Intermodal Transportation
DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address Intermodal Barriers
Gao ID: GAO-07-718 June 20, 2007
Intermodal transportation enables freight and passengers to cross between different modes of transportation efficiently and can improve mobility, reduce congestion, and cut costs. In 1991 Congress called for a National Intermodal Transportation System and created the Office of Intermodalism within the Department of Transportation (DOT). However, as GAO and others have reported, there are barriers to planning and implementing intermodal projects. GAO's report examines (1) barriers that inhibit intermodal transportation; (2) actions DOT has taken to address these barriers and support Congress' goal; and (3) additional actions, if any, that DOT could take to better address barriers. GAO analyzed information from DOT and transportation experts and talked with transportation officials from various states and localities throughout the country.
Three key barriers inhibit intermodal transportation, according to federal, state, and local officials and published studies: limited federal funding targeted to such projects, in part due to statutory requirements; limited collaboration among the many entities and jurisdictions involved; and limited ability to evaluate the benefits of such projects. For example, officials in one state reported difficulty in securing funds to repair roads connecting port and rail facilities to nearby highways, because the nationwide benefits from increasing freight mobility were both difficult to quantify and not considered in the local transportation planning process. These three barriers impede state and local agencies' ability to carry out intermodal projects and limit DOT's ability to implement Congress' goal of a national intermodal transportation system. DOT--through several of its operating administrations and the Office of Intermodalism--has taken a number of actions to address each barrier and support Congress' goal, but these actions fall short of creating a coordinated approach. Actions taken include distributing guidance on obtaining funding, creating working groups to improve collaboration, and developing a framework for a national freight policy. In addition, DOT proposed a reorganization in 1995 to enhance its approach to intermodal transportation and improve collaboration, but Congress did not approve it. While DOT has taken actions to address intermodal barriers and Congress' goal, no one office is coordinating these actions across the department. The Office of Intermodalism, which has responsibility for initiating and coordinating federal intermodal policy, is primarily focused on research and analysis. Furthermore, DOT is limited in its ability to address funding issues, due to the federal funding structure of transportation programs. GAO's analysis of published studies and discussions with state and local officials surfaced some actions that DOT could take to better address barriers: increasing collaboration between DOT's own operating administrations and improving the availability of intermodal guidance and resources. In addition, designating one office or operating administration to be responsible for coordinating these and other DOT efforts to address barriers would help in moving toward Congress' vision of a National Intermodal Transportation System. However, DOT and the Congress also face other transportation challenges, including the financial condition of the Highway Trust Fund, the lack of assurance that projects that best meet mobility needs are being selected and funded, and the increase in congestion on all transportation modes. These challenges led GAO to suggest in prior work that DOT and Congress reassess all transportation modes to determine the appropriate federal role and funding strategies, and develop ways to monitor investments. Actions to improve intermodal transportation would need to be considered in the context of these current challenges.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-07-718, Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address Intermodal Barriers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-718
entitled 'Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to
Address Intermodal Barriers' which was released on July 20, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2007:
Intermodal Transportation:
DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address Intermodal Barriers:
GAO-07-718:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-718, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Intermodal transportation enables freight and passengers to cross
between different modes of transportation efficiently and can improve
mobility, reduce congestion, and cut costs. In 1991 Congress called for
a National Intermodal Transportation System and created the Office of
Intermodalism within the Department of Transportation (DOT). However,
as GAO and others have reported, there are barriers to planning and
implementing intermodal projects. GAO‘s report examines (1) barriers
that inhibit intermodal transportation; (2) actions DOT has taken to
address these barriers and support Congress‘ goal; and (3) additional
actions, if any, that DOT could take to better address barriers. GAO
analyzed information from DOT and transportation experts and talked
with transportation officials from various states and localities
throughout the country.
What GAO Found:
Three key barriers inhibit intermodal transportation, according to
federal, state, and local officials and published studies: limited
federal funding targeted to such projects, in part due to statutory
requirements; limited collaboration among the many entities and
jurisdictions involved; and limited ability to evaluate the benefits of
such projects. For example, officials in one state reported difficulty
in securing funds to repair roads connecting port and rail facilities
to nearby highways, because the nationwide benefits from increasing
freight mobility were both difficult to quantify and not considered in
the local transportation planning process. These three barriers impede
state and local agencies‘ ability to carry out intermodal projects and
limit DOT‘s ability to implement Congress‘ goal of a national
intermodal transportation system.
DOT”through several of its operating administrations and the Office of
Intermodalism”has taken a number of actions to address each barrier and
support Congress‘ goal, but these actions fall short of creating a
coordinated approach. Actions taken include distributing guidance on
obtaining funding, creating working groups to improve collaboration,
and developing a framework for a national freight policy. In addition,
DOT proposed a reorganization in 1995 to enhance its approach to
intermodal transportation and improve collaboration, but Congress did
not approve it. While DOT has taken actions to address intermodal
barriers and Congress‘ goal, no one office is coordinating these
actions across the department. The Office of Intermodalism, which has
responsibility for initiating and coordinating federal intermodal
policy, is primarily focused on research and analysis. Furthermore, DOT
is limited in its ability to address funding issues, due to the federal
funding structure of transportation programs.
GAO‘s analysis of published studies and discussions with state and
local officials surfaced some actions that DOT could take to better
address barriers: increasing collaboration between DOT‘s own operating
administrations and improving the availability of intermodal guidance
and resources. In addition, designating one office or operating
administration to be responsible for coordinating these and other DOT
efforts to address barriers would help in moving toward Congress‘
vision of a National Intermodal Transportation System. However, DOT and
the Congress also face other transportation challenges, including the
financial condition of the Highway Trust Fund, the lack of assurance
that projects that best meet mobility needs are being selected and
funded, and the increase in congestion on all transportation modes.
These challenges led GAO to suggest in prior work that DOT and Congress
reassess all transportation modes to determine the appropriate federal
role and funding strategies, and develop ways to monitor investments.
Actions to improve intermodal transportation would need to be
considered in the context of these current challenges.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation direct one office
or administration to lead and coordinate intermodal efforts at the
federal level by improving collaboration and the availability of
intermodal guidance and resources.
DOT agreed to consider GAO‘s recommendation and provided technical
comments that GAO incorporated, as appropriate.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-718].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud, 202-
512-2834, siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Three Key Barriers Inhibit Intermodal Transportation:
DOT Is Taking Action to Address Barriers and Implement Congress' Goal,
but Efforts Are Not Coordinated by One Office:
DOT Could Take Actions in the Near Term to Further Address Intermodal
Barriers:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from Department of Transportation:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Bibliography:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Overview of Selected DOT Ongoing Actions to Address Intermodal
Barriers:
Table 2: Description of Some Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal
Projects:
Table 3: List of Transportation Agencies and Organizations Contacted:
Figures:
Figure 1: Example of Intermodal Transportation for Freight:
Figure 2: Example of Intermodal Transportation for Passengers:
Figure 3: Freight Rail Congestion in Chicago:
Figure 4: Computer Model of the Completed Miami Central Station:
Figure 5: Computer Model of the Warwick Intermodal Facility:
Abbreviations:
BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics:
CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:
MARAD: Maritime Administration:
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization:
MTS: Marine Transportation System:
NCHRP: National Cooperative Highway Research Program:
NHS: National Highway System:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation:
OST-P: Office of the Secretary of Transportation for Policy:
PFC: Passenger facility charges:
RITA: Research and Innovative Technology Administration:
RRIF: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users:
SIB: State Infrastructure Bank:
TPCB: Transportation Planning Capacity Building:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century:
TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of
1998:
TRB: Transportation Research Board:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 20, 2007:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Dear Chairman Oberstar:
The United States' transportation system consists of different modes--
including roads, aviation, mass transit systems, railroads, and
waterways--which connect, intersect, and play a critical role in
providing the American public with the mobility needed to sustain
national and international economic viability. Often, freight and
passenger trips are intermodal in nature, in that freight and
passengers use more than one mode to complete a journey. For example, a
freight container may travel by ship to a port where it is transferred
to a rail car, and then to a truck to complete its journey. However,
this mobility is threatened by congestion across modes, which is
expected to increase in the coming years. Intermodal transportation
projects to improve the connections and intersections between modes can
reduce congestion and costs for freight and passenger travel by
improving mobility. For example, the Alameda Corridor project in the
Los Angeles area created a 20-mile railroad express line that
eliminated grade crossings--rail and road intersections--for freight
railroads leaving the port of Los Angeles/Long Beach, resulting in
reduced congestion for both freight and passenger travel through the
corridor. Also, a project that extended an existing transit line to the
airport at Portland, Oregon, improved the connection between aviation
and surface transportation.
Recognizing the potential benefits of improving intermodal
transportation, Congress established a National Intermodal
Transportation System policy--consisting of all forms of transportation
in a unified, interconnected manner--in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991.[Footnote 1] ISTEA also
created the Office of Intermodalism within the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to provide departmental leadership and
coordination in supporting a more efficient intermodal transportation
system. However, as we and others have previously reported, there are
barriers to planning and implementing intermodal projects because these
projects are generally more complex to plan and finance than projects
involving a single mode and, therefore, often can be more difficult to
implement.[Footnote 2] Furthermore, the congressional appropriations
process has traditionally been aligned with specific modes, and funding
for transportation infrastructure improvements may be congressionally
designated for specific projects. As a result, there is little
assurance that projects, including intermodal projects--which could
most efficiently meet the nation's mobility needs--will be selected and
funded.[Footnote 3] The efficient use of federal funds is particularly
important given the uncertainty surrounding the long-term viability of
the Highway Trust Fund.[Footnote 4] In addition, recent organizational
changes within DOT have transferred the Office of Intermodalism from
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation for Policy to the
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). Consequently,
you asked us to examine the barriers to intermodal transportation and
how recent organizational changes in DOT may have affected how the
agency is proceeding with Congress' goal of intermodal transportation.
Accordingly, this report addresses the following questions: (1) What
barriers inhibit intermodal transportation? (2) What is DOT, including
its Office of Intermodalism, doing to address intermodal barriers and
support Congress' goal of a National Intermodal Transportation System?
(3) What actions, if any, could DOT take to better address intermodal
barriers?
To identify the barriers that inhibit intermodal transportation, we
reviewed reports from the National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation, GAO, Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the
Intermodal Transportation Institute, among others. We also conducted
semistructured interviews with several industry associations to
identify intermodal barriers. In addition, we conducted semistructured
interviews with officials from DOT's Office of the Secretary of
Transportation for Policy (OST-P) and seven operating administrations,
four state-level DOTs, four metropolitan planning organizations (MPO),
and several university transportation centers to understand whether and
how the intermodal barriers we identified from reports and interviews
impeded the planning and implementation of intermodal transportation
projects for freight and passengers. We selected OST and seven
operating administrations based on the specific role the office and
administrations have in passenger and/or freight intermodal
transportation or intermodal policy. We selected the four state DOTs
and the four MPOs based on (1) recommendations from officials from DOT,
university transportation centers, as well as representatives of
industry associations we interviewed, that the state DOTs and MPOs were
experienced in dealing with passenger and/or freight intermodal
transportation; (2) the size of the population of the state and MPO
area; and (3) geographic dispersion. We based our analysis of the
barriers on interviews with these officials, who have been involved
with intermodal projects. Through our interviews, we determined that
the intermodal barriers identified applied to both freight and
passenger intermodal transportation despite some differences between
the two.
