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][email protected] . 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][email protected]
			  
			  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][email protected]
			  Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [71][email protected] (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][email protected] (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,
[email protected].

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:[email protected]
  51. mailto:[email protected]
  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:[email protected]
  71. mailto:[email protected]
  72. mailto:[email protected]
  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. ***