Organizational Arrangements for the Provision of Cross - SMARTech

151 Pages·2007·0.58 MB·English

Organizational Arrangements for the Provision of Cross-Boundary Transport
Infrastructure and Services

A Dissertation
Presented to
The Academic Faculty

By

John T Crocker

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the
Degree Doctor of Philosophy in
Civil and Environmental Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology
May, 2007
Organizational Arrangements for the Provision of Cross-Boundary Transport
Infrastructure and Services

Approved By:

Dr. Michael D. Meyer Dr. Adjo Amekudzi
School of Civil and School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Catherine Ross Dr. Laurie Garrow
School of City Planning School of Civil and
Georgia Institute of Technology Environmental Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology

Dr. Vicki Birchfield
Sam Nunn School of International Date Approved: Nov. 28, 2006
Affairs
Georgia Institute of Technology
Territoire, c'est sans doute une notion géographique, mais c'est d'abord une notion
juridico-politique : ce qui est contrôlé par un certain type de pouvoir

M. Foucault - Questions á M. Foucault sur la géographie
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to first acknowledge all the people who have helped me prepare this
dissertation. I would like to thank the American Center at Sciences Po in Paris for
being my affiliated institution for my Fulbright Grant and the director, Ms. Maggie
Smith, and the rest of the staff of the Commission for Educational Exchange in
Brussels for administering the grant. Amy Henry at the Office of International
Studies at Georgia Tech deserves particular thanks for her help and advice in putting
together my Fulbright Application. I would like to thank John-Hugh Rees, Jiri
Vesely, Christina Tilling, Petr Sebek, Gerald Lonauer, Keith Keen, James Pond,
Joseph Beggan, Cain Williamson, Cheryl King, and Dr. Anne Dunning for
participating in my interviews. I would also like to thank Ms. Ann Shemaka at the
Federal Highway Administration for providing me with a copy of the National Bridge
Inventory. Jamie Cochran deserves my thanks for her understanding and support
throughout the years of study. A special thanks also needs to go to my dedicated
committee members – Dr. Catherine Ross, Dr. Adjo Amekudzi, Dr. Laurie Garrow,
and Dr. Vicki Birchfield – for their comments and suggestions. My advisor, Dr.
Michael Meyer, deserves my gratitude for his tireless support, his willingness to
support my ideas and, most importantly, his faith in me. Finally, my parents and
sister all deserve special recognition for their unending patience over all the years
they have listened to me talk, complain, and discuss transportation ideas.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………….iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………......viii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………........x
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………......xi
SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………xiv
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..1
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT: CROSS BOUNDARY ISSUES IN THE
TRANSPORTATION FIELD…………………………………………………………8
2.1 Challenges Facing Metropolitan Regions in the United States……………9
2.2 Challenges Facing the European Union………………………………….15
2.3 Mega-Projects………………………………………………………….....18
2.4 Public-Private Partnerships………………………………………………20
2.5 Defining the Question……………………………………………………25
CHAPTER 3: BACKGROUND DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY……….27
3.1 Definition of Levels of Governance……………………………………..27
3.2 Research Methodology…………………………………………………..30
3.2.1 Selection………………………………………………………………..31
3.2.2 Examination Process…………………………………………………...34
3.2.3 Analysis………………………………………………………………...40
3.2.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………...41
CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
GOVERNANCE……………………………………………………………………..42

Section 4.1 Types of Cross Boundary Organizations Found in Transit in U.S.
Metropolitan Regions ………………………………………………………………..42