To determine what actions DOT and its Office of Intermodalism are
taking--and could take--to address intermodal barriers and support the
intermodal goal, we analyzed information gathered from our interviews
with officials from several of DOT's operating administrations, the
Office of Intermodalism, state DOTs, MPOs, industry associations, and
university transportation centers. We also analyzed agency
documentation on the actions DOT has been taking to address intermodal
barriers and reviewed published reports from GAO, TRB, and others about
intermodal transportation issues for freight and passengers and the
future of transportation policy in the United States. We assessed the
reliability of the information contained in this report through
interviews with knowledgeable officials and reviews of documentation
and corroborating information, and we determined it was sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from August 2006
through May 2007, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Appendix I contains more information about our
scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
Three key barriers inhibit intermodal transportation according to
federal, state, and local officials and published studies:
* Limited federal funding targeted toward intermodal projects. Federal
law generally ties transportation funding to a single mode, which
limits the ability of state and local transportation planning agencies
to use federal funds for intermodal projects. Although there are some
federal programs under which intermodal projects can be funded and one
program that is specifically targeted for freight intermodal projects,
all of the funds available through these programs have been
congressionally designated for specific projects.
* Limited collaboration among stakeholders. DOT's operating
administrations and state and local transportation agencies are
organized by mode--reflecting the structure of funding programs--
resulting in an organizational structure that DOT's own assessments
acknowledge can impede coordination between modes. In addition,
collaboration between the public and private sector can also be
challenging; for example, some transportation officials told us that
private-sector interests in airport, rail, and freight have
historically not participated in the regional planning process.
* Limited resources to evaluate intermodal projects. Potential benefits
of improving intermodal transportation, such as reduced congestion and
improved air quality, are difficult for local planning agencies to
measure and incorporate into analyses of regional transportation
projects. In addition, it can be difficult to quantify benefits that
are national, as opposed to local or regional.
These barriers limit DOT's ability to fully implement the intermodal
goal and impede state and local agencies' ability to plan, fund, and
construct intermodal projects, which are inherently more complex than
those involving one mode because of the variety of funding mechanisms
and stakeholders involved and the difficulty in quantifying benefits.
For example, as reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
in 2000, the roads that connect ports to the national highway system,
heavily used by trucks, are often in poor condition. Officials from a
state DOT and two MPOs with whom we met told us that securing funds to
repair these roads is difficult because the national benefits from
improving these roads are difficult to quantify and not considered in
the local planning process. Similarly, officials from an MPO with whom
we met told us that efforts to develop a project linking passenger rail
to the airport were complicated by having two different operating
administrations within DOT overseeing different portions of the
project. As a result of these barriers, appropriate consideration may
not be given to addressing inefficient intermodal connections at the
state and local level, even though these projects could yield important
improvements in mobility.
DOT--through several operating administrations and the Office of
Intermodalism--is taking action to address the barriers to intermodal
transportation, but collectively these actions fall short of creating a
coordinated approach. For example, DOT has taken such steps as
disseminating guidance on how to access funding for intermodal
projects, creating working groups to improve collaboration between
modes, and providing state and local governments with data on
intermodal transportation. In addition, DOT took some steps,
particularly with regard to freight, toward implementing Congress'
intermodal goal. For example, DOT has drafted a framework for a
national freight policy, and the Office of Intermodalism is working on
a plan that will help gauge the effectiveness of DOT's freight
activities. DOT also proposed a reorganization in 1995, which according
to DOT officials, would have enhanced its approach to intermodal
transportation and improve collaboration, but Congress did not approve
it, and DOT is limited in its ability to address funding issues, which
exist in statute and would need congressional action to address. While
DOT has taken several actions to address each barrier and move toward
Congress' goal, DOT's actions are not coordinated by any single office
or operating administration and are therefore fragmented across the
department. The Office of Intermodalism, which has responsibility for,
among other things, coordinating and initiating federal intermodal
policy, is primarily focused on research and analysis. No other office
or operating administration within DOT has taken the lead in
coordinating DOT's efforts in its place.
Based on our analysis and our discussions with transportation
officials, DOT could take additional actions to further address
intermodal barriers, including increasing collaboration between
operating administrations and improving availability of intermodal
guidance and resources. In addition, designating one office or
operating administration to be responsible for leading and coordinating
these and other DOT efforts to address barriers would help in moving
toward Congress' goal of a National Intermodal Transportation System.
These actions, however, would need to be considered in the context of
the current challenges facing DOT and Congress, including the uncertain
financial condition of the Highway Trust Fund, the lack of assurance
that projects that best meet mobility needs are being selected and
funded, and the increase in congestion on all modes. These issues have
led us to suggest, in our reports on major challenges facing the nation
and on high-risk federal programs, that DOT and Congress reassess all
transportation modes to determine the appropriate federal role, assess
funding alternatives, and develop ways to monitor investments to ensure
performance. Any actions that DOT takes to better address barriers to
intermodal transportation should be consistent with the direction taken
by Congress and DOT in response to these challenges.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Transportation direct one
office or operating administration to take the lead in coordinating
intermodal activities for freight and passengers at the federal level
by improving collaboration among operating administrations and the
availability of intermodal guidance and resources. We recognize that
the Office of Intermodalism is statutorily responsible for coordinating
and initiating federal policy on intermodal transportation; however,
the office does not have the resources to fully carry out these
important responsibilities and is currently focused on conducting and
coordinating research and analysis. As a result, DOT may want to seek
legislative authority to respond to our recommendation. We provided a
draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. We received written
comments, in which the department agreed to consider the report's
recommendation and stated that the report provides a starting point for
constructive discussions between the Executive Branch and Congress on
innovative solutions to intermodal challenges. (See app. II for DOT's
written comments.) In addition, the department offered technical
comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
Background:
Intermodal Projects Offer Potential for Reducing Congestion and
Achieving Other Benefits:
The various modes that comprise the transportation system in the United
States connect and intersect in a variety of ways, and both freight and
passengers often move from one mode to another. Intermodal
transportation refers to the movement of freight or passengers using
more than one mode to complete a journey. For example, as shown in
figure 1, freight can move from its original destination by ship and/or
air to a seaport or airport, then from the seaport or airport to an
intermediate distribution facility by rail or truck, then to its final
destination, by rail or truck.
Figure 1: Example of Intermodal Transportation for Freight:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
In another example, as shown in figure 2, a passenger may drive to the
local transit rail service, then transfer to a bus to reach a final
destination.
Figure 2: Example of Intermodal Transportation for Passengers:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
An effective intermodal transportation system ensures a seamless
transfer between modes for both freight and passengers, the ability to
connect to an extended transportation network, and reliability among
the different modes. As we have reported, an efficient intermodal
transportation system is achieved through the successful planning and
implementation of intermodal projects through the efforts of state,
local, and private stakeholders.[Footnote 5] These projects are
typically initiated and developed by state and local transportation
agencies, including some combination of state departments of
transportation, local transportation planning entities--such as MPOs--
and local transit agencies. Planning and implementing intermodal
projects can also include private stakeholders, such as railroads,
airlines, trucking companies, and industry and retail businesses, among
others, who are involved in intermodal transportation. Projects to
improve intermodal transportation can improve mobility, reduce costs
for freight shippers and travelers by providing alternative
transportation options and eliminating freight bottlenecks at entrances
to freight facilities, and reduce road congestion with the potential
for an associated reduction in vehicle emissions and improved air
quality.[Footnote 6] Examples of some planned intermodal projects
include the following:
* The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency
(CREATE) Program in the Chicago, Illinois region, will increase the
efficiency of freight and passenger rail service throughout the region
by relieving congestion. (See fig. 3) The CREATE Program is a major
program, composed of 78 projects--32 of those are planned to be in
design or construction by 2009. Though not fully funded, some funding
for the CREATE Program is from a variety of sources, including the
federal government, the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago,
railroads, and others. When completed, the CREATE Program has the
potential to reduce congestion on area roadways, improve air quality,
and improve freight and passenger mobility in part by creating 25 new
roadway overpasses or underpasses to eliminate many grade crossing,
creating 6 new rail overpasses to separate passenger and freight
tracks, and upgrading rail tracks, switches and signal systems.
Figure 3: Freight Rail Congestion in Chicago:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Association of American Railroads (AAR).
[End of figure]
* The Miami Intermodal Center, to be completed in 2011, will serve as a
transfer point to the Miami International Airport and other
destinations for various rail systems, buses, taxis, rental cars, and
privately owned vehicles in Southern Florida (see fig. 4). Funding
comes from several sources, including federal and state funds. When
completed, the center is expected to provide efficient intermodal
connectivity between the airport and Southern Florida's business and
activities centers, as well as serve as a transfer point for resident
commuters. The center is also expected to reduce congestion on the
surrounding highways and access roads to the airport.
Figure 4: Computer Model of the Completed Miami Central Station:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Miami Intermodal Center,
2007.
Note: The station will provide rail and bus connections between various
public transit systems and other modes of transportation such as
Greyhound, taxis and private vehicle services.
[End of figure]
The Warwick Intermodal Facility in Rhode Island will include a commuter
and intercity rail station, a bus terminal for local and intercity
buses; a consolidated rental car facility and 3,200 space parking
garage; and an elevated, enclosed skywalk to the T.F. Green Airport
(see fig. 5). Funding for the facility came from several sources,
including federal grants and loans, among others. When completed, it is
expected to improve overall traffic flow in the area, especially the
consolidated car rental facility, which will eliminate rental car
shuttle buses.
Figure 5: Computer Model of the Warwick Intermodal Facility:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Rhode Island Department of Transportation.
[End of figure]
Intermodal Transportation Issues Differ between Freight and Passenger
Transportation:
Freight and passenger intermodal transportation differ in many ways,
including national versus regional significance, funding and ownership
of infrastructure, and involvement with private-sector stakeholders.
Freight intermodal transportation is influenced by global and national
economic activity, due to the demand of goods and the desire to get
these goods from origin to destination as efficiently and as cost-
effectively as possible. Benefits derived from these types of projects
are often national in scope and as a result can be difficult to
measure. Intermodal operations for freight movement involve both public
and privately owned infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, ports,
airlines, and trucks, among others. Thus, freight intermodal
transportation involves both the public and private sector. For
example, private companies, such as rail companies, airlines, trucking
companies, and logistic companies often make decisions on where to
locate intermodal transfer facilities and fund the construction of
these facilities. Intermodal freight projects improve the connections
between modes, which in turn improves freight mobility.
Passenger intermodal transportation, with the exception of air travel,
tends to be more regional in nature. For example, passengers may
commute to work using a combination of personal vehicles, trains, and
buses--and these trips usually occur within a particular region. While
these types of intermodal trips may be possible, the majority of
passengers commute to work as single occupants in personal vehicles
rather than using transit. Passengers generally consider alternatives
to their vehicles in locations where congestion causes driving to be
too costly.[Footnote 7] Most intermodal trips are made on publicly
owned and operated infrastructure; for example, transit and passenger
rail infrastructure is almost wholly owned and operated by the public
sector.[Footnote 8] Passenger intermodal transportation primarily
involves federal, state, and local transportation agencies and
intermodal passenger projects often receive funding through these
sources.
Federal Policies and Funding Have Generally Focused on Individual
Modes:
Historically, federal transportation policy and funding to improve
transportation infrastructure have generally focused on individual
modes rather than intermodal transportation. Federal policy for surface
transportation, aviation, and passenger rail are established through
separate legislation and draw funding from separate sources. For
example, the planning and funding for most modes of surface
transportation is addressed under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users(SAFETEA-LU)
while the planning and funding of U.S. airports is addressed under
Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act.[Footnote 9] The
federal government is a significant funding source for many surface
transportation plans and projects; for example, federal funding for
highways and transit systems comes mainly from federal motor fuel tax
revenues deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. While most of this
funding is specifically linked to highway or transit uses, some funding
flexibility between highway and transit is allowed under some programs.
