outcomes of system performance. In addition, the BTS does support a relatively small number of freight transportation research pro- jects through its normal research funding programme.

At the state level, departments of transportation (DOTs) tend to support and participate in applied transportation research aimed at improving maintenance or enhancing their operations. An important vehicle for such efforts is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board under the guidance of the Standing Committee on Research of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 307

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

The NCHRP ranks research proposals based on state and federal input. The state DOTs also periodically fund freight research projects, usually through local universities and the federally sponsored University Transportation Centers (UTCs). These projects tend to focus on either specific operational issues or freight transportation modelling to support statewide planning efforts (for example Sorratini and Smith 2000).

Additional locations for American transportation research may be found in Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) which, by law, must focus on transportation and land use issues in the US urbanized areas. As might be imagined from the diverse geography found across these MPO jurisdic- tions, only some of them would identify freight movement as a significant transportation activity worth monitoring. This tends to occur in MPOs with a significant concentration of airport, maritime, and/or rail terminals or transfer facilities. In such cases, attention to traffic flow, environmental impacts and economic contribution of freight movement is identified and tracked. Local challenges, such as road congestion or poor interconnectiv- ity between modes, can be assessed and suggestions for improvement can be developed. An example of this type of project is the one funded by the New York City MPO, the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), to define a strategic plan for the development of a regional freight transportation model (Holguín-Veras et al. 2001).

Problems that lend themselves to a local solution can be approached with innovative solutions. The Alameda Corridor project, one of the most inno- vative in the US, is a new 22 mile urban rail freight corridor across Los Angeles. However, when freight mobility is constrained by problems that extend beyond a given MPO’s jurisdiction, the prospect of these organiza- tions generating research that will stimulate innovation to address these problems declines considerably.

America’s configuration of transportation agencies offers the opportu- nity to generate many important research initiatives. Working directly, and in partnership with industry and universities, government sponsors numer- ous initiatives that draw upon many disciplines including pure and applied science, engineering, social science, planning and management. The com- ponents and capacities of a world-class freight research programme are cer- tainly available within this context. Yet institutional diversity and durability have, to date, made it difficult to organize analysis that can transcend modal, administrative and geographic jurisdictions. As a result, potential freight transportation innovations are less likely to get stimulated by current insti- tutional configurations. Under favourable circumstances, such as certain MPOs’ implementation of responsibilities created by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, publicly supported exploration of freight transportation opportunities has enabled intermodal planning and

308 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

project development to become a central focus of federal and state trans- portation agencies’ work.

15.3 CHALLENGES

Introduction

Even where research generates the raw ingredients for innovation, imple- mentation of a set of intermodal innovation initiatives in the United States faces a number of challenges. This section highlights some of the most significant ones so that insights could be gained on how to overcome them. This analysis highlights four major factors that constrain innovation: (1) government–private industry dynamics; (2) size, geographic factors and industry structure; (3) lack of identification between private industry success and national economic objectives; and (4) mismatched planning horizons.

Government–Private Industry Dynamics

One of the most important distinctions between the passenger and freight transportation systems is related to the nature of their relationship with the government. This is the result of the different paths that passenger and freight transportation systems have taken over time. The factors condi- tioning these dynamics are briefly discussed next.

Since its early beginnings, in the United States, freight has been moved by private carriers and has been dominated by private companies that operate various components of the system. In some cases, for example inland water transportation and trucking, the private companies do their businesses using a public right-of-way (rivers and channels in the case of inland water transportation, and public roads in the case of the trucking industry), while in others, most notably railroads and pipelines, the com- panies integrate ownership of the right-of-way, the facilities and operating carrier. Quite often, these rights of way were obtained from the public in return for the provision of certain transportation services. This has created a not unexpected tug-of-war. The government, representing the public and its investments, wants to regulate those investments. The private companies want totally unregulated operations to ensure maximization of their profits. The relationship between freight companies and the government has even had periods of open hostility, such as in the late nineteenth century that saw the enactment of anti price-discrimination laws prevent- ing railroads from using price differentiation schemes. These laws were

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 309

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

repealed in the late 1870s after the financial situation of the railroads dete- riorated so dramatically that the very existence of the railroads and the service they provide was threatened (Holguín-Veras and Jara-Díaz 1999). US takeover of all railroads in World War One and some Northeast and Midwest railroads following the Penn Central bankruptcy in 1969 were other periods of costly confrontation.

