Toward a National Intermodal Transportation System - Final Report - NCIT
Click HERE for graphic.
TOWARD A NATIONAL
INTERMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
FINAL REPORT
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
SEPTEMBER 1994
WASHINGTON, D.C.
National Commission on Intermodal Transportation
301 North Fairfax Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
The Honorable Albert Gore
President
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
The Honorable Thomas S. Foley
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sirs:
Historically, America's transportation system has been a key factor
in our Nation's development and prosperity. But, as Congress has
recognized in forming the National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation, this system must be improved to ensure it meets the
changing needs of the Nation.
Congress charged the Commission, in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), with investigating the
intermodal transportation system in the United States.
In this report, the Commission presents to the Congress, the
President, and the American people recommendations to improve
intermodal transportation. This report will help Congress develop
greater understanding of the benefits of intermodalism and assist
Congress as it considers the reauthorization of ISTEA. It will also
be of value to the U.S. Department of Transportation as it develops
the concept of a National Transportation System and provides
leadership in developing national transportation policy.
Therefore, I have the honor to transmit to Congress the final report
of the National Commission on Intermodal Transportation, pursuant to
the requirements of Section 5005 of Public Law 102-240.
Respectfully,
Robert D. Krebs
Chairman
September 29, 1994
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
Robert D. Krebs, Chairman
Chairman, President, and CEO, Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and The
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Schaumburg, Illinois
Jacki Bacharach
President, Jacki Bacharach and Associates; Vice Chair, Commuter
Transportation Services, Los Angeles, California
Kenneth L. Bird
President, Illinois Rail, Woodridge, Illinois
Phillip D. Brady
Vice President and General Counsel, American Automobile Manufacturers
Association, Washington, D.C.
Anne P. Canby
Secretary of Transportation, State of Delaware, Dover, Delaware
Wayne E. Davis
Chairman, TrainRiders/Northeast, Portland, Maine
Thomas J. Donohue
President and CEO, American Trucking Associations, Alexandria, Virginia
Leon S. Eplan
Commissioner, Planning and Development, City of Atlanta, Atlanta,
Georgia
Jacqueline S. Gillan
Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Washington, D.C.
Edward R. Hamberger
Managing Partner, Washington Office of Baker, Worthington, Crossley &
Stansberry, Washington, D.C.
Kip Hawley
Vice President, Reengineering, Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebraska
John G. Roach
President, Roach Consulting, Development Programming Associates; and
Vice President of Government Affairs, Citizens for Modern Transit, St.
Louis, Missouri
Damaso Seda
President, Transportation Workers' Union of Greater New York, Local 100,
New York, New York
John W. Snow
Chairman, President, and CEO, CSX Corporation, Richmond, Virginia
John C. Taylor
Assistant Professor, International Marketing, School of Business
Administration, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
COMMISSION STAFF
Anne D. Aylward
Executive Director
Sandra K. Bushue
Deputy Director
Christine Gowen
Staff Assistant
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Paul E. Nowicki, Santa Fe Pacific Corporation
Michael P. Jackson, American Trucking Associations
Andrew Fogarty, CSX Corporation
American Association of Port Authorities
American Public Transit Association
Association of American Railroads
Paul Bea, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
Chris Bertschy, A.T. Kearney
Joni Casey, American Trucking Associations
Christina Casgar, Transportation Research Board
Jim Dumke, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Norm Emerson, Catellus Development Corporation
Jane Garvey, U.S. Department of Transportation
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University Transportation Center
Jean Godwin, American Association of Port Authorities
Michael Huerta, U.S. Department of Transportation
Dick John, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Jim Jones, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
Larry Lawrence, A.T. Kearney
Geraldine Knatz, Port of Long Beach
Kim Krueger, Staff of Senator Max Baucus
John McQuaid, Intermodal Association of North America
Steve Martin, U.S. Department of Transportation
Frank Pentti, U.S. Department of Transportation
Jim Reese, Port of New Orleans
Mike Rock, Union Pacific Railroad
Hector Rodriguez, Union Pacific Railroad
George Schoener, U.S. Department of Transportation
Joseph Sussman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Henry Yates, Port of Seattle
vi
CONTENTS
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PART I
AMERICA'S MOVE TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. EFFICIENT INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION: THE GOAL OF FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. INVESTMENTS ARE NOT KEEPING PACE WITH DEMAND . . . . . . . . .13
3. POLICY AND DECISION MAKING ARE FRAGMENTED. . . . . . . . . . .17
PART II
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: TOWARD A NATIONAL INTERMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
1. MAKE EFFICIENT INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION THE GOAL OF FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
2. INCREASE INVESTMENT IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . .30
3. RESTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS TO SUPPORT INTERMODAL
TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
A. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
B. BIOGRAPHIES OF COMMISSION MEMBERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
C. SECTION 5005, INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY
ACT OF 1991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
D. OUTREACH MEETINGS, SPEAKERS, AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY . . . . . .48
E. COMMISSIONED STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
vii
PREFACE
A new era in transportation is emerging in this Nation, an era of
"intermodalism," which refers to interconnections among modes of
transportation, use of multiple modes for a single trip, and coordinated
transportation policy-and decision making. Congress recognized the
importance of the intermodal approach to the Nation's transportation
system in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA). In Section 5005 of that Act, Congress established the National
Commission on Intermodal Transportation to "make a complete
investigation and study of intermodal transportation in the United
States." The Act directed the Commission to recommend ways to speed
national conversion to an efficient intermodal transportation system,
and identify the resources necessary to do it.
Members of the Commission represent industry, State and local
governments, advocacy groups, academia, and the general public. Of the
15 Commissioners, 11 received their appointments from Congressional
leadership and President Bush. In 1994, an additional four members were
nominated by Secretary of Transportation Federico Pe¤a, after which the
Commission began its work in earnest.
To address its Congressional mandate, the Commission considered all
modes of passenger and freight transportation. The Commission focused
its inquiry on:
- The status of the existing intermodal system;
- Legal, regulatory, and institutional issues;
- Funding and financial questions; and
- Technology and research issues.
To inform its research and recommendations, the Commission sought the
views and expertise of transportation experts in the public and private
sectors, as well as the general public. The research process began with
a January 1994 meeting with Secretary of Transportation Federico Pe¤a,
followed by a March 1994 meeting of Department of Transportation modal
administrators. The Commission then conducted a combination of
meetings, outreach sessions, and site visits in Atlanta, Boston, Butte,
Chicago, Laredo, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, San Diego, Se-
attle, and Washington, D.C. (See Appendix D for a complete list of these
events.) During these sessions, Commissioners heard from more than 250
individuals and representatives of cities, metropolitan planning
organizations, regional authorities, States, industry, organized labor,
and advocacy groups. The Commission also received and reviewed
extensive written testimony and commissioned four studies.
This report is intended to provide a framework, information, and
analysis for:
- The national debate on and Congressional consideration of the
development of a National Intermodal Transportation System; and
- Congressional consideration of the upcoming reauthorization of
ISTEA.
The Commission believes improvements in the U.S. intermodal
transportation system are critical to this Nation's economic health and
well-being. Its consensus recommendations represent the steps
Commission members believe must be taken to ensure an intermodal
transportation system
1
that meets the needs for passenger and freight transportation in the
future, while recognizing funding limitations and environmental
considerations.
The intermodal approach, as this report demonstrates, has much to
recommend it, including more efficient use of the Nation's
transportation infrastructure, better service, more convenience, and
more choices for users. In these times of fiscal restraint, in
particular, intermodal transportation brings many opportunities to gain
maximum benefits from minimum resources spent. Part I of this report
analyzes issues involved in expanding the use of intermodal
transportation. Part II presents the Commission's recommendations for
advancing that expansion.
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
offers a new vision for U.S. transportation policy:
It is the policy of the United States to develop a National
Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient
and environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation
to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in
an energy efficient manner.
Transportation policy has traditionally focused on single elements:
automobiles, trains, trucks, ships, airplanes, and transit systems. In
an intermodal transportation system, these elements are connected in a
seamless system that is efficient, safe, flexible, environmentally
sound, and meets the needs of the Nation's travelers and shippers.
The benefits of a National Intermodal Transportation System are
enormous. Intermodalism offers the promise of: (1) lowering overall
transportation costs by allowing each mode to be used for the portion of
the trip to which it is best suited; (2) increasing economic produc-
tivity and efficiency, thereby enhancing the Nation's global
competitiveness; (3) reducing congestion and the burden on overstressed
infrastructure components; (4) generating higher returns from public and
private infrastructure investments; (5) improving mobility for the eld-
erly, disabled, isolated, and economically disadvantaged; and (6)
reducing energy consumption and contributing to improved air quality and
environmental conditions.
Spurred by technological development and international competition, and
encouraged by the vision of ISTEA, the U.S. transportation system is
already undergoing an historic transformation to an intermodal system,
particularly in the private sector movement of freight. However, the
Commission found significant barriers to the development of a fully
inter-modal National Transportation System. First, planning and
policies, particularly at the Federal level, do not encourage and
accommodate intermodalism. Second, Federal funding of transportation
programs falls short of authorized levels and is directed modally,
discouraging investment in intermodal transportation. Finally, Federal
Government institutions are organized along modal lines, which inhibits
planning and developing an intermodal transportation system.
The Commission's first group of recommendations addresses the policies
needed to capture the synergistic potential of this Nation's
transportation system:
(1) Maximize safe and efficient movement of passengers and freight by
incorporating individual modes into a National Intermodal
Transportation System.
(2) Ensure Federal policies foster development of the private sector
freight intermodal system and reduce barriers to the free flow of
freight, particularly at international ports and border crossings.
(3) Adopt Federal policies that foster development of an intermodal
passenger system incorporating urban, rural, and intercity
service, including a viable intercity passenger rail network.
The second group of recommendations addresses investment issues:
(4) Fund Federal transportation infrastructure programs at authorized
levels and strategically target these funds for maximum impact.
(5) Expand innovative public and private financing methods for
transportation projects.
(6) Allow greater flexibility and expand eligibility in use of State
and Federal transportation funds for intermodal projects of public
benefit.
3
(7) Provide Federal funding incentives for intermodal projects of
national or regional significance.
(8) Expand the intermodal focus of research, education, and technology
development efforts.
The third group of recommendations addresses the need to restructure
government institutions to improve intermodal transportation:
(9) Restructure the U.S. Department of Transportation to better
support intermodal transportation.
(10) Streamline and expedite the transportation infrastructure planning
and project delivery process.
(11) Require Department of Transportation concurrence on other Federal
agency actions that affect intermodal transportation.
(12) Strengthen the metropolitan planning organization process to
accomplish the goals of ISTEA.
In making these recommendations, the Commission emphasizes that not all
intermodal transportation problems require Federal solutions. Federal
policy should support private sector innovation, provide maximum
flexibility for State and local transportation officials, and not
intrude unnecessarily into private sector operations.
Right. The Interstate Highway System was built in the 1950's to
move interstate commerce. In the 1990's, traffic clogs many
sections of the system, delaying movement of freight and
passengers.
4
Click HERE for graphic.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
offers a new vision for U.S. transportation policy:
It is the policy of the United States to develop a National
Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient
and environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation
to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in
an energy efficient manner.
Transportation policy has traditionally focused on single elements:
automobiles, trains, trucks, ships, airplanes. In an intermodal
transportation system, these elements are connected in a seamless system
that is efficient, safe, flexible, and environmentally sound, and meets
the needs of the Nation's travelers and shippers.
In the past decade, private sector transportation of freight has
undergone dramatic transformation from a "modal" to an "intermodal"
system. ISTEA broadened that vision to the transportation system as a
whole-passenger as well as freight-public sector as well as private
sector. The National Commission on Intermodal Transportation supports
this advance; it outlines in this report the benefits of a National
Intermodal Transportation System, identifies barriers to such a system,
and recommends changes that will enable the Nation to achieve this
vision.
At stake in this transformation is the future shape of the Nation's
economy and the quality of life of its citizens. Timely and sensible
action will reap significant rewards, now and for coming generations.
TRANSPORTATION: AN ECONOMIC FORCE
The Nation's transportation system accounts for 16.8 percent of the
Nation's Gross National product (GNP). Fully one-sixth of an American
household's expenditures, on average, go for transportation goods and
services.
The transportation system is simultaneously growing in size and becoming
more efficient. Transportation expenditures in 1992 were $996 billion,
up from $543 billion in 1980. Yet transportation expenditures as a
percent of GNP have been dropping steadily This decline, representing
savings to the U.S. economy exceeding $31 billion in 1992, accounts for
much of the ability of American firms to compete in a global economy.
These savings have resulted largely from deregulation of much of the
transportation industry.
Passenger transportation, which is more dependent than freight
transportation on public sector programs and funding, has moved less
quickly to an intermodal system.
This report describes the challenges and opportunities the Nation faces
as it enters the era of expanding intermodalism. Part I describes the
main themes heard by the Commission in its outreach sessions, focusing
particularly on barriers to intermodalism. Part 11 contains the
Commission's recommendations.
6
1
EFFICIENT INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION: THE
GOAL OF FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
Click HERE for graphic.
Intercity passenger rail is an important component of the Nation's
intermodal transportation system, providing an adjunct to
automobile and air travel.
Intermodalism describes an approach to planning, building, and operating
the transportation system that emphasizes optimal utilization of
transportation resources and connections between modes. From the per-
spective of the user-the traveler or shipper of goods-the mode is
irrelevant; what matters is the quality, cost, timeliness, and safety of
the trip.
The benefits from a National Intermodal Transportation System are
enormous. Intermodalism offers the promise of:
- Lowering transportation costs by allowing each mode to be used for
the portion of the trip for which it is best suited;
- Increasing economic productivity and efficiency, thereby enhancing
the Nation's global competitiveness;
- Reducing the burden on overstressed infrastructure components by
shifting use to infrastructure with excess capacity;
- Generating higher returns from public and private infrastructure
investments;
7
- improving mobility for the elderly, disabled, isolated, and
economically disadvantaged;
and
- Reducing energy consumption and contributing to improved air
quality and environmental conditions.