Federal programs provide limited support for investment in railroad
infrastructure, with railroad investments largely financed by the
private sector, with the exception of intercity passenger rail. The
Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to provide nationwide passenger rail
service, and the federal government has provided funding for both
capital and operating expenditures to Amtrak.[Footnote 10] Federal
transportation infrastructure funding programs are overseen by
different agencies within DOT, including aviation by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), transit by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), and highways by FHWA, among others.
ISTEA Established an Intermodal Goal:
With the passage of ISTEA in December 1991, Congress established a
policy for a National Intermodal Transportation System, which ISTEA
defines as "all forms of transportation in a unified, interconnected
manner, including the transportation systems of the future, to reduce
energy consumption and air pollution while promoting economic
development and supporting the Nation's preeminent position in
international commerce." ISTEA included some provisions to facilitate
the implementation of this intermodal goal by DOT, state governments,
and local governments:
* Allowed the use of certain federal highway program funds for either
highway or transit projects.
* Established specific planning guidelines to help metropolitan areas
prioritize the highway and transit needs of the entire region with the
goal of promoting an integrated transportation system. For example,
laws and regulations[Footnote 11] require each state to carry out an
intermodal statewide transportation planning process, including the
development of a statewide transportation plan and transportation
improvement program that facilitates the efficient, economic movement
of people and goods.
* Created DOT's Office of Intermodalism, which was charged with
coordinating federal policy on intermodal transportation and initiating
policies to promote efficient intermodal transportation in the United
States.
* Created the Intermodal Transportation Advisory Council consisting of
the Administrators or designees from FHWA, FAA, the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and
FTA to provide recommendations on how best to coordinate federal policy
on intermodal transportation and initiate policies to promote efficient
intermodal transportation in the United States.[Footnote 12]
* Required states to develop and implement six management systems for
managing highway pavement, bridges, highway safety, traffic congestion,
public transportation facilities and equipment, and intermodal
transportation facilities and systems. The management system required
for intermodal transportation facilities and systems provided for the
improvement and integration of all of a state's transportation systems,
including methods of achieving the optimum yield from such systems,
methods for increasing productivity in the state, methods for
increasing use of advanced technologies, and methods to encourage the
use of innovative marketing techniques, such as just-in-time
deliveries.
* Required the formation of a National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation to report on intermodal transportation and recommend
policies that would need to be adopted to achieve the national goal of
an efficient intermodal transportation system.
While ISTEA viewed different transportation modes as part of a larger
transportation network, it maintained separate funding for the
individual modes. Also, it provided few requirements or resources for
DOT, state governments, and local governments in shifting toward an
intermodal approach. TRB concluded in 2003 that the goal of a national
intermodal transportation system is appropriate, but it is too broad to
be attainable through the limited means available within the historical
scope of the federal surface transportation act or any other single
federal program.[Footnote 13]
In an attempt to achieve the intermodal goal set forth in ISTEA, DOT
developed a plan to reorganize its operating administrations to help
promote intermodal planning and decision making within the department.
In 1995, DOT proposed consolidating its 10 operating administrations
into three: surface, aviation, and Coast Guard. The surface
administration would be called the Intermodal Transportation
Administration and would encompass FHWA, FTA, FRA, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and part of MARAD. As part of
this reorganization, DOT also proposed streamlining its existing field
structure, which included 161 surface transportation field offices.
Congress set aside DOT's reorganization proposal and maintained its
organizational structure. Although DOT was not able to carry out its
reorganization plans at the headquarters level, the agency was able to
streamline its field office structure. According to DOT officials,
consolidating the field offices improved communication among field
office personnel, simplified efforts for customers, and achieved
resource efficiencies.
Subsequent legislation modified and retained some of the intermodal
provisions and requirements established in ISTEA. For example, the
National Highway System Designation (NHS) Act of 1995 made the
requirement for states to develop and implement six management systems,
including the intermodal transportation management program,
optional.[Footnote 14] The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21), enacted in 1998, and SAFETEA-LU, enacted in 2005,
both retained the basic policy and programs established by ISTEA. The
Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act of 2004
(Pub. L. No. 108-426) transferred the Office of Intermodalism to the
newly created RITA.[Footnote 15]
Three Key Barriers Inhibit Intermodal Transportation:
Three key barriers emerge as inhibiting progress on intermodal
transportation, according to our discussions with transportation
officials whom we interviewed and our review of previous work on the
subject: (1) limited federal funding targeted toward intermodal
projects, (2) limited collaboration among stakeholders from different
modes and levels of government, and (3) limited resources to evaluate
intermodal projects. These barriers have limited DOT's ability to fully
implement the goal of a National Intermodal Transportation System that
Congress set forth in ISTEA and impede state and local agencies'
ability to plan, fund, and construct intermodal projects, which are
inherently more complex than those involving one mode due to the
variety of stakeholders and funding mechanisms that are involved.
Limited Federal Funding Targeted for Intermodal Projects:
Although ISTEA allowed flexibility in the uses of highway and transit
funding, federal funding for transportation projects has traditionally
been tied to a single transportation mode, and according to our
discussions and past studies, this single-mode approach has limited the
ability of state and local agencies to use federal funds for intermodal
transportation projects.[Footnote 16] In addition, federal financial
support for highways and transit systems comes mainly from federal
highway user fees, with the revenue generated from these fees generally
targeted for highway or transit projects.[Footnote 17] Intermodal
projects--which involve two or more modes--may or may not meet the
criteria to receive funding under some federal programs, even though
these intermodal projects may yield the best improvements in mobility.
For example:
* Officials from one MPO with whom we met described a local project
involving poorly aligned rail and highway bridges on a major navigation
channel. One of the transportation agencies involved applied for
funding through the Truman-Hobbs program,[Footnote 18] a federally
managed fund for rail and road infrastructure that intersects with
maritime transportation, to fix the down-river rail bridge to increase
navigation safety and reduce rail-bridge lifts.[Footnote 19] Because
the funds were expressly linked to the maritime aspect of the project,
it was determined that the benefits to the highway from increased
safety and reduced bridge lifts could not be included in the cost-
benefit analysis needed to secure funds to address the issue.
* Officials from one state DOT with whom we met said they wanted to
reduce highway congestion by transferring freight that travels on
trucks to trains by improving the capacity and efficiency on the
freight rail line. Officials said they were unable to use highway funds
for this purpose, even though it may have been the most effective way
to reduce congestion on the highway.
Several surface transportation and aviation funding and credit programs
have broad criteria and can be used more easily to fund intermodal
projects, but funding available through these programs can be limited
when compared with the total cost of intermodal projects, and projects
must meet certain criteria to qualify for funding. An example of a
program that can be used to fund intermodal projects is the credit
assistance program authorized by the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA). TIFIA provides federal
credit assistance for surface transportation projects, including
passenger bus and rail facilities. TIFIA covers a portion of the total
cost of an intermodal project; specifically, the amount of TIFIA credit
assistance may not exceed 33 percent of eligible project costs. In
addition, to qualify for TIFIA assistance, the project must generate a
revenue stream, from user charges or other nonfederal dedicated funding
sources. To date, approximately $3.2 billion of TIFIA credit assistance
has been loaned. For example, the Warwick Intermodal Facility in Rhode
Island has received $42 million in TIFIA credit assistance, which is 19
percent of the project cost. The TIFIA credit assistance will be
secured by customer facility charges levied on automobile rentals
available at the facility. Another example of a program that can be
used to fund intermodal projects is the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) Improvement program. CMAQ funds can only be used for
transportation projects that will reduce transportation-related
emissions in nonattainment or maintenance areas and intermodal projects
must compete for funds with all other types of projects.[Footnote 20]
In addition, as we have previously reported, FTA's New Starts program
is a significant source of funding for intermodal capabilities at
airports that are part of a rail transit system. However, like other
federal funding programs, the New Starts program, will contribute only
a portion of the total project costs, subject to local matching funds,
which can be derived from local agencies such as metropolitan
transportation authorities, transit agencies, and airport authorities.
Although, local transportation officials said it can be difficult to
secure local funds for intermodal projects at airports because these
agencies could potentially have different funding priorities, making it
difficult to build the unified local support necessary to secure
funding.[Footnote 21] Additionally, intermodal capabilities at airports
can be funded with passenger facility charges (PFC), which local
officials said was difficult to secure for intermodal uses because of
requirements that PFCs be used for projects on airport property for
airport development and capacity improvements, not ground-access
projects. [Footnote 22]
Some federal programs can provide funding for intermodal projects, and
one program is targeted specifically for freight intermodal projects;
however, funding for these programs has been congressionally designated
to specific projects. The congressional designation of funds for
particular projects may not result in the highest priority projects
being funded. Programs included in SAFETEA-LU, such as the Projects of
National and Regional Significance and National Corridor Infrastructure
Improvement Program, can provide funding for intermodal projects. The
Projects of National and Regional Significance program provides $1.8
billion for transportation infrastructure projects that have relevance
and produce benefits on a national or regional level. Benefits could
include improving economic productivity, facilitating international
trade, relieving congestion, and improving safety. This program
includes projects such as the Heartland Corridor, which will enable
double-stacked international and domestic maritime containers to be
transported by rail between the Hampton Roads region of Virginia and
locations in the Midwest by increasing tunnel clearances and modifying
other overhead obstructions in western Virginia, West Virginia, and
through to Columbus, Ohio. FHWA has promulgated guidance for potential
grant recipients, and to date, it has received project descriptions for
7 of the 25 designated projects. The National Corridor Infrastructure
Improvement Program provides $1.948 billion for construction of
designated highway projects in corridors of national significance to
further promote economic growth and international or interregional
trade. While these programs are not specifically targeted toward
intermodal projects, some intermodal projects as well as single mode
projects were designated to receive funds. Currently there is only one
federal funding program--the Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot
Grant Program, which was created by SAFETEA-LU--specifically available
for freight intermodal projects. The total amount of funds available
through this program--$30 million--have been congressionally designated
to five states. These projects include intermodal freight
infrastructure improvements at seaports and airports. As of May 2007,
FHWA, which administers the program, has received one completed project
description from one of the designated recipients of the grants.
Officials at all levels of government told us that it is very
challenging to secure federal funding to improve intermodal freight
connectors, even if such projects are eligible for funding. In earlier
work, we found public planners are wary of providing public support for
projects that directly benefit the private sector.[Footnote 23] A
number of the DOT officials whom we met with for this report noted that
freight interests struggle to inform local communities of the
importance of these freight projects. Furthermore, as we have
previously reported, the planning process often does not consider the
global and national nature of freight mobility. Although the demands on
these intermodal connectors are predominately international and
national in nature, state DOTs and MPOs conduct the planning and
project identification process for these improvements, while the
benefits of such improvements may be distributed nationally. Since
these local communities have limited funds for transportation projects,
other projects that provide benefits that are more readily discernable
to immediate localities--such as highway projects that address
passenger transportation--are often given priority for funding. Also,
in 2000, a FHWA report concluded that the roads that connect intermodal
terminals, such as ports, airports, and rail yards, to the NHS were in
disrepair when compared with the rest of the NHS, reducing the
capability of the nation's transportation system to effectively handle
freight transport.[Footnote 24] While state and local transportation
agencies are not prevented from using highway trust fund moneys to
repair and upgrade these connectors, they have remained in disrepair.