When freight companies use a public right-of-way, the prevailing per- ception among those companies is that their interests are not best repre- sented by the US or State Department of Transportation, or any other transportation agency for that matter. This is particularly evident in the trucking industry, where truckers tend to believe that DOTs are ‘out there to get them’ and that they are unjustly portrayed by DOTs as pavement destroyers, congestion producers and the like, while their contributions to the success of the American economy are not acknowledged and appreci- ated. This is undoubtedly a reflection of long-held views among traditional engineers, who think of the freight industry, particularly truck transporta- tion, as something to control tightly. One of the professionals interviewed during this research termed this as the ‘ban the truck’ attitude.

The net result is a situation in which the government agencies do a minimal amount of policy intervention (usually in the areas of safety and the envir- onment) that purposely avoid policy measures and legislation that may be perceived – by any segment of the industry – as altering the ‘level playing field of competition’. In turn, instead of relying on transportation agencies to do transportation policy on their behalf, freight companies try to influence transportation policy by means of modally based trade groups (for example the American Trucking Association, ATA; Association of American Railroads, AAR; American Association of Port Authorities, AAPA; Intermodal Association of North America, IANA). These influential organ- izations lobby the executive and legislative branches of federal, state and municipal governments for support of specific programmes, projects and pieces of legislation of interest to their trade group. As may be expected, the resulting transportation policies and programmes are the reflection of modally based priorities that fail to account for system considerations of intermodal and multimodal aspects. As shall be seen later, this has important implications for the definition of intermodal innovation policies.

In contrast, the relationships between government agencies and the different components of the passenger transportation system have taken a different path. Passenger transportation systems have been implemented using two major modalities. The first one is the use of the public right-of- way by individuals or transportation companies that contribute directly through fees and tolls, and indirectly through taxes, help pay for the facili- ties’ upkeep, while retaining ownership of the vehicles, for example private

310 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

car owners. It has been assumed and customarily accepted that the public interest is best represented by the State Departments of Transportation and elected officials. Indeed, it has been observed that elected officials and trans- portation officials are fairly responsive to the wishes and expectations of car owners, as they represent a significant fraction of the population that votes. In fact, most elected officials, if presented with a situation in which they have to choose among alternatives that benefit one sector at the expense of the other (which occurs frequently in resource allocation prob- lems), would tend to favour passenger transportation, as well as the road modes, over other options. The consequence of this is to reinforce the pre- vailing perception in the trucking industry that their interests are not rep- resented, or are minimally taken into account, by transportation and elected officials, in spite of having a similar arrangement to car drivers, that is, public right-of-way and private ownership and operation of vehicles. This seems to give credence to the old saying used by freight transportation professionals to explain the low priority given to freight transportation: ‘freight does not vote’. For their part, railroads seem to react with a similar disdain of transportation officials for responding to passenger demands, which usually translate into either support for road building that can aid their truck competition or demands for increased passenger rail operations that constrain rail freight capacity.

A second modality of implementation of passenger transportation deliv- ery can be found in the case of quasi-public transit agencies that provide transportation service with subsidies from public funds while using a public right-of-way. Because of their quasi-public character, these agencies have traditionally had close ties with the political leaders, which translates into a rather cooperative relationship with elected officials. As a result of the empowerment of transportation agencies to represent car drivers and the close relationship between transit agencies and the political elites, trans- portation agencies have been able to undertake a relatively proactive role in defining and implementing passenger transportation policy. In some extreme cases, transportation agencies have even been able to implement policies and programmes that may negatively affect small pockets of individuals and companies, which is accepted as long as it is done for the greater good.

The nature of the dynamics of the relationship between government agencies and the freight industry weighs heavily in the minds of the indi- viduals in charge of setting research priorities. One of the top concerns cited to the authors of this chapter about advancing innovation through a freight transportation research programme is the possibility that such a programme could have differential impacts upon the freight industry, that is, that the programme upsets what is considered to be a level playing field of economic competition. This line of thought is based on the fundamental assumption

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 311

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

that efforts to stimulate freight transportation innovations should be neutral, from the standpoint of any differential impacts that they might produce. This stands in sharp contrast with the passenger transportation case, in which there is widespread recognition among transportation officials about the need to implement proactive ‘interventionist’ policies, for example to reduce car usage. In cases like this, the government’s role in fos- tering a more rational use of resources is acknowledged.