v
Section 4.1.1 Atlanta…………………………………………………………43
Section 4.1.2 Dallas…………………………………………………………..45
Section 4.1.3 Denver…………………………………………………………48
Section 4.1.4 Houston………………………………………………………..49
Section 4.1.5 Miami………………………………………………………….51
Section 4.1.6 Phoenix………………………………………………………...52
Section 4.1.7 Seattle………………………………………………………….54
Section 4.2 U.S. Commuter Rail Systems……………………………………58
Section 4.2.1 Nashville……………………………………………………….60
Section 4.2.2 Virginia Railway Express……………………………………...61
Section 4.2.3 South Florida Regional Transportation Authority……………..62
Section 4.2.4 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority…………………63
Section 4.2.5 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority…………64
Section 4.2.6 Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District………….65
Section 4.3 Examination of U.S. Cross Boundary River Bridges……………66
Section 4.3.1 Woodrow Wilson Bridge………………………………………69
Section 4.3.2 U.S. 82 Mississippi River Bridge……………………………...70
Section 4.3.3 The Benjamin Franklin Bridge………………………………...71
Section 4.3.4 Northampton Street Bridge……………………………………72
Section 4.3.5 Bellevue, NE Bridge Over the Missouri River………………...73
Section 4.4 TEN-T: the Challenge of Cross Border Segments……………...74
Section 4.4.1 PBKAL Segments……………………………………………..76
Section 4.4.2 Operations of non-UK Services Network……………………..84
Section 4.4.3 Channel Tunnel Operations……………………………………87
Section 4.4.4 Oresund Bridge………………………………………………...88
vi
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS OF DESCRIPTIONS…………………………………...91
Section 5.1 Types of Organizations Found…………………………………..91
Section 5.1.1 U.S. Metropolitan Regions………………………………….....91
Section 5.1.2 Commuter Rail Arrangements………………………………....93
Section 5.1.3 Bi-State River Bridge Arrangements………………………….95
Section 5.1.4 TEN-T Arrangements………………………………………….97
Section 5.2 Similarities Between Project Types……………………………..98
Section 5.3 Interviews………………………………………………………103
Section 5.4 The Issue of Control……………………………………………105
Section 5.5 Additional Thoughts……………………………………………113
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS…………………………….116
Section 6.1 Atlanta Regional Transit……………………………………….117
Section 6.2 Vidin/Calafat Danube Bridge…………………………………..121
Section 6.3 Areas for Future Research……………………………………...122
Section 6.4 Final Thoughts………………………………………………….124
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW FORM……………………………………………...126
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...129

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 List of Bi-State MSAs in the United States……………………………4
Table 2 Levels of Governance………………………………………………...29
Table 3 Transit Providers in Atlanta as Reported by the NTD……………….43
Table 4 Transit Providers in Dallas as Reported by the NTD………………...46
Table 5 Transit Providers in Denver as Reported by the NTD……………….48
Table 6 Transit Providers in Houston as Reported by the NTD……………...50
Table 7 Transit Providers in Miami as Reported by the NTD………………..51
Table 8 Transit Providers in Phoenix as Reported by the NTD………………53
Table 9 Transit Providers in Seattle as Reported by the NTD………………..55
Table 10 Commuter Rail Agencies in U.S. in 2006……………………………59
Table 11 Available Bridge Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility……...67
Table 12 Arrangements of Cross-Boundary Transit Services in the U.S………93
Table 13 Arrangements of U.S. Commuter Rail Services……………………...95
Table 14 Arrangements of U.S. Bi-State River Bridge ………………………..97
Table 15 Arrangements of TEN-T Projects and Operations…………………...98
Table 16 Separate Organizations Set Up to Construct and Operate Cross-
Boundary Infrastructure……………………………………………...99

Table 17 Transportation Service Providers Operating Distinct Cross-Boundary
Services……………………………………………………………..100

Table 18 Contractual Agreements…………………………………………….101
Table 19 Examples of Agreements for Fee for Services Arrangements……...102
Table 20 Views of Major Future Challenges Facing Transport Projects……..104
Table 21 Interviewees Recognition of Specific Cross-Boundary
Arrangements………………………………………………………105
viii
Table 22 Organizational Arrangements for Potential Situations…………….110
ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Available Bridge Ownership by Agency Type…………………………….68
Figure 2 Available Bridge Maintenance Responsibility by Agency Type ………….68
Figure 3 Conceptual Relationship Between Complexity and Financing…………...112
x