Limited Collaboration among Stakeholders:
Reflecting the separate federal transportation funding programs, DOT is
organized into several operating administrations with responsibilities
for particular modes; and according to those whom we spoke with and
published studies, this organizational structure can impede
coordination. Because different operating administrations oversee and
manage separate funding programs, these programs often have differing
timelines, criteria, and matching fund requirements, which can make it
difficult for state and local agencies to plan and implement intermodal
projects. For example, an official from an MPO with whom we met said
the MPO is working to connect passenger rail to the regional airport,
but carrying out the project was complicated because of FAA and FTA
involvement on different aspects of the project. The official also
noted that there was no single point of contact for the entire project
because the lead agency changes with the location of the portion of
right-of-way that is being built. DOT officials told us that the
organizational structure of DOT by mode is a reflection of separate
funding streams and of the separate congressional committees and
subcommittees that oversee particular modes, and they noted DOT's 1995
attempt to reorganize the agency's operating administrations to improve
the administrations' ability to collaborate. Further, DOT officials
acknowledge that as long as programmatic responsibility and funding
sources remain within discrete operating administrations, local
transportation officials seeking to develop intermodal projects will be
required to work with more than one operating administration to advance
the project.
Our reviews and discussions indicated that collaboration and
recognition of intermodal projects or intermodal qualities of single
mode projects is limited between and among transportation stakeholders
at the state and local level and the private sector. State and local
transportation agencies are also generally organized by mode, which
reflects DOT's organizational structure and separate funding sources.
In prior work, we found that transportation corridors that extend
across multiple state and local boundaries pose challenges for
intermodal transportation decision making, due to coordination and
cross-jurisdictional issues. Obtaining cooperation among these
different officials can make the planning and implementation of
multistate and multiregion projects difficult.[Footnote 25] We heard
similar concerns in the interviews we conducted for this current
report.
For example:
* Some transportation officials told us that private-sector interests
in airport, rail, and freight have historically not participated in the
regional planning process in MPOs, even though many state DOTs and MPOs
have been working on outreach efforts with the private sector. This
issue has been attributed to several reasons, including the lengthy
timeline for the public planning process--which places too great of a
time burden on private-sector participant--and the lack of knowledge on
the part of public agencies and the private sector, which contributes
to poor communication and interaction.
* According to officials from one state DOT, highway engineers planned
to add high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to a portion of the highway
to reduce congestion, but it did not consider connecting these HOV
lanes to park-and-ride facilities to encourage the use of these lanes
and also limited bus access to the lanes.
* Officials from one state DOT with whom we met noted that within the
transit mode, including buses, light rail, and intercity rail,
schedules are not always consistent; and that passengers often must
purchase multiple tickets to complete a journey, which compromises the
efficient movement between regions.
Limited Resources to Evaluate Intermodal Projects:
Another barrier, according to many officials whom we spoke with and
studies we reviewed, is the lack of data on intermodal transportation
and its associated benefits, which can hamper state and local
transportation agencies' ability to effectively incorporate intermodal
transportation into their regional transportation systems. In addition,
it can be difficult for state DOTs and MPOs to quantify benefits that
are national, as opposed to local or regional, and include these
national benefits in the local planning process. As TRB has
reported,[Footnote 26] local and state government transportation
agencies sometimes do not have the methods for evaluating trade-offs
between investments yielding benefits to freight traffic and those
yielding predominantly passenger benefits. Developing improved methods
for this has been a focus of the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) and DOT. Also, officials from an MPO whom we met with,
noted difficulties in obtaining data from private sources to assist in
the planning process, such as future location of intermodal facilities
and capital acquisition plans from the freight sector, due to the
proprietary nature of much of that data. In our prior work,[Footnote
27] we identified data quality as a pivotal concern in measuring and
forecasting traffic flow, such as the number of passengers using public
transportation to get to the airport, compared with the number of
passengers using private vehicles, because reliable and complete data
are not always available. This information is generally collected
through surveys of passengers at airports. However, since these surveys
can be very expensive to conduct, only airports with significant
financial resources conduct these surveys, and then only every few
years. Moreover, such surveys tend to result in low response rates,
which are often associated with biased estimates due to differences
between passengers who agree to participate and those who do not
participate in the survey.
Even if data are available, analyzing the data can be complex, and some
state and local transportation agencies may not have sufficient human
capital to do so. Our work indicated that opportunities for increased
efficiencies through intermodal transportation are compromised because
of the limited ability of MPOs to apply analytical techniques that
incorporate the benefits of intermodal transportation. For example, as
we have previously reported,[Footnote 28] the deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems technology has been limited by the lack of
technical training and limited focus on operational tools at state DOTs
and MPOs. Transportation officials with whom we met said a lack of
human capital capacity at some MPOs limits their ability to conduct
appropriate analyses that would incorporate the benefits of intermodal
transportation.
DOT Is Taking Action to Address Barriers and Implement Congress' Goal,
but Efforts Are Not Coordinated by One Office:
DOT, including its Office of Intermodalism, is taking a number of
actions to address each of the three key barriers to intermodal
transportation. For example, DOT provided guidance to simplify access
to existing funding and recommended ideas for congressional
consideration to make more funding available, created working groups to
increase collaboration, and made data and analysis tools available. In
addition, DOT took some steps, particularly with regard to freight,
toward implementing Congress' intermodal goal. While all of these
actions are aimed at addressing the barriers and supporting Congress'
intermodal goal, collectively they fall short of creating a coordinated
approach to intermodal transportation. DOT's actions to address
barriers are not coordinated by any single office or operating
administration and are therefore fragmented across the department. The
Office of Intermodalism, which has responsibility for, among other
things, coordinating and initiating federal intermodal policy, is
primarily focused on research and analysis. No other office or
operating administration within DOT has taken the lead in coordinating
DOT's efforts in its place.
Actions Have Been Taken to Address Each Barrier:
DOT--through several operating administrations and the Office of
Intermodalism--is taking actions to address all three intermodal
barriers. Table 1 provides an overview of some of these actions, and
the sections that follow discuss actions on each barrier in more
detail.
Table 1: Overview of Selected DOT Ongoing Actions to Address Intermodal
Barriers:
Barrier: Limited specific funding for intermodal projects;
DOT actions:
* Created the Finance Guidebook for Freight, which summarizes the
potential funding available for freight projects. This guidebook will
be distributed through FHWA's division offices and Web site; and a
workshop is planned for 2007;
Operating administration:
* FHWA.
Barrier: Limited specific funding for intermodal projects;
DOT actions:
* Developed guidance called Best Practices--Surface Access to Airports,
which describes the use of Airport Improvement Program funds for
transit connections to airports;
Operating administration:
* FAA, FHWA, and FTA.
Barrier: Limited collaboration among stakeholders;
DOT actions:
* Established an Intermodal Council to increase discussion between
operating administrations within DOT.[A];
Operating administration:
* FHWA, FAA, MARAD, FRA, FTA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), RITA, NHTSA, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, and OST.
Barrier: Limited collaboration among stakeholders;
DOT actions:
* Created the Freight Industry Roundtable outreach effort, which led to
creation of the Draft Framework for a National Freight Policy;
Operating administration:
* OST- Office of Freight and Logistics, FRA, FHWA, MARAD, and FAA.
Barrier: Limited collaboration among stakeholders;
DOT actions:
* Participates in the Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group,
which works to identify technology solutions to freight transportation
issues;
Operating administration:
* FHWA, Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, and
industry groups.
Barrier: Limited Resources to Evaluate Intermodal Projects;
DOT actions:
* Implemented the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB)
program, which is a Web-based program for state DOTs and MPOs to share
information. Information on how to include freight interests in the
planning process has been posted;
Operating administration:
* FTA and FHWA.
Barrier: Limited Resources to Evaluate Intermodal Projects;
DOT actions:
* Manages the Freight Professional Development Program, which offers
training, education, technical assistance, and a resource library to
assist state and local officials as well as private stakeholders in
freight transportation planning and systems. Examples of training
offered include the Web-based Talking Freight Seminars series, the
Workshop on Engaging the Private Sector in Transportation Planning for
States, and the Freight Planning LISTSERV, which provides a forum for
information exchange.[A];
Operating administration:
* FHWA.
Barrier: Limited Resources to Evaluate Intermodal Projects;
DOT actions:
* Utilized the Intermodal Transportation and Inventory Costing Model
State Tool to assist in determining the most efficient modal choice for
moving freight;
Operating administration:
* FHWA, FRA and OST-Policy.
Barrier: Limited Resources to Evaluate Intermodal Projects;
DOT actions:
* Initiated the Passenger Intermodal Connectivity Project to develop a
database on intermodal facilities and their geographic coordinates;
Operating administration:
* RITA-Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the Passenger
Intermodal Connectivity Study Working Group, which also includes FRA,
FHWA, FTA, FAA, and MARAD.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.
[A] The Intermodal Council and the Freight Professional Development
Program are congressional requirements. The Intermodal Council is the
fulfillment of the Intermodal Transportation Advisory Board, required
by law under 49 U.S.C. 5502. FHWA manages the Freight Professional
Development Program, in accordance with the inclusion of freight
professional capacity building in SAFETEA-LU.
[End of table]
Actions to Improve Access to Funding for Intermodal Projects:
Congress has created some funding and credit assistance programs that
are not limited to specific transportation modes (see table 2); and for
some of these programs, DOT has issued guidance for managing the
process of providing funding to projects that qualify. In addition, for
transportation programs that are limited to specific transportation
modes, DOT has also developed some guidance to clarify how state DOTs
and MPOs can obtain this type of funding for intermodal projects. For
example, FHWA partnered with the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials to create a Web-based clearinghouse of
information on innovative finance programs for transportation projects.
The Web site, established through a National Cooperative Highway
Research Program project, provides information on technical topics,
projects, legislation, publications, application guidance, and
institutional issues relevant to all modes of surface transportation.
In addition, in September 2006, FAA distributed guidance called Best
Practices-Surface Access to Airports to airport planners, which
outlines the steps that airport sponsors can take to access surface
transportation funding. In January 2007, this document was made
available on FAA's Web site.
Table 2: Description of Some Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal
Projects:
Program: Projects of National and Regional Significance;
Description: This program provides $1.8 billion to congressionally
designated projects to fund transportation infrastructure projects that
have relevance and produce benefits on a national or regional level.
Benefits could include improving economic productivity, facilitating
international trade, relieving congestion, and improving safety.
Program: National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program;
Description: This program provides $1.948 billion of congressionally
designated funds for the construction of highway projects in corridors
of national significance to promote economic growth and international
or interregional trade.
Program: Surface Transportation Program (STP);
Description: STP provides flexible funding that may be used by states
and localities for projects on any federal-aid highway, including the
NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and
intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. According to DOT
officials, STP funds can benefit freight movement on highways as well
as freight movement on rail lines, in that STP funds can be used to
raise bridges and move roads to allow for rail expansion. In addition,
rail grade crossing improvements are also eligible because of the
safety benefits. Funding for this program was authorized at $6.37
billion in 2007.
Program: Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant Program;
Description: The only federal funding specifically for freight
intermodal transportation projects, this program provides grants to
states for projects that facilitate and support intermodal freight
transportation initiatives to relieve congestion and improve safety.
Congress has allocated $30 million to five states.
Program: TIFIA;
Description: Allowed DOT to provide credit assistance directly to
public-private sponsors of major surface transportation projects to
help them gain access to capital markets. To qualify for TIFIA credit
assistance, projects must be supported in whole or in part from user
charges or other non-Federal funding sources.
Program: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF);
Description: Provided $35 billion in loan authority to DOT to finance
improvements to rail infrastructure.
Program: State Infrastructure Bank (SIB);
Description: SIBs are capitalized with federal and state funds. Each
SIB operates as a revolving fund and can finance a wide variety of
surface transportation projects.