The differential impacts that concern transportation officials could reveal themselves in a number of different ways, for example by altering the geographic pattern of commodity flows and trade, or by altering the rela- tive volumes of inter- and intramodal freight flow. Freight transportation research that may result in giving an advantage to the Port of New York and New Jersey will undoubtedly concern other port authorities in the East Coast, for example Baltimore. Similarly, freight research that stimulates a disproportionate advance of innovation in the trucking industry would undoubtedly generate opposition from the railroad industry, where such research would be viewed as government intervention that favoured the competition. The trucking industry and its advocates would similarly oppose research that sought to advance new technology and more produc- tive techniques that generated a high pay-off for freight railroads. The dynamics between the freight industry and the government have resulted in a state of affairs in which: (1) there is very little tradition of collaboration and partnership between the rail and road modes; and (2) the policy and research initiatives that stimulate innovation are, in essence, modally deter- mined. The latter is particularly important in light of the fact that – in spite of the ambitious and far-reaching goals first set by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 – the institutional structure of trans- portation decision making in America remains modally based. In this context, both the institutional structure and the trade groups reinforce each other, which result in the perpetuation of the modally based modus operandi. A recent example of this perspective on innovation is the pro- posed ‘Commercial Traffic Effects Institute’ (TRB 2002) that would be chartered to ‘develop federal (truck) size and weight standards and related highway management practices, recommend regulatory changes, evaluate the results of the implementation of new regulations, and support state implementation of federal regulations’.

Size, Geographic Factors and Industry Structure

Introduction One important element that poses a challenge to the implementation of federal policies to foster intermodal innovation is related to the geography

312 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

of freight transportation in the United States, in particular the size and complexity of the system. This section provides a brief description of the main components of the American freight transportation system: rail freight, truck transportation and the port system. Air freight, pipelines and the inland water system are not discussed here for the sake of brevity, and because they have relatively unique issues not directly related to the issues affecting the three main freight modes.

Trucking Truck transportation in the United States is an activity of massive size. According to the 1997 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) (USDC 2000), there are close to 72.8 million trucks. In terms of size, these trucks could be classified as: (1) light trucks, that is, weight less than 10 000 pounds; (2) medium trucks (weight between 10 001 and 19 500 pounds); (3) light-heavy trucks (weight between 19 501 and 26 000 pounds); and (4) heavy-heavy trucks (with weight exceeding 26 001 pounds). Light trucks are, by far, the most numerous (68.1 million), followed by heavy-heavy trucks (2.54 million), medium trucks (1.44 million) and light-heavy (0.73 million).

In terms of industry structure, trucking has been, it is, and probably it will be, an activity in which there exists a significant number of owner-operators. As shown in Table 15.1, 53 per cent of the units surveyed by the 1997 VIUS belonged to owners of only one truck. The trucks owned by companies with five trucks or less represent 70.5 per cent of the total. A significant portion of those are doing full-truckload (FTL) operations, usually intercity travel,

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 313

Table 15.1 Structure of the trucking industry

Number of trucks Number of units % of total % of respondents in company

1 18 553 557 25.49 52.70 2–5 9 790 007 13.45 27.81 6–9 1 490 431 2.05 4.23 10–24 1 660 380 2.28 4.72 25–99 1 479 723 2.03 4.20 100–499 988 021 1.36 2.81 500–999 287 938 0.40 0.82 1000–4999 361 648 0.50 1.03 5000–9999 128 665 0.18 0.37 10 000 or more 462 627 0.64 1.31 Not reported 37 597 254 51.64 – Total 72 800 252 100.00 100.00

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

because of the relative ease with which they could enter the market. On the other hand, the number of individual operators in the less-than-truckload (LTL) market is much less, because LTL operations usually require expen- sive distribution terminals strategically located in major metropolitan areas, from where the FTL shipments can be sorted out and redistributed.

The trucking industry is represented by the American Trucking Association (ATA) and numerous state and local trucking organizations (for example the New Jersey Motor Truck Association, the New York Motor Truck Association). The ATA focuses, for the most part, on issues affecting the trucking industry at the national level, though it sometimes engages states in fighting for policy measures that benefit its membership. The local and state trucking associations, for the most part, focus almost exclusively on local issues. The relationship between the ATA and the local and state trucking associations is highly uneven and dynamic.