As the intermodal network expands, safety is and must always be the
hallmark of the U.S. transportation system. Although technology and new
management practices have greatly improved safety, more research will
bring better understanding of transportation accidents and ways to
prevent them. Government should play a role in setting safety standards
in the transportation industry.
INDIVIDUAL MODES OR A NATIONAL INTERMODAL SYSTEM?
This Nation's discrete modal components have, in effect, evolved into a
de facto national transportation system. However, as Representative
Norman Mineta, Chair of the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation, recently said:
There has never been a coherent, coordinated, and comprehensive
national transportation policy that includes highways, transit,
rail, airports and seaports as parts of a greater whole. And it is
our greatest challenge here in the 1990's to start thinking and
planning in terms of that greater whole.
Secretary of Transportation Federico Pe¤a also recognized the need for a
comprehensive national transportation policy in announcing his National
Transportation System (NTS) initiative. He suggested that the current
system could be improved to reduce congestion, mitigate environmental
degradation, improve safety, and boost the economy.
Secretary Pe¤a described the objectives of the NTS succinctly: "We must
integrate all modes of transportation into a seamless system for moving
goods and people from coast to coast and within metropolitan areas."
Federal Highway Administrator Rodney Slater has added:
"Our challenge now is to shift our attention from what we've built to
how we can make it work better for our country." The Department of
Transportation has launched an extensive outreach program to refine and
focus the NTS concept.
The Commission repeatedly heard in its outreach sessions about the
importance of moving forward aggressively to promote ISTEA!s vision. J.
Jayawardana of the Louisiana Ports and Waterways Institute stressed to
the Commission the importance of maintaining modal capabilities in an
intermodal system: "The unique role each mode plays must be recognized
in the NTS." This illustrates the underlying concept of the NTS: modal
muscle and intermodal efficiency are inextricably intertwined.
The Commission heard frequent questions and recommendations about the
composition and shape of the proposed NTS: How would the "threshold of
significance" be determined for NTS elements? What about "lower order"
facilities that may not meet this criteria, but still play a crucial
role to a region? What are the implications of having private sector
elements in the NTS? What is the appropriate role for private sector
shippers and transportation providers in educating planners about the
importance of freight, in developing service requirements, and in
providing data? How will "missing links" in the system be identified?
The number and breadth of questions raised to the Commission about the
NTS points out the challenge ahead as the concept is refined.
Several points about the NTS became clear to the Commission:
- The NTS must be far more than a map, network or inventory of
facilities. It must consider safety, efficiency, environmental im-
pacts, rural mobility, and physical conditions of the system
components.
- Identification of NTS components and development of the NTS concept
will require a "bottom-up" approach, consistent with the emphasis in
ISTEA on local and State transportation decision making.
8
- The NTS must focus on connectivity between modes and on intermodal
facilities.
- The NTS must preserve the ability of the freight transportation
sector to operate its privately owned infrastructure efficiently
- The NTS must recognize the need for fundamental change in Federal
governing and funding institutions.
At every Commission outreach session, the importance and inadequacy of
"intermodal connectors" was stressed. The weakest links in the current
transportation system are the points of transfer between modes. And,
because the current system is funded and managed separately by each
mode, responsibility for strengthening these links is unclear. Bob
Matthews, President of the Railway Progress Institute, summed up
comments made by many to the Commission when he urged "speeding up the
process of designating intermodal connectors." Numerous outreach
participants suggested adding connectors to the National Highway System
(NHS) within 1 year of Congressional enactment of the NHS, and ensuring
sufficient flexibility for additions in future years.
The Commission also heard extensively about relationships between the
NTS and information systems. Michael Replogle of the Environmental
Defense Fund was one of many who emphasized the importance of making
full use of Intelligent Transportation Systems information technology to
optimize performance of transportation systems. He, and others,
identified opportunities to use information systems for network capacity
management, and advocated telecommuting and information exchanges that
reduce congestion by substituting for transportation.
INTERMODALISM HAS TAKEN HOLD IN THE FREIGHT SECTOR
The increasing importance of intermodalism in this country is
illustrated best in the freight sector, which accounts for 37 percent of
U.S. transportation expenditures. Freight intermodal traffic is
primarily market-driven and today, more than ever, that market is the
world economy.
The era of intermodal freight transportation began in earnest in the
mid-1980's, when ocean carriers and railroads teamed up to launch
doublestack rail container service. This approach stacks two shipping
containers on specialized railcars for greater efficiency Since this
system was introduced, growth has been explosive. New partnerships
between ocean carriers, railroads, truckers, and shippers have been
formed, providing our Nation's economy with efficient, cost-effective,
seamless service, and driving dramatic changes in land and ocean
shipping.
The new intermodal partnerships among rail, truck, and ocean carriers
offer classic examples of the promises of intermodalism: lower costs,
which result in lower prices for consumers and improved marketability
for U.S. exporters; congestion relief, by shifting traffic from highways
to the private sector rail network; and environmental benefits, because
rail and water transport typically cause less damage to the environment.
New information technology, expanded use of air freight, sophisticated
logistics operations including just-in-time delivery practices, and
other industry factors are expected to drive a substantial increase in
intermodal freight traffic. This growth has been facilitated by deregu-
lation and competition. As the Commission heard from Aaron Gellman,
Director of the Transportation Center at Northwestern University,
"deregulation and competition have driven freight intermodal
innovation." Unfortunately, the Commission learned that the great
success of freight intermodalism has resulted in some problems.
Terminal Access and Urban Congestion
Connections between interstate highways, ports, railyards, and truck
terminals are often congested city streets shared with residents and
commuters. Significant investments have been
9
made by port authorities, railroads, trucking companies and terminal
operators to develop modern terminals. But, planning has not always
been coordinated with local communities, and upgraded terminals are
often not served by upgraded access routes. Fred Serpe, Executive
Director of the Illinois Transportation Association, told the Commission
that "the number one intermodal freight problem is highway access to
terminals." Ted Price, President of Triton Transport, a major Midwest
intermodal trucking company, said, "freight intermodal growth has far
outstripped the support infrastructure of access roads and bridges."
Mike Ryan, a Chicago-based intermodal trucker, pointed out that "bridges
near Chicago intermodal rail terminals have such tight clearances that
pavement swelling in winter often makes passing under them with trailers
or containers impossible."
Grade Crossings
At-grade road and rail crossings are a safety hazard, resulting in
hundreds of lost lives and millions of dollars in property damage each
year. These crossings impair the efficiency of both the road and rail
systems. In designing the Interstate Highway System, engineers rec-
ognized that grade crossings were unacceptable. It is similarly
desirable to remove grade crossings, where practical, from the NFIS, and
ultimately the NTS.
Congestion at International Ports and Border Crossings
Border congestion and processing costs for intermodal freight movements
between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are excessive. The
majority of problems relate to inadequate staffing by individual
agencies producing, for example, delays for drug interdiction
inspections, lack of coordination between inspection agencies within a
country, differences in inspection procedures at different border
crossings, excessive paperwork and bureaucratic red tape with brokers
and official agencies, and facilities that are typically open only
during "regular business hours."
The Commission toured freight and border crossing facilities in Laredo,
Texas, and heard extensive testimony concerning border crossing problems
with Mexico and Canada. It was clear, as expressed to the Commission by
James Giermanski of Texas A&M University, that institutional
inefficiencies far outweigh physical infrastructure barriers, at least
at Laredo, which is the busiest U.S.-Mexico border crossing point for
freight shipments.
Equipment Utilization
U.S., Canadian, and Mexican laws restrict use of foreign trucks,
vessels, containers, and chassis for domestic moves. Although
substantial progress has been made in allowing cross-border moves,
equipment must be "imported" to be used in-country. These restrictions
result in reduced utilization of equipment and higher costs for
shippers.
State and Local Taxes
As the result of a recent Supreme Court decision, States can now impose
sales taxes on the lease of containers used exclusively in international
commerce. This decision has also reopened the debate on the imposition
of local property taxes on domestically owned containers used
exclusively in international commerce. In both cases this outcome could
lead to a proliferation of local taxes and produce a negative impact on
the free flow of intermodal freight.
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION IS STILL ORGANIZED BY MODE
Intermodalism is far less developed when it comes to moving people
rather than freight. Individual modal systems have traditionally been
planned, built, and operated with little regard for coordination or
connections. The modal structure of government transportation
institutions is a significant barrier to a seamless intermodal passenger
system because the
10
passenger sector has historically been closely tied to Federal programs
and funding. Christina Casgar of the Transportation Research Board
posed a central question to the Commission: "Economics has driven
freight intermodal, but what about passengers? Are subsidies so
prevalent and complex that the market simply can't work?"
The seamless service offered to freight shippers by private sector
carriers is seldom available to passengers. United Parcel Service and
other freight carriers ship packages intermodally, door-to-door,
anywhere in the country. However, transportation consultant Matt Coogan
described to the Commission the far more difficult challenge of moving
his elderly grandmother from Haverhill, Massachusetts, to Columbus,
Indiana. Both ends of the journey required lengthy connections by
private automobile to the nearest airport, because there was no public
transportation service available. Even if such services were available,
it would be difficult to find out about them, because there is no single
ticketing or information system in place to arrange such trips.
Passenger intermodalism has shown some signs of progress since passage
of ISTEA. Bus and rail transit systems more often coordinate schedules
and farecards. Amtrak and intercity bus lines are recognizing the need
to provide coordinated schedules and interline ticketing, and multimodal
passenger stations are on the drawing boards around the country.
In the passenger system, just as in the freight system, poor modal
connectivity is a significant barrier to intermodalism. Too often, the
bus station is 10 blocks from the commuter rail station, or the transit
line stops at the airport, but too far away to walk to the terminals.
The following six issues were raised most frequently during the
Commission's outreach.
Lack of Intermodal Terminals
Many cities abandoned or demolished downtown passenger rail terminals
during the urban renewal era of the 1960's. Yet, by the 1990's, it
became clear to many cities that a central downtown multimodal
transportation center would be the heart of a viable passenger
intermodal system. Construction of these facilities requires
cooperation among local governments, transit and commuter rail
operators, public and private bus operators, and often one or more
freight railroads. Ownership of such facilities is no longer
necessarily a public responsibility. In fact, funding them often re-
quires a complex mix of public and private financing and commercial
development arrangements. The Union Stations in Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C., and Boston's South Station, are excellent examples of
successful projects. Atlanta is now spending $7.8 million in Federal,
city, and private funds for a new multimodal terminal.
Intermodal terminals encourage coordination of intercity bus service
with rail passenger service. In California, for example, State trans-
portation funds are used by Amtrak to run buses which offer coordinated
service with passenger trains. In Seattle, Ron Borowski, Project
Manager of the Seattle Engineering Department, described the King Street
Station project to the Commission as a "Rainbow Coalition" of transport
operators-local, regional, and intercity buses; airport shuttles;
pedestrian paths; bike trails; links to the ferry terminals; and Amtrak
and commuter rail. He observed that users accept the concept of
intermodalism -the problem is in forging implementing agreements between
service providers.
Congested Airport Access
Congestion generated by passenger travel to airports is a growing
problem in many urban areas. Improved rail transit and commuter rail
access to airports can reduce highway congestion. Examples of good
transit service to airports exist in Chicago, Atlanta, and St. Louis.
Rural Isolation
In rural areas, often the only means of transportation available is the
private automobile. Substantial contraction of intercity bus and air
services since deregulation has resulted in
11
abandonment of key passenger services to small communities. Forthcoming
Congressional action on Essential Air Services legislation could further
impact availability of air service in rural areas. Jack Gilstrap of the
American Public Transit Association reminded the Commission of the
special needs of rural Americans: 62 million people live outside
metropolitan areas, and many lack access to automobiles. Many of the
rural elderly are in poor health and not licensed to drive. Currently,
35 percent of rural residents live in areas with no public
transportation. Mobility for people living in rural areas must be an
important consideration in developing national transportation policy
Parking Availability
Richard Salmon of Amtrak explained to the Commission that "the first
intermodal challenge in marketing Amtrak services is the overwhelming
need to provide adequate parking facilities." His comments were
reinforced by commuter rail managers across the country. For example,
Pat McAtte of Chicago's Metra system pointed to inadequate parking as a
major barrier to increased use of commuter rail service. Dependable
train service will not be optimally utilized if the parking supply is
not adequate. Inadequate funding for parking, and the unwillingness of
local communities to make land available, were also cited as intermodal
barriers.
Intercity/Commuter Rail Connections
In many markets, particularly in the Northeastern United States and
Southern California, seamless transfers between commuter rail systems
and Amtrak must be available for rail to become a viable alternative to
auto or air travel. Unfortunately, jurisdictional fragmentation of
intercity and commuter rail systems has created barriers to seamless
connections, particularly in areas like ticketing, information dis-
semination, and schedule coordination.
Joint Use of Infrastructure
Intermodalism has most often been viewed within the context of two
largely separate systems, one devoted to freight, the other to pas-
sengers. But, it is important to recognize linkages between the freight
and passenger systems. As demand grows for both movement of goods and
people, and as parts of the system reach capacity, transportation
planners and decision makers must foster interrelationships between
these two systems. For example:
- Passenger systems need access to rail lines, many of which are now
used exclusively for freight, to move people on commuter rail and
intercity rail systems. The Commission heard examples in Los
Angeles, St. Louis, and Chicago where freight and passenger rail
officials reached agreements that benefitted all parties.
In Chicago, Metra and the Burlington Northern Railroad operate 83
commuter trains, 4 Amtrak trains, and 60 to 100 freight trains daily
between Chicago and Aurora with little inconvenience to freight
shippers and a 98 percent on-time factor for passengers. In Southern
California, the public sector purchased and improved rail lines so
that they can be shared by commuter and freight trains. In St.
Louis, an imaginative trade of infrastructure between the private and
public sectors enabled the construction of a light rail line.