Program: Tax-Exempt Facility Bonds;
Description: Tax-Exempt Facility Bonds includes any bonds issued where
95 percent or more of the net proceeds of which are to be used to
provide qualified highway or surface freight transfer facilities.
SAFETEA-LU broadened the qualifications for tax-exempt private activity
bonds to include intermodal freight facilities, establishing a $15
billion ceiling for such bonds.
Program: CMAQ;
Description: CMAQ funds must be used for transportation projects that
will reduce transportation-related emissions in areas with poor air
quality. SAFETEA-LU required DOT, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, to evaluate and assess a
representative sample of CMAQ projects to determine the direct and
indirect impacts of the projects on air quality and congestion to
ensure that the CMAQ program is being effectively implemented. In
fiscal year 2007, this program was funded at $1.72 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of SAFETEA-LU and DOT information.
[End of table]
DOT also proposed other funding avenues for congressional consideration
as part of SAFETEA-LU. DOT's options with regard to making funding
available for intermodal transportation projects are limited, in that
the agency cannot create new funding sources or change the requirements
for receiving federal funds. Doing so requires congressional action.
DOT's reauthorization proposal included proposals to make more funds
available for intermodal transportation projects; however, Congress did
not include these proposals in SAFETEA-LU. For example:
* To improve the condition of intermodal connectors (roads that connect
intermodal terminals to the NHS), which are typically in disrepair, DOT
proposed requiring each state to set aside 2 percent of states' NHS
apportionment. Exemptions to the set-aside would have been allowed if
states could show that the connectors were in good condition and
providing an adequate level of service.
* DOT also proposed dedicating $100 million per year to fund
construction, renovation, or improvement of intermodal passenger
facilities. This proposal focused on connections with intercity buses
at airports, public transportation facilities, train stations, and
seaports.
Actions to Improve Intermodal Collaboration:
As required by Congress, DOT has taken several actions that were
designed to increase intermodal collaboration. For example, in February
2007, DOT established an Intermodal Council, which is the fulfillment
of the Intermodal Transportation Advisory Board required by 49 U.S.C.
5502. According to DOT officials, this council is convened by OST,
which brings the operating administrators or their deputies from FHWA,
FAA, MARAD, FRA, FTA, FMCSA, RITA, NHTSA, and Saint Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, together to discuss intermodal issues. To
date, there have been two meetings and a schedule has been established
for the next few months. The council has covered two topics--human
factors and transportation safety, and transportation services in rural
areas--not related to intermodal barriers. In addition, the Norman Y.
Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act moved the Office
of Intermodalism and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to
RITA in an effort to encourage more effective sharing of data and
resources directed toward research, development, and technology, and
remove inefficiencies and duplicative efforts.[Footnote 29] Also, in
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998, Congress directed DOT to
convene a task force to assess the adequacy of the Marine
Transportation System (MTS), which consists of waterways, ports, and
their intermodal connections. The task force reported a set of
recommendations to Congress in 1999, which led to the creation of two
entities--an advisory council and an interagency committee. The
advisory council is designed to provide an avenue for the maritime
industry to have input into issues regarding the MTS, while the
interagency committee is designed to improve coordination among the 18
federal agencies with responsibilities related to the MTS. The
interagency committee also is designed to ensure the development and
implementation of national MTS policies consistent with national needs
and report its views and recommendations for improving the MTS to the
President.
Separate from these congressional requirements, DOT has also taken
several steps on its own, some examples include:
* As previously described, in 1995, DOT proposed to reorganize the
department by merging the five surface transportation operating
administrations (FHWA, FTA, FRA, NHTSA, and part of MARAD) into one,
which would have been called the Intermodal Transportation
Administration. As we reported in the past, merging these operating
administrations could have helped to promote the intermodal planning
and decision-making goals set forth in ISTEA.[Footnote 30] Congress set
aside DOT's reorganization proposal and maintained its organizational
structure. According to DOT officials, this resulted in a more
incremental approach to intermodalism.
* DOT has established several working groups, including the Freight
Policy Working Group, the Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group,
and the Passenger Intermodal Connectivity Study Working Group. The
Freight Policy Working Group advised the Office of the Secretary for
Policy (OST-P) on the development of the Draft Framework for a National
Freight Policy and includes representatives from OST-P, MARAD, FHWA,
FRA, FMCSA, and RITA. The Intermodal Freight Technology Working Group
is composed of representatives from FHWA, the Intelligent
Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, and private industry to
collaborate on freight issues and identify technology based solutions.
The Passenger Intermodal Connectivity Study Working Group was
established to assist BTS in identifying intermodal passenger
facilities and quantifying the degree of connectivity that those
facilities offer to travelers and includes representatives from FRA,
FTA, FAA, RITA, FHWA and MARAD.
* To increase intermodal collaboration at the state, regional, and
local levels, FTA and FHWA jointly implemented the Transportation
Planning Capacity Building Program. This program provides information,
training, and technical assistance on federal planning regulations to
help transportation professionals create plans and programs that
respond to the needs of the many users of their local transportation
systems. The program has a Web site to disseminate information to state
and local transportation officials, and also convenes conferences and
meetings. Information on how to include freight interests in the
planning process has been posted to the Web site. In a similar
initiative, FHWA published guidance to assist MPOs in creating public-
private freight advisory committees for their regions. The document
included examples of MPOs that had successfully incorporated the
freight community into their planning process, challenges faced by MPOs
when approaching freight stakeholders, and best practices for MPOs to
consult when including private-sector stakeholders in their planning
processes.
Actions to Improve Availability of Resources to Evaluate Intermodal
Transportation:
DOT has made some data on intermodal transportation available on its
Web site and has also provided guidance on how to analyze data. For
example, within RITA, BTS is working on the Passenger Intermodal
Connectivity Project, which is a database on all passenger intermodal
facilities and includes the facilities' geographic coordinates. As of
April 2007, BTS had completed the portion of the study that includes
data on connections at intercity rail stations, which according to DOT
officials, should have been completed for all airports by the end of
April 2007. Following completion of the data collection for these two
modes, BTS anticipates releasing information describing the study and
the type of data, which will be available to interested parties.
Subsequent phases of the study will include ferry facilities, commuter
and transit rail stations, and intercity bus stations. Each phase will
add that mode's terminals to the database and be accompanied by an
analytical report. A final report quantifying the degree of
connectivity in the passenger transportation system is anticipated to
be issued in early 2009. BTS also conducts the Commodity Flow Survey,
which collects freight movement information across all modes. Also,
within RITA, the Office of Intermodalism is engaged with TRB in
establishing a National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP),
with planning and data resource objectives that are similar to those of
the NCHRP.
Other DOT operating administrations have also implemented a number of
actions to make data and analysis tools more available to allow
transportation stakeholders to evaluate intermodal transportation
projects. For example:
* FHWA manages the Freight Professional Development Program, in
accordance with the inclusion of freight professional capacity building
in SAFETEA-LU.[Footnote 31] The program offers training, education,
technical assistance, and a resource library to assist state and local
officials as well as private stakeholders in freight transportation
planning and systems. Examples of training offered include the Web-
based Talking Freight Seminars series, the workshop on Engaging the
Private Sector in Transportation Planning for States, and the Freight
Planning LISTSERV, which provides a forum for information exchange. The
Talking Freight Seminars are net-conference seminars that are no-cost
and include a presentation followed by audience question and answer.
Some of the state and local transportation officials we met with
expressed appreciation for the Talking Freight resource.
* FHWA developed a Freight Analysis Framework to forecast freight flows
along national corridors and through nodes, and released Multi-
Pollutant Emissions Benefits of Transportation Strategies in November
2006, which outlined how to evaluate the environmental benefits of
alternative transportation strategies, including intermodal facilities.
* In 2006, the Office of Freight and Logistics in OST-P developed a
framework called "Guide to Quantifying the Economic Impacts of Federal
Investments in Large-Scale Freight Transportation Projects." According
to DOT officials, the guide incorporates analytical elements used in
planning three complex and costly freight projects in Baltimore,
Chicago, and Southern California. In developing the guide, the Office
of Freight and Logistics sought input from transportation planners and
economists from FHWA, FRA, and MARAD, and industry associations,
including the Association of American Railroads. The guide is available
on DOT's freight Web site.
* BTS Geospatial Information Program released the Intermodal Freight
Terminal dataset, which is part of the National Transportation Atlas
Database. The dataset includes information on the location of
intermodal terminals and specific characteristics for each, including
the primary function of the facility, the modes which use the facility,
type of freight moving through the facility, and the direction of
freight transfer between modes (i.e., highway to rail).
* FAA and FHWA worked together on the Airport Ground Access Planning
Guide, which included performance measures and outlined data collection
methods.
To improve the professional capacity of state DOTs in regard to freight
mobility, DOT proposed State Freight Transportation Coordinators in
every state for congressional consideration in its SAFETEA-LU
reauthorization proposal, but this proposal was not included in the
final bill. The coordinator would have been responsible for fostering
public and private sector collaboration needed to implement complex
solutions to freight transportation and freight transportation gateway
problems, including coordination of metropolitan and statewide
transportation activities with trade and economic interests and
coordination with other states, local Department of Defense officials,
local Department of Homeland Security officials, agencies, and
organizations to find regional solutions to freight transportation
problems. The coordinator would also have been responsible for
advancing freight professional capacity building programs for the
state.
Additional Actions DOT Has Taken Toward Implementing Congress'
Intermodal Goal:
In addition to the actions taken to address the three intermodal
barriers, DOT has taken actions toward implementing Congress' goal of
the National Intermodal System Improvement Plan. For example, SAFETEA-
LU requires RITA, through the Office of Intermodalism, to conduct a
comprehensive assessment and forecast of the National Intermodal
Transportation System's impact on mobility, safety, energy consumption,
the environment, technology, international trade, economic activity,
and quality of life in the United States. Also according to SAFETEA-LU,
the plan is to include recommendations for improving intermodal policy,
transportation decision making, and financing to maximize mobility and
the return on investment of federal spending on transportation. An
initial progress report is required to be submitted to Congress by
August 2007, and the plan is required to be submitted to Congress by
August 2009. According to officials from the Office of Intermodalism,
they are currently developing a limited version of the plan, focusing
exclusively on freight intermodal transportation. For example, the
September 2007 initial progress report will have five major elements
addressing freight information, including a systems overview, a
baseline of DOT's freight-related activities, and issues, challenges
and trends. Officials from the Office of Intermodalism told us they
hope to focus on the strategic aspect of intermodalism and will include
passengers, military, and security issues, if funding allows, in the
final plan due in 2009, which may include some areas of consideration,
but not recommendations. Officials also told us that they did not
receive the funding required to develop the full plan as outlined in
SAFETEA-LU, which was estimated to be a minimum of $7 million.
In addition to the plan, some of DOT's operating administrations,
including OST-P, took action that could also be considered as steps
toward implementing Congress' intermodal goal. For example, in April
2006 DOT released the Draft Framework for a National Freight Policy,
which grew out of freight community outreach initiated by the Office of
Freight and Logistics in OST-P. The Draft Framework states that the
federal government currently has limited jurisdiction over freight
transportation, and consequently focuses on facilitating freight
transportation through collaborative action between the public and
private sectors. DOT officials told us that the Draft Framework was an
important part of a new policy initiative to address freight
transportation concerns, noting that freight infrastructure capacity is
a critical issue due to its importance to the national economy. In
addition, a DOT official also noted that the Draft Framework is
expected to be a living document, meant to stimulate discussion and
local responses. While the Draft Framework is an important first step
to address these issues, officials from some of the state DOTs and MPOs
with whom we met said the Draft Framework does not specify an
appropriate role for the federal government nor does it identify any
sources of funding to help achieve the changes called for in the
framework.