Rail freight The American rail freight system is the world’s largest. It is comprised of approximately 128 000 miles of active tracks. For comparison purposes, Canada (second-largest) has 59 000 miles and Russia (third-largest) has 54 000 miles (Muller 1999). The different railroads are classified, on the basis of their operating revenue as: (1) Class I, which are those with oper- ating revenues exceeding $253.7 million; (2) Class II, those with operating revenues between $20.3 and $253.7 million (most regional railroads belong to this class); and (3) Class III, that are those with operating revenues less than $20.3 million (Muller 1999).

Following deregulation, the number of Class I railroads has consistently declined from 35 in the 1980s to nine (1998). The Class I railroads as of 1998 were: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe, Union Pacific, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Norfolk Southern, CSX Transportation, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Florida East Coast and Illinois Central. By 2002, consol- idations and acquisitions had reduced this number to seven carriers, of which just five were headquartered in the United States.

As of 2001, the four largest railroads in the United States were: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe, CSX Transportation, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern. A unique feature of the American rail freight system is the lack of a sole national carrier that dominates the others. The East of the Rocky Mountains is dominated by CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern, while the West is the realm of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe and Union Pacific. Given the wide range of social and economic conditions across the different states it is extremely likely that, in spite of the policy makers’ best efforts, any significant freight transportation research initiative would have differential impacts across the different states.

314 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Ports The American port system is complex and dynamic. The proliferation of major ports on the East Coast – many of them originally supported through local public funds – has led to a situation of overcapacity that has translated into severe competition among the different port authorities. Since a significant portion of port demand is discretionary in nature – because it depends on the decision of shipping companies about the ports of call – the outcome of this competition is perceived by port managers as a matter of ‘life or death’. Since most of the energy of port managers is spent on this struggle for survival, basic or applied port research (an area in which freight automation would have a significant impact, as demon- strated by the examples of the ports of Singapore and Rotterdam) is a low priority. Ports do research for highly specific needs and often incorporate these studies as parts of environmental impact or planning studies, for example on the impacts of dredging. Needless to say, the overcapacity on the East Coast heightens the concerns among port managers about research that may provide a competing port with a leading edge. On the West Coast, although until the downturn of the global economy in 2000 there were port capacity problems, these were usually addressed by means of infrastructure capacity enhancements, which is the traditional approach. In an expanding global economy, these pressures to add capacity may provide additional incentives to speed up freight automation research in port operations.

Lack of Identification Between Private Industry Success and National Economic Objectives

As discussed in this section, the size and complexity of the American freight system poses a challenge to the implementation of a significant freight research programme. The multiplicity of frequently conflicting objectives of the different freight modes are a reflection of the fact that they, in essence, compete with each other. This competition takes place across modes and across the geography of the country.

In this context, the success of a particular company is perceived by its competitors as something achieved at their expense, as part of a zero-sum exercise. More importantly from the policy standpoint is that there is not a close identification between the financial well-being of a given freight company and the success of the American economy. The expression ‘What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for the country’ does not ring true in the American freight transportation system (the statement is attributed to Charles E. Wilson, former head of General Motors and Secretary of Defence under

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 315

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

President Dwight Eisenhower, who allegedly said it at a Senate subcom- mittee in the 1950s). It should be noted, however, that local and state trans- portation and elected officials tend to recognize the role of ports as engines of local and regional economies, probably more than any other freight mode (with the notable exception of New York City in the 1950s and 1960s, where political leaders must share in the blame for the disappearance of the port’s operations on the New York side). This is driven by the fact that ports have a fixed location in contrast to trucking and railroad companies that operate across the country. At the national level, however, there is no evi- dence of any identification between the success of the port system and national economic objectives. This situation stands in sharp contrast with the case of countries that lead the world in intermodal innovations such as freight automation (for example Singapore, the Netherlands) where there exists a close association between the success (or failure) of a particular freight enterprise (that is, the Port of Singapore and the Port of Rotterdam) and the economic development of the country. This closeness translates into a heightened awareness of the importance of freight transportation and intermodal innovation, and a more cooperative working environment between private industry and the government.

