Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to
Address Intermodal Barriers (20-JUN-07, GAO-07-718).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-718
ACCNO: A71065
TITLE: Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions
to Address Intermodal Barriers
DATE: 06/20/2007
SUBJECT: Airports
Federal aid for highways
Federal aid for transportation
Federal aid to railroads
Federal funds
Federal/state relations
Intermodal transportation
National policies
Passengers
Policy evaluation
Research programs
Strategic planning
Transportation policies
Program coordination
National Intermodal Transportation
System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-718
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Intermodal Projects Offer Potential for Reducing Congestion
* [4]Intermodal Transportation Issues Differ between Freight and
* [5]Federal Policies and Funding Have Generally Focused on Indiv
* [6]ISTEA Established an Intermodal Goal
* [7]Three Key Barriers Inhibit Intermodal Transportation
* [8]Limited Federal Funding Targeted for Intermodal Projects
* [9]Limited Collaboration among Stakeholders
* [10]Limited Resources to Evaluate Intermodal Projects
* [11]DOT Is Taking Action to Address Barriers and Implement Congr
* [12]Actions Have Been Taken to Address Each Barrier
* [13]Actions to Improve Access to Funding for Intermodal
Projects
* [14]Actions to Improve Intermodal Collaboration
* [15]Actions to Improve Availability of Resources to Evaluate
Int
* [16]Additional Actions DOT Has Taken Toward Implementing Congres
* [17]No Office Is Taking the Lead to Coordinate DOT's Actions
* [18]DOT Could Take Actions in the Near Term to Further Address I
* [19]Increasing Collaboration between Operating Administrations
* [20]Improving Availability of Intermodal Guidance and Resources
* [21]Efforts Need to Be Considered in the Context of Overall Chal
* [22]Conclusions
* [23]Recommendation for Executive Action
* [24]Agency Comments
* [25]Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
* [26]Appendix II: Comments from Department of Transportation
* [27]Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
* [28]GAO Contact
* [29]Staff Acknowledgments
* [30]Bibliography
* [31]Related GAO Products
* [32]Order by Mail or Phone
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
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 6
Three Key Barriers Inhibit Intermodal Transportation 16
DOT Is Taking Action to Address Barriers and Implement Congress' Goal, but
Efforts Are Not Coordinated by One Office 23
DOT Could Take Actions in the Near Term to Further Address Intermodal
Barriers 35
Conclusions 40
Recommendation for Executive Action 41
Agency Comments 41
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 43
Appendix II Comments from Department of Transportation 46
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 48
Bibliography 49
Related GAO Products 50
Tables
Table 1: Overview of Selected DOT Ongoing Actions to Address Intermodal
Barriers 23
Table 2: Description of Some Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal
Projects 25
Table 3: List of Transportation Agencies and Organizations Contacted 44
Figures
Figure 1: Example of Intermodal Transportation for Freight 7
Figure 2: Example of Intermodal Transportation for Passengers 7
Figure 3: Freight Rail Congestion in Chicago 9
Figure 4: Computer Model of the Completed Miami Central Station 10
Figure 5: Computer Model of the Warwick Intermodal Facility 11
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
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. However, 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.
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.^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.^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.^3 The
efficient use of federal funds is particularly important given the
uncertainty surrounding the long-term viability of the Highway Trust
Fund.^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?
^149 U.S.C. S 5501.
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.
^2National 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, [33]GAO-05-727
(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005). GAO, Intermodal Transportation:
Challenges to and Potential Strategies for Developing Improved Intermodal
Capabilities, [34]GAO-06-855T (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006).
^3GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, [35]GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005) and
[36]GAO-06-855T .
^4GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [37]GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007).
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
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
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.^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.^6
Examples of some planned intermodal projects include the following:
^5 [38]GAO-06-855T .
^6NCIT, Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System: Final Report.
o 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
o 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
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.
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
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.^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.^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.^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.^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.
^7Handman, Arthur, "Intermodalism--A Solution for Highway Congestion at
the Millennium?" The Review of Policy Research, vol. 19, no. 2 (2002).
^8Passenger 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.).
^9Federal 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.
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:
o Allowed the use of certain federal highway program funds for
either highway or transit projects.
o 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^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.
^10As 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, [39]GAO-07-15 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2006).