In May 2006, DOT released the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on
America's Transportation Network. This document outlines a six-point
plan to address congestion, including (1) creating Urban Partnership
Agreements with "model cities" to implement demonstration projects such
as congestion pricing, tolling, express bus services, telecommuting,
and flex-scheduling; (2) removing barriers to private-sector investment
in the construction, ownership and operation of transportation
infrastructure; and (3) establishing a "Corridors of the Future"
competition to select 3 to 5 major growth corridors in need of long-
term investment, among others. This initiative is in the early stages
of implementation, and it is unclear what the outcome will be, or how
it will include strategies for addressing inefficient intermodal
connections as a tool to reduce congestion.
No Office Is Taking the Lead to Coordinate DOT's Actions:
While DOT has undertaken a range of actions to address barriers to
freight and passenger intermodal transportation, these actions are not
coordinated by any single office or operating administration, resulting
in fragmented efforts across the department. The current Office of
Intermodalism does not fulfill this role, and no other office has been
given the responsibility. ISTEA created the Office of Intermodalism in
1991 and placed the following responsibilities within the
office:[Footnote 32]
* coordinate federal policy on intermodal transportation and initiate
policies to promote efficient intermodal transportation in the United
States;
* coordinate federal intermodal transportation research and conduct
additional research as needed; and:
* provide technical assistance to states and MPOs (in urban areas with
population of at least 1 million) in collecting intermodal-
transportation related data, among other responsibilities.
Immediately following the passage of ISTEA, the Office of
Intermodalism's activities primarily focused on policy formulation,
program implementation, and project development. For example, according
to DOT officials, the Office of Intermodalism's staff frequently worked
directly with state DOTs and MPOs--and DOT's field offices--to provide
data and planning assistance by championing intermodal infrastructure
projects and promoting regional cooperation between and among the
private sector, state, local and federal governments. The office has
also played an important role in advising the Secretary of
Transportation and coordinating intermodal policies throughout DOT.
According to DOT officials, one way the office did this was by working
with FHWA and FTA to help these administrations develop a policy to
consider multimodal and integrated transportation needs in statewide
and metropolitan planning processes, as required in ISTEA. In an effort
to reflect the full spectrum of intermodal elements and the
organization of DOT itself, staff with expertise in passenger and
freight operations were detailed or transferred to the Office of
Intermodalism from FHWA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, and FAA.
The office's initial broad focus has since narrowed considerably. DOT's
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy testified in June 2006
that much of the narrowing of focus stemmed from congressional
actions.[Footnote 33] For example, the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 made it optional for state DOTs to develop
intermodal management systems, a requirement established in ISTEA.
These systems were to provide a process for identifying linkages
between modes of transportation, defining strategies for improving the
effectiveness of modal interactions, and evaluating and implementing
these strategies. According to the Under Secretary's testimony, this
change made transportation planning less consistent and implied that a
systemic, intermodal vision for transportation might not be so
important after all. Besides the congressional changes, DOT's own view
of the need for the Office of Intermodalism has changed over time,
according to DOT officials. Specifically, the need for the Office to
provide technical assistance to states and MPOs in urban areas in
collecting data related to intermodal transportation has diminished
because state DOTs and MPOs became more familiar with intermodal data
and concepts and because BTS makes much of this data available through
publications and responses to specific requests. Furthermore, the Under
Secretary for Policy testified that financial cutbacks and reduced
staffing were also reasons why the Office of Intermodalism moved away
from its original operational focus. Collectively, these changes
shifted the office's attention to other areas--primarily research and
analysis in order to document the benefits of intermodal operations and
planning activities to transportation and the economy.
Other more recent changes have also had an effect on the Office of
Intermodalism. In 2005, the Office of Intermodalism was moved to RITA
as a result of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act, although the statutory responsibilities of the office
did not change under this move. According to a DOT official, when the
office was moved, the Undersecretary for Policy decided to split the
office's functions, with the policy-making functions remaining in the
OST-P. Specifically, the Office of Freight and Logistics in OST-P was
created to continue these policy functions--but only for freight. With
the exception of some statutorily required activities, the functions to
coordinate and conduct intermodal research remained within the Office
of Intermodalism. However, the policy-related responsibility for
passenger intermodal transportation was not delegated to any office,
though the law places those responsibilities with the Office of
Intermodalism. Consequently, no DOT office ensures the coordination of
the department's actions to address intermodal barriers for both
freight and passengers.
According to DOT officials, passenger intermodal issues have been
institutionalized throughout the department and are now ingrained in
the policies of various operating administrations; as a result,
attention to passenger intermodal transportation at the policy-level
within the department is not needed. However, officials from two state
DOTs, an MPO, two industry associations, and a transportation expert
with whom we met told us that DOT leadership on passenger intermodal
transportation is needed to support the planning and implementation of
intermodal projects. Specifically, one official from a state DOT told
us that the state DOT is very focused on highway issues and any way to
support alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, from the
federal level would be beneficial. Furthermore, the official told us
that FTA and FHWA efforts to promote passenger intermodal
transportation does not mean that it has been ingrained throughout the
department. This is because FTA and FHWA are still separate
administrations with separate pots of money, separate guidelines for
eligibility, and different criteria; and these separations do not
support the idea of an institutionalized process for passenger
intermodal transportation. In addition, an official from an MPO with
whom we met noted that passenger intermodal transportation tends to be
viewed as a local or regional issue, not a national issue and that DOT
should do more to connect local planning decisions to the national
level. An official from an MPO told us the organization was not aware
of a national policy on passenger intermodal transportation, but stated
that it is critically important that one is created. Also, we met with
a representative from an industry association who noted that DOT's
approach to passengers is incremental and far from comprehensive.
Although the Office of Intermodalism's statutory responsibilities did
not change with the move to RITA, the office's primary role is
currently focused on conducting and coordinating research and analysis
to support DOT in the development and implementation of intermodal
transportation policies. In addition, the office has a limited role in
developing and coordinating federal policy on intermodal
transportation. For example, the Office of Intermodalism is also
currently developing a National Intermodal Transportation Systems
Improvement Plan, as required by SAFETEA-LU. Through this plan, the
office is required to, among other things, make recommendations for
intermodal policy improvement--a policy-level function--but this plan,
as previously discussed, will be limited and will not include
recommendations due to the lack of resources available to fulfill this
mandate. The Office of Intermodalism helps coordinate federal
intermodal policy by participating in various working groups within DOT
and with other federal agencies with intermodal purposes. According to
officials from the Office of Intermodalism, the office would need
additional resources to further fulfill its policy responsibilities
that are required by law.[Footnote 34]
The result of these developments is a blurred responsibility for
coordinating DOT's actions to address barriers and advancing intermodal
policies. While certain key intermodal transportation functions--such
as developing freight intermodal efforts--have been delegated
throughout DOT, no office or operating administration within the
department is taking the lead in coordinating DOT actions to address
intermodal barriers for both freight and passengers. It is not clear
which office should take the lead in coordinating DOT's activities
related to freight and passenger intermodal transportation. One option
would be the Office of Intermodalism because of its statutory
responsibilities, although the office does not currently have resources
to fully carry out these responsibilities. Another option would be the
Office of the Secretary, which is responsible for overseeing the
formulation of national transportation policy and promoting intermodal
transportation. According to DOT officials, OST's intermodal
responsibilities are factored into nearly all of its actions and
activities. However, while OST has the appropriate DOT-wide authority,
it has been focusing its efforts on freight intermodal transportation.
DOT Could Take Actions in the Near Term to Further Address Intermodal
Barriers:
Based on our analysis and our discussions with transportation
officials, there are some actions DOT could take to further address
intermodal barriers in the near term, including increasing
collaboration between operating administrations and improving the
availability of intermodal guidance and resources. Additionally, one
office or operating administration within DOT could coordinate these
actions, which would unify DOT's efforts to address intermodal
barriers. These actions, however, should be considered in the context
of the current challenges facing DOT and Congress. The uncertain
financial condition of the Highway Trust Fund, the lack of assurance
that projects that best meet mobility needs are being selected and
funded, and the increasing congestion that is compromising mobility and
economic vitality, as described in our 21st Century Challenges report
and High-Risk Update,[Footnote 35] have led us to suggest that DOT and
Congress reassess all transportation modes to determine the appropriate
federal role, assess funding alternatives, and develop ways to monitor
investments to ensure performance. Any actions that DOT takes to better
address barriers to intermodal transportation should be consistent with
this effort. Furthermore, until these challenges are addressed it is
unclear how Congress' goal of a National Intermodal Transportation
System will be achieved.
Increasing Collaboration between Operating Administrations:
Increasing collaboration between operating administrations could help
streamline DOT's actions to address intermodal barriers. Since
intermodal transportation by its nature involves more than one mode of
transportation, often DOT's operating administrations, which oversee
particular modes, must work together to coordinate activities. When
these administrations do not collaborate and coordinate activities, it
can limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.[Footnote 36]
Collaboration among DOT's operating administrations has improved over
time. For example, officials from FRA told us they collaborate with the
Office of Freight and Logistics in OST-P on freight issues and also
with FTA and Amtrak due to the shared use of rail for freight and
passengers. In another example, officials from FHWA told us their
collaboration with FTA is strong due to joint planning regulations and
similar field presence, and they said they have more recently
strengthened ties with the FRA and MARAD.
Nonetheless, DOT's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2006 to 2011 notes
that the stovepiped organizational structure of public transportation
agencies is an obstacle to intermodal transportation.[Footnote 37] In
addition, DOT's Office of Inspector General identified overcoming
stovepiped programs and organizational structures that inhibit
intermodal trade-offs among transportation solutions, as one of the 10
top management challenges for DOT for fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 38]
Specifically, the report states that the different transportation modes
have rarely worked together to determine the best solution to
congestion in any particular bottleneck, when the solution may be to
develop alternatives to building new highways, such as freight rail,
transit, intercity passenger rail, barge, or developing an intermodal
solution. The report also found that because the department is
organized by transportation mode and transportation funding typically
is used to support a single modal solution, the department needs to
convince stakeholders, including its own employees, that congestion,
and the intermodal trade-offs required to solve congestion, will be a
long-term priority. Also, in 2000 TRB surveyed conference participants
asking them to rate DOT on how well it had implemented the National
Commission on Intermodal Transportation's recommendations from 1994,
which included a recommendation to restructure DOT to better support
intermodal transportation.[Footnote 39] According to survey
respondents, there had been little progress on restructuring DOT.
Respondents believed that more action was needed at the federal level
to achieve such a restructuring, with some suggesting additional
legislation. As reflected in the comments, respondents, which included
representatives from both the public and private sector, want to see
more DOT leadership initiatives that enable and encourage responsive
intermodal developments.
One potential venue for establishing greater coordination is the
recently established Intermodal Council, though more work is needed to
ensure the council can deal with barrier-related issues and fully meet
the intended purpose of the Intermodal Transportation Advisory Board in
making recommendations on how best to coordinate federal policy on
intermodal transportation and initiate policies to promote efficient
intermodal transportation in the United States. Increasing coordination
between operating administrations, through such mechanisms as the
Intermodal Council, could bring coherence and awareness to the various
actions DOT has taken to address barriers and determine additional
actions to make it easier for state and local transportation decision
makers to plan and finance intermodal projects. However, it is unclear
how this council will address the intermodal barriers we have
identified. To date, the council has met twice, and the initiatives
that were discussed focused on human factors and transportation safety,
and transportation services in rural areas. We have reported on eight
practices to enhance and sustain agencies' collaborative efforts, which
could help DOT enhance the Council's collaborative efforts. These
practices include defining and articulating an outcome, agreeing on
role and responsibilities, and developing mechanisms to monitor,
evaluate, and report on the results of the collaborative
effort.[Footnote 40]
Improving Availability of Intermodal Guidance and Resources:
As previously described, several of DOT's operating administrations--
including FHWA, FAA, RITA and FRA, have developed guidance, bulletins,
training, conferences, data sets, and other capacity building resources
to assist state and local organizations in planning and implementing
intermodal transportation. However, officials from some of the state
DOTs and MPOs said that they needed particular resources. DOT officials
told us that some of these resources are available. For example, an
official from an MPO whom we spoke with told us that it has been
challenging to assess both roadway and intermodal projects because of
the limited ability to measure and compare economic benefit. In
addition, the official told us that technical assistance or training on
the business of logistics and its relation to transportation planning
would assist them in modeling and identifying congestion and system
gaps that need to be addressed. According to DOT officials, a training
course called "Integrating Freight into the Transportation Planning
Process, Phase 1" is available through the National Highway Institute,
and recently FHWA and OST organized a forum on logistics education,
which examined the training needs required for professionals in regards
to logistical aspects of public sector transportation planning.
Some of the officials with whom we met said the information DOT
provides is helpful, although not easily accessible, in that the
information is on the different operating administrations' Web sites.
Creating a centralized Web-based location for this information would
appear to be a useful way to address current barriers and to make state
and local officials aware of all the resources available. These state
and local officials told us it would be helpful to have a central
location on DOT's Web site to access intermodal information and link
the different modal efforts. The Office of Intermodalism does not have
a Web presence, which limits the ability of states and MPOs to access
the Office of Intermodalism and its activities. Further, many officials
from the state DOTs and MPOs with whom we met said they were not aware
of the Office of Intermodalism or its activities. The Office of Freight
and Logistics Web site has not been updated since 2003 and does not
have information on the Office of Freight and Logistics current mission
or activities, such as the Draft Framework for a National Freight
Policy. DOT does have a Web site dedicated to freight transportation,
on which the Draft Framework for a National Freight Policy can be
found; however, none of the officials from the state DOTs or MPOs we
met with were aware of this Web site. Improving the availability and
awareness of intermodal resources and guidance could assist state DOTs
and MPOs in comparing intermodal transportation projects with more
traditional transportation projects and also in measuring benefits
derived from intermodal projects, which could improve the efficiency of
freight and passenger movement.
Efforts Need to Be Considered in the Context of Overall Challenges
Facing DOT and Congress:
Our prior work, including the 21st Century Challenges Report[Footnote
41] and High-Risk Update,[Footnote 42] has questioned the ability of
current federal programs, such as programs funded through the Highway
Trust Fund,[Footnote 43] to provide the robust growth that many
transportation advocates believe is required to meet the nation's
mobility needs, particularly as congestion increases on all modes from
growing freight and passenger travel. Thus, the efficient use of
federal funds is extremely important, yet the current system for
planning and financing transportation is not well-suited to advancing
intermodal transportation projects--including both passenger and
freight transportation--indicating that fundamental changes that use a
broader, systemwide approach to transportation investment decisions are
needed.[Footnote 44] Given these challenges and the complexity of the
nation's transportation system, which encompasses many modes on systems
that are owned, funded, and operated by both the public and private
sectors, reexamining existing government transportation programs and
commitments may be necessary. In the past, we have stated that
Congress--and for some issues, DOT--should reassess the following
issues:[Footnote 45]
* the appropriate federal role and strategy in funding, selecting, and
evaluating transportation investments;
* mechanisms to seek alternative sources of revenues; and:
* funding allocation and monitoring methods to ensure the equity,
efficiency, accountability, and performance of transportation
investments.
Conducting this type of reassessment for all transportation modes could
better position the federal government to address these challenges and
lead to an efficient intermodal transportation system. Furthermore,
until these challenges are addressed it is unclear how Congress' goal
of a National Intermodal Transportation System will be achieved.
Conclusions:
The National Intermodal Transportation System that Congress envisioned
in 1991 has not come to fruition because of barriers that impede the
formulation and coordination of intermodal policy at the federal level,
which makes it difficult for intermodal projects to be considered on
equal footing with other projects at the state and local level. DOT's
actions to address barriers--particularly for freight transportation--
represent progress in promoting intermodal transportation. However,
DOT's actions to address barriers and, ultimately, to achieve Congress'
goal have fallen short, in part, due to the difficulty in implementing
a broad goal without specific congressional direction or resources and
the absence of an operating administration or office that leads and
coordinates DOT's efforts. As a result, these activities are fragmented
throughout DOT's Office of the Secretary and various operating
administrations, including the Office of Intermodalism within RITA.
Furthermore, DOT is limited in its ability to fully implement Congress'
1991 National Intermodal Transportation System goal because of the
federal funding structure of transportation programs and because of the
stovepiped structure of transportation programs and funding mechanisms
by mode, which impedes the development of intermodal transportation
projects. DOT proposed a reorganization, but Congress did not agree to
it, leaving DOT in the position of having to take a more incremental
approach to intermodal transportation. Nonetheless, there are further
actions that DOT could take in the near term to lessen the impact of
the barriers to intermodal transportation, including increasing
collaboration between operating administrations and improving
availability of intermodal guidance and resources. The Office of
Intermodalism, while statutorily responsible for coordinating and
initiating federal policy on intermodal transportation, does not have
the resources to fully carry out these important responsibilities. The
Office of the Secretary's broad responsibility for overseeing national
transportation policy and promoting intermodal transportation seems to
suggest that OST would be a logical choice to lead and coordinate DOT's
intermodal efforts and these near-term actions.
Beyond these near-term actions, the nation is at a crossroads regarding
the future of intermodal transportation policy. As we have said in the
past, the uncertain financial condition of the Highway Trust Fund, the
lack of assurance that projects that best meet mobility needs are being
selected and funded, and the increase in congestion on all modes have
necessitated a fundamental reassessment of existing federal
transportation programs, including the appropriate federal role and
funding strategy. As Congress and DOT conduct this reassessment, it
will be important to consider intermodal transportation in this larger
context in order to move closer to the goal of a National Intermodal
Transportation System.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To address barriers to intermodal transportation and make it less
difficult for state and local transportation agencies to plan and
construct intermodal projects, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation direct one office or operating administration to lead
and coordinate the following near-term actions:
* Increase collaboration between operating administrations and:
* Improve availability of intermodal guidance and resources by
publicizing the availability of existing federal resources on
intermodal transportation and develop a mechanism to make these
resources easily accessible.
We recognize that the Office of Intermodalism is statutorily
responsible for coordinating and initiating federal policy on
intermodal transportation; however, the office does not have the
resources to fully carry out these important responsibilities and is
currently focused on conducting and coordinating research and analysis.
As a result, DOT may want to seek legislative authority to respond to
our recommendation.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. We
received written comments, in which the department agreed to consider
the report's recommendation and stated that the report provides a
starting point for constructive discussions between the Executive
Branch and Congress on innovative solutions to intermodal challenges.
(See app. II for DOT's written comments.) The comments also highlighted
specific intermodal efforts that the department has undertaken. The
department also acknowledged obstacles to intermodal transportation--
such as the existing funding and oversight structure and the increasing
use of project designated funding in each reauthorization since ISTEA-
-and suggested that further congressional action is needed to overcome
these obstacles. In addition, the department offered technical
comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Secretary of
Transportation. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify the barriers that inhibit intermodal transportation, we
reviewed reports from the National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation, GAO, the Transportation Research Board (TRB), the
Intermodal Transportation Institute, the Congressional Budget Office,
the Texas Transportation Institute, and the Federal Transportation
Advisory Group, among others. We also conducted semistructured
interviews with several industry associations to identify intermodal
barriers. In addition, we conducted semistructured interviews with
officials from DOT's Office of the Secretary for Policy (OST-P) and
seven operating administrations, four state-level DOTs, four
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), and several university
transportation centers to understand whether and how the intermodal
barriers we identified from reports and interviews impeded the planning
and implementation of intermodal transportation projects for freight
and passengers. Many officials, who have been involved with intermodal
transportation projects for freight and passengers, provided feedback
on the list, and contributed corrections and additions to the list.
We selected seven operating administrations based on the specific role
the administration has in passenger and/or freight intermodal
transportation or intermodal policy. We did not interview officials
from the remaining DOT operating administrations, such as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, because we determined that their
roles in passenger and/or freight intermodal transportation are
limited. We selected the four state DOTs and the four MPOs--based on
recommendations from the DOT officials and a transportation expert we
interviewed--as state DOTs and MPOs that were involved in intermodal
transportation projects for freight and passengers, the size of the
population of the state and MPO area, and geographic dispersion. In
addition, we interviewed several industry associations, university
transportation centers, and a transportation expert recommended to us
by DOT officials to better understand the benefits and challenges of
intermodal transportation. We also met with representatives from
private companies, including APL Limited, APM Terminal North America/
Maersk Shipping (logistics companies), Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway (freight rail company), the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, and the Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority. See table
3 for a list of all of the transportation agencies and organizations we
contacted.
To determine what actions DOT and the Office of Intermodalism is
taking--and could take--to address intermodal barriers and support the
intermodal goal, we analyzed information gathered from our interviews
with officials from several of DOT's operating administrations, the
Office of Intermodalism, state DOTs, MPOs, industry associations, and
university transportation centers. The interviews were designed to gain
federal, state and local officials' perspectives on a number of topics,
including the role of DOT in intermodal transportation; the barriers to
intermodal transportation; and DOT's actions to address the barriers.
We also analyzed legislative histories, agency documentation on the
actions DOT has been taking to address intermodal barriers and reviewed
published reports from GAO, TRB, and others about intermodal
transportation issues for freight and passengers and the future of
transportation policy in the United States.
Table 3: List of Transportation Agencies and Organizations Contacted:
DOT's operating administrations:
FAA;
FHWA;
FMCSA;
FRA;
FTA;
MARAD;
OST;
RITA;
State DOTs:
California (Caltrans);
Florida;
Illinois;
New Jersey;
MPOs:
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Philadelphia, PA);
Metro (Portland, OR);
North Central Texas Council of Governments (Dallas/Fort Worth, TX);
Southern California Association of Governments;
University transportation centers:
Intermodal Transportation Institute at Denver University;
METRANS Transportation Center at the University of Southern California
and California State University, Long Beach;
Mountain-Plains Consortium: Center of Excellence for Rural and
Intermodal Transportation at North Dakota State University;
National Center for Transit Research at the University of South
Florida;
Industry associations:
Air Transport Association;
American Association of Port Authorities;
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials;
American Public Transportation Association;
American Trucking Association;
Association of American Railroads;
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.;
Intermodal Association of North America;
Surface Transportation Policy Project;
Transportation expert:
Dr. Robert Martinez, Vice President, Marketing Services and
International, Norfolk Southern Corporation. (Former Associate Deputy
Secretary of the U.S. DOT, former Secretary of Transportation for
Virginia, and member of the Comptroller General's Advisory Committee).