Mismatched Planning Horizons

A factor that deserves mention is related to the significant differences between the planning horizons of the system’s operators – virtually all of which are a part of the private sector, where day-to-day operations keep the time horizons short – and the public agencies responsible for planning, financing and implementing transportation projects. These public agencies, with extended planning cycles and complex decision-making and imple- mentation procedures, think of ‘short term’ as within two years. ‘Medium term’ may be between two to five years, while ‘long term’ can mean a 10-, 20- and even 50-year planning horizon. Private firms, on the other hand, have much shorter planning cycles, where ‘short term’ may be as little as two weeks. ‘Medium term’ could be anything within six months, while ‘long term’ may refer to the next year.

As expected, this significant disparity in planning horizons complicates the process of trying to define common goals between transportation agen- cies and the freight industry. On the one hand, transportation agencies are not designed to respond with the speed required by the private sector for even ‘long-term’ decisions. On the other hand, the freight operators are not interested in long-term projects with potential pay-offs far off on the horizon. This disparity needs to be taken into account when attempting to advance the innovations stemming from freight transportation research.

316 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

There is one point where the ‘short-term’ understanding of public and private entities may coincide. While the public planning and investment processes are by necessity longer term, transportation projects supported with public funds must be reported on annually. This takes place under the auspices of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The instrument is the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which is an annual listing of projects, and the resources to support them. It is signed onto by the member organizations of the MPO. It is at this forum that short-term needs can be expressed and that freight needs can be placed on the table as essential components of meeting regional and local transportation, land use and environmental objectives. What is needed to launch this process is a representative of the freight industry to sit at the MPO table. Such a rep- resentative can be either elected by the freight industry, which is the ideal situation, or represented by an ‘Office of Freight Transportation’ set up in an appropriate public organization. Since the multiple obligations of freight industry leaders often prevent them from attending meetings with public officials – as the experience in the Freight Transportation Working Group in New York City indicates – designating a staff member to collect input from the industry and present their points of view in planning meet- ings may a pragmatic solution.

15.4 TOWARDS A SYSTEMATIC POLICY OF INTERMODAL INNOVATION

Implementing systemic freight transportation innovations requires taking into account the unique challenges to translating research findings into new practices that were discussed in the previous section. Careful consideration of these factors would help maximize the chances of implementing such research programmes. Table 15.2 shows the key challenges identified before, as well as a preliminary list of the potential approaches that should be con- sidered.

As shown in Table 15.2, three of the key issues identified before (issues 1, 2 and 3) are related, in various ways, to the way in which the government agencies interact with the freight industry. The fourth and the fifth issues are, to a great extent, related to the key features of the freight industry structure, that is, the significant intermodal and intramodal competition that takes place in the US. Not surprisingly, there is a significant amount of overlap among the approaches identified to overcome these issues.

In terms of policy implementation, the order in which the different types of new technology and/or techniques are adopted does matter. It seems clear that the research community and the freight industry must

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 317

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

join forces and work together to elevate the consideration of freight issues to a level commensurate to the importance of freight to the nation’s economy. In this context, the National Freight Dialogue is an important first step.

The leaders of the freight industry must play a critical role in raising the level of awareness among transportation and elected officials about the need to increase funding for transportation research, education and train- ing. It is very likely that the executives of all major freight companies, across all modes, together with the leaders of the different trade groups (for example the ATA, AAPA, AAR, IANA) will set aside their differences and support such effort. An industry-led coalition is also likely to garner con- gressional support from those states in which freight transportation has a

318 Implementation and policy

Table 15.2 Challenges and approaches to implement freight transportation innovations

Challenge Approach

1. Lack of cooperative tradition • Enhance current broad industry based between government and the initiatives (e.g. TRB, National Freight freight industry Dialogue)

• Create and foster new public–private partnerships

2. Mismatched planning • Identify research topics that integrate horizons operational concerns with infrastructure

planning, thus generating interest among the largest number of stakeholders

• Partner with consulting firms and freight industry to identify research topics

3. Modally based priorities (the • Politically empower the agencies and result of modally based offices with broad industry impact, and agencies and trade groups) make them accountable for transcending

modal perspectives • Employ the ‘Golden Rule’, i.e. ‘the one

who has the gold, rules’

4. Lack of identification • Educate decision makers on the between private industry importance of freight to the nation’s success and national economy objectives • Conduct research on broader socio-

economic impacts of freight activity

5. Concerns about differential • Develop a research agenda of broad impacts of freight research industry appeal

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

visible and recognized role in the local economies (for example New York, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania, California and Illinois).

Success, even at a relatively minor scale, breeds success. In this context, should this coalition succeed in calling the attention of transportation and elected officials to the need to do more work on freight research, it may open the door to other forms of public–private partnerships. This, in turn, will contribute to a better working relationship between all sides.

The proactive participation of the freight industry may be the only way to bring about much-needed institutional changes that foster a compre- hensive and truly intermodal freight transportation research programme. Key components of this would be: (1) the political empowerment of agen- cies and offices with broad (intermodal) mandates; and (2) the allocation of the funds needed for systematic and long-term freight research. The importance of the latter is best captured by the phrase coined by one insightful professional interviewed for this chapter, who mentioned: ‘the Golden Rule, i.e., the one who has the gold, rules’. In other words, aligning adequate funding to implement organizational and technological outputs with a freight research programme focused on intermodal innovation could overcome some of the institutional obstacles identified in this chapter.

The mechanism by which this process could be implemented could take different forms. Ideally, an industry-led coalition with academia could try to obtain a congressional mandate (and the corresponding funds) to estab- lish a freight transportation research programme managed by either the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board (TRB). Among other things, this would benefit from the fact that the TRB is already a forum for discussion of freight transportation issues, in which there is significant participation from almost all stakeholders on a regular basis. A less ideal alternative, though more in tune with the inherent desires of members of Congress to enact pieces of legislation that directly favour their constituents, would be to create freight transportation research centres in the major metropolitan areas. Among other things, this mechanism is more likely to generate local and industry support, because it would make a more direct connection with their needs. One of the multiple paths that could be used to move these ideas forward is shown in Figure 15.1.

It is also important to highlight that – putting aside the obvious differences in size – the American case shares some key similarities with the cases of smaller and even developing countries that have made significant intermodal advances: (1) there is no widespread recognition at the highest decision-making levels of the synergies generated by intermodal innov- ation; and (2) funding decisions are often made on the basis of a modally based focus, which is the consequence of having modally based institutions

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 319

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

and trade groups. They differ in that in countries where the transportation system is far from being fully developed, there is often a heightened aware- ness of freight transportation’s significant contribution (or potential for contribution) to the national economy. In this context, the issues identified in this chapter, as well as the implementation path suggested in Figure 15.1, may be applicable to these socio-economic environments with proper modifications. Cases such as the Netherlands, Singapore and Hong Kong, where freight transportation is recognized as an economic engine to be

320 Implementation and policy

Figure 15.1 A possible implementation path for intermodal innovations

Enhance/create industry-led and academia initiatives

Employ the Golden Rule, i.e. 'the one who has the gold, rules'

Develop a research agenda of broad industry appeal

Identify basic research topics of interest to stakeholders

Create/foster public/private and industry/academia

Partner with consulting firms to identify research topics

Empower politically agencies/ offices with broad industry focus

Raise awareness among decision makers about freight

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

protected and enhanced, are in the opinion of the authors nothing more than the exceptions to the rule.

15.5 CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has presented an overview of the main challenges to imple- menting a comprehensive research programme that would stimulate inter- modal innovations in freight transportation. The analysis focused initially on the American case from which a set of conclusions and recommenda- tions, of more general applicability, were extracted. The analysis then identified challenges related to the institutional setting, as well as those related to the unique features of the American freight transportation system and the dynamics of the relationship with the government agencies. The chapter identified four major sets of factors: (1) government–private industry dynamics; (2) size and geographic factors; (3) lack of understand- ing about the relationship between private industry success and national economic objectives; and (4) mismatched planning horizons. The chapter also highlighted a number of the different approaches that could be used to overcome the identified challenges. The authors also put forward a prelim- inary implementation path that would help generate the new technology and techniques that would enhance the freight transportation system’s per- formance.