- Freight carriers need to improve their systems for moving through
congested urban areas. Testimony was received in New Orleans,
Boston, and Los Angeles regarding dedicated freight corridors being
developed with support of metropolitan planning organizations and
State planners.
Only by connecting the modes and addressing the relationship between
passenger and freight systems can the full promise of ISTEA be achieved.
12
2
INVESTMENTS ARE NOT KEEPING PACE WITH DEMAND
Click HERE for graphic.
City streets and bridge clearances are major barriers to
intermodal transportation. Postponed improvements of
infrastructure construction and maintenance contributes to delays
and congestion.
Investments in transportation infrastructure are investments in this
Nation's future. Unfortunately, even funding Federal transportation
programs to authorized levels will not provide sufficient funds to meet
all transportation needs that have been identified by Federal, State,
and local planners.
Francis Francois, Executive Director of American Association of State
and Highway Transportation Officials, observed that, "even if ISTEA had
been fully funded by the Congress, it would not provide adequate funding
to meet the identified surface transportation needs." In 1993 the
Federal Highway Administration estimated the costs of eliminating the
backlog of highway, bridge, and bus and rail transit deficiencies at
$308 billion. This does not include unmet needs of airport, port,
inland waterway, or intercity passenger rail systems.
In 1992, the Nation invested an estimated $226 billion in transportation
infrastructure and equipment.
The Federal Government makes the smallest contribution to the overall
funding of transpor-
13
tation. However, Federal policies have strong influence over
transportation funding decisions throughout the system. Federal funds
become inducements for significant portions of State, local, and even
private expenditures.
Click HERE for graphic.
The Commission recognizes that fiscal restraint is key to the Federal
Government's deficit reduction strategy; it also recognizes that a na-
tional infrastructure deficit will do as much harm as the current budget
deficit. The challenge is to target the Nation's transportation
investments to reap the greatest benefits for the future. Funding
intermodal projects, thereby maximizing capacity of the entire system,
must be the goal of transportation policies.
Funding concerns identified by the Commission during its outreach
sessions fall into the following five areas.
Funding Unmet Needs
The Commission heard consistently about unmet infrastructure needs and
about the importance of funding Federal transportation programs at
authorized levels. In fiscal year 1994, Congress appropriated $22.2
billion for surface transportation programs. Full funding of these
programs would have required appropriation of an additional $1.3
billion.
In written testimony, Robert Martinez, Virginia's Secretary of
Transportation and former Director of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Office of Intermodalism, commented, "The most important
thing that can be done to advance intermodalism is to fully fund ISTEA."
Across the country, the testimony was the same.
Diversion of user fees from transportation trust funds to other uses is
a further drain on the system. A recently published Eno Foundation
report indicates that $9 billion in transportation user fees have been
diverted annually to offset the Federal budget deficit.
Federal policy makers must be aware of the incentives created by Federal
funding programs. Historically, Federal funds have been restricted to
project construction; this has led to construction solutions when
perhaps operating or maintenance funds might result in better solutions.
For example, Federal border officials in Laredo observed that increased
funding for operating personnel, which will allow border crossings to be
open longer hours, would provide adequate border crossing capacity at
lower cost than a new bridge.
Innovative Financing
Since Federal appropriations for transportation projects are unlikely to
increase dramatically, it is important to expand use of innovative fi-
nancing mechanisms, so that additional funds can be invested in
intermodal transportation projects.
The importance of innovative financing was recognized in President
Clinton's Executive Order on "Principles for Federal Infrastructure
14
Investment," issued January 28, 1994. The President directed all
agencies to:
Seek private sector participation in infrastructure investment and
management. Innovative public-private initiatives can bring about
greater private sector participation in the ownership, financing,
construction, and operation of [Federal] infrastructure programs
.... agencies should work with State and local entities to
minimize legal and regulatory barriers to private sector
participation.
Before ISTEA, Federal transportation funding was almost entirely through
grants matched by State or local funds. ISTEA opened up the playing
field by encouraging additional financing options, including: tolls on
federally aided highways and bridges, private sector "matches" for ISTEA
funds, ability to match Federal funds through investment credit pro-
visions, and creation of revolving loan funds. States are just
beginning to take advantage of these innovative financing mechanisms.
Several States, including California, Florida, Texas, and Washington,
have passed legislation to enable them to benefit from the innovative
financing provisions of ISTEA.
In March 1994, FHWA undertook an Innovative Financing Project, which
suspended many Federal funding rules and regulations, and invited States
to submit creative proposals for transportation projects. Responses far
exceeded expectations. The project's principal conclusion was that
multiple strategies are needed to leverage Federal dollars and maximize
investments from nontraditional sources. The Commission notes that the
high number of intermodal projects submitted is convincing testimony to
the institutional constraints of funding intermodal projects through
conventional modal grant programs.
Flexibility and Eligibility
In addition to the need for additional funds, the Commission heard
extensively about the importance of allowing State and local officials
greater flexibility in spending transportation funds. Senator Max
Baucus of Montana summed it up:
ISTEA recognized that each State has different needs and
priorities. New Yorkers may find that mass transit projects are
the most efficient way to spend their money. Montanans need high-
ways. ISTEA lets both make the best decision for their State.
The flexibility in ISTEA is critical to good transportation
policy. It lets States focus their Federal funds on those
projects that make sense-rather than having Washington dictate the
types of projects they must complete.
Others, while agreeing, observed that the flexibility promised by ISTEA
has not yet been fully realized. Susan Stauder of the Bi-State Develop-
ment Agency of St. Louis observed, "ISTEA gives direction to be
intermodal, but funding still comes out the old way -- via modal silos."
Linda Bohlinger of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
concurred: "the flexibility message has not really trickled down."
Traditional funding systems put intermodal projects at a significant
disadvantage. Paul Kaftanski, Transportation Project Manager for the
City of Everett, Washington, described difficulties trying to fund
construction of bus bays at the city train station: "FHWA" said it
wasn't a highway project. The Federal Transit Administration told me it
wasn't a transit project." His experience is not unique.
The Commission also heard that other Federal trust funds are too
restrictive. For example, the Airport and Airways Improvement Act re-
stricts use of airport funds to on-airport projects. In this funding
environment, disputes arise over which sources to tap, eliciting a "not-
from-my-fund" reaction, even if there is agreement on the merits of a
project.
Regional and National Projects
ISTEA placed new emphasis on empowering MPOs and States to take
advantage of Federal funding flexibility to meet the needs of their
jurisdictions. Unfortunately, this strong local focus might prove to be
a barrier to projects of national significance that provide benefits be-
yond local areas. As Federal Railroad Administrator Jolene Molitoris
said recently, "the MPOs know what they need, but they may not
15
have the bigger picture. "Given the traditional passenger focus of MPOs
and their local political mandates, this appears to be a particular
problem for freight projects.
The need for incentives to ensure funding of projects of regional or
national significance was pointed out across the country. Port, rail,
and truck operators expressed concerns that without such incentives,
freight projects would remain unfunded.
Jean Godwin, representing the American Association of Port Authorities,
expanded on this concern: "It appears that under ISTEA, national
priorities are in danger of being lost in the current decision-making
framework at the MPO level. We are concerned that freight projects that
support the Nation's global competitiveness must continue to compete for
funds under a process that inherently favors more popular local
passenger and transit projects."
John Glover of the Port of Oakland concurred: "The problem with the
current ISTEA process is that projects such as freight rail improvements
that contribute to the economic vitality of the Nation, but do not have
obvious benefits to their immediate local or regional areas, are
penalized. Priority and funding need to be established for nationally
significant projects."
An example is the Alameda Corridor Project in Southern California
partnership between ports, railroads, and surrounding cities to move
international freight more efficiently through the ports and to the rest
of the country. Such projects should be eligible for supplemental funds
from the Federal government due to their national significance.
Similar examples exist on the passenger network. In Boston, the
Commission received testimony about the Central Artery Project, origi-
nally an all-highway project that has been expanded to include a rail
link to close a gap in the passenger rail system. The rail link will
connect more than 600 miles of commuter rail lines and more than 140
stations, and it will improve transportation alternatives in Northern
New England by connecting the region to Amtrak. The highway portion of
the project includes new port and airport access routes and removes
several major bottlenecks.
Research, Education, and Technology Development
Federally supported transportation research, education, and technology
development are restricted by the traditional modal funding system.
As outlined by Professor Michael Meyer of the Georgia Institute of
Technology, there is a critical need to change how transportation
professionals are educated. Meyer said to the Commission in Atlanta
that "there is a need to encourage transportation educators to incorpo-
rate intermodal considerations into the classroom. Without doing so, we
perpetuate the old paradigms instead of training transportation
professionals for the 21st century."
The modal organization of transportation data compounds the challenge to
planners trying to develop intermodal systems. As the new Bureau of
Transportation Statistics observed in its first report, issued in 1994,
"Substantial data exist about the transportation system, but it falls
short of providing the information needed to inform policy makers about
the strategic issues facing the USDOT." The Commission heard consider-
able testimony from State and MPO planners about the difficulty of
planning and project analysis in the absence of intermodal data.
DOT's National Surface Transportation Research plan, submitted to
Congress in 1993, candidly observed that, "the individual modes within
DOT conduct the majority of their research independently." This is
reflected in the organization of transportation research foundations,
institutes, and trade associations.
The Transportation Research Board and Marine Board could assist DOT in
identifying and coordinating research that cuts across individual modes.
As Christina Casgar of the Transportation Research Board said, "rail,
transit, waterway, aviation, highway, environmental, management and
logistics issues need to be considered under one tent. Separate
research approaches foster inefficiencies and encourage overlapping, if
not redundant research."
16
3
POLICY AND DECISION MAKING ARE FRAGMENTED
Click HERE for graphic.
Local bus service is vitally important to many commuters, shoppers,
and other persons, linking their homes with destinations in the
metropolitan area or transfer terminals to rapid transit, rail, air
or long-distance bus service.
Kirk Brown, the Illinois Secretary of Transportation, testified that
"some of the biggest intermodal barriers are not physical; they exist in
our thinking and our institutions, which are still very mode-specific."
Changing thinking, institutions, and human behavior is, in many ways,
more difficult than investing in infrastructure. The Nation's
transportation institutions now reflect modal thinking. This approach
worked well to build today's transportation system, but it is a
significant barrier to intermodal transportation.
Transportation institutions must change to support development of a
national intermodal transportation system. Under the current mode-based
institutional structure, connections between modes are at the edge of
every organization's responsibility. In a true intermodal organization,
these connections would be recognized as the heart of the system.
17
Federal Transportation Agencies
The modal structure of the Federal Government is a fundamental barrier
to intermodal transportation. DOT is organized along modal lines,
maintaining the structures of the agencies that were brought together
when DOT was formed in 1967.
Click HERE for graphic.
DOT is to be commended for initiatives in forging task forces and
partnerships across the modal administrations that begin to realize the
intermodal vision of ISTEA. Testimony to the Commission suggests,
however, that a more complete reorganization of DOT will ultimately be
required to realize the full benefits of ISTEA. It is time for ad hoc
task forces to be replaced by a truly intermodal organization.
A frequently heard comment in testimony was that the Secretary of
Transportation's Office of Intermodalism should be given additional re-
sources that would enable it to play the role envisioned by ISTEA. A
participant in the Commission's New Orleans meeting asked Commissioners
why there were two Offices of Intermodalism at DOT--one in the Office of
the Secretary of Transportation and another at FHWA. In Los Angeles,
Ginger Gherardi of the Ventura County Transportation Commission and
President of the National Women's Transportation Seminar, pointed out
that "government doesn't think intermodally. This complicates patching
together funding and approval for intermodal projects."
Problems at the Federal level are reflected at the State levels, where
the Federal modal organization of transportation is replicated by many
States. Charles Apffel of Louisiana State University suggested that:
"transportation agencies at all levels of government must be structured
and staffed to understand all modes."
Congress, too, reflects the modal orientation of the post-World War 11
transportation system. jurisdiction for transportation policy develop-
ment is shared by six committees. Transportation funding decisions are
similarly dispersed among two appropriations committees and two budget
committees. When related jurisdictions are considered, such as
committees dealing with environmental programs, what emerges is a
structure that complicates policy making, creates funding "silos" and
inhibits intermodal planning and policy development.
Since passage of ISTEA, there has been clear intent in Congress and DOT
to encourage intermodalism. Many formal and informal ef-
18
forts to break down modal barriers are under way. Encouraging these
efforts and accelerating the pace of change will enhance the efficiency
of the Nation's intermodal transportation system.
STREAMLINE PLANNING AND PROJECT DELIVERY
Regulations that accompany Federal transportation funding frequently add
costs and delays to projects. This problem is magnified for intermodal
projects because they are often governed by regulations of more than one
agency, and the regulations of the agencies are rarely compatible.
The transportation sector provides many examples of the findings of Vice
President Gore's National Performance Review regarding government red
tape. The Commission received considerable testimony regarding the
complexity and cost of responding to the increasing burden of Federal
regulations. Added to the regulations of the transportation programs
themselves are the web of regulations overlaid from other Federal
agencies, the cost of complying with Federal mandates, and financial
sanctions for noncompliance. The Commission got a strong sense of the
overwhelming bureaucratic burdens that transportation planners must deal
with on a daily basis.
It is not that State and local transportation officials necessarily
disagree with the underlying social and environmental goals reflected in
these regulations. Their concern is that red tape makes it needlessly
hard to deliver projects and services.
In Los Angeles, Linda Bohlinger of the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority suggested that California's Grant Application
Streamlining Committee be considered as a model for expediting Federal
processes. At the same hearing, Judy Wilson of the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Transportation Authority observed, "it just takes too long
to get projects completed ... this hurts our competitiveness." As the
Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Wyoming testified jointly on June 6: "The system has reached
overload and the time has come to stop adding Federal requirements and,
indeed, to start reducing them."
For small projects, the burden of Federal regulations that accompanies
Federal funding has become particularly prohibitive. For example, in
Wyoming, 22 rural transit operators receive Federal Section 18 grants of
$20,000 or less. Reporting and compliance responsibilities that come
with these grants make it extremely difficult for small towns to apply
for funds that are vitally needed to keep their services running.
Compliance with drug and alcohol-testing requirements will add more
costs.
Brian Shorten, Executive Director of the Fargo/Moorhead Metropolitan
Council of Governments, submitted useful commentary on the reality of
ISTEA's newly flexible funding: "the paperwork involved in transferring
ISTEA funds between FHWA and Federal Transit Administration] is very
complex and time consuming ... procedures must be streamlined and
simplified." A recurring theme of outreach sessions was the need to
refocus the U.S. system on needs of customers-the users of the system-
rather than on the system itself. The process within DOT for review and
approval of projects needs to be overhauled and streamlined to create
consistent regulations and procedures among the modal agencies.
CONFLICTING NATIONAL GOALS IMPACT INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
A major cause of the regulatory maze surrounding transportation projects
is the fact that, over time, the Nation has adopted goals without
reconciling the inherent policy conflicts embedded in them. Federal
agencies beyond DOT that play a role that directly or indirectly affects
transportation policy and regulations are depicted in the organization
of Federal agencies.
Intermodal projects are typically more complex than single-mode
projects. As a result, conflicts are likely to be even more complicated
and time consuming than for traditional modal projects. The gridlock
surrounding navigation channel
19
dredging at the Nation's international ports is an example. As
President Clinton observed in a letter to the American Association of
Port Authorities, "Too often, dredging projects are caught up in a
regulatory tangle." Improving port access to the rail and highway system
is pointless if ports have no access to the ocean. The President
committed his Administration to develop improved long-term management
plans that will avoid project delays without compromising the
environment.
Click HERE for graphic.
FHWA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are now meeting
regularly to understand better each other's priorities. EPA is reaching
out to industry to address environmental issues affecting them
multimodally (air, land, and water pollution addressed simultaneously).
Such initiatives should be encouraged and emulated. Early and
continuing liaison among the agencies and with involved non-Federal
groups should generally forestall conflicts and result in sound
proposals and decisions. An early, coordinated planning approach by all
affected interests allows responsible parties to identify policy
conflicts, recommend modifications, and avoid problems.
THE ROLE OF MPOs IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
An underlying premise of ISTEA is that States and MPOs have more
authority to decide how Federal funds are used. In exchange, Congress
sought to preserve the national public interest by imposing substantive
new planning and programming requirements. ISTEA mandates that MPOs and
States undertake integrated planning, linking transportation and land
use, tying transportation to environmental and socioeconomic concerns,
and addressing urban congestion, growth demands, and air quality
concerns.
The new role of MPOs, their capabilities, and their organizational
structures were arguably the most frequently raised topic during the
Commission's outreach sessions.
Many observers were concerned that MPOs may not be staffed with
appropriately trained personnel to handle their expanded role, and
suggested that training efforts should be expanded. One observer noted,
"Skill levels at
20
MPOs are very thin [in this area]. It's scary that MPOs are not doing
freight planning, but given their skill levels, it could be worse if
they were doing it." DOT can play an important part in providing
training for MPO staffs and by serving as a clearinghouse for
information regarding effective tools and techniques.
This expanded role for MPOs has raised concerns regarding their
membership. In many regions, transit providers, ports, airports, and
Amtrak remain outside the process. The Commission also heard that
central city interests may not have a sufficiently strong voice.
The need to bridge the gaps between public planning and private sector
decision making also requires flexibility and commitment from all
parties. George Hanthorn of Greyhound told the Commission that his
company is reaching out to MPOs to participate in their planning
process. He pointed out that "the planning process never seems to end."
Participation in the process requires resources that many companies
cannot afford.
Lack of understanding of freight issues by MPOs was a continuous theme
heard by the Commission. As Joel Weiner of the New Jersey
Transportation Planning Authority told Commissioners: "Prior to the
passage of ISTEA, goods movement and intermodal issues were frankly 'on-
the-back-burner' in terms of MPO priorities." This situation was typical
of MPOs before ISTEA; their transportation focus was on local, passenger
issues. As the Commission was often told: "freight doesn't vote." But
former Federal Railroad Administrator Gil Carmichael disagreed.
"Freight does vote," he said. "It votes with its feet. Freight will go
where it is able to move most efficiently, and in a global economy it
has many choices. Those enterprises which rely upon efficient
intermodal service will follow it to new locations."
The Commission heard of efforts across the country to help MPOs
understand the importance of freight and to provide opportunities for
freight interests to participate in setting transportation priorities.
John Claffey of the Delaware Valley (Pennsylvania) MPO described a
Freight Task Force made up of carriers, shippers, and receivers from his
MPO's region.
Intermodalism in the private sector has resulted in new and productive
partnerships. There are opportunities for similarly productive
solutions in the public sector, but they require new communication,
cooperation, and partnerships. The Alameda Corridor in southern
California and the Tchoupitoulas Corridor in New Orleans are two
projects that have emerged as a result of complex partnerships among the
host cities, ports, railroads, truckers, labor unions, adjacent
residential communities, and environmental advocacy groups. They serve
as examples of creative solutions emerging from the new opportunities of
ISTEA.
A LOOK FORWARD
Two important points are worth making in conclusion. First, the future
of the U.S. transportation system is not determined by commission
reports such as ours or directives from Washington. The economic
strength, technological inventiveness, and business ingenuity of this
Nation have long combined to push the national transportation system to
new levels of capacity to meet market demands. The question now before
the Nation is: How can the Nation's transportation system best accommo-
date the various interests of the economy and enhance the quality of
life of the American people?
Second, at critical times in U.S. history the Federal Government has
stepped forward to stimulate change and improvement in the national
transportation system. Federal support helped build the great canal
systems, transcontinental rail lines, interstate highways, and airway
system that have been so vital to national development and economic
growth.
Today, the Federal Government once again faces the opportunity to
advance development of transportation. The government can speed
21
the shift to intermodalism by both stepping in and stepping aside. As
this report makes clear, the Federal Government should step in with
carefully directed financial support, and step aside by reforming the
cumbersome planning and decision-making mechanisms and regulatory
structures that impede efforts to link the modes into a seamless
transportation system.
The exciting and challenging aspect of national transportation in the
United States today is that change is already happening, and happening
rapidly-the intermodal train has already left the station. The role of
the Federal Government is to ensure that it reaches its destination.
The recommendations in the next section are targeted at this goal.
Right: The U.S. transportation system is making the transition to
intermodalism. The potential for bus-train passenger transfers,
of the sort pictured here, is beginning to be demonstrated in many
parts of the country.
22
II
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOWARD A NATIONAL INTERMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Freight containers doublestacked on railcars moving from ports to
inland markets have transformed the shape and cost of freight
transportation, generating significant savings for the nations
shippers and consumers.
Ports, airports, railroads, inland waterways, transit and highway
systems are the foundation for this Nation's economy, quality of life,
and success as a world power. In an era of scarce resources, America
needs to invest more strategically in transportation infrastructure to
meet the future needs of travelers and shippers and to maintain the
Nation's competitive position in an increasingly global economy
Consideration must be given to the relative strengths and efficiencies
of all transportation modes. Government policies and spending must
optimize the contribution of each mode to the overall transportation
system and to the Nation's quality of life.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act USTEA) offers a
vision of the intermodal transportation system that America needs for
the safe and efficient movement of passengers and freight. Findings
from the Commission's outreach and site visits and from testimony lead
to recommendations in three areas that build upon the basic vision of
ISTEA.
First, it is essential that Federal policy makers envision the national
transportation infrastructure as a unified system tying the Nation to-
gether and linking it with the rest of the world. The transportation
system is larger than the sum of its modal parts. To capture the syner-
gistic potential of the system, connections between the modes must be
improved. Intermodal connectors, such as multimodal passenger terminals
and roads between freight terminals and major highways, are currently
among the weakest links in the transportation system.
Second, the Nation needs to expand investment in transportation by fully
funding authorized
24
Federal programs and encouraging innovative financing mechanisms. The
Commission also urges increased flexibility in the use of Federal and
State funds for intermodal projects. Again, emphasis must be placed on
strategically targeting investments to maximize benefits to the entire
system by improving intermodal connections and linkages.
Third, government institutions that support the Nation's intermodal
transportation system must be better structured to deliver optimal
results. While the private sector has changed to meet the needs of the
marketplace, the public sector is still organized along modal lines,
hampering efforts to reap the benefits of intermodalism.
Transportation planners in the United States contend daily with an
outmoded, tortuous web of governmental red tape and structural ineffi-
ciencies that threaten to erode the basic mobility of passengers and
freight. Communities needing to build a road, dredge a port, expand a
runway, or construct an intermodal passenger terminal too often are
endlessly delayed by conflicting policies and regulations that create a
regulatory maze for State and local transportation officials.
In order to accomplish these three objectives, the Commission proposes
12 recommendations.
Make Efficient Intermodal Transportation the Goal of Federal
Transportation Policy:
(1) Maximize safe and efficient movement of passengers and freight by
incorporating individual modes into a National Intermodal
Transportation System.
(2) Ensure Federal policies foster development of the private sector
freight intermodal system and reduce barriers to the free flow of
freight, particularly at international ports and border crossings.
(3) Adopt Federal policies that foster development of an intermodal
passenger system incorporating urban, rural, and intercity
service, including a viable intercity passenger rail network.
Increase Investment in Intermodal Transportation:
(4) Fund Federal transportation infrastructure programs at authorized
levels and strategically target these funds for maximum impact.
(5) Expand innovative public and private financing methods for
transportation projects.
(6) Allow greater flexibility and expand eligibility in use of State
and Federal transportation funds for intermodal projects of public
benefit.
(7) Provide Federal funding incentives for intermodal projects of
national or regional significance.
(8) Expand the intermodal focus of research, education, and technology
development efforts.
Restructure Government Institutions to Support Intermodal
Transportation:
(9) Restructure the U.S. Department of Transportation to better
support intermodal transportation.
(10) Streamline and expedite the transportation infrastructure planning
and project delivery process.
(11) Require Department of Transportation concurrence on other Federal
agency actions that affect intermodal transportation.
(12) Strengthen the metropolitan planning organization process to
accomplish the goals of ISTEA.
In making these recommendations, the Commission emphasizes that not all
intermodal transportation problems require Federal solutions. Federal
policy should support private sector innovation, provide maximum
flexibility for State and local transportation officials, and not
intrude unnecessarily into private sector operations.
25
1
MAKE EFFICIENT INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION THE
GOAL OF FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
Click HERE for graphic.
In a busy metropolitan area, the rapid transit system provides
important options to increasingly congested areas.
1 Recommendation 1: Maximize safe and efficient movement of passengers
and freight by incorporating individual modes into a National
Intermodal Transportation System.
ISTEA establishes a new vision for U.S. transportation policy. An
efficient intermodal transportation system is key to the Nation's eco-
nomic strength and quality of life. Transportation planning, policies,
and investments must be carefully targeted to maximize the potential
contribution of each mode to the overall system. An integrated national
system must focus on the users-on moving people and goods, not modes and
vehicles.
Intermodalism is the cornerstone of the National Transportation System
(NTS) concept proposed by Secretary of Transportation Federico Pe¤a.
The Commission believes the NTS must include consideration of: (1)
primary
26
public and private transportation infrastructure, with special
recognition of points of connection between modes; (2) changes in
funding mechanisms to ensure support for intermodal projects; and (3)
institutional changes to balance single-mode advocacy and biases with a
broad-based intermodal perspective.
In determining the NTS, the Department of Transportation should
establish specific performance objectives that measure the efficiency,
equity, environmental impact, and productivity of the total
transportation system.
The Commission also recognizes that information systems provide critical
support for transportation. Telecommuting, video-audio conferencing,
and electronic data interchange, for example, can alter transportation
patterns. NTS planners must recognize the importance of information
systems development and ensure that potential benefits from such systems
are fully exploited in the NTS.
The Commission supports designation of the proposed National Highway
System (NHS), the backbone of the NTS. Its designation by Congress is
key to continued development of the Nation's transportation system. The
Commission urges DOT to designate, within 1 year of enactment of the
NHS, intermodal connectors as part of the NHS. In the future, new
intermodal connectors should be added as additional NHS segments at the
request of the States and at the Secretary's discretion.
The Commission also urges DOT to set a schedule to eliminate railway
grade crossings from the NHS and from the future NTS where practical.
Improved user safety must be given priority as modal connections and
linkages are addressed.
2 Recommendation 2: Ensure Federal policies foster development of the
private sector freight intermodal system and reduce barriers to the
free flow of freight, particularly at international ports and border
crossings.
As DOT refines the NTS concept, it is critical that it recognizes and
does not disrupt the market forces that fostered development of
America's intermodal freight transportation system. Private sector
freight carriers have made enormous gains in productivity and efficiency
in the past decade as a result of deregulation, intermodalism,
technology, and competition. These gains have benefitted U.S.
businesses and consumers.
Public policies should support continued growth of intermodal freight
operations. Public and private sector transportation interests must
work together to ensure that public policies support private investment
and vice versa. Effective public private partnerships have demonstrated
that informed, targeted investment can facilitate the movement of both
goods and passengers.
Barriers to safe and efficient movement of freight occur at connections
between modes and at international borders where congestion and
conflicts are most common. For example, inadequate roadway access to
freight terminals is a barrier to the intermodal freight system and a
major contributor to urban congestion. The lack of adequate connectors
between the interstate highway system and the Nation's port, rail,
airport, and truck terminals results in urban congestion, air pollution,
negative impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, and delivery delays for
shippers.
Delays at port and border areas also reduce the reliability of
intermodal operations. Congestion and processing costs are significant
problems on both the Mexican and Canadian borders, as well as at the
Nation's international seaports and airports. These problems are
primarily in-
27
stitutional in nature. The Commission heard testimony concerning
institutional barriers such as staff shortages for U.S. Customs and U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, lack of coordination among
border inspection agencies, delays caused by drug interdiction,
excessive documentation requirements, limited hours of operation, and
insufficient use of automated processing technologies. The Commission
recommends that Federal agencies remove these barriers by working
together with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts to increase
coordination and streamline processing.
The North American trading partners' restrictions on the use of another
country's intermodal equipment in domestic operations unnecessarily
reduces the efficiency and competitiveness of the North American
logistics system. The Federal Government should work with the Govern-
ments of Canada and Mexico to achieve a phased lifting of these
restrictions.
Improved communication between the freight industry and the public
sector will facilitate removal of identified barriers. The Commission
encourages efforts by local freight interests to participate in the
public planning process.
3 Recommendation 3: Adopt Federal policies that foster development of
an intermodal passenger system incorporating urban, rural, and
intercity service, including a viable intercity passenger rail
network.
The concept of intermodalism is not as fully established in the
passenger sector as in the freight sector. The private automobile is
the primary means of passenger travel in the United States, supported by
the Nation's well developed highway system, and given dispersed
development patterns, relatively low cost of fuel, and lack of viable
alternatives. Because so much of the passenger system is publicly
funded, the modal structure of Federal Government and Federal funding is
a particular barrier to intermodalism in the passenger system.
The goal of the intermodal passenger system should be to provide
seamless service to passengers, offering mobility to both urban and
rural residents. The Commission encourages development and funding of
metropolitan passenger transportation systems and the intercity systems
that link them together. Intercity bus and airline carriers have
substantially reduced service to rural areas. If America is to have a
complete national intermodal passenger system it must include
opportunities for isolated rural residents and residents of the Nation's
urban areas who have lost mobility options.
The Commission also urges the Federal Government to remove barriers to
creative public-private partnerships and to support innovative programs
for meeting diverse local and State needs for intermodal passenger
transportation. Unfunded mandates and liability concerns are
significant barriers to providing intermodal passenger transportation,
which should be identified and removed without compromising licensing
and safety. While these are a problem for all transportation projects,
the increased complexity of intermodal projects compounds the problem.
A truly national intermodal passenger system must provide seamless
connections among all elements of the passenger's trip-for example, the
portion of the trip from home to a transit station, the "line haul"
transit link, and the final leg from the transit station to the destina-
tion. Passenger intermodalism can be enhanced by improving
institutional cooperation. Examples of areas for improvement that were
highlighted in testimony to the Commission include: shared stations
between carriers and modes, connections between intercity rail and local
systems, interline ticketing, standardized
28
signage, expanded parking facilities at outlying transit stations,
interagency revenue sharing agreements, coordinated schedules, and
improved information dissemination.
The Commission believes a viable passenger rail network augmented by
bus, van, and other feeder services is a key component of the Nation's
transportation system. Rail is currently a weak element of the
intermodal passenger system. Amtrak has important capital needs and
lacks a stable funding source. For it to become a viable alternative
and adjunct to air and automobile travel, it must receive adequate and
stable capital funding.
Amtrak has recognized the need to improve services and achieve operating
efficiencies. The Commission encourages DOT and Congress to participate
with Amtrak in designing its recapitalization. Sources should include a
variety of State and Federal appropriations, additional flexibility in
use of ISTEA funds, and effective access to private capital markets.
29
2
INCREASE INVESTMENT IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
Click HERE for graphic.
Outside Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, is the newest intermodal
terminal in the Southwest. Opened in 1994, the project was made
possible through the cooperation of private and public sector
organizations. It features facilities for intermodal transfer of
automobiles, airfreight, highway trailers, and international
shipping containers.
4 Recommendation 4: Fund Federal transportation infrastructure programs
at authorized levels and strategically target these funds for maximum
impact.
The Nation needs additional transportation investment inspired by a
vision of a coordinated intermodal transportation system. In an era of
financial constraint, it is critical that the Nation target
transportation funds strategically to gain the most capacity from the
existing infrastructure by investing in missing links and connections.
Investment in transportation infrastructure is essential to the Nation's
future; timely and imaginative development of the transportation
infrastructure is key to the Nation's economic strength and vitality and
must be maintained. The demand for funding for the construction,
maintenance, and safe operations of such facilities continues to
increase.
30
Lack of funding for transportation infrastructure was a recurring theme
in testimony received by the Commission. During its outreach sessions,
the Commission heard consistently about the importance of fully funding
Federal transportation programs to authorized levels.
The Commission has identified a requirement to fund intermodal projects
of a national or regional significance, to provide additional capital
resources for intercity passenger rail and to encourage States to
achieve flexibility parallel to that of ISTEA. To achieve these
recommendations, additional funds beyond those currently appropriated
will be required.
Studies highlighting the economic returns often called multiplier
effects-of infrastructure investments typically conclude that modest
increases in government transportation investments yield extraordinarily
high returns. Such studies show returns, expressed in terms of
increased jobs, worker productivity, or increased worker incomes, in the
range of three to six times the amount invested within just a few years.
In general, there is considerable evidence that public investment in
transportation has a powerful effect on long-term economic growth.
ISTEA expanded the range of projects eligible for Federal funding and
gave States new funding flexibility. Expectations about additional
funding were raised, but no new sources were provided. In fact, revenue
from gas taxes, the principal funding source for highway and transit
projects, is likely to shrink as fuel efficiency improves and
alternative fuel programs take hold. Congress must address these
funding issues in ISTEA reauthorization. Unless alternate funding is
identified, the gap between investment needs and funding capability will
widen, and this Nation will fall well short of reaching its economic
potential.
5 Recommendation 5: Expand innovative public and private financing
methods for transportation projects.
Raising the capital needed to fund transportation infrastructure will
require innovative financing solutions that expand resources beyond the
traditional Federal grant programs.
One approach to innovative financing involves conventional mechanisms
used in new ways. This could include leasing of transit vehicles and
facilities, or joint public-private project development (Washington
D.C.'s Union Station redevelopment is an example of such a partnership,
involving Federal, State, and private funds). Other approaches to
innovative financing involve mechanisms not normally used in public
sector transportation financing, such as congestion pricing. The
Commission observes that determining the appropriate mix of such
innovative financing products for a project can be a significant
technical challenge and it recognizes that the approach to risk has,
historically, been quite different in the public and private sectors.
DOT should serve as a clearinghouse for ideas, information, and ex-
perience with innovative financing.
The ISTEA legislation itself provides considerable flexibility for
innovative project financing, including more flexible use of Federal
funds; revenue options such as tolls on Federal aid highways and
bridges; broadening the definition of state match to include non-cash
asset contributions by private sector and local governments; flexibility
to match Federal funds through investment credit provisions; greater
private sector involvement in infrastructure construction, operation,
and maintenance; use of Federal funds for loan guarantees; syndication
of tax credits; and creation of State revolving loan funds. These
opportunities are only beginning to be utilized.
31
6 Recommendation 6: Allow greater flexibility and expand eligibility in
use of State and Federal transportation funds for intermodal projects
of public benefit.
The Commission learned at virtually every outreach hearing that
intermodal connections are the weakest links in the intermodal system.
The current inadequacy of these connections causes "seams" in what must
become a "seamless" system.
The Commission recommends flexible use of Federal transportation dollars
to encourage State and local officials to implement creative solutions
to transportation problems. The Commission heard consistent support for
ISTA's increased funding flexibility and for increased decision making
at the State and local levels. Barriers in 36 States discourage
intermodal project funding, preventing use of State gas tax revenue for
projects such as multimodal terminal construction, commuter rail, or
paratransit. The Commission urges these States to match Federal funding
flexibility.
Although ISTEA granted considerable funding flexibility, it left some
modal restrictions on eligibility of projects for Federal funding. For
example, ISTEA funds cannot be used for freight or intercity rail
projects (except Congestion Management and Air Quality funds). Other
trust funds are even more restricted: Airport and Airway Improvement Act
funds cannot be used for off-airport access projects; and Harbor
Maintenance Trust Funds cannot be used for constructing containment
areas for dredge disposal.
The Commission urges that these restrictions be minimized to allow
States and MPOs the opportunity to evaluate investment decisions across
modes and make modal tradeoffs. States and MPOs should be encouraged to
give greater emphasis to intermodal projects that improve connections,
choices, and reliability and enhance the overall capability of the
transportation system. Eligible projects should include:
- Connectors that link the NHS, ports, airports, truck, rail, and bus
terminals;
- Multimodal terminals that connect air services, intercity rail,
intercity bus, commuter rail, transit, bus and van feeder services,
and non-motorized modes; and
- Rail and highway projects (e.g., bridge clearances, grade crossings,
Amtrak, rail clearances, and other joint use projects that increase
system capacity).
These projects must show a demonstrated public benefit, have the support
of both the sponsoring public body and the private sector entity
involved, and not disturb the competitive balance within the private
sector.
7 Recommendation 7: Provide Federal funding incentives for intermodal
projects of national or regional significance.
The national intermodal transportation system should ensure funding of
projects of national or regional significance. However, ISTEA's
emphasis on local and State decision making means that projects of
national significance, which sometimes largely provide benefits beyond
local or State jurisdictions, may not receive appropriate funding
priority.
Congress should provide special funding annually to support some number
of intermodal projects that are truly of national or regional
importance. The Secretary of Transportation
32
should solicit projects from the States and MPOs or from coalitions of
State and regional transportation authorities. This project-specific
funding would augment, not replace, existing infrastructure funding for
the selected projects. Strict intermodal selection criteria are impor-
tant to guarantee that approved projects pro-vide the maximum
enhancement to the national intermodal transportation system.
This recommendation is intended to give the MPOs and States additional
resources to address projects of national and regional significance.
8 Recommendation 8: Expand the intermodal focus of research, education,
and technology development efforts.
Intermodal transportation would be improved by development of a
comprehensive program for intermodal transportation research. Title V
of ISTEA requires that "The Director [Office of Intermodalism] shall be
responsible for coordinating Federal Research on intermodal
transportation." Unfortunately, the Office of Intermodalism has not yet
fully coordinated intermodal research and development programs of the
various modal administrations. As a result, individual modes within DOT
conduct the majority of their research independently. Funding for
cross-modal research is generally not available.
The Commission urges DOT to provide the Office of Intermodalism with
sufficient resources to accelerate implementation of this mandate of
ISTEA. DOT could draw on the resources of the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, the Transportation Research Board (TRB),
and the Marine Board better to define and coordinate intermodal research
needs.
Private sector intermodal freight carriers have embraced technology in
response to customer demand and competition. Opportunities exist in the
passenger sector for increased use of technology, but the incentives and
financial resources to undertake them are not as evident.
The Commission urges additional research in areas such as: systems that
improve rail/highway grade crossing safety; automated equipment
identification; vehicle location systems; safety performance standards;
high-speed rail technology; multimodal revenue accounting and ticketing
systems; transit information dissemination; and Advanced Public
Transportation Systems. Each of these areas can improve performance of
the intermodal transportation system, and appropriate research should be
supported.
The NTS concept provides an excellent opportunity to employ advanced
technologies (e.g., Intelligent Transportation Systems) to eliminate
"seams" from the intermodal system and to manage the system more
efficiently to generate additional capacity.
Through its outreach, the Commission observed that the mode-oriented
programs of the Nation's universities should adjust to train the next
generation of transportation professionals for the intermodal world of
the 21st century. Intermodal course modules and case studies should be
funded, developed, and disseminated. DOT could use the University
Transportation Centers program to take the lead on curriculum reform to
provide stronger training in intermodal transportation.
33
3
RESTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
TO SUPPORT INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION
Click HERE for graphic.
Union Station is a historic site in Washington, DC. Almost
demolished in the 1960's and disastrously redeveloped in the
1970's, it was taken over by a public-private partnership and is
today in renaissance as a highly successful multimodal
transportation and shopping center.
9 Recommendation 9: Restructure the U.S. Department of Transportation
to better support intermodal transportation.
DOT should be restructured to achieve the intermodal vision expressed in
ISTEA. The current modal structure of DOT is a barrier to development
of a National Intermodal Transportation System. Within DOT the modal
administrations have traditionally served as advocates for specific
modes. As a result, intermodal planning and projects are programmatic
orphans.
The Office of Intermodalism in the Office of the Secretary (OST), which
ISTEA created to become the principal intermodal advocate within DOT,
does not have adequate resources or staff to perform this function
effectively. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of
Intermodalism actually has more resources allocated to intermodal issues
than does OST's, but is organizationally constrained by its place-
34
ment within FHWA. As the Commission heard in each of its outreach
sessions, intermodalism is nobody's job.
Reorganization of DOT is not a new idea; almost every outgoing Secretary
has recommended reorganization to his or her successor. Various groups,
including the National Academy of Public Administration, have recom-
mended creation of a Surface Transportation Administration within DOT.
The Commission recommends that a Surface Transportation Agency be
created at the earliest suitable opportunity, though it recognizes that
such restructuring may not be appropriate in the middle of a Secretary's
tenure.
Meanwhile, immediate steps must be undertaken to better support an
intermodal transportation system. They include:
- Combining regional offices, creating a single point of contact that
represents all modes to ensure coordinated intermodal policies and
procedures at the local level to provide more effective customer
service;
- Harmonizing modal rules, regulations, standards, and deadlines to
achieve a single regulatory review and project approval process;
- Strengthening the unified budgeting system in OST;
- Providing the OST's Office of Intermodalism with adequate resources
to lead DOT's intermodal initiatives, such as reviewing intermodal
plans, coordinating intermodal research, and reviewing projects of
national significance.
Similarly, as the opportunity arises, the Congressional committee
structure should be streamlined better to support a national intermodal
transportation system. The current structure is too fragmented to
ensure consistent and expedient transportation policies.
10 Recommendation 10: Streamline and expedite the transportation
infrastructure planning and project delivery process.
Sweeping changes are needed in rules that govern the Federal and State
procurement processes for transportation infrastructure planning and
construction. They are encumbered with multiple layers of procedures
that lack uniformity and consistency. It simply takes too long to
complete transportation projects.
Support for transportation need not be so inefficient. When Southern
California was jolted by the January 1994 earthquake, transportation
officials responded quickly with innovative, flexible transportation
solutions. Transit systems implemented new services, and roads and
bridges were rebuilt in record time. This extraordinary cooperation
must become routine.
To quote Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR) Report:
"Thousands upon thousands of outdated, overlapping regulations remain in
place." The Commission concurs with the NPR recommendation that each
Federal agency undertake a thorough and systematic review of its
internal regulations. Within DOT, it is critically important that this
review be department-wide, providing an opportunity to resolve
differences in the regulations and procedures of the individual modes.
The differences in procedures and regulations are a particular problem
in the passenger sector because it is typically more dependent on public
sector funding. For intermodal projects, which often use funds from
more than one mode, this lack of consistent procedures is a significant
barrier. A single review process should be developed, so that a project
receiving funds from more than one agency does not have to maintain
multiple systems. For example, Amtrak works with the Federal Rail-
35
road Administration for its intercity service but with the Federal
Transit Administration for the commuter rail services it operates.
Harmonization of the procedures of the two agencies would benefit
Amtrak. Similarly, a multimodal station project, such as Union Station
in Los Angeles, which receives funds from multiple Federal sources, is
faced with disparate procedures from the various divisions within DOT.
Equally important is the need to coordinate project review procedures
from Federal agencies outside DOT (the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Corps of Engineers, the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy,
Housing and Urban Development, and Labor, among others). It is
essential that DOT take the lead in rationalizing the relationship be-
tween DOT review of transportation projects and their review by other
Federal agencies. The review and approval process should be simul-
taneous, not sequential. A harmonized and consolidated review process
would dramatically streamline project delivery. Resolution of the
underlying policy conflicts would be extremely helpful in this effort.
11 Recommendation 11: Require Department of Transportation concurrence
on other Federal agency actions that affect intermodal
transportation.
The reconciliation of transportation and environmental priorities
deserves attention at the highest levels of government. The Commission
suggests creation of a White House Cabinet Council to facilitate the
integration of Federal transportation and environmental policy
A multitude of regulations have been promulgated in the past two decades
as the Nation has come to understand the critical importance of
protecting and sustaining the environment. These regulations, developed
to address specific problems, present a formidable maze to navigate for
infrastructure development. Intermodal projects, because they include
more than one mode, are typically more complex and bureaucratically more
complicated than single-mode projects.
The unintentional impact of the growing body of Federal and State
environmental regulations on the transportation sector is that many
projects are unnecessarily delayed. The Commission strongly recommends
that the transportation industry seek opportunities to work closely with
environmental regulators so that regulations are developed that are
sensitive to the Nation's transportation needs while meeting our
environmental objectives. EPA and the transportation industry need to
work in partnership to find practical, economically viable solutions to
the Nation's environmental problems.
Compelling illustrations of problems with the current regulatory process
were presented to the Commission at outreach meetings. For example,
reactions to California's pending Federal Implementation Plan to improve
air quality in Southern California have raised significant concerns
regarding its practical implementation. Testimony to the Commission
suggests that earlier involvement of freight interests might have
resulted in recommendations that address both environmental and
transportation goals.
In Boston, the Commission received a presentation on the permitting maze
that has nearly halted dredging of navigation channels, creating a
crisis for the Nation's ports. Intervention by the President and
leadership by DOT brought together the multitude of regulating agencies
and may lead to a coordinated policy for transportation in this area.
It is essential that Federal policy makers identify ways to develop
environmental regulations that take into consideration costs to the
transportation system and to the economy as a whole. In addition,
incentives must be devel-
36
oped for public and private sector transportation planners to promote
environmentally sensitive transportation. One of the major benefits of
the intermodal system is that it allows tradeoffs among modes that can
offer substantial environmental benefit.
12 Recommendation 12: Strengthen the MPO process to accomplish the goals
of ISTEA.
The transportation needs of the Nation's regions and States are quite
diverse. Congress, in drafting ISTEA, recognized that State and local
officials have a clear view of the needs of their jurisdictions and
empowered them to determine their transportation priorities and to
decide which projects to fund.
ISTEA legislated fundamental changes for transportation planning and
funding at the State and local levels. Strengthening the role of MPOs
in transportation planning and resource allocation was an important
change. However, ISTEA was ambiguous regarding the relative roles and
responsibilities of the States and MPOs.
The situation is complicated by the diversity of the structures and
procedures of MPOs. The Nation now has more than 340 MPOs, reflecting a
broad range of local and regional governments. Their diversity makes it
difficult to generalize about MPO resources, capabilities, and
representation.
To maximize the effectiveness of intermodal transportation planning, key
public and private sector interests must participate in the local
planning process. Similarly, rural areas need to have a role with the
States in developing transportation plans and priorities to ensure that
the increased role for MPOs does not in any way disadvantage the
interests of rural areas at the State level.
ISTEA also gave the States and MPOs explicit new responsibility for
freight planning. Training and resources need to be made available to
enable them to take on these new responsibilities. Because
transportation planning has historically focussed on passenger mobility,
the skills and data required for freight planning are typically not well
developed within MPOs. Planning the Nation's intermodal transportation
system will require improved communication between the public and
private sectors. The Commission urges MPOs to expand their
understanding of the freight system and urges the freight industry to
become involved in the public process.
In the private sector, intermodalism has resulted in new and productive
partnerships. ISTEA creates an important opportunity to develop
similarly productive public sector and public-private partnerships that
support the growth of intermodal freight and passenger services.
37
Right. Barge shipments, perhaps this country's first truly intermodal
transportation, remain critical for shipping agricultural and other bulk
commodities.
38
APPENDICES
Click HERE for graphic.
A
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AAR Association of American Railroads
AAPA American Association of Port Authorities
AASHTO American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials
Amtrak National Rail Road Passenger Corporation
APTA American Public Transit Association
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GNP Gross National Product
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991
MARAD U.S. Maritime Administration
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NHS National Highway System
NTS National Transportation System
OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation
TRB Transportation Research Board
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
40
B
BIOGRAPHIES OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Robert D. Krebs, Chairman
Robert Krebs is chairman, president, and chief executive officer of
Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company Mr. Krebs began his career in the railroad industry in
1966 with Southern Pacific Transportation Co. Subsequently, he held a
number of positions in the operating and executive departments of
Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the St. Louis Southwestern
Railway Company. Mr. Krebs became president of Southern Pacific
Transportation Company in 1982, and president and COO of Santa Fe
Southern Pacific when the two holding companies merged in 1983. He as-
sumed his present position in 1988. Mr. Krebs is also: a director of
Phelps Dodge Corporation, Northern Trust Corporation, Catellus Develop-
ment Corporation, Santa Fe Energy Resources, Inc., John G. Shedd
Aquarium, Ravinia Festival Association, Northwestern Memorial Hospital,
and Lake Forest College. He holds a Bachelor of Arts from Stanford
University and a Master's in Business Administration from the Harvard
Business School.
Jacki Bacharach
Jacki Bacharach is president of Jacki Bacharach and Associates-a
consulting firm that specializes in transportation, telecommunications,
and government relations issues identification and policy development-
and vice chair of Commuter Transportation Services, southern
California's regional ridesharing agency. Previously, Ms. Bacharach was
a member of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council for almost 14 years,
including 3 terms as mayor; served on the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission, where she chaired the overall Planning
Committee, the Rail Construction Committee, the Rail Planning Committee,
and served one term as commission chair; was founding chair of the
southern California regional Rail Authority-the five-county agency
responsible for the Metrolink commuter rail system; and was a charter
member of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, which deals
with landside access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Ms.
Bacharach is a member of the Women's Transportation Seminar.
Kenneth L. Bird
Kenneth Bird is president of Illinois Rail, a nonprofit Illinois
Corporation. For more than 25 years, he has been involved in developing
pro-rail freight and passenger transportation policy at the State and
local levels. A cofounder of the Illinois Association of Railroad
Passengers, Mr. Bird served for 15 years as a board member of the
Washington-based National Association of Railroad Passengers. He has
also served on State and local transportation committees and boards.
Mr. Bird currently chairs the Public Interest Group of the Illinois
State High Speed Rail Citizens Committee.
Phillip D. Brady
Phillip Brady is vice president and general counsel of the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)-the trade association for
Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation.
Previously, he served as assistant to the President and staff secretary
in the White House from 1991 to 1993; as general counsel for the U.S.
Department of
41
Transportation from 1989 to 1991; as deputy counsel to the President in
the White House from 1988 to 1989; and as deputy assistant counsel to
the Vice President from 1986 to 1988. He has also held various
positions in the U.S. Department of Justice and was in private practice
in California.
Anne P. Canby
Anne Canby is secretary of transportation for the State of Delaware.
She has extensive experience in transportation administration, strategic
planning, finance and budgeting, and management. Prior to her current
position, Ms. Canby was a partner in Canby, Cameron, a consulting firm
that focused on public sector transportation agencies, including State
departments of transportation and public authorities. Ms. Canby has
also held several State- and Federal-level positions in the
transportation industry. She is a member of the Women's Transportation
Seminar.
Wayne E. Davis
Wayne Davis is the founder and chairman of TrainRiders/Northeast in
Portland, Maine. Established in 1989, TrainRiders is a nonprofit
educational organization with members throughout New England. The
organization has worked successfully to enhance regional intermodal
passenger service and bring Amtrak service to northern New England. Mr.
Davis is a member of the executive committee of the National Association
of Railroad Passengers and the Maine DOT's Transportation Advisory
Committee as well as a director of the Northeast Corridor Initiation
Corp. He has also been actively involved in national efforts to link the
North and South Railway stations in Boston, MA. As the former chief
operating officer of BankEast Mortgage Corporation of Maine, Mr. Davis
has had an extensive career in public and private finance.
Thomas J. Donohue
Thomas Donohue is president and chief executive officer of the American
Trucking Associations (ATA). ATA is a national organization that
represents all segments of the trucking industry, conducts a wide range
of safety and policy research, and provides training and technical
services to the industry. Together with its affiliated organizations,
including State trucking associations in every State and the District of
Columbia, ATA serves the nearly 8 million Americans who earn their
livings in the trucking industry. Before joining ATA in 1984, Mr.
Donohue was a group vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Leon S. Eplan
Leon Eplan is commissioner of planning and development for the City of
Atlanta, Georgia. In this role, he advises the Mayor and City Council
on city policy regarding comprehensive and functional planning, growth
management, and building maintenance. He has worked in the public and
private sectors for more than 3 decades, as well as headed the Graduate
City Planning Program at Georgia Tech. During his professional career,
Mr. Eplan has undertaken major transportation projects throughout the
country related to most of the major modes-highways, transit, airports,
bikeways, waterways, and pedestrian systems-and has lectured and
published numerous articles on the impact of transportation on cities
and urban regions. Among other efforts, he served as the chief of urban
planning consultant on the design of Atlanta's rapid transit system,
examined the economic development potentials of the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway project, and undertook plans for the consolidation and
relocation of 19 major rail lines in St. Louis. He is currently working
on designs for a multimodal passenger terminal station in downtown
Atlanta as well as helping to prepare the city for the 1996 Summer Olym-
pic Games.
Jacqueline S. Gillan
Jacqueline Gillan is vice president of Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates). She was a founding board member of the organization
before joining the staff in fall 1990. She has had a 17-year
professional ca-
42
reer in the transportation field holding senior positions on highway,
transit, rail, and safety issues in State transportation agencies in New
Jersey, California, and Ohio; and as Congressional relations officer in
the Secretary's office and consumer director for the Research and
Special Programs Administration in the U.S. Department of
Transportation. She is a graduate of the University of California at
Santa Barbara and holds a Master's degree in urban planning from the
University of California at Los Angeles where her research and writings
on the transportation needs of the elderly earned her a national award.
Edward R. Harnberger
Edward Hamberger is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., office
of Baker, Worthington, Crossley, & Stansberry. He joined the firm after
serving as Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Prior to that position, Mr. Harnberger
was a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm specializing in
administrative and legislative law. He has also served as staff
director and legal counsel of the House Republican Policy Committee,
general counsel and special counsel to the chairman for the National
Transportation Policy Study Commission, and administrative assistant to
Senator Hugh Scott. Mr. Harnberger earned his B.S.F.S, M.S.F.S., and
J.D. from Georgetown University.
Kip Hawley
Kip Hawley is vice president for reengineering for the Union Pacific
Railroad. Previously, he served as vice president of transportation
services at Union Pacific, where he was responsible for centralizing
train dispatching, crew management, intermodal operations, and
transportation planning for the Railroad's 19,000-mile system. Prior to
joining Union Pacific, Mr. Hawley held senior-level policy positions at
both the White House and the U.S. Department of Transportation during
the Reagan Administration, and as vice president and chief of staff for
Citicorp's Mid-Atlantic consumer loan business.
John G. Roach
John Roach is president of Roach Consulting Corp., Development
Programming Associates, in St. Louis, Missouri. Previously, he was vice
president of Mills Group, Inc. and president of Pantheon Corporation,
two integrated real estate, development, management, brokerage, and
construction firms in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Mr. Roach also
serves on the executive committee and is a member of Downtown St. Louis,
Inc. and Vice President of Government Affairs, Citizens for Modern
Transit.
Damaso Seda
Darnaso Seda is president of Transport Workers' Union of Greater New
York, Local 100, the union that represents the 38,000 men and women who
operate the New York City subway, bus system, and private bus lines. He
joined TWU as shop steward at the Fresh Pond Bus Depot in Queens in 1965
and served in a variety of positions, including legislative director,
director, secretary, and treasurer, until his election as president in
October 1993. Mr. Seda holds several degrees from Cornell/Empire State
College. He has received numerous awards for his dedication to
political empowerment and community involvement from such diverse groups
as the Boy Scouts of America, the Voters Club of New York, the New York
State Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, and the Grand Council of Hispanic
Societies.
John W. Snow
John Snow is chairman, president, and chief executive officer of CSX
Corporation. CSX is an international transportation company offering a
variety of rail, container-shipping, intermodal, barging, trucking,
contract logistics, and related services worldwide. Since joining CSX
in 1977, Mr. Snow has held a variety of administrative, operating, and
executive positions, culminating in his appointment as CEO in 1989.
Previously, he was deputy undersecretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation and administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Earlier in
43
his career, Mr. Snow practiced law and was a professor of law and
economics.
John C. Taylor
John Taylor is assistant professor of international marketing and
logistics at the School of Business Administration of Wayne State Uni-
versity in Detroit, Michigan, where his research has focused on the
plant and warehouse location implications of the North American Free
Trade Agreement, as well as a variety of border crossing transportation
issues. He also has conducted extensive research on State transpor-
tation policy issues, is a recent member of the National Motor Carrier
Advisory Committee to FHWS, and has testified before Congressional
committees and the Michigan Legislature on transportation issues on a
number of occasions. Dr. Taylor holds a Ph.D. in logistics from
Michigan State University.
COMMISSION STAFF
Anne D. Aylward, executive director of the Commission, is former
maritime director of the Massachusetts Port Authority and is active in
port and transportation organizations in Boston and nationally She
served as chairman of the board of the American Association of Port
Authorities and is currently a member of the executive committee of the
National Research Council's Marine Board. Ms. Aylward is a graduate of
Radcliffe College at Harvard University and holds a Master's degree from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sandra K. Bushue, deputy director of the Commission, has held a variety
of positions in Federal Government executive management and in nonprofit
organizations. Ms. Bushue is a graduate of Eureka College and is
currently seeking an Executive Master's of Business Degree at George
Mason University.
44
C
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991
(Public Law 102 - 240 - Dec. 18,1991)
SEC. 5005. National Commission on Intermodal Transportation.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT - There is established a National Commission on
Intermodal Transportation.
(b) FUNCTION - The Commission shall make a complete investigation and
study of intermodal transportation in the United States and
internationally. The Commission shall determine the status of
intermodal transportation, the problems that exist with respect to
intermodal transportation, and the resources needed to enhance
intermodal transportation. Based on such investigation and study, the
Commission shall recommend those policies which need to be adopted to
achieve the national goal of an efficient intermodal transportation
system.
(c) SPECIFIC MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED - The Commission shall
specifically investigate the following:
(1) INTERMODAL STANDARDIZATION - The Commission, in coordination
with the National Academy of Sciences, shall examine current and
potential impediments to international standardization in specific
elements of intermodal transportation. The Commission shall evaluate
the potential benefits and relative priority of standardization in
each such element and the time period and investment necessary to
adopt such standards.
(2) INTERMODAL IMPACTS ON PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE - The
Commission shall examine current and projected intermodal traffic
flows, including the current and projected market for intermodal
transportation, and how such traffic flows affect infrastructure
needs. The Commission shall make recommendations as to capital needs
for infrastructure development that will be required to accommodate
intermodal transportation, particularly with respect to surface
transportation access to airports and ports.
(3) LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS TO EFFICIENT INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION - The
Commission shall identify legal impediments to efficient intermodal
transportation. Specifically, the Commission shall study the
relationship between current regulatory schemes for individual modes
of transportation and intermodal transportation efficiency.
(4) FINANCIAL ISSUES - The Commission shall examine existing
impediments to the efficient financing of intermodal transportation
improvements. In carrying out such examination, the Commission shall
examine (A) the most efficient use of existing sources of funds for
connecting individual modes of transportation and for accommodating
transfers between such modes, and (B) the use of innovative methods
of financing for making such improvements. The Commission shall
examine current methods of public funding, the desirability of
increased flexibility in the use of amounts in Federal transportation
trust funds, and increased use of private sources of funding.
(5) NEW TECHNOLOGIES - The Commission shall study new technologies
for improving intermodal transportation and problems associated with
incorporating these new technologies in intermodal transportation.
45
(6) DOCUMENTATION - The Commission shall study problems in
documentation resulting from intermodal transfers of freight and make
recommendations for achieving uniform, efficient, and simplified
documentation.
(7) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The Commission shall identify the
areas related to intermodal transportation for which continued
research and development is needed after the report required by this
section is completed, and propose an agenda for carrying out such
research and development.
(8) PRODUCTIVITY - The Commission shall examine the relationship of
intermodal transportation to transportation rates, transportation
costs, and economic productivity.
(d) MEMBERSHIP
(1) APPOINTMENT - The Commission shall be composed of 11 members*
as follows:
(A) 3 members appointed by the President
(B) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives
(C) 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the House
of Representatives
(D) 2 members appointed by the majority leader of the Senate
(E) 2 members appointed by the minority leader to the Senate.
(2) QUALIFICATIONS - Members appointed pursuant to paragraph (1)
shall be appointed from among individuals interested in intermodal
transportation policy, including representatives of Federal,
State, and local governments, other public transportation authori-
ties or agencies, and organizations representing transportation
providers, shippers, labor, the financial community, and
consumers.
(3) TERMS - Members shall be appointed for the life of the
Commission.
(4) VACANCIES - A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in
the manner in which the original appointment was made.
(5) TRAVEL EXPENSES - Members shall serve without pay but shall
receive travel expenses, including per them in lieu of subsis-
tence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5,
United States Code.
(6) CHAIRMAN - The Chairman of the Commission shall be elected
by the members.
(e) STAFF - The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of such
personnel as it considers appropriate.
(f) STAFF OF FEDERAL AGENCIES - Upon request of the Commission, the
head of any department or agency of the United States may detail, on a
reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that department or agency to
the Commission to assist it in carrying out its duties under this
section.
(g) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES - Upon the request of the
Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall provide to the
Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the administrative support services
necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities under
this section.
(h) OBTAINING OFFICIAL DATA - The Commission may secure directly from
any department or agency of the United States information (other than
information required by any statute of the United States to be kept
confidential by such department or agency) necessary for the Commission
to carry out its duties under this section. Upon request of the Com-
mission, the head of that department or agency shall furnish such
nonconfidential information to the Commission.
(i) REPORT AND PROPOSED NATIONAL INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN - Not
later than September 30,1993, the Commission shall transmit to Congress
a final re-
___________________________
*In January 1994, at the request of the Commission, and in
consultation with the Congress, Secretary Pe¤a nominated four additional
Commissioners.
46
port on the results of the investigation and study conducted under this
section.* The report shall include recommendations of the Commission for
implementing the policy set forth in section 302(e) of title 49, United
States Code, including a proposed national intermodal transportation
plan and a proposed agenda for implementing the plan.
(j) TERMINATION - The Commission shall terminate on the 180th day
following the date of transmittal of the report under subsection W. All
records and papers of the Commission shall thereupon be delivered to the
Administrator of General Services for deposit in the National Archives.
___________________________
*Congress provided funds for the Commission in the Department of
Transportation's FY 1994 appropriation, and the Congressional leadership
directed the Commission to complete its report by September 30, 1994.
47
D
OUTREACH MEETINGS, SPEAKERS, AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY
San Diego, CA-February 21-22,1994
George Baima, Vice President of Sales, Central States Trucking
Gerald Birmingham, GE Railcar
Joni Casey, Intermodal Council, American Trucking Associations
Dick Coyle, Devine Intermodal
Dave DeBoer, Vice President, Greenbrier Intermodal
George Dopp, Roadway Express
Mike Fox, XTRA
Jim Hertwig, Vice President, Carolina Freight
Fred Huennekens, DDI Trucking
Tom Kanczuzewski, Consolidation Services, Inc.
John Kelly/ ITCO
Bill Lee, Executive Vice President, Rail Van MultiModal
Michael McCann, Vice President, McCann Piggyback
John McQuaid, President, Intermodal Association of North America
Keith Mattson, Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Tom Polodaro, Market Manager, Roadway Express
Ted Price, President, Triton Transport Services, Inc.
Greg Steffler, Vice President, Rail Delivery
Washington, DC-March 4,1994
Christina Casgar, Senior Program Officer, Transportation Research Board
Christopher Hart, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Donald Itzkoff, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration
Richard John, Director, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Robert Kramek, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard
Robert Lewis, Director for Development & Logistics, St. Lawrence Seaway
Robert McManus, Associate Administrator for Grants Management, Federal
Transit Administration
Rolf Schmitt, Senior Transportation Specialist, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics
Rodney Slater, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration
Quinton Taylor, Acting Assistant Administrator for Airports, Federal
Aviation Administration
Joan Yirn, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration
48
Chicago, IL -- March 10-11, 1994
Marietta Bailey, Director of Intermodal and Private Sector Program,
Chicago Area Transportation Study
Barry Bateman, Executive Director, Mitchell International Airport,
Milwaukee
Steve Bevilaqua, Senior Vice President, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
Kirk Brown, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation
Don Cole Vice President, TTX Corp.
Dan Cushman, President, Triple Crown
Joe Dijohn, Executive Director, PACE
Jay Franke, Northwestern University
Aaron Gellman, Director, Northwestern University Transportation Center
Judith Gutzels, Assistant Commissioner, Chicago Department of Aviation
Larry Henry, Assistant Vice President of National Accounts, Alliance
Shippers
Alonzo Hill, Executive Vice President, Service Delivery, Chicago Transit
Authority
Harry Hirsch, Vice President, Service Delivery Planning, Chicago Transit
Authority
Bob Ingram, Vice President of Logistics, C.H. Robinson
Jim Martin, President, Belt Railway of Chicago
J. Patrick McAtte, Vice President, Metra
Tim Morgan, Director of Transportation, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce
Mike Ryan, President, Miken Cartage
Ted Price, President, Triton Transport Services, Inc.
Fred Serpe, Executive Director, Illinois Transportation Association
Dan Smith, Senior Associate, Mercer Management Consulting
Susan Stauder, Director of Finance and Strategy, Bi-State Development
Agency (St. Louis Light Rail)
Andy Sze, President, Clipper Exxpress
Washington, DC-April 6-7,1994
Thomas Bolle, Senior Director for Governmental Affairs, Amtrak
Ross Capon, Executive Director, National Association of Railroad
Passengers
Joni Casey, Intermodal Council, American Trucking Associations
A.Ray Chamberlain, Former Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Transportation
Larry Dahms, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Oakland, CA
Al Eisenburg, Senior Director, Legislative Affairs, American Institute
of Architects
Al Engel, President & CEO, LS Transit Systems, Inc.
Jack Gilstrap, Executive Vice President, American Public Transit
Association
Jean Godwin, Vice President for Government Relations, American
Association of Port Authorities
George Hanthorn, Senior Vice President, Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Jean Lauver, U.S. Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee
Edith Page, Manager, Federal Programs, Transportation and
Infrastructure, Bechtel Group, Inc.
Susan Perry, Senior Vice President, America Bus Association
Alan Pisarski, Transportation Consultant
49
Washington, DC-April 6-7,1994 (Continued)
Michael Replogle, Co-Director, Transportation Project, Environmental
Defense Fund
P. Roger Slagle, Jr., U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Public
Works and Transportation
Becky Weber, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works
and Transportation
Atlanta, GA-April 19-20,1994
Alan Courtney, Director, Strategic Marketing, APL Land Transport
Services
James Covil, Principal, Wilbur Smith Associates
Morris Dillard, Senior Vice President for Operations, Atlanta Commission
for the Olympic Games
Gordon Fink, Staff, IVHS America
William Harris, Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University
Robert Levy, Vice President, Transdevelopment Corporation
David Messer, President, Centennial Express
Michael Meyer, Professor of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology
Mike O'Brien, Regional Eastern Manager, Interdom
Ted Prince, Vice President, "K" Line America, Inc.
Gary Ritter, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
H.Randal Roark, Corporation for Olympic Development in Atlanta
Wayne Shackelford, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation
Joel Stone, Director of Planning and Programming, Atlanta Regional
Commission
Joseph Sussman, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John West, Task Force Chairman, Caltrans
Washington, DC-May 2,1994
Asaf Ashar, Ph.D., National Ports and Waterways Institute
John Bartosiewicz, General Manager, Fort Worth Transportation Authority
Hank Dittmar, Executive Director, Surface Transportation Policy Project
Thomas Downs, Chairman & President, National Rail Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak)
Lee Lane, Vice President, Association of American Railroads
John McQuaid, President, Intermodal Association of North America GANA)
Bob Matthews, President, Railway Progress Institute
Richard Mudge, President, Apogee Research, Inc.
Roland Ouellette, President & CEO, Eno Transportation Foundation
Federico Pe¤a, Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Ron Reber, Manager, Civil Business Development, Bell Helicopter
Richard Salmon, Jr., Project Manager, Amtrak
John Tower, Director, Advanced Technology Trak Systems, Inc.
M.John Vickerman, CEO & President, Vickerman, Zachary & Miller
50
New Orleans, LA-May 10-11, 1994
Charles Apffel, Deputy Director, Louisiana State University, Ports &
Waterways
Walter Brooks, Planning Director, New Orleans Regional Planning
Commission
George Duffy, President, Navios Shipping
Jim Fox, Assistant Vice President, American Waterways Operators
Patrick Galwey, Director Planning & Engineering, Port of New Orleans
Carl Horn, Senior Vice President of Customer Acquisition, Lykes Lines
Steve Jaeger, Director of Marketing, Port of New Orleans
Dr. J. Jayawardana, Assistant Professor, Louisiana State University,
Ports & Waterways Institute
Charles Kirkland, Transportation Planner, City of New Orleans
Kenneth Storms, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Meridian, MS
Ken Wells, Vice President, American Waterways Operators
Paul Zimmerman, Intermodal Rail Coordinator, Port of New Orleans
Laredo, TX-May 12,1994
Maria Castanon, Trade Commissioner of Mexico
Armando Garcia, Assistant Director, U.S. Customs
Joe Garza, Officer in Charge, U.S. Border Patrol
Dr. James Giermanski, Division of International Trade, Texas A&M
University
Sam Goodhope, Special Council for Environment & Transportation, Texas
Attorney General's Office
Clemente Gutierrez, Supervisor, USDA
Jorge Haynes, Senior Vice President, International Bank of Commerce
Ramon Juarez, Port Director, Immigration & Naturalization Services
Frank Leach, Executive Director, Laredo Development Foundation
Griesalda Lopez, Planning Director, Laredo MPO
Richard Marroquin, Officer in Charge, Laredo Border Patrol
Hector Rodriguez, Director of International Customer Service, Union
Pacific Railroad
Luis Saenz, Legislative Assistant for Congressman Henry Bonilla
Frank Vida, Vice President, U.S. Customhouse Brokers Association
Brian Vogel, Assistant Vice President of Policy and Special Programs,
Association of American Railroads
Boston, MA-May 24-25,1994
Andreas Aeppli, President, A&L Associates, Inc.
Daniel Beagan, Director of Planning, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Transportation
Robert Bentley, President, Massachusetts Central & Maine Coast Railroads
Steve Burrington, Senior Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation
51
Boston, MA-May 24-25,1994 (Continued)
Dennis Coffey, Massachusetts Director of Railroad Policy & Property
Management
Marc Cutler, Project Consultant, Cambridge Systematics
Heidi Emmins, Providence and Worcester Railroad
Lance Grenzeback, Senior Vice President of Transportation, Cambridge
Systematics
Robert Grossman, Chairman & CEO, St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad
Thomas Howard, Regional Manager, Georgia Pacific Corporation
Steve Karol, House Chairman, Massachusetts Joint Committee on
Transportation
Shaun Keefe, Vice President, Romar Transportation Systems, Inc.
Kevin Kiley, Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association
Joseph Kott, Council of Governments, Portland, Maine
Mary Fay LaFaver, Director, Economic Development & Tourism, State of
Maine
Steve Leven, DRI/McGraw Hill
Jane Lincoln, Deputy Commissioner, Maine Department of Transportation
Alan Marks, The Hub Group
Carl Martland, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Paul D. Merrill, President, Merrill Industries, Inc.
Colin Pease, Executive Vice President, Springfield Terminals
Charles Repeta, Project Manager, New England Transportation Initiative
Rick Sousa, ICI Terminal
Michael Swanson, Deputy Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Transportation and Construction
Joan Yim, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration
New York, NY-May 31 -June 1, 1994
Don Borrelli, Superintendent of Intermodal Operations, Conrail
Stanley Brezenoff, Executive Director, Port Authority of New York & New
Jersey
John Claffey, Director, Transportation Planning Commission, Delaware
Valley Regional Planning Commission
Ted Dahlburg, Senior Transportation Planner, Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission
Gerald Donaldson, Co-Chair, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
Michael Franchese, Regional Director, New York State Department of
Transportation
William Hamlin, Vice President/General
Manager, SeaLand
Al Harf, Assistant Executive Director of Planning and Budget, New Jersey
Transit Corporation
Tony Hatch, Research Analyst, PaineWebber, Inc.
David Judd, Transcom
Janet Oakley, Director of Transportation, National Association of
Regional Councils
Ted Olcott, Project Manager, NJ Alliance for Action
Edward O'Sullivan, Manager, Airport Access Program, Port Authority of
New York & New Jersey
John Poorman, Staff Director, Capital District Transportation Commission
(Albany, NY)
52
New York, NY-May 31 -June 1, 1994 (Continued)
James Roach, Bureau of Transportation Planning, Michigan Department of
Transportation
Richard Roberts, Director of Transportation Planning, Port Authority of
New York & New Jersey
Raymond Ruggieri, Director, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
Paul Schlesinger, Vice President of Research Department, Donaldson,
Lufkin & Jenrette
Larry Spozi, Manager of Automated Cargo Expediting System, Port
Authority of New York & New Jersey
Michael Strasser, Assistant Commissioner, New York City Department of
Transportation
James Tripp, Chairman, Tri-State Transportation Campaign
Joel Weiner, Executive Director, New Jersey Transportation Planning
Authority
Bill Wheeler, Director of Planning, Metropolitan Transportation
Authority
Cambridge, MA-June 7,1994
Aviva Brecher, Office of Strategic Planning & Analysis, Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center
Dan Breen, Systems Engineering Officer, Mass Bay Transportation
Authority
Ron Corsetti, Area Coordinator, Navigation Technologies
Tom Ellen, Transportation Consultant
Tom Engle, General Manager, New York Air Brake Co.
Dan Fleishman, Director, Transit Policy Analysis, MultiSystems
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University Transportation Center
Karla Karash, President, Walk Boston
Adam Kopp, Research Analyst, Navigation Technologies
Paul Kromberg, Senior Assisting Manager, Research & Test, Association of
American Railroads
Tom Levine, Director of Rail Marketing, Arntech
William Levison, Division Scientist, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
William Lyons, Operation Research Analyst, Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center
Peter Metz, Deputy Director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Center for Transportation Studies
Rabi Mishalani, Research Associate, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Bengt Muten, President, Muten & Associates, Inc.
Dave Nelson, Project Manager, Planning Department, Mass Bay
Transportation Authority
Bahar Norris, Senior Economist, Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center
Gary Ritter, IVHS Program Coordinator, Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center
Daniel Roth, Research Assistant, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Carl Seiberlich, Consultant, American President Lines
Joseph Silien, Director, Business Development, ABB Traction, Inc.
Bruce Spear, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
53
Cambridge, MA-June 7,1994 (Continued)
Joseph Sussman, JR East Professor, Department of Civil & Environment
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Veronica Thieback, Staff Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation
M. John Vickerman, CEO & President, Vickerman, Zachary & Miller
Nigel Wilson, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John Zavgren, Principal Investigator, Wireless Data, GTE Laboratories
Los Angeles--June 20-21,1994
Art Almeida, Former President of Local 13, ILWU
Skip Baldwin, Manager, Wilmington Homeowners Association
Linda Bohlinger, Deputy Executive Officer for Capital Planning, Los
Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA)
Ken Churchill, Public Affairs Manager for the Pacific Region, United
Parcel Service (UPS)
Pat Conroy, Office of Advanced Transportation Management & Info.
(Caltrans)
John Cox, Councilman, Newport Beach
Ginger Gherardi, Executive Director, Ventura County Transportation
Commission and National President of the Women's Transportation Seminar
(WTS)
Thomas Griebel, Assistant Executive Director, Multimodal Transportation,
Texas Department of Transportation
Peter Hathaway, Chief Deputy Director, California Transportation
Commission
Gil Hicks, Executive Director, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
Ron Kilcoyne, Transportation Manager, City of Santa Clarita, CA
Geraldine Knatz, Director of Planning, Port of Long Beach
Wes McDaniel, Executive Director, San Bernardino Association of
Governments
Representative Norman Mineta, U.S. House of Representatives
Ernesto Nevarez, Tax Specialist
Jim Preusch, Chief Financial Officer, Port of Los Angeles
Larry Rhinehart, Mayor, City of Montclair, CA
Mitchell Rouse, CEO, Supershuttle
Walter Siembab, Director, Telecommunications for Clean Air
Jim Sims, President, Commuter Transportation Services, Inc.
Doug Smith, System Manager of Marketing, Overseas International, CN
Intermodal
Richard Stanger, Executive Director, Southern CA Regional Rail Authority
Ted Tanner, Vice President of Development, Catellus
Rob Vogel, Senior Project Manager, Catellus
Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air
Quality Management District
Frank White, Executive Director, LAMTA
Judy Wilson, Executive Officer of Planning & Programming, LAMTA
Ed Woolley, Secretary, Institute of International Container Lessors
Judy Wright, Councilman, City of Claremont, CA
54
Washington, DC-June 28,1994
Robert Molossky, Amalgamated Transit Union
Pat Morris, Director of Legislative Affairs, Marine Engineers Beneficial
Association
Edward Wytkind, Executive Director, Transportation Trades Department,
AFL-CIO
Chicago, IL-July 13,1994
Robert Nardelli, President & CEO, GE Transportation
Seattle, WA-July 14,1994
Amy Arnis, Policy Development Branch Manager, Washington Department of
Transportation
Tim Banks, General Manager, Norton Lilly International, Inc.
Ron Borowski, Project Manager, Seattle Engineering Department
Paul Chilcote, Director of Planning, Budget & Environment, Port of
Tacoma
Patricia Davis, President, Board of Commissioners, Port of Seattle
Tom Decker, Director of Government Relations, Port of Portland
Mike Fletcher, Commissioner, Port of Tacoma
Dave Hatzenbubler, Assistant Vice President, Burlington Northern
Railroad
Charles Howard, Planning Office Manager, Washington Department of
Transportation
Ron Judd, Executive Secretary, King County Labor Council
Paul Kaftanski, Project Manager, City of Everett
Terry McCarthy, Deputy Director, Washington State Department of
Transportation
Mary McCumber, Executive Director, Puget Sound Regional Council
Gil Mallery, Rail Branch Manager, Washington State Department of
Transportation
A. Daniel O'Neal, President & Chairman, Tolan O'Neal Transportation &
Logistics
Preston Schiller, Co-Coordinator of ALT-TRANS
Burr Stewart, Director of Aviation Planning, SEA-TAC International
John Terpstra, Executive Director, Port of Tacoma
Chicago, IL -- August 1, 1994
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University Transportation Center
55
Butte, MT -- August 24,1994
William Brodsky, President, Montana Rail Link
Senator Max Baucus, U.S. Senate
Gil Carmichael, Vice Chairman, MK Rail Corporation
JoAnn Cate, Executive Director, Whitefish Chamber of Commerce
Wesley Choc, President, AAA Montana
Matthew Cohn, Travel Director, Montana Department of Commerce
Mark Cole, Director, Port of Shelby
Bill Fogarty, Director of Marketing, Port of Montana
Pat Keim, Director of Government Affairs, Burlington Northern Railroad
Richard King, Executive Director, Bear Paw Development
Jack Lynch, Chief Executive, Butte/Silver Bow Region
George Paul, Executive Director, Montana Farmers Union
John Rabenberg, Chairman of the Governor's Task Force on Essential Air
Service
Sandy Straehl, Program & Policy Analyst, Transportation Planning,
Montana Department of Transportation
Larry Swanson, Director of Economic Analysis, University of Montana
Deanna Thielman, Program Manager, Eagle Transit
Jerry Thomas, Executive Director, Montana Trade Authority
Moe Wosepka, Director, Rocky Mountain Trade Corridor
Written Testimony
Jeff Carpenter
Seec, Inc., Marietta, PA
"Collapsible Container"
Michael Collins
President WinterSports, Inc., Whitefish, MT
"Amtrak Service in Northeast Montana"
Tom Decker
Manager, Federal Government Relations
Port of Portland, Portland, OR
"ISTEA, Freight and Intermodal Planning"
James N. Denn
Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation St. Paul, MN
"Advocating a Proactive Role for Government to Jointly Develop with the
Private Sector an Intermodal Transportation System" and "Intermodal
Activities"
Ted Falgout
Executive Director, Port Fourchon Galliana, LA
"ISTEA"
56
Francis B. Francois
Executive Director, American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
"Status of Intermodal Transportation"
John Glover
Director of Strategic and Policy Planning, Port of Oakland, Oakland, CA
"Freight Rail Under ISTEA"
Michael Groomer
Assistant City Manager of the City of Fort Worth, Fort Worth, TX
"Fort Worth Alliance Airport and Intermodalism"
Joseph Lema
Transportation Coal Association, Washington, DC
"The Coal Industry's Interest with Regard to Intermodal Transport"
Joseph Leo
Director of Americas Global Equipment Management, New Jersey City, NJ
"Application of the Grey Box Concept to USA Intermodal Operations"
Carmen Lunetta
Director, Port of Miami, Miami, FL
"Intermodal Issues and Concerns for the State of Florida"
David Mosena
Commissioner, Department of Aviation, City of Chicago, Chicago, IL
"Aviation"
Jane Lincoln
Deputy Commissioner, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME
"Treating Sealed Ongoing Containers"
Kenneth Maki
President, Midwest Timber, Inc., Hayward, WI
"Problems Shipping by Rail"
Robert E. Martinez
Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA
"Intermodal Provisions of ISTEA"
Salvador Saldana
Truck Owner/Operator, Van Nuys, CA
"Problems with Trucking"
Brian Shorten
Executive Director, Metropolitan Council of Governments, The Fargo-
Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments in North Dakota, Fargo, ND
"Questions Regarding the National Transportation System"
Brian Smith
Chief, Division of Transportation Planning, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA
"Intermodal Transportation"
Ben Watts
Secretary of Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee, FL
"Intermodal Issues and Concerns for the State of Florida"
Sheryl Weber
Manager, Corporate Public Affairs, United Parcel Services Co.,
Washington, DC
"Intermodalism Comments"
57
Joel Weiner
Executive Director, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority,
Newark, NJ
"Helping States and MPOs Meet Intermodal Integration"
JoAnn Wysocki
President, Wilmington Home Owners Motor and Rail Traffic in CA,
Wilmington, CA
"The Impact of Rail and Motor Traffic in a Community"
58
E
COMMISSIONED STUDIES
A&L Associates. An Assessment Of Technologies and Research in
Intermodal Transportation, Final Report. June 1994.
Aldaron, Inc. Systemic Barriers to Intermodalism. August 1994.
Apogee Research, Inc. Federal Transportation Finance: Implications for
Intermodal Investments. Bethesda, MD. August 12,1994.
Mercer Management Consulting, Inc., Government Influences on
Intermodalism: Observations and Examples. San Francisco, CA. July
1994.
59
The Commission wishes to thank the following organizations for providing
photographs for this report.
Page
5 Massachusetts Highway Department, Central Artery Project
7 Amtrak
13 The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
17 American Public Transit Association
23 California Department of Transportation
24 Association of American Railroads
26 American Public Transit Association
30 The Achison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
34 Amtrak
39 Association of American Railroads
Editorial Consultant
Joseph Foote Associates
Design and Production
Norcott & Company
Proofreading
Amy M. Brooks
60