^1123 U.S.C. S 135, 49 U.S.C. S 5304, 23 C.F.R. Part 450, 49 C.F.Rg. Part
613.
o 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.
o 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.^12
o 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.
o 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.^13
^12This 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.
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.^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.^15
^13TRB, Special Report 271: Freight Capacity for the 21st Century
(Washington, D.C.: 2003).
^14The 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.
^15The 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.
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.^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.^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:
o 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,^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.^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.
^16NCIT, Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System: Final Report;
[40]GAO-06-855T ; and Committee on the Intermodal Challenge, Global
Intermodal Freight: State of Readiness for the 21st Century, Report of a
Conference.
^17 [41]GAO-04-744 .
^18Under 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.
o 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.^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.^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. ^22
^19Lift-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.
^20Federal 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 [42]GAO-06-855T .
^22Ibid.
^19Lift-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.
^20Federal 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 [42]GAO-06-855T .
^22Ibid.
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.^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.^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.
^23GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and
Financing Limitations, [43]GAO-04-165 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2003).
^24U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, NHS
Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.:
December 2000).
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.^25 We heard similar concerns in the interviews
we conducted for this current report.
^25 [44]GAO-04-744 and [45]GAO-05-727 .
For example:
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,^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,^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.
^26TRB, Special Report 271: Freight Capacity for the 21st Century.
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,^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.
^27 [46]GAO-05-727 .
^28GAO, Highway Congestion: Intelligent Transportation Systems' Promise
for Managing Congestion Falls Short, and DOT Could Better Facilitate Their
Strategic Use, [47]GAO-05-943 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2005).
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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Table 1: Overview of Selected DOT Ongoing Actions to Address Intermodal
Barriers
Operating
Barrier DOT actions administration
Limited specific o Created the Finance o FHWA
funding for Guidebook for Freight, which
intermodal summarizes the potential
projects 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.
o Developed guidance called o FAA, FHWA, and FTA
Best Practices--Surface
Access to Airports, which
describes the use of Airport
Improvement Program funds for
transit connections to
airports.
Limited o Established an Intermodal o FHWA, FAA, MARAD,
collaboration Council to increase FRA, FTA, the
among discussion between operating Federal Motor
stakeholders administrations within DOT.^a Carrier Safety
Administration
(FMCSA), RITA,
NHTSA, Saint
Lawrence Seaway
Development
Corporation, and OST
o Created the Freight o OST-Office of
Industry Roundtable outreach Freight and
effort, which led to creation Logistics, FRA,
of the Draft Framework for a FHWA, MARAD, and FAA
National Freight Policy.
o Participates in the o FHWA, Intelligent
Intermodal Freight Technology Transportation
Working Group, which works to Systems Joint
identify technology solutions Program Office, and
to freight transportation industry groups
issues.
Limited Resources o Implemented the o FTA and FHWA
to Evaluate Transportation Planning
Intermodal Capacity Building (TPCB)
Projects 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.
o Manages the Freight o FHWA
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
o Utilized the Intermodal o FHWA, FRA and
Transportation and Inventory OST-Policy
Costing Model State Tool to
assist in determining the
most efficient modal choice
for moving freight.
o Initiated the Passenger o RITA-Bureau of
Intermodal Connectivity Transportation
Project to develop a database Statistics (BTS) and
on intermodal facilities and the Passenger
their geographic coordinates. Intermodal
Connectivity Study
Working Group, which
also includes FRA,
FHWA, FTA, FAA, and
MARAD.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.
^aThe 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.
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 [48]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 Description
Projects of National and This program provides $1.8 billion to
Regional Significance 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.
National Corridor This program provides $1.948 billion of
Infrastructure congressionally designated funds for the
Improvement Program construction of highway projects in corridors of
national significance to promote economic growth
and international or interregional trade.
Surface Transportation STP provides flexible funding that may be used by
Program (STP) 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.
Freight Intermodal The only federal funding specifically for freight
Distribution Pilot Grant intermodal transportation projects, this program
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.
TIFIA 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.
Railroad Rehabilitation Provided $35 billion in loan authority to DOT to
and Improvement finance improvements to rail infrastructure.
Financing (RRIF)
State Infrastructure SIBs are capitalized with federal and state
Bank (SIB) funds. Each SIB operates as a revolving fund and
can finance a wide variety of surface
transportation projects.
Tax-Exempt Facility Tax-Exempt Facility Bonds includes any bonds
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.
CMAQ 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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.^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.
^29GAO, Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the Oversight
of DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with Transportation
Statistics, [73]GAO-06-917 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2006).
Separate from these congressional requirements, DOT has also taken
several steps on its own, some examples include:
o 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.^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.
o 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.
^30GAO, Surface Transportation: Reorganization, Program Restructuring, and
Budget Issues, [74]GAO/T-RCED-95-103 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 1995).
o 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:
o FHWA manages the Freight Professional Development Program, in
accordance with the inclusion of freight professional capacity
building in SAFETEA-LU.^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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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).
^31According 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.
o 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:^32
o coordinate federal policy on intermodal
transportation and initiate policies to promote
efficient intermodal transportation in the United
States;
o coordinate federal intermodal transportation
research and conduct additional research as needed;
and
o 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.^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.
^3249 U.S.C. 5503.
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.
^33Jeffrey 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)).
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.^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,^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.
^3449 U.S.C. 5503(c).
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.^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.^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.^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.^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.
^35 [75]GAO-05-325SP and [76]GAO-07-310 .
^36GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies, [77]GAO-06-15 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).
^37DOT's Strategic Plan 2006-2011.
^38DOT's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2006.
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.^40
^39TRB, 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 [78]GAO-06-15 .
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^41
and High-Risk Update,^42 has questioned the ability of current
federal programs, such as programs funded through the Highway
Trust Fund,^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.^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:^45
^41 [79]GAO-05-325SP .
^42 [80]GAO-07-310 .
^43In January 2007, we identified the financing of the nation's
transportation system as one of the new high-risk areas.
^44 [81]GAO-06-855T .
^45 [82]GAO-07-310 .
o the appropriate federal role and strategy in funding, selecting,
and evaluating transportation investments;
o mechanisms to seek alternative sources of revenues; and
o 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:
o Increase collaboration between operating administrations and
o 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
[49]http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [50]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,
Katherine Siggerud
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
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.
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 II: Comments from Department of Transportation
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834 or [51]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.
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.
Related GAO Products
High-Risk Series: An Update. [52]GAO-07-310 . Washington, D.C.:
January 2007.
Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to
Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. [53]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. [54]GAO-06-917 . Washington, D.C.:
August 15, 2006.
Intermodal Transportation: Challenges to and Potential Strategies
for Developing Improved Intermodal Capabilities. [55]GAO-06-855T .
Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices that Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration Among Federal Agencies. [56]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. [57]GAO-05-943 . Washington, D.C.:
September 14, 2005.
Freight Transportation: Short Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance
of Systematic Approach to Public Investment Decisions.
[58]GAO-05-768 . Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005.
Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine
Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities.
[59]GAO-05-727 . Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005.
Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway
and Transit Investments. [60]GAO-05-423SP . Washington, D.C.: May
6, 2005.
21^st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government. [61]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. [62]GAO-05-172 . Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.
Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions.
[63]GAO-04-744 . Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and
Financing Limitations. [64]GAO-04-165 . Washington, D.C.: December
19, 2003.
Transportation Infrastructure: Alternative Financing Mechanisms
for Surface Transportation. [65]GAO-02-1126T . Washington, D.C.:
September 25, 2002.
Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
Infrastructure Investments. [66]GAO-02-1033 . Washington, D.C.:
September 9, 2002.
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 ( [67]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 [68]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: [69]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [70]fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [71]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, [72]AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
(542101)
[83]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.
Highlights of [84]GAO-07-718 , a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives
June 2007
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address Intermodal Barriers
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.
[85]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.
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.
References
Visible links
33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727
34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP
36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-15
40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-744
42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-165
44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-744
45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727
46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727
47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943
48. http://www.innovativefinance.org/home_tools/about/nchrp.asp
49. http://www.gao.gov/
50. mailto:siggerudk@gao.gov
51. mailto:siggerudk@gao.gov
52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-15
54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-917
55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-943
58. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-768
59. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727
60. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-423SP
61. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP
62. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
63. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-744
64. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-165
65. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-1126T
66. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-1033
67. http://www.gao.gov/
68. http://www.gao.gov/
69. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
70. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
71. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
72. mailto:AndersonP1@gao.gov
73. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-917
74. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-95-103
75. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP
76. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
77. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
78. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15
79. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP
80. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
81. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T
82. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
83. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-718
84. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-718
*** End of document. ***