In spite of the suggestions for launching research that would stimulate innovation here, there should be no doubt that this is a problem of consid- erable complexity and difficulty. The public and private policy participants that must be engaged to implement such efforts possess asymmetrical dynamics of interest and organization that inhibit change. For that reason, the modest findings of this chapter should be interpreted as nothing more than a small step in the long march toward using research as a springboard for intermodal transport innovation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This chapter has benefited greatly from the insights generously provided by a distinguished set of experts, none of whom is to blame for any shortcomings of the chapter. All of the latter remain the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Ms Priscilla Nelson, Former Director of the Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems at the National Science Foundation, and to Professors C. Michael Walton (University of Texas at Austin), Michael Meyer (Georgia Institute of Technology), George List (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), Arnim Meyburg (Cornell University) and Arun Chatterjee (University of Tennessee at Knoxville). Mr Gary Maring, former Director of the Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Freight Management and Operations, Ms Kathleen Quinn and Mr

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 321

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Bob Davis, both from the FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and Operations, also pro- vided invaluable insights as did Ms Christina S. Casgar, Former Executive Director of the Foundation for Intermodal Research and Education.

Anthony Perl would like to thank the City University of New York’s Institute for Urban Systems, which supported his work on this chapter during his residency as a visiting scholar.

REFERENCES

Bhatia R., P. Lopipero and A.H. Smith (1998), ‘Diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer’, Epidemiology, 9, pp. 84–91.

Boske, L. (1998), Multimodal/Intermodal Transportation in the United States, Western Europe, and Latin America: Government Policies, Plans and Programs, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Policy Research Project Report Number 130, Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

Boske, L. (1999), Case Studies of Multimodal/Intermodal Transportation Planning Methods, Funding Programs, and Projects, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Policy Research Project Report Number 132, Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

ENO Transportation Foundation, Inc. (1998), Transportation in America, Washington, DC: ENO Foundation.

Godlee, F. (1993), Air Pollution II. Road Traffic and Modern Industry, British Medical Journal, 303, pp. 1539–43.

Holguín-Veras, J. and S. Jara-Díaz (1999), ‘Optimal space allocation and pricing for priority service at container ports’, Transport Research Part B, 33 (2), pp. 81–106.

Holguín-Veras, J. and E. Thorson (2003), ‘Modeling commercial vehicle empty trips with a first order trip chain model’, Transportation Research Part B, 37 (2), pp. 129–48.

Holguín-Veras, J., G. List, A. Meyburg, K. Ozbay, R. Paaswell, H. Teng and S. Yahalom (2001), An Assessment of Methodological Alternatives for a Regional Freight Model in the NYMTC Region, New York: Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC).

Lena, T.S., V. Ochieng, M. Carter, J. Holguín-Veras, and P. Kinney (2002), ‘Elemental carbon and PM2.5 levels in an urban community heavily impacted by truck traffic’, Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (10), pp. 1009–15.

Muller, Gerhardt (1999), Intermodal Freight Transportation, Washington, DC: Eno Transportation Foundation.

Ostro, B.D. (1987), ‘Air pollution and morbidity revisited: a specification test’, Journal of Environmental Economic Management, 14, pp. 87–98.

Perl, A. (1991), ‘Financing transport infrastructure: the effects of institutional durability in French and American policymaking’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 4 (4), pp. 365–402.

Sorratini, J.A. and R.L. Smith (2000), ‘Development of a statewide truck trip fore- casting model based on commodity flows and input–output coefficients’, Transportation Research Record 1707, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Transportation Research Board (TRB) (2002), ‘Regulation of weights, lengths, and widths of commercial motor vehicles’, Special Report #267, prepublication copy, Washington, DC.

322 Implementation and policy

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

US Department of Commerce (USDC), Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau Service Sector Statistics Division (2000), Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey 1997, January, CD-EC97-VIUS (in CD ROM).

US Department of Transportation (US DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (1999a), 1997 Economic Census. Transportation: Commodity Flow Survey, Publication ECT97CF-US from the Economic Census of the US, issued December.

US Department of Transportation (US DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (1999b), National Transportation Statistics, Washington, DC: US Department of Transport.

US Department of Transportation (US DOT) (2002), ‘Operations: freight analysis framework’, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/adfrmwrk/index.htm, accessed 29 March 2001.

US Office of Management and Budget, Budget Review and Concepts Division, Budget Concepts Branch (2001), Object Class Analysis, Washington, DC: US Government printing Office, available at http: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ fy2003/pdf/objclass.pdf (accessed 31 October 2007).

The role of government in fostering intermodal transport innovations 323

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Konings, R., Priemus, H., & Nijkamp, P. (2008). The future of intermodal freight transport : Operations, design and policy. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from apus on 2021-04-06 18:45:49.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 0 8 . E

d w

a rd

E lg

a r

P u b lis

h in

g L

im ite

d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .