This research examines and compares the development of two large-scale projects in Southern California, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) and the Alameda Corridor East (ACE), sharing a number of features for useful paired comparison. Both have similar political institutions at the regional and local levels, serve the same ports and the same private sector railroad parties, and have a similar regional purpose. This paper uses a specific model of strategy to consider a set of outcomes designated by the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) as a framework that can be applied across different projects and regions. The TBL framework tests the strategy model for explanatory power, for the criteria needed for large scale projects to move forward. This model makes explicit the strategic components of each project that advance a triple bottom line as three distinct outcomes: Increased freight velocity (efficiency), improved air quality and reduced traffic congestion (environment), community protection and safety (equity).
Adams, C. ( 2007). Urban governance and the control of infrastructure. Public Works Management & Policy, 11, 164-176.
2.
Alameda Construction East Construction Authority. ( 2008, June 23). Minutes and agenda from ACE Board of Directors meeting. Industry CA, City of Industry Chamber of Commerce .
3.
Alameda Construction East. (2009, May). List of funding commitments. Retrieved May 2009 from http://www.theaceproject.org/funding.htm
4.
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. ( 2000). The Alameda Corridor: Putting California’s economy on the fast track to the future. Carson, CA: Author.
5.
Altshuler, A., & Luberoff, D. ( 2003). Mega-projects: The changing politics of urban public investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
An almost secret project that’s vital to L.A.’s future. (2007, September 2). Los Angeles Times, p. B6.
7.
Callahan, R. ( 2002). The Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority: A race for control, in politics of structural choice: New agencies, regional projects and cooperation in political environments, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California .
8.
Callahan, R. ( 2007). Governance: The collision of politics and cooperation . Public Administration Review, 67, 290-301.
9.
Campbell, R.W., & Durning, D. ( 2000). Is city-county consolidation good policy? A symposium . Public Administration Quarterly, 24, 133-139.
10.
Cho, A. and Rosta, P. (May 29, 2000). Hoping Ships Will Come In, L.A. Speeds Rail Project. Engineering News Record, pp. 96-9.
11.
Campbell, S. ( 1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 296-312.
12.
Crane, D. ( 2008). California’s infrastructure deficit. Public Works Management & Policy, 12, 476-478.
13.
Erie, S.P. ( 2004). Globalizing L.A. Trade, infrastructure, and regional development. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Fetty, G., & Hicks, G. ( 2003, January 28). Presentation from George Fetty and Associates and Gill Hicks and Associates to SCAG, Los Angeles.
15.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: Anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Fosler, R.S. ( 1998, March-April). Regional governance in the United States: An introduction. Paper presented at the Conference on Regionalism below state-level in Germany and the United States. Regional Institute for Public Administration, Speyer , Germany.
17.
Fosler, R.S. ( 1999). Key issues of governance, public management, and public administration: Results of a survey of Academy Fellows. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration .
18.
Hunt, D., & Higgins, M. ( 2005, August 11). Institutional structure for the Southern California Regional Goods Movement System. Memo to Karen Tachiki.
19.
Kettl, D. ( 2006). Is the worst yet to come?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 273-287.
20.
Kirlin, J.J. ( 1991). Policy responses creating the conditions for devising reasonable and regional solutions. In J. DiMento & L. Graymer (Eds.), Confronting regional challenges: Approaches to LULUs, growth, and other vexing governance problems (pp. 121-132). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
21.
Lambert, J., Joshi, N., Peterson, K., & Wadie, S. ( 2007). Coordination and diversification of investments in multimodal transportation. Public Works Management & Policy, 11, 250-265.
22.
Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation. ( 2002, October 1) Los Angeles-Inland Empire Railroad Mail Line Advanced Planning Study (Contract # 01-077), Los Angeles .
23.
Lushing, R.S. ( 1993, May 9). Alameda Corridor [Letter to the Editor]. Los Angeles Times, p. A27.
24.
North, D. ( 1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Pagano, M., & Perry, D. ( 2008). Financing infrastructure in the 21st century. Public Works Management & Policy, 13, 22-38.
26.
Parks, R.B., & Oakerson, R.J. (2000). Regionalism, localism, and metropolitan governance: Suggestions from the research program on local public economies. State and Local Government Review, 32, 169-179.
27.
Pisano, M., Mazmanian, D., Little, R., Linder, A., & Perry, B. ( 2008). Toward a national strategic investment framework (Working paper: Megaregions governance and finance). America 2050 .
28.
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. ( 2007a). San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments A Joint Powers Authority Third Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, Effective April 3, 2007. RV# 4833-9006-7, 457v5, pA3i-A311.
29.
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. ( 2007b). San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments A Joint Powers Authority Fifth Amended and Restated Bylaws, Effective March 15, 2007. IRV# 4830-5801-8561v1, p75-88, p1-13.
30.
Savitch, H.V., & Vogel, R.K. ( 2000). Paths to new regionalism. State and Local Government Review, 32, 158-168.
31.
Southern California Association of Governments. ( 2002, August 21). Meeting notes, SCAG, Los Angeles.
32.
Southern California Association of Governments. ( 2004). Rail Capacity Improvement Program, Los Angeles.
33.
Southern California Association of Governments. ( 2008). 2008 Regional Transportation Plan: Making the connections , Los Angeles. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2008/index.htm
34.
Stich, B., & Miller, C. ( 2008). Using the advocacy coalition framework to understand freight transportation policy change. Public Works Management & Policy, 13, 62-74.
35.
Union Pacific. (2002, August). Presentation made to SCAG by Union Pacific, Los Angeles .
36.
Weikel, D. ( 1998, August 21). Rail project hires veteran executive. Los Angeles Times, p. B3.