Private industry:
Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority;
APL Limited;
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway;
APM Terminals North America/Maersk Shipping;
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We assessed the reliability of the information contained in this report
through interviews with knowledgeable officials and reviews of
documentation and corroborating information, and we determined it was
sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work from
August 2006 through May 2007, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from Department of Transportation:
U.S. Department of Transportation:
Assistant Secretary for Administration:
400 Seventh St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590:
Jun 12 2007:
Ms. Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20458:
Dear Ms. Siggerud,
The Department of Transportation has made significant progress in
coordinating the efforts of its modal operating administrations to
develop intermodal transportation system improvements. Intermodal
projects can offer improved links between highways, rail, transit,
aviation, and maritime modes. These efforts, which are based on
congressional direction beginning with the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and continuing through
departmental initiatives such as One DOT and the Southern California
National Freight Gateway Team, have enabled the Department to integrate
intermodal objectives in its planning, program implementation and
research activities. The evolution of a unified departmental approach
has led to intermodal successes including projects in Chicago, Denver,
Miami, New Haven, and the Port of Long Beach. Each of these projects
required effective communication and coordination among multiple
operating administrations.
Within the Department, the Office of the Secretary (OST) provides a
focal point for intermodal activities and offers the perspective and
leadership necessary to address and coordinate efforts on intermodal
transportation issues. OST's intermodal focus starts with the Secretary
and her Executive Management Team meetings, which are intended to
coordinate actions among the Department's leadership, and continues
through each of the organizations within OST. OST's intermodal
leadership is particularly evident in examples ranging from its
coordination of the transportation response to Hurricane Katrina, to
its leadership on the Department's Credit Council, an intermodal team
intended to provide fully coordinated and integrated review and
oversight of the Department's transportation loan and loan guarantee
portfolio. The Department's ongoing Congestion Initiative also promotes
systemic intermodal objectives, as evidenced by its Urban Partnership
Agreements component, which has received a wide range of proposals from
every major city in the United States. These proposals are being
reviewed by an intermodal team of representatives from all of the modal
operating administrations. OST's efforts have also been enhanced
through the Department's Intermodal Council, which is intended to
further strengthen our intermodal focus.
Despite the progress that has been achieved, obstacles remain in
advancing intermodal programs and projects. One key obstacle is the
funding and oversight structure that remains keyed to individual
transportation modes, and the increasing use of project designated
funding in each reauthorization since ISTEA. A dedicated, discretionary
funding stream for intermodal projects could greatly facilitate
additional focused intermodal activities. The Department requires
sufficient resources to provide vigorous and meaningful intermodal
leadership. It also requires the flexibility to use these resources to
create, implement and manage programs which focus on the most worthy
intermodal transportation projects. As resources become increasingly
constrained, the Department must be empowered to focus significant
project investments to address national and regional needs and leverage
those investments to achieve maximum benefits. The Department has
demonstrated the capability to take such actions. For example, programs
such as the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts Program have
highlighted the Department's ability to focus discretionary funding on
those projects with demonstrated benefits, local commitment, and the
management skills necessary to bring them to fruition.
The Government Accountability Office analysis provides a starting point
for constructive discussions between the Executive Branch and Congress
on innovative solutions to intermodal challenges. The Department will
consider the "draft report's recommendation to designate a specific
office to lead intermodal actions; however, creating a dedicated
funding stream for intermodal projects based upon intermodal
performance criteria and refocusing the appropriation and oversight
processes from a modal to an intermodal structure may offer greater
potential for strengthening the Department's intermodal efforts.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the draft report.
Please contact Martin Gertel, Director of Audit Relations, on 202-366-
5145 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Linda J. Washington:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above, Sara Vermillion, Assistant Director; Ashley
Alley; Jay Cherlow; Jennifer Clayborne; Michelle Dresben; Edda
Emmanuelli-Perez; Foster Kerrison; Jay Smale; and Stan Stenersen made
key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Bibliography:
Committee on the Intermodal Challenge: Freight Transportation Issues
for the 21st Century. Global Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for
the 21st Century. Report of a Conference. Washington, D.C.: 2001.
Goetz, Andrew R., and Timothy Vowles. "Progress in Intermodal Passenger
Transportation: Private Sector Initiatives." Transportation Law
Journal, vol. 27, no. 3 (2000).
Handman, Arthur, "Intermodalism--A Solution for Highway Congestion at
the Millennium?" The Review of Policy Research, vol. 19, no. 2 (2002).
National Commission on Intermodal Transportation (NCIT). Toward a
National Intermodal Transportation System: Final Report. Washington,
D.C.: September 1994.
Shane, Jeffrey N. Statement of The Honorable Jeffrey N. Shane Under
Secretary of Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of
Transportation (Testimony presented at the Hearing on Intermodalism
Before the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines, Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C.: June 2006).
Sherry, Patrick. Intermodalism: The Transportation Imperative for the
21st Century (Testimony presented at the Hearing on Intermodalism
Before the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines, Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C.: June 2006).
Transportation Research Board National Research Council (TRB NRC),
Institutional Barriers to Intermodal Transportation Policies and
Planning in Metropolitan Areas. Washington, D.C.: 1996.
Transportation Research Board, Special Report 271: Freight Capacity for
the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: 2003.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary. Department
of Transportation Strategic Plan: New Ideas for a Nation on the Move,
Fiscal Years 2006-2011. Washington, D.C.: September 2006.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. NHS
Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.:
December 2000.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: January
2007.
Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to
Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. GAO-07-15.
Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.
Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the Oversight of
DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with Transportation
Statistics. GAO-06-917. Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2006.
Intermodal Transportation: Challenges to and Potential Strategies for
Developing Improved Intermodal Capabilities. GAO-06-855T. Washington,
D.C.: June 15, 2006.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,
D.C.: October 21, 2005.
Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems' Promise for
Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their
Strategic Use. GAO-05-943. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2005.
Freight Transportation: Short Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance of
Systematic Approach to Public Investment Decisions. GAO-05-768.
Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005.
Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal
Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities. GAO-05-727.
Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005.
Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway and
Transit Investments. GAO-05-423SP. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2005.
21ST Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government. GAO-05-325SP. Washington, D.C.: February 2005.
Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on
Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results.
GAO-05-172. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.
Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions. GAO-
04-744. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and
Financing Limitations. GAO-04-165. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2003.
Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative Financing Mechanisms for
Surface Transportation. GAO-02-1126T. Washington, D.C.: September 25,
2002.
Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
Infrastructure Investments. GAO-02-1033. Washington, D.C.: September 9,
2002.
FOOTNOTES
[1] 49 U.S.C. § 5501.
[2] National Commission on Intermodal Transportation (NCIT), Toward a
National Intermodal Transportation System: Final Report (Washington,
D.C.: September 1994); Transportation Research Board National Research
Council (TRB NRC), Institutional Barriers to Intermodal Transportation
Policies and Planning in Metropolitan Areas (Washington, D.C.: 1996);
GAO, Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine
Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities, GAO-05-727
(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005). GAO, Intermodal Transportation:
Challenges to and Potential Strategies for Developing Improved
Intermodal Capabilities, GAO-06-855T (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006).
[3] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005) and GAO-06-
855T.
[4] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007).
[5] GAO-06-855T.
[6] NCIT, Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System: Final
Report.
[7] Handman, Arthur, "Intermodalism--A Solution for Highway Congestion
at the Millennium?" The Review of Policy Research, vol. 19, no. 2
(2002).
[8] Passenger rail uses private-sector rail in some regions where
intercity rail is colocated with freight rail lines and vice versa. The
owner operator situation can be complicated by publicly owned
facilities being operated by the private sector (ports, rail yards,
etc.)
[9] Federal policy for aviation is established through legislation
separate from surface transportation policy. The planning and funding
of U.S. airports is addressed under Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, which will expire in October 2007. This act
authorizes funds for airport development and capital improvements, and
while it does encourage the development of intermodal connections
between airports and other local surface transportation systems, the
primary focus of funding is on airfield and terminal infrastructure.
[10] As we have reported, Amtrak relies heavily on federal subsidies--
over $1 billion annually in recent years--and operating losses have
remained high. In addition, Amtrak will require billions of dollars to
address deferred maintenance and achieve a "state of good repair,"
which is the outcome expected from the capital investment needed to
restore Amtrak's right-of-way (track, signals, and auxiliary
structures), other infrastructure (e.g., stations), and equipment to a
condition that requires only routine maintenance. GAO, Intercity
Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to Maximize
Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures, GAO-07-15 (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 13, 2006).
[11] 23 U.S.C. § 135, 49 U.S.C. § 5304, 23 C.F.R. Part 450, 49 C.F.Rg.
Part 613.
[12] This is the same provision that the Office of Intermodalism is
given express responsibility for carrying out in its authorizing
statute. Under the law, the board is supposed to provide
recommendations on how best to fulfill this section, and the Office of
Intermodalism is supposed to carry out the section.
[13] TRB, Special Report 271: Freight Capacity for the 21st Century
(Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[14] The congestion management system in certain areas was not made
optional by the NHS Act. Six states--Florida, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin--have defined, or are in the process
of defining, statewide strategic multimodal transportation systems,
which contain only the most critical components of passenger and
freight transportation infrastructure.
[15] The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act
was passed on November 30, 2004. The actual transfer of the Office of
Intermodalism to RITA took place on February 22, 2005.
[16] NCIT, Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System: Final
Report; GAO-06-855T; and Committee on the Intermodal Challenge, Global
Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century, Report of
a Conference.
[17] GAO-04-744.
[18] Under the Truman-Hobbs Act, the federal government provides funds
toward the cost of altering publicly owned highway and railroad bridges
that obstruct the free movement of marine traffic.
[19] Lift-span rail bridges are those that, when river traffic needs to
pass under the bridge, a span of the bridge is raised vertically using
two high towers and counterweights located on either side of the
navigational channel to provide adequate clearance.
[20] Federal air quality standards exist for certain air pollutants
(known as criteria pollutants). Geographic areas that have levels of a
criteria pollutant above those allowed by the standards are called
nonattainment areas. Areas that did not meet the standards for a
criteria pollutant in the past but have reached attainment are known as
maintenance areas.
[21] GAO-06-855T.
[22] Ibid.
[23] GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning
and Financing Limitations, GAO-04-165 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19,
2003).
[24] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report to Congress (Washington,
D.C.: December 2000).
[25] GAO-04-744 and GAO-05-727.
[26] TRB, Special Report 271: Freight Capacity for the 21st Century.
[27] GAO-05-727.
[28] GAO, Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems'
Promise for Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better
Facilitate Their Strategic Use, GAO-05-943 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14,
2005).
[29] GAO, Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the
Oversight of DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with
Transportation Statistics, GAO-06-917 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15,
2006).
[30] GAO, Surface Transportation: Reorganization, Program
Restructuring, and Budget Issues, GAO/T-RCED-95-103 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 13, 1995).
[31] According to DOT officials, the Freight Professional Development
Program was initiated prior to the passage of SAFETEA-LU and has been
expanded with the requirements in SAFETEA-LU.
[32] 49 U.S.C. 5503.
[33] Jeffrey N. Shane, Statement of The Honorable Jeffrey N. Shane
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of
Transportation (Testimony presented at the Subcommittee on Highways,
Transit, and Pipelines; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
U.S. House of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006)).
[34] 49 U.S.C. 5503(c).
[35] GAO-05-325SP and GAO-07-310.
[36] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[37] DOT's Strategic Plan 2006-2011.
[38] DOT's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2006.
[39] TRB, Committee on the Intermodal Challenge: Freight Transportation
Issues for the 21st Century. Global Intermodal Freight: State of
Readiness for the 21st Century. Report of a Conference (Washington,
D.C.: 2001).
[40] GAO-06-15.
[41] GAO-05-325SP.
[42] GAO-07-310.
[43] In January 2007, we identified the financing of the nation's
transportation system as one of the new high-risk areas.
[44] GAO-06-855T.
[45] GAO-07-310.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: