This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-740 
entitled 'Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would 
Benefit from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts' which was 
released on September 26, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Honorable John Walsh, U.S. Senate: 

September 2014: 

Freight Transportation: 

Developing National Strategy Would Benefit from Added Focus on 
Community Congestion Impacts: 

GAO-14-740: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-740, a report to the Honorable John Walsh, United 
States Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Projected increases in the transport of freight by rail and truck may 
produce economic benefits but also increase traffic congestion in 
communities. MAP-21, which contains a number of provisions designed to 
enhance freight mobility, is currently before Congress for 
reauthorization. GAO was asked to review trends in freight flows and 
any related traffic-congestion impacts. 

This report addresses among other things: (1) recent changes in U.S. 
rail and truck freight flows and the extent to which related traffic 
congestion is reported to impact communities, and (2) the extent to 
which DOT's efforts to implement MAP-21 address freight-related 
traffic congestion in communities. GAO analyzed rail data from 2007 
through 2012 and highway data from 2010 and 2012 and reviewed 24 
freight-related traffic congestion mitigation projects at 12 locations 
selected on the basis of different geographical locations and sizes. 
The results are not generalizable. GAO also reviewed federal laws and 
interviewed freight stakeholders. 

What GAO Found: 

Recent trends in freight flows, if they continue as expected, may 
exacerbate congestion issues in communities, particularly along 
certain corridors. As of 2012, the latest year for which data were 
available, national freight rail and truck traffic had approached 
levels of 2007 prior to the economic recession. Certain trends related 
to specific commodities have affected rail flows, including increases 
in domestic crude oil production. A key negative impact of increasing 
freight flows is congestion at highway-rail grade crossings, where 
road traffic must wait to cross the tracks when trains are passing. 
For example, a Miami-area study found that rail crossings in the area 
caused delays of roughly 235,000 person-hours per year at a cost of 
$2.4 million. Although several communities we visited had documented 
long-standing concerns over freight-related traffic congestion, state 
and local stakeholders we met with had varying levels of quantified 
information regarding the extent of the impacts or costs to the 
community. For example, in contrast to the Miami study, another study 
we reviewed included some information on train counts, but did not 
document hours of delay or any costs associated with such delays. 

The Department of Transportation's (DOT) efforts to implement the 
freight-related provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 
21st Century Act (MAP-21) are still underway but so far do not fully 
consider freight-related traffic congestion. MAP-21's freight policy 
goals do not explicitly include addressing freight-related traffic 
congestion, but MAP-21 requires DOT to identify best practices to 
mitigate the impacts of freight movement on communities in a national 
freight strategic plan, which is due in October 2015. MAP-21's 
requirements and DOT's efforts so far do not fully establish the 
federal role or identify goals, objectives, or performance measures in 
this area, which may limit the usefulness of the National Freight 
Strategic Plan. For example: 

* DOT issued for comment a required draft primary freight network, but 
according to DOT and other stakeholders, MAP-21's lack of defined 
purpose for the primary freight network and mileage limit of 27,000 
miles hampered DOT's ability to include in this draft network some 
types of roads where local traffic congestion impacts of national 
freight movements are often experienced, such as roads connecting 
ports to freeways. The significance of the 27,000 mileage limitation 
is not clear. DOT released a surface transportation reauthorization 
proposal in April 2014 that proposed establishing a multimodal 
national freight network with a defined purpose and with no mileage 
limit. 

* DOT is currently developing the Freight Transportation Conditions 
and Performance Report, which is to support the National Freight 
Strategic Plan. For this and other documents, DOT established a broad 
goal to reduce freight-related community impacts. However, DOT did not 
identify clear goals, objectives, or measures related to freight-
related traffic congestion in local communities due to a lack of 
reliable national data. Thus, a clear federal role has not been 
established. High-quality data are essential to supporting sound 
planning and decision-making. Without reliable national data, it will 
be difficult for DOT to establish goals and objectives and to define 
the extent of freight-related traffic congestion and measure 
performance. 

What GAO Recommends: 

Congress should consider clarifying the purpose of the primary freight 
network and, as relevant to this purpose, revising the mileage limit 
requirement. 

DOT should clarify the federal role for mitigating local freight-
related congestion in the National Freight Strategic Plan, including a 
strategy for improving needed data. DOT concurred with the 
recommendations. 

View GAO-14-740. For more information, contact Susan Fleming at (202) 
512-4431 or flemings@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Increasing Freight Flows May Exacerbate Long-standing Community 
Congestion Issues: 

Selected Communities Primarily Used Public Funds to Address Freight-
related Traffic Congestion and Some Have Faced Funding Challenges: 

DOT's Efforts to Implement MAP-21 Freight Provisions Incorporate Some 
Consideration of Community Impacts but Do Not Establish a Clear 
Federal Role: 

Conclusions: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Transportation: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Federal Transportation Funding and Financing Programs That 
Can Be Used to Mitigate Freight-Related Traffic Congestion: 

Table 2: Public and Private Funding for Ongoing and Recently Completed 
Freight-Related Congestion Mitigation Projects in Selected Site Visit 
Communities (in Millions) as of August 4, 2014: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Freight Flows, by Tons, Moved on Railways, Highways, and 
Inland Waterways, 2010, with Ports Serving Selected Communities: 

Figure 2: Examples of Freight-Related Traffic Congestion and 
Mitigation Efforts: 

Figure 3: Estimated Rail Carloads of Selected Shipment Types, and of 
Crude Oil Separately 2007-2012: 

Figure 4: Estimated Change in Total Carloads and Intermodal Carloads, 
by State, 2007-2012: 

Figure 5: Estimated Change in Carloads of Crude Oil and Coal, by State 
2007-2012: 

Figure 6: Estimated Change in Pass-Through Carloads of Crude Oil and 
Coal, by State, 2007-2012: 

Figure 7: Highway-Rail Grade Crossings with a Crossing of at Least 
200,000 Rail Cars Annually and 10,000 Vehicles Daily, 2012: 

Figure 8: A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing in Billings, Montana, Bisects 
the City: 

Figure 9: Truck Traffic in Watford City, a town near Williston in the 
Bakken Region of North Dakota, April 2014: 

Abbreviations: 

AADT: average annual daily traffic: 

AAR: Association of American Railroads: 

ATA: American Trucking Associations: 

ATRI: American Transportation Research Institute: 

BNSF: Burlington-Northern Santa Fe: 

BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics: 

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement: 

CREATE: Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency 
Program: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

FRA: Federal Railroad Administration: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

HPMS: Highway Performance Monitoring System: 

ITS: intelligent transportation systems: 

MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act: 

MPO: metropolitan planning organization: 

NHS: National Highway System: 

NJ DOT: New Jersey DOT: 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

STB: Surface Transportation Board: 

TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act: 

TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery: 

UP: Union Pacific: 

WSDOT: Washington State DOT: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 19, 2014: 

The Honorable John Walsh: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Senator Walsh: 

The nation's freight transportation network is vital to the 
functioning of the national economy. In 2012, the United States' 
transportation system moved 19.7 billion tons of goods, valued at more 
than $17 trillion, according to the Department of Transportation 
(DOT). Freight travels over an extensive network that consists of 
approximately 4 million miles of highways and roads and 140,000 miles 
of rail lines, as well as inland waterways, pipelines, and airways. 
Based on tonnage, trucks transport most freight in the United States 
(about 70 percent), but railroads also carry significant volumes over 
long distances. Freight trucks and trains both carry a variety of 
commodities. These include bulk goods--such as gravel, coal, and 
cereal grains--and consumer goods packed in containers as intermodal 
shipments that can be transferred among trains, trucks, and ships. DOT 
projects that the total tonnage of freight moved in the U.S. annually 
will increase 51 percent from 2007 to 2040 (from 18,879 million tons 
to 28,520 million tons). 

While increased freight activity is closely associated with economic 
growth, this activity comes with a cost. Higher levels of freight 
movement can result in higher levels of congestion--both in the 
freight network itself[Footnote 1] and in local communities where 
traffic on local highways and roads can be affected by truck or rail 
flows.[Footnote 2] Freight-related traffic congestion may be due to 
highway-rail grade crossings, heavy freight traffic exiting and 
entering ports or other freight centers from local roads, or heavy 
truck traffic in rural communities related to energy production. 
[Footnote 3] In recent years, some cities and community organizations 
in the upper Northwest have expressed concern that commodity trends--
specifically, recent and potential increases in the transportation of 
crude oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota to the West Coast and 
the transportation of coal to proposed export terminals in Washington 
State--could dramatically increase these negative impacts. 

In 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress 
in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which authorized most surface 
transportation programs for 2 years--the first surface transportation 
authorization since 2005. MAP-21, which expires on September 30, 2014, 
contains provisions designed to enhance freight movement in support of 
national goals. In deliberations in advance of reauthorizing this 
legislation, Congress may consider additional provisions related to 
freight transportation. 

You asked us to review how trends in particular commodity flows are 
affecting local freight-related traffic congestion and how communities 
may mitigate such impacts.[Footnote 4] Specifically, this report 
addresses: (1) how U.S. rail and truck freight flows are changing, and 
the extent to which freight-related traffic congestion is reported to 
impact local communities; (2) how communities have funded efforts to 
mitigate freight-related traffic congestion, and what funding 
challenges, if any, communities report facing; and (3) the extent to 
which DOT's efforts to implement freight-related provisions of MAP-21 
have addressed local freight-related traffic congestion. 

To address these objectives, we analyzed Surface Transportation Board 
(STB) data on rail carloads from 2007 to 2012. We chose to analyze STB 
data beginning in 2007 after being advised by STB officials that to 
examine recent trends, 2007 was more indicative than 2008 of rail 
traffic before the recent U.S. economic recession. We also analyzed 
DOT data on 2012 annual average daily traffic of vehicles and on 2010 
highway freight flows, and the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) 
National Grade Crossing Inventory and FRA's flows over the rail 
network of STB's rail data from 2010 and 2012. We used the most recent 
data available for the purposes of our analyses and concluded the data 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes used in our report. We 
reviewed the reliability of these data by reviewing related 
documentation and interviewing agency officials about their data 
collection procedures, among other things. We also obtained 
information from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) on rail 
carload levels in 2013. 

After learning that there was not a federal source of data that could 
reliably be used to analyze freight truck trends from 2007 to 2012, 
because, among other things, the data do not sufficiently distinguish 
among classes of trucks, we reported information available in studies 
by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the American 
Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), the research arm of ATA, 
which performs some of its studies in partnership with the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA). We reviewed DOT's evaluation of the ATA 
truck tonnage data and the methodologies used in ATRI studies and 
determined that they were sufficiently reliable to use to provide 
contextual information. We also obtained some information on freight 
truck levels in 2013 from ATA and ATRI. 

We reviewed freight-related traffic congestion issues and mitigation 
projects at 12 selected communities to understand the types of local 
impacts communities are experiencing from freight movements and 
efforts they are making to mitigate such impacts. We selected 
communities representing a variety of different geographical locations 
and sizes, that had either successfully developed projects to mitigate 
freight-related congestion impacts (such as railroad-highway grade 
separations or truck bypass routes), were on record as having studied 
and attempted to mitigate such impacts, or were identified by DOT 
officials as having recently had an increase in freight-related 
traffic congestion. Selected communities included Seattle, Edmonds, 
and Spokane, Washington; Billings and Glendive, Montana; Williston 
(and surrounding communities in the Bakken oil field region), North 
Dakota; Chicago, Illinois; Gulfport and Pascagoula, Mississippi; 
Miami, Florida; Paulsboro, New Jersey, and the New York City 
metropolitan region, including projects for New Jersey and New York. 
Within these communities, we reviewed 24 ongoing or recently completed 
congestion mitigation projects, such as grade separations, port rail 
improvements and access roads, and truck bypass routes. Findings from 
our selected communities and projects are not generalizable. 

We also reviewed and analyzed policy documents, proposed legislation, 
and federal laws, including MAP-21, DOT's documentation of efforts to 
implement MAP-21's freight provisions, such as its published draft 
primary freight network, and public comments on the draft primary 
freight network, as well as DOT's April 2014 surface transportation 
reauthorization proposal. Finally, to inform all objectives, we 
reviewed prior GAO work on surface transportation and interviewed DOT, 
state, local, and private industry officials involved in freight 
issues. These included officials from DOT's FRA, Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), and Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and 
STB; state and local transportation agencies in the communities we 
visited, U.S. railroad companies including the Burlington-Northern 
Santa Fe (BNSF), Union Pacific (UP), CSX, and Norfolk Southern 
Corporation; and industry associations such as AAR, ATA, ATRI, the 
Owner Operator Independent Drivers' Association, and the American 
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to September 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more 
information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I. 

Background: 

Our nation's freight is moved by different transportation modes--
including rail, truck, ships, pipelines, and airplanes--with the 
majority of freight by weight reaching its final destination by either 
truck or by rail. In addition, some freight movements are intermodal, 
such as containers that arrive in the U.S. by ship and are 
subsequently transferred to rail or truck. A map of 2010 freight flow 
volumes across the U.S. shows that many states had at least 100 
million tons of freight annually flowing over some highways, railways, 
or inland waterways (see figure 1).[Footnote 5] 

Figure 1: Freight Flows, by Tons, Moved on Railways, Highways, and 
Inland Waterways, 2010, with Ports Serving Selected Communities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Depicted on the map: 

Locations: 
Gulfport, Mississippi; 
Miami, Florida; 
New York, New York and New Jersey; 
Pascagoula, Mississippi; 
Seattle, Washington. 

Flows depicted: 

Rail: 
Less than 50 million tone; 
50 million to less than 100 million tons; 
100 million tons or more. 

Waterways: 
Less than 50 million tone; 
50 million to less than 100 million tons; 
100 million tons or more. 

Interstates: 
Less than 50 million tone; 
50 million to less than 100 million tons; 
100 million tons or more. 

NonInterstates: 
Less than 50 million tone; 
50 million to less than 100 million tons; 
100 million tons or more. 

Source: GAO presentation of U.S. Department of Transportation and 
Surface Transportation Board information. GAO-14-740. 

[End of figure] 

Recent commodity trends, such as the increase in domestic crude oil 
production from shale formations, have affected freight movements. 
[Footnote 6] According to the Energy Information Administration, oil 
production from shale formations, such as North Dakota's Bakken 
region, has increased 6 fold between 2007 and 2012, and is expected to 
continue to increase--by 48 percent from 2012 to 2019--and remain 
above 2012 levels through 2040. 

While vital to our nation's economy, freight movements can contribute 
to two types of congestion impacts, which can be temporary or more 
permanent in nature. The first is congestion on the freight network 
itself, such as when congested rail corridors and highways result in 
delays for freight shippers. The second, which is the focus of this 
report, is freight-related traffic congestion in communities. Unlike 
congestion on the freight network, freight-related traffic congestion 
may not delay or affect freight shippers but results in delays and 
congested road conditions for passenger and emergency response 
vehicles. For example, such vehicles may experience delays at highway-
rail grade crossings or near rail yards and transfer facilities. In 
addition, delays and congested road conditions can occur when freight 
trucks must traverse local streets to access major freight centers, 
such as ports or distribution warehouses. 

Depending on the specific circumstances in a community, various types 
of projects can be undertaken to help alleviate freight-related 
traffic congestion (see figure 2). For instance, grade separation 
projects--such as overpasses and underpasses--can eliminate congestion 
issues associated with heavily traveled highway-rail grade crossings. 
In addition, signalization projects, including the use of intelligent 
transportation systems (ITS), can help reduce delays at highway-rail 
grade crossings by providing drivers with advanced warning of 
approaching trains or extending green lights after a train has cleared 
an intersection.[Footnote 7] To reduce truck traffic on local roads, 
communities may build direct freeway connections between freight 
centers and nearby highways (connector roads or tunnels), redirect 
freight trucks around towns (bypass routes), or improve the ability of 
local roads to manage truck traffic--for example, by widening lanes 
and adding passing lanes and traffic lights.[Footnote 8] 

Figure 2: Examples of Freight-Related Traffic Congestion and 
Mitigation Efforts: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 illustrations] 

Freight-related traffic congestion example: 
Delays at rail grade crossings: 
Road congestion at crossings along a heavily used rail line, or near a 
railroad company's switching yard or rail transfer facility. 
Mitigation example: 
Grade separation projects: 
Such as overpasses, underpasses, and viaducts; 
Signalization projects: 
These can include the use of intelligent transportation systems, 
advanced warning of approaching trains, or extending green lights 
immediately before or after a train. 

Freight-related traffic congestion example: 
Delays when freight trucks traverse local streets: 
Road congestion caused by road crossings along access routes to major 
freight centers, such as ports or distribution warehouses. 
Mitigation example: 
Direct freeway connections: 
Connector roads or tunnels between freight centers and nearby highways; 
Road improvements: 
Improve roads to manage truck traffic—for example, by widening lanes 
and adding passing lanes and traffic lights; 
Bypass routes: 
Redirect traffic around towns. 

Source: GAO. GAO-14-740. 

[End of figure] 

Multiple stakeholders play a role in mitigating the impacts of freight-
related traffic congestion in communities. At the federal level, DOT 
and its component agencies develop and enforce regulations, advance 
national strategic goals by providing technical assistance and 
leadership through collaboration with various transportation 
stakeholders, and oversee federal-funding programs that can be used to 
mitigate freight-related traffic congestion (see table 1 below for 
brief descriptions of selected programs). Many of these funding 
programs had been available for freight-related congestion-mitigation 
and traffic-flow improvement projects prior to MAP-21. 

* FHWA distributes about $40 billion a year to states to build, 
preserve, and improve the nation's road and highway infrastructure 
through multiple formula and discretionary grant programs, 
collectively known as the federal-aid highway program.[Footnote 9] 

* FRA enforces safety regulations, makes selective investments in the 
country's rail network, and maintains the National Grade Crossing 
Inventory, a uniform, national database meant to assist in the 
planning and implementation of rail-highway crossing safety 
improvement programs. 

* STB--an independent economic regulatory agency administratively 
affiliated with DOT--issues licenses to railroads for construction and 
acquisition projects and adjudicates railroad rate and service 
disputes. 

Table 1: Federal Transportation Funding and Financing Programs That 
Can Be Used to Mitigate Freight-Related Traffic Congestion: 

Program: Railway-Highway Crossings Program[A]; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Federal Highway 
Administration; 
Purpose: To fund safety improvements to reduce the number of 
fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings. 

Program: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Federal Highway 
Administration; 
Purpose: To fund transportation projects or programs that will 
contribute to attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter by 
reducing congestion and improving air quality. 

Program: National Highway Performance Program; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Federal Highway 
Administration; 
Purpose: To support the condition and performance of the National 
Highway System (NHS), construct improvements to the NHS, and ensure 
that federal highway construction investments help states achieve the 
performance targets outlined in their NHS asset management plans. 

Program: Highway Safety Improvement Program; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Federal Highway 
Administration; 
Purpose: To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and 
serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public 
roads and roads on tribal lands. 

Program: Surface Transportation Program; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Federal Highway 
Administration; 
Purpose: To preserve and improve the condition and performance of any 
federal-aid highway, bridge, or tunnel project on any public road; 
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects. 

Program: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
Credit Assistance Program; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Office of the Secretary; 
Purpose: To fill market gaps and leverage substantial private co-
investment by providing federal credit assistance--in the form of 
direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit--to eligible 
surface transportation projects, including highway, transit, intercity 
passenger rail, some types of freight rail, and intermodal freight 
transfer facilities. 

Program: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Grant 
Program; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Office of the Secretary; 
Purpose: To fund projects (via a competitive grant program) that have 
a significant impact on the Nation, a region or a metropolitan area in 
terms of safety, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, 
livability and environmental sustainability. 

Program: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program; 
Lead administration or office within DOT: Federal Railroad 
Administration[B]; 
Purpose: To finance the development of railroad infrastructure--such 
as track, bridge, and rail yard improvements--through direct loans and 
loan guarantees. 

Source: GAO. GAO-14-740. 

[A] States' Railway-Highway Crossings Program funds are set aside from 
their Highway Safety Improvement Program apportionment. 

[B] Another Federal Railroad Administration program--the Rail Line 
Relocation and Improvement Capital Grant Program--is intended to 
assist state and local governments in mitigating the adverse effects 
created by the presence of rail infrastructure; however Congress has 
not appropriated funding for this program since fiscal year 2011. 

[End of table] 

State and local transportation agencies have primary responsibility 
for building, maintaining, and operating roads and planning and 
prioritizing funding for transportation projects, including freight-
related projects. In addition, public port authorities--which may be 
local, regional, or state authorities--oversee port operations, manage 
port revenue streams, and work with state and local transportation 
agencies to plan freight infrastructure projects, including projects 
to mitigate traffic congestion impacts of freight.[Footnote 10] 

Private sector entities are largely responsible for moving the 
nation's freight. These entities--including trucking companies, 
railroads, airlines, pipeline companies, and terminal and distribution-
center operators--often compete with each other for freight-shipping 
business and make key routing, operating, and equipment investment 
decisions. Some private entities, such as railroad and pipeline 
companies, own the freight infrastructure they are dependent upon to 
facilitate freight movements; other private entities, such as trucking 
firms and terminal operators, rely on what is primarily publicly-owned 
freight infrastructure, including the National Highway System. 

To mitigate freight-related traffic congestion and meet other 
transportation infrastructure needs, public and private transportation 
stakeholders may enter into what are referred to as public-private 
partnerships. As we have previously reported, these partnerships can 
offer benefits to the public sector, such as the sharing or 
transferring of projects' financial risk to the private sector and 
increased operational and management efficiency of publicly-owned 
infrastructure, depending on the specific partnership agreement. 
[Footnote 11] In more straightforward examples of public-private 
partnerships, private sector entities may provide direct funding to 
publicly-sponsored infrastructure projects, or enter into contracts 
with public agencies to design and construct these projects. Other 
partnerships can be more complex. For example, a private entity may 
assume control over the operations and maintenance of an existing 
public asset, such as a toll road, for a fixed period of time as part 
of a revenue-sharing agreement with the public sector. Alternatively, 
a private entity may take responsibility for all aspects of a new, 
publicly-sponsored infrastructure project--including design, finance, 
construction, and operations and maintenance--in exchange for 
periodic, performance-based payments from the public sector, from 
which the private sector expects to profit. In prior work, we have 
noted that there is no "free" money in public-private partnerships--
for example, while highway public-private partnerships can be used to 
obtain financing for highway infrastructure without the use of public 
sector funding, this funding is a form of privately issued debt that 
must be repaid to private investors seeking a return on their 
investment by collecting toll revenues.[Footnote 12] 

In recent years, the federal government has placed an increasing 
emphasis on the nation's freight transportation system in its surface 
transportation authorizing legislation. In 2012, the President signed 
into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-
21)[Footnote 13]. MAP-21 established seven goals for a national 
freight policy.[Footnote 14] None of these goals explicitly 
encompasses addressing community impacts of freight, such as local 
traffic-congestion impacts. One of the goals is to invest in 
infrastructure improvements and implement operational improvements 
that reduce congestion--which could potentially incorporate local 
traffic congestion caused by freight flows. However, according to DOT 
officials, DOT has generally treated congestion as a source of delay 
in the delivery of freight shipments and hence as a factor that 
reduces economic productivity, not as a factor that produces adverse 
community impacts. In addition, another goal, to reduce the 
environmental impacts of freight movement on the national freight 
network, refers to a type of community impact that can be caused by 
freight congestion. Unlike its predecessor legislation[Footnote 15], 
MAP-21 also requires DOT to establish a national freight strategic 
plan in consultation with state departments of transportation and 
other transportation stakeholders. MAP-21 includes as a required 
element of the freight strategic plan the identification of best 
practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement on communities. 

Also unlike its predecessor legislation, MAP-21 requires DOT to 
establish a national freight network. The national freight network is 
to include a primary freight network and critical rural freight 
corridors to assist states in strategically directing resources toward 
improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on 
highways. The act established a deadline of October 1, 2013 for DOT to 
designate the highway primary freight network. In November 2013, DOT 
released for comment a draft primary freight network.[Footnote 16] MAP-
21 also requires DOT to develop a freight transportation conditions 
and performance report by October 1, 2014, which is to feed into the 
development of a national freight strategic plan by October 1, 2015. 
Moreover, MAP-21 requires DOT to encourage each state to develop a 
freight advisory committee and a state freight plan. MAP-21 directly 
addresses our prior suggestion that to maximize the efficient movement 
of freight, Congress should consider defining the federal role in 
surface transportation.[Footnote 17] 

In March 2014, we found that DOT had partially addressed our 2008 
recommendation to develop a comprehensive national strategy related to 
freight, citing DOT's progress in (1) developing planning tools, 
transportation investment data, and performance measures for planning 
and evaluating freight projects; (2) completing a draft of the highway 
primary freight network; and (3) establishing a National Freight 
Advisory Committee.[Footnote 18] The National Freight Advisory 
Committee--comprised of public and private-sector freight stakeholders 
appointed by the Secretary of Transportation--provides advice and 
recommendations to DOT on matters relating to freight transportation 
in the United States and the implementation of the freight provisions 
of MAP-21. In June 2014, the National Freight Advisory Committee 
issued its final recommendations to DOT for consideration in 
development of a national freight strategic plan. 

In April 2014, DOT sent to Congress a multi-year surface 
transportation proposal, called Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and 
Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of 
Infrastructure and Communities throughout America (GROW America). This 
proposal was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 11, 
2014, and referred to appropriate committees.[Footnote 19] According 
to DOT officials, this proposal demonstrates further progress in 
addressing our 2008 recommendation that DOT develop a comprehensive 
national strategy related to freight, by proposing, among other 
things, $10 billion in funding for a dedicated freight program, a 
multimodal approach to freight funding, requirements for states to 
develop state freight plans and to create state freight advisory 
committees, incentives for states to engage in multi-state 
collaborative freight planning, use of benefit-cost analysis in the 
evaluation of freight projects, and use of retrospective analysis to 
evaluate the effects of freight projects after they have been 
completed. The proposal would also establish a National Freight 
Infrastructure Program that would have, among other goals, an explicit 
goal to reduce adverse community impacts of freight transportation. 

Increasing Freight Flows May Exacerbate Long-standing Community 
Congestion Issues: 

Freight rail traffic has increased since 2009, and as of 2013, the 
total number of rail carloads approached levels prior to the 2008 
recession. State and local officials in the upper Northwest have 
raised concerns regarding rapid increases in carloads of crude oil 
transported by rail, largely from North Dakota, and the increase in 
carloads of coal being transported by rail to ports. Traffic 
congestion at highway-rail crossings--a long-standing concern in many 
local communities--may be exacerbated by increased rail freight flows; 
however, the extent of the impacts and costs are often not well 
documented. Truck volumes have also increased in recent years and are 
approaching levels prior to the 2008 recession, causing community 
impacts when trucks must travel on local roads, such as roads 
connecting ports to freeways. Moreover, in recent years, certain 
areas, such as the Bakken region of North Dakota, have had large 
increases in truck traffic on local roads due to increasing oil 
extraction. 

Freight Rail Traffic Has Risen Recently and Increased Carloads of 
Certain Commodities Have Raised Concerns: 

Rail Traffic Increased since 2008 Downturn, with Commodity Trends 
Affecting Rail Traffic in Certain States: 

According to STB data, nationally, since 2000, freight rail traffic 
reached a high in 2006, dropped slightly in 2007, and then fell 
sharply with the economic recession of 2008 and 2009 before rising 
again starting in 2010. Our analysis of STB rail data from 2007 
through 2012[Footnote 20] showed that the total number of carloads in 
2012 (about 34 million) remained 8 percent below the total number of 
carloads in 2007 (about 37 million), although it represented a 
significant increase compared to the low of 2009 (about 30 million). 
Although 2013 STB data were not available for this report, according 
to AAR officials, AAR data show that the total number of carloads in 
2013 continued to climb toward 2007 levels. While according to AAR 
officials, the recession and subsequent recovery were the major 
factors affecting total carload trends during this period, several 
trends related to shipment type or specific commodities have also 
affected rail flows since 2007. These trends include an increase in 
intermodal traffic, a decrease in overall coal traffic but an increase 
in coal traffic related to export, and a sharp increase in crude oil 
transported by rail. Although crude oil represented about 1 percent of 
all rail carloads in 2012,[Footnote 21] the percentage increase in 
crude oil carloads from 2007 to 2012--of over 3,000 percent, from 
about 7,000 carloads to about 236,000 carloads--was far higher than 
the percentage change in carloads of any other commodity.[Footnote 22] 
Figure 3 shows the trends since 2007 for all carloads and for 
intermodal, coal, and crude oil carloads. 

Figure 3: Estimated Rail Carloads of Selected Shipment Types, and of 
Crude Oil Separately 2007-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

All, intermodal, coal, and crude oil carloads[A]: 

Estimated carloads per year (in thousands) 

Year: 2007; 
All: 37,198276; 
Intermodal: 14,552,504; 
Coal: 8,223,050; 
Crude Oil: 7,180. 

Year: 2008; 
All: 34,603,052; 
Intermodal: 13,970,870; 
Coal: 7,654,571; 
Crude Oil: 9,684. 

Year: 2009; 
All: 30,014,352; 
Intermodal: 11,676,224; 
Coal: 7,520,513; 
Crude Oil: 13,148. 

Year: 2010; 
All: 33,104,272; 
Intermodal: 13,246,792; 
Coal: 7,616,170; 
Crude Oil: 34,776. 

Year: 2011; 
All: 33,731,568; 
Intermodal: 13,813,736; 
Coal: 7,511,496; 
Crude Oil: 65,596. 

Year: 2012; 
All: 34,239,160; 
Intermodal: 14,568,588; 
Coal: 6,819,130; 
Crude Oil: 236,094. 

Source: GAO analysis of Surface Transportation Board Data. GAO-14-740. 

[A] For all, intermodal, and coal carloads, the margin of error as a 
percentage of the total is less than 5 percent. Crude oil carloads, 
which existed in small numbers in 2007 through 2011, had for those 
years a declining margin of error that started at 26 percent in 2007 
and went down to about 8 percent in 2011. For 2012, the margin of 
error for crude oil carloads was less than 5 percent. 

[End of figure] 

Recent trends related to intermodal, coal, and crude oil shipped by 
rail affected rail traffic in different states differently. In the 
context of an 8 percent decline in the total number of carloads 
nationwide from 2007 through 2012, only 6 states, mostly in the 
Eastern half of the country, experienced a statistically-significant 
increase of at least 5 percent in the total number of rail carloads 
during this period;[Footnote 23] all of these states also had 
increases in the number of intermodal carloads (see figure 4). 
[Footnote 24] Intermodal traffic, which represented about 43 percent 
of all rail carloads in 2012, was described by DOT and AAR officials 
as an area of strong growth in the rail industry. According to DOT 
officials, two major corridor projects initiated by Norfolk Southern 
railroad and funded in part by the federal government may have 
facilitated the growth of intermodal rail traffic in the Eastern part 
of the U.S. in 2012 and 2013 and may continue to do so in future 
years. The Crescent Corridor is designed to facilitate the movement of 
intermodal traffic by rail from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast and 
was the recipient of a 2010 Transportation Investment Generating 
Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant of $105 million as well as Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds. The Heartland 
Corridor was designed to permit double stack container trains to 
travel directly from the Port of Virginia to Columbus and Chicago. 
This project received an authorization of federal funds of about $126 
million from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) as well as federal funds 
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and a 2011 
TIGER grant of $12 million.[Footnote 25] Both projects have a goal of 
reducing freight-related truck congestion. 

Figure 4: Estimated Change in Total Carloads and Intermodal Carloads, 
by State, 2007-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Percentage change in all carloads[A]: 

Increase of 5% or more: 
Georgia; 
Maryland; 
Minnesota; 
Oklahoma; 
Rhode Island; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia. 

Increase of less than 5%, no change, or decrease: 
Alabama; 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
Arkansas; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
District of Columbia; 
Florida; 
Hawaii; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Kentucky; 
Louisiana; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Michigan; 
Mississippi; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
New Hampshire; 
New Jersey; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
North Carolina; 
North Dakota; 
Ohio; 
Oregon; 
Pennsylvania; 
South Carolina; 
South Dakota; 
Tennessee; 
Texas; 
Utah; 
Vermont; 
Washington; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming. 

Percentage change in intermodal carloads[B]: 

Increase of 5% or more: 
Alabama; 
District of Columbia; 
Florida; 
Georgia; 
Indiana; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Kentucky;
Maryland; 
Minnesota; 
Missouri; 
New Jersey; 
New York; 
North Carolina; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Pennsylvania; 
South Carolina; 
Tennessee; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia; 
Wisconsin. 

Increase of less than 5%, no change, or decrease: 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
Arkansas; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
Hawaii; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Louisiana; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Michigan; 
Mississippi; 
Montana; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
New Hampshire; 
New Mexico; 
North Dakota; 
Oregon; 
Rhode Island; 
South Dakota; 
Texas; 
Utah; 
Washington; 
Wyoming. 

Source: GAO analysis of Surface Transportation Board data. GAO-14-740. 

[A] Maryland had the largest percentage increase in all carloads, of 
about 60 percent. The increases in all carloads in states with an 
increase of 5 percent or more are statistically significant with the 
exception of Rhode Island. 

[B] Maryland also had the largest percentage increase in intermodal 
carloads, of about 180 percent. The increases in intermodal carloads 
in states with an increase of 5 percent or more are all statistically 
significant. 

[End of figure] 

Like the increase in intermodal rail traffic, increases in crude-oil 
and coal carloads carried by rail for export predominantly occurred in 
certain states. Figure 5 shows the states that had an increase of 
10,000 carloads or more of coal or oil from 2007 through 2012. 
According to the Energy Information Administration, the increase in 
crude-oil carried by rail was mostly due to the production of oil from 
shale areas such as the Bakken centered in North Dakota. Seventy five 
percent of crude oil rail carloads that originated in the U.S. in 2012 
originated in North Dakota.[Footnote 26] One reason for the increase 
in crude oil being shipped by rail is the limitation of the nation's 
pipeline capacity to handle current oil production. In March 2014, we 
found that most of the system of crude oil pipelines in the United 
States was designed primarily to move crude oil from the South to the 
North; emerging crude oil production centers in Western Canada, Texas, 
and North Dakota have strained the existing pipeline infrastructure, 
and in some areas pipeline capacity has been inadequate.[Footnote 27] 
For example, according to the North Dakota Department of 
Transportation's State Freight Plan, North Dakota has lacked adequate 
pipeline capacity to handle the huge increase in crude oil production 
since 2008--from about 122,000 barrels a day in 2008 to about 933,000 
barrels per day in January 2014--with the state's crude-oil pipeline 
capacity in 2013 being 583,000 barrels per day. According to BNSF 
officials, pipelines in these areas are at or near capacity, creating 
a strong demand for additional outbound transportation options, as 
well as a demand for inbound oil field supplies. Most crude oil 
transported by rail originated in North Dakota and, according to AAR, 
largely went to refineries in the Gulf Coast, the East Coast, and the 
West Coast, passing through other states along the way (see figure 5). 
According to AAR officials, these states are likely to have had 
continued increases in the amount of crude oil traveling by rail in 
them since 2012, with AAR reporting that Class I freight railroads 
originated 407,761 carloads of crude oil in 2013.[Footnote 28] 

Figure 5: Estimated Change in Carloads of Crude Oil and Coal, by State 
2007-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Oil carloads: 

Increase of 10,000 or more[A]: 
Arkansas; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Louisiana; 
Maryland; 
Michigan; 
Minnesota; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
Nebraska; 
New Jersey; 
New York; 
North Dakota; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Pennsylvania; 
South Dakota; 
Texas; 
Washington; 
Wisconsin. 

Increase of less than 10,000, no change, or decrease: 
Alabama; 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
District of Columbia; 
Florida; 
Georgia; 
Hawaii; 
Kentucky; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Mississippi; 
Nevada; 
New Hampshire; 
New Mexico; 
North Carolina; 
Oregon; 
Rhode Island; 
South Carolina; 
Tennessee; 
Utah; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia; 
Wyoming. 

Coal carloads: 

Increase of 10,000 or more[B]: 
Arkansas; 
Idaho; 
Louisiana; 
Maryland; 
Washington. 

Increase of less than 10,000, no change, or decrease: 
Alabama; 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
District of Columbia; 
Florida; 
Georgia; 
Hawaii; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Kentucky; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Michigan; 
Minnesota; 
Mississippi; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
New Hampshire; 
New Jersey; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
North Carolina; 
North Dakota; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Oregon; 
Pennsylvania; 
Rhode Island; 
South Carolina; 
South Dakota; 
Tennessee; 
Texas; 
Utah; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming. 

Source: GAO analysis of Surface Transportation Board data. GAO-14-740. 

[A] North Dakota had the largest increase in the number of crude oil 
carloads, about 172,000. The increases in crude oil carloads in states 
with an increase of 10,000 carloads or more are all statistically 
significant. For this figure we used increase in number of carloads 
rather than percentage increase because in 2007, most states had no 
carloads of crude oil in them. 

[B] Louisiana had the largest increase in the number of coal carloads, 
about 72,000. The increases in coal carloads in states with an 
increase of 10,000 carloads or more are all statistically significant 
with the exception of Arkansas. 

[End of figure] 

With the overall decrease in transportation of coal by rail, only 5 
states experienced an increase of at least 10,000 carloads of coal 
from 2007 to 2012. All of these states have ports from which coal is 
shipped for export or are on the way to such ports from Wyoming or 
West Virginia, where the majority of U.S. coal being transported by 
rail originates. According to several industry officials we spoke 
with, in many of these states, the amount of crude oil and coal being 
shipped by rail is likely to continue to increase in coming years. 
According to the Energy Information Administration, crude oil 
production is expected to continue to increase in the near future, 
[Footnote 29] while coal exports are expected to remain steady through 
2020 and then increase through 2040. North Dakota officials in the 
Bakken region told us that they expect crude oil extraction in the 
region to increase for at least the next 10 years and production to 
continue to be higher than current rates for at least 20 years, with 
some production continuing to occur over the next 50 years or beyond. 
There is the potential that pipelines could eventually be built to 
carry much of this oil. However, according to AAR, rail offers greater 
flexibility than pipelines to shift product quickly in response to 
market needs and price opportunities. As a result, AAR officials 
predicted continued growth in the amount of crude oil shipped by rail 
in coming years.[Footnote 30] With regard to coal traffic, the 
issuance of some proposals for new facilities that can handle coal 
exports in Washington state and Western Canada suggest that the 
industry expects continued growth in coal exports. If these terminals 
are developed and such growth occurs, it may lead to increases in the 
amount of coal being carried by rail to Washington State and Western 
Canada. 

Local Concerns about Increased Rail Traffic Are Focused on Certain 
Commodities: 

Many state and local officials we spoke with from Washington, Idaho, 
and Montana expressed concern over impacts to local communities due to 
continued expected increases in crude oil and coal carried by rail to 
west coast refineries or terminals. Our analysis of 2012 data on rail 
carloads did not show an increase in the total number of all carloads 
in these states as of 2012. However, as shown above, our analysis did 
show increases in carloads of crude oil in all three of these states 
and of carloads of coal in Washington and Idaho. Much coal and oil 
transported by rail is carried on unit trains, which are trains that 
carry only one commodity, and are readily identifiable. In addition, 
unit trains can be long--for example, crude oil unit trains may 
consist of more than 100 cars, which could create noticeable waits at 
highway-rail grade crossings in local communities--although trains 
carrying other types of goods, such as intermodal trains, may also 
have more than 100 cars. Moreover, it is possible that these states 
will experience increased train traffic due to trends in these 
commodities in coming years. One issue affecting the level of concern 
among some state and local officials is that much of the increase in 
coal and crude-oil rail traffic in some states is passing through the 
state on its way from and to other locations. When, for example, oil 
is produced in a state or coal is delivered to a state's port for 
export, the state may experience negative impacts but may also reap 
economic benefits, such as increased jobs and tax revenue. However, 
according to some state and local officials we spoke with, when an 
energy commodity passes through a state on a rail car, the state gets 
no direct economic benefit from that commodity but may be incurring 
congestion-related and other impacts at highway-rail grade crossings. 
Figure 6 shows the states that had increases of over 10,000 annual 
carloads of crude oil or coal passing through the state from 2007 to 
2012. 

Figure 6: Estimated Change in Pass-Through Carloads of Crude Oil and 
Coal, by State, 2007-2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Oil pass through carloads: 

Increase of 10,000 or more[A]: 
Arkansas; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Michigan; 
Minnesota; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
Nebraska; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Pennsylvania; 
South Dakota; 
Texas; 
Wisconsin. 

Increase of less than 10,000, no change, or decrease: 
Alabama; 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
District of Columbia; 
Florida; 
Georgia; 
Hawaii; 
Kentucky; 
Louisiana; 
Maine; 
Maryland; 
Massachusetts; 
Mississippi; 
Nevada; 
New Hampshire; 
New Jersey; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
North Carolina; 
North Dakota; 
Oregon; 
Rhode Island; 
South Carolina; 
Tennessee; 
Utah; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
Washington; 
West Virginia; 
Wyoming. 

Coal pass through carloads: 

Increase of 10,000 or more[B]: 
Idaho; 
Louisiana; 
Mississippi; 
Montana; 
Utah; 
Washington; 
Wisconsin. 

Increase of less than 10,000, no change, or decrease: 
Alabama; 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
Arkansas; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
District of Columbia; 
Florida; 
Georgia; 
Hawaii; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Kentucky; 
Maine; 
Maryland; 
Massachusetts; 
Michigan; 
Minnesota; 
Missouri; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
New Hampshire; 
New Jersey; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
North Carolina; 
North Dakota; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Oregon; 
Pennsylvania; 
Rhode Island; 
South Carolina; 
South Dakota; 
Tennessee; 
Texas; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia; 
Wyoming. 

Source: GAO analysis of Surface Transportation Board data. GAO-14-740. 

[A] Minnesota had the largest increase in the number of pass-through 
carloads of crude oil, about 165,000. The increases in crude oil pass 
through carloads in states with an increase of 10,000 carloads or more 
are all statistically significant. For this figure we used increase in 
number of carloads rather than percentage increase because in 2007, 
most states had no carloads of crude oil passing through. 

[B] Washington State had the largest increase in the number of pass-
through carloads of coal, about 75,000. The increases in coal pass 
through carloads in states with an increase of 10,000 carloads or more 
are all statistically significant. 

[End of figure] 

Traffic Congestion at Highway-Rail Crossings is a Longstanding Concern 
but Impacts and Costs Are Not Always Documented: 

DOT, state, and local officials identified a key negative impact of 
increasing freight flows as freight-related traffic congestion 
occurring at highway-rail grade crossings, where road traffic must 
wait to cross the tracks when trains are passing. Highway-rail grade 
crossings exist in every state in the U.S. In 2012, there were 210,621 
public and private rail crossings in the U.S.[Footnote 31] Figure 7 
shows rail crossings that in 2012 included the passage of at least 
200,000 rail cars annually and at least 10,000 daily vehicles[Footnote 
32] (see figure 7). 

Figure 7: Highway-Rail Grade Crossings with a Crossing of at Least 
200,000 Rail Cars Annually and 10,000 Vehicles Daily, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Depicted on map: 

Highway-rail grade crossing with at least 200,000 rail carloads 
annually and at least 10,000 annual average daily vehicles. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT and STB data. GAO-14-740. 

Note: In order to illustrate the location of highway-rail grade 
crossings that have above a certain threshold of vehicular and rail 
traffic, we used the most recent, reliable data available for both 
types of traffic, even though vehicular traffic was recorded in terms 
of annual average daily traffic, while rail carload information was 
recorded in terms of annual carloads. 

[End of figure] 

Several communities we visited had documented longstanding concerns 
over highway-rail grade crossings.[Footnote 33] For example, a 2004 
study of potential grade separation projects in Billings, Montana, 
described seven previous studies of the same issues, with the earliest 
study from 1958. In the Seattle area, a corridor effort to reduce 
community impacts of freight through 20 grade separation projects, 
among other things, has been ongoing since 1998. Another corridor 
project--the Bridging the Valley Project--which is aimed at 
eliminating 75 highway-rail crossings along a 42 mile corridor between 
Spokane, Washington, and Athol, Idaho, was officially started in 2000, 
but according to Spokane officials, was designed to address at-grade 
crossing issues identified as problematic in the 1990s. And in 
Chicago, the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation 
Efficiency Program (CREATE), which includes 25 grade separation 
projects as part of a larger number of projects designed to improve 
the fluidity of freight and passenger rail service throughout the 
region, was announced in 2003.[Footnote 34] State and local officials 
described the following types of negative community impacts of traffic 
being blocked at highway-rail grade crossings: 

* Delays to motorists. Such delays can be significant, such as when a 
large number of vehicles on the road results in a queue that can take 
time to disperse even after a continuously moving train has departed, 
or when a stopped train blocks the tracks for significant periods of 
time. 

* Blocked emergency vehicles. According to local officials, in Baker, 
Montana, a fire recently destroyed a house because train traffic had 
blocked the only two crossings in the town and prevented fire crews 
from responding in time. According to STB officials, stakeholders also 
often worry that ambulances will be unable to reach them or transport 
them quickly to hospitals because of trains blocking crossings. 

* Quality of life impacts. Such impacts can be exacerbated by the 
specific location of the crossing in relationship to the community. 
For example, in Edmonds, Washington, a main rail line crosses the only 
access road to the town's ferry, which carried over 22.5 million 
riders in 2013. According to city officials, about 40 freight or 
commuter trains pass this crossing each day and can cause vehicle 
queues that extend 1.5 miles from the ferry terminal, which can be 
especially problematic because people are trying to make their 
scheduled ferries. In Billings, Montana, the community's long-standing 
concerns center on a highway-rail grade crossing in which a main rail 
line bisects one of the city's central downtown streets (see figure 
8). In addition to concerns related to delay and blocked motorists, 
several stakeholders described frustration that the community is 
divided when the crossing is blocked. 

Figure 8: A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing in Billings, Montana, Bisects 
the City: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. GAO-14-740. 

[End of figure] 

In spite of often long-standing concerns with the negative effects of 
highway-rail grade crossings, communities we visited had varying 
levels of quantified information on impacts such as traffic delay 
times or costs. For example, the 2004 Billings, Montana, study 
described above included some general information on train counts but 
no information documenting the number of vehicles delayed, the hours 
of delay, or any costs associated with such delays. The CREATE program 
in Chicago has some information in its studies on estimated hours of 
delay and, according to a Illinois Department of Transportation 
official, used DOT's guidance to assign a value of time to provide an 
economic benefits calculation in its TIGER applications. According to 
Illinois Department of Transportation officials, the CREATE partners 
also use a model for various analyses that provides information on 
train numbers, length, weight, and speed. 

However, according to Illinois state officials, efforts to quantify 
impacts of highway-rail grade crossings both for the CREATE program 
and for the Chicago area generally have been limited by a lack of 
current information on gate down time, as well as by a lack of 
specific information on the types, timing, and occupancy levels of 
vehicle traffic at the crossings. Moreover, according to an Illinois 
Commerce Commission official, efforts to accurately quantify the 
impact of highway-rail grade crossings at a high level--in Illinois or 
nationally--have been limited by a lack of data available on the 
number of trains and train lengths assigned by date, speed, and time. 
On the other hand, a study of delays caused by highway-rail grade 
crossings in the Miami area did take some of these factors into 
account. This study concluded that rail crossings in the area caused 
delays of roughly 235,000 person-hours per year at a cost of $2.4 
million.[Footnote 35] Similarly, some efforts to document impacts of 
highway-rail grade crossings in Seattle do include detailed 
information on such things as train numbers, timing, and speed, in 
some cases provided by railroad companies, as well as detailed traffic 
information. 

Among other issues, DOT officials stated that in national data on 
traffic levels, certain roadway segments, in particular for local 
roads, lack accurate traffic counts.[Footnote 36] State and local 
officials in two locations also said it was difficult to communicate 
with the railroad industry, and to get information on train counts, 
timing and speed of trains from the railroads. BNSF officials told us 
that they plan to work with communities on rail operating questions 
and confirm how many trains are moving through a community--and that 
they will also make them aware of FRA's Rail Crossing Inventory for 
train count data.[Footnote 37] However, FRA depends on railroads and 
states to voluntarily submit information to the database, and FRA 
officials stated that the data are not always current. According to 
FRA officials, the timeliness of this data should improve, as at the 
time of our review, FRA officials stated that FRA was in the process 
of developing an order to require railroads to update information on 
rail crossings, although the officials did not know when this order 
would be finalized. 

Truck Volumes Are Also Increasing, Causing Impacts in Some Communities: 

Truck Traffic Also Fell with Economic Downturn of 2008 but Has 
Rebounded: 

Similar to rail trends, according to an ATA study, the amount of 
freight shipped by truck rose from about 10 billion tons in 2000 to a 
high of almost 11 billion tons in 2006, dropped slightly to about 10.5 
billion tons in 2007, and then dropped sharply with the economic 
recession in 2008, reaching a low of about 8.5 billion tons in 2009 
before rising again. According to ATA, trucks transported over 9 
billion tons of freight in 2012, representing about 69 percent of all 
freight tonnage, and ATA officials told us that truck tonnage in 2013 
approached but did not yet reach 2007 levels.[Footnote 38] According 
to DOT and ATA officials, truck flows--and related freight congestion--
are highest in and around major U.S. cities, although the congestion 
is caused by the combination of trucks, cars, and other vehicles and 
cannot in most cases be isolated to truck traffic. [Footnote 39] ATA's 
research arm, ATRI, has documented that about 89 percent of truck 
congestion costs can be attributed to about 12 percent of the 
Interstate highway system mileage. In a 2013 study, ATRI identified 
significant freight congestion as occurring in particular road 
segments in major cities in Illinois, Texas, New Jersey, and Missouri. 
In a 2014 study, ATRI stated that clusters of severe congestion were 
identifiable in the corridor from Boston to Washington, D.C., as well 
as Chicago, Texas, and California. According to ATA officials, the 
congestion in these areas is consistent with where the highest levels 
of truck-related congestion have been for the past 5 years or more. 

ATA and FHWA stakeholders told us that the commodity trend with the 
most significant effect on truck flow patterns was the increase in oil 
production in the Bakken region, but that most of this change had 
occurred on local roads in North Dakota close to the actual oil 
production. ATRI found that North Dakota experienced the greatest 
increase in congestion costs on a percentage basis from 2012 to 2013 
(about 40 percent). DOT and North Dakota state officials also told us 
that freight truck traffic in the area had increased tremendously on 
local roads that are not always included in national traffic studies. 
North Dakota officials expect high levels of truck traffic to continue 
in this area over the next 20 years or more. State transportation 
officials in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where there is also 
significant shale oil or gas development, stated that this development 
has also resulted in increased truck freight traffic in these states, 
primarily in rural areas. 

Truck Traffic on Community Roads Causes Local Traffic Congestion 
Impacts: 

DOT, state, and local officials stated that a primary local impact of 
freight trucks occurs when trucks must exit freeways and travel on 
roads that pass through communities. Officials we spoke with and a 
report we reviewed cited impacts including traffic delays and 
increased difficulty for cars in navigating the streets, including 
turning and passing, due to the greater size and reduced 
maneuverability of trucks. [Footnote 40] Specifically, this report 
found that the greater size of trucks as compared to cars adds to 
their congestion effect. 

State and local officials we spoke with described high levels of 
concern related to these truck congestion impacts. In particular, 
several state and local officials described concerns about traffic 
congestion impacts caused by freight on roads connecting freeways and 
freight centers such as ports. In Miami, officials we met with 
provided us with a study documenting the costs of such 
impacts.[Footnote 41] According to this study, trucks comprise 28 
percent of the almost 16,000 vehicles that travel to and from the Port 
of Miami through the downtown streets every day, and the cost of 
congestion delays associated with freight trucks in the area was 
estimated to be about $300 million in 2008. Moreover, the traffic-
related impacts of freight trucks on roads around East and Gulf Coast 
ports may increase when the expansion of the Panama Canal is completed 
in 2015, as both an increase in the number of containers on the larger 
ships that will be able to pass through the Canal and a potential 
increase in the number of ships that arrive and depart from ports in 
this area has been predicted.[Footnote 42] 

Some state and local officials also described traffic congestion 
impacts of freight trucks in rural or small town areas with major 
energy extraction. Such areas may not be directly connected to the 
national freight network by a freeway, so that trucks used in 
extracting or transporting energy commodities must travel on local 
roads that cut through small towns and cities. For example, according 
to North Dakota Department of Transportation officials, between 2007 
and 2013, average daily traffic along one main road in the Bakken 
region increased from under 2,000 to almost 10,000 vehicles, while the 
percentage of truck traffic increased from 29 to 45 percent (see 
figure 9). As described previously, officials in the Bakken region 
expect oil production and associated truck impacts to continue over 
the next 20 to 50 years. State officials in Pennsylvania and West 
Virginia also described negative impacts of increased freight truck 
traffic on local roads due to shale oil or gas development, including 
damage to roads and truck congestion impeding the flow of school 
buses, among other things. 

Figure 9: Truck Traffic in Watford City, a town near Williston in the 
Bakken Region of North Dakota, April 2014: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. GAO-14-740. 

[End of figure] 

Selected Communities Primarily Used Public Funds to Address Freight-
related Traffic Congestion and Some Have Faced Funding Challenges: 

Project sponsors in our selected communities primarily relied on 
public funding--provided by federal, state, and local governments and 
public port authorities--to address freight-related traffic congestion 
issues; however, some projects we reviewed included private funding. 
Private funders, in most cases railroads, contributed about 1 percent 
of the total cost of these projects of $3.2 billion. Railroad 
companies' contributions to congestion mitigation projects generally 
amounted to less than 5 percent of the project's total cost and were 
based on the project's potential operational benefits to the railroad. 
Some communities we visited have faced challenges funding projects to 
mitigate freight-related traffic congestion. Among other things, 
federal programs that can be used to address freight-related traffic 
congestion do not always align with local congestion mitigation needs, 
and state and local transportation funds are often limited and needed 
to operate and maintain existing infrastructure. 

The Majority of Funding for Addressing Freight-Related Traffic 
Congestion in Selected Communities Is Public: 

Project sponsors in our selected communities, such as state DOTs and 
public port authorities, primarily relied on public funding to address 
freight-related traffic congestion issues. Of our 12 selected 
communities, 9 had ongoing or recently completed congestion mitigation 
projects.[Footnote 43] The types of congestion mitigation projects as 
well as their purposes varied. For instance, we reviewed on-dock rail 
systems at several ports, which are designed to both enhance freight 
movements and mitigate congestion due to trucks on local roads, and 
grade separation projects, which are primarily focused on relieving 
vehicle delays and traffic congestion. Taken together, these 24 
projects cost about $3.2 billion, of which the private sector has 
contributed about 1 percent. Table 2 below displays the total project 
cost and the percentage of private funding for each of the mitigation 
projects we reviewed. 

Table 2: Public and Private Funding for Ongoing and Recently Completed 
Freight-Related Congestion Mitigation Projects in Selected Site Visit 
Communities (in Millions) as of August 4, 2014: 

Seattle, WA: 

Project[A]: South Spokane Street Viaduct (includes a grade separation); 
Project's cost[B]: $157,070,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 1.6%. 

Project[A]: Duwamish ITS Project; 
Project's cost[B]: $7,831,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 1.3%. 

Project[A]: East Marginal Way grade separation; 
Project's cost[B]: $53,586,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 2.7%. 

Project[A]: South Atlantic St. grade separation; 
Project's cost[B]: $42,867,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Spokane, WA: 

Project[A]: North Spokane Corridor, Sections 1 and 2; 
Project's cost[B]: $617,969,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Havana St. grade separation; 
Project's cost[B]: $23,321,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 4.6%. 

Chicago, IL: 

Project[A]: Grand Ave. grade separation; 
Project's cost[B]: $44,847,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 3.5%. 

Project[A]: Belmont Rd. grade separation; 
Project's cost[B]: $54,903,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 2.2%. 

Project[A]: CREATE Viaducts; 
Project's cost[B]: $4,954,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

New York City, NY (Metro Area): 

Project[A]: Cross Harbor Rail Freight Program; 
Project's cost[B]: $118,000,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Express Rail System (On-dock Rail); 
Project's cost[B]: $600,000,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Express Rail Overpass and Flyover construction projects; 
Project's cost[B]: $80,000,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Paulsboro, NJ: 

Project[A]: Port of Paulsboro Connector Road; 
Project's cost[B]: $23,300,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Port of Paulsboro On-dock Rail; 
Project's cost[B]: $10,400,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Pascagoula, MS: 

Project[A]: Port of Pascagoula intermodal improvements; 
Project's cost[B]: $44,000,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 11.4%. 

Project[A]: Highway 611/Industrial Road Grade Separation; 
Project's cost[B]: $25,637,000[C]; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Miami, FL: 

Project[A]: Port of Miami Tunnel; 
Project's cost[B]: $721,837,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Port of Miami rail access; 
Project's cost[B]: $46,000,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 19.6%. 

Project[A]: 25th Street Viaduct; 
Project's cost[B]: $222,082,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Billings, MT: 

Project[A]: Billings North Bypass, Phase I; 
Project's cost[B]: $89,200,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Williston, ND: 

Project[A]: Permanent truck reliever route; 
Project's cost[B]: $139,000,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Highway 2 and 18th Street grade separation; 
Project's cost[B]: $12,900,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Traffic signal and intersection improvements; 
Project's cost[B]: $1,700,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Project[A]: Highway 2 and 11th Street intersection reconstruction; 
Project's cost[B]: $8,700,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.0. 

Total: 
Project's cost[B]: $3,150,104,000; 
Private funding (as a percentage): 0.7%. 

Source: GAO presentation of information provided by project sponsors. 
GAO-14-740. 

[A] For the purposes of this report, ongoing projects include those 
that are partially completed, currently under construction, or have 
identified funding sources. Recently completed projects include those 
completed since 2007. 

[B] The numbers in this column reflect projects' capital costs as 
reported by project sponsors. 

[C] This number does not include the $6.6 million in right-of-way 
costs associated with the larger Highway 611 Corridor Project, of 
which the grade separation is a part. 

[End of table] 

Sixteen of the 24 projects we reviewed have been funded exclusively by 
the public sector. Of these, five projects were entirely state-funded, 
three were entirely locally-funded, and one was completed using only 
federal funds.[Footnote 44] About half of all projects (11 of 24) 
included a mix of federal, state, and local funds. Project sponsors 
reported using various federal funding sources to help pay for freight-
related congestion mitigation projects in their communities, including 
formula funding--such as funds from the National Highway Performance 
Program, Surface Transportation Program, and the CMAQ program--as well 
as discretionary funding, such as federal congressionally-directed 
funding, Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(TIFIA) credit assistance, and TIGER grants. For example in 2013, 
almost half of the 52 projects that received a TIGER award primarily 
addressed freight transportation needs, and among these projects, 
nearly one-third were intended to mitigate freight-related traffic 
congestion. 

None of the projects we reviewed have been funded entirely by the 
private sector. However, eight of the 24 projects included both public 
and private funding contributions. Most of the projects that included 
private funding were grade separations (5 of 8) and received 
contributions from railroad companies (6 of 8).[Footnote 45] In 
addition, private sector contributions to these mitigation projects 
typically amounted to less than 5 percent of the project's total cost, 
but some projects, such as the Port of Miami's Rail Access Project, 
included a larger share of private funds (19.6 percent).[Footnote 46] 
See table 2 above for more information about private contributions to 
specific projects. 

Some federal programs encourage public-private partnerships in freight 
and other transportation projects by giving priority to projects that 
include innovative partnerships and funding mechanisms. For instance, 
among DOT's selection criteria for TIGER awards is "partnership"--or 
the extent to which projects demonstrate strong collaboration among a 
broad range of participants. Two of the four mitigation projects in 
our site visit communities that received TIGER grants also included 
private-funding contributions. For example, the Port Authority of 
Jackson County Mississippi received a $14 million TIGER grant in 2013 
for an upcoming $44 million project at the Port of Pascagoula. This 
project includes constructing a new marine terminal facility for 
renewable energy resources, upgrading the port's rail connections, and 
relocating the rail line that services the port, steps that will allow 
for the closure of 16 rail crossings in nearby communities. The 
private entity that is to operate the new marine terminal facility has 
agreed to contribute approximately $5 million towards the project. In 
addition, as part of determining eligibility for its TIFIA Credit 
Assistance Program, DOT pursuant to statutory requirements assesses 
the extent to which TIFIA assistance would foster innovative public-
private partnerships, attract private debt or equity investment, and 
reduce the contribution of federal grant assistance to the 
project.[Footnote 47] One project we reviewed--the Port of Miami 
Tunnel--was financed in part by a $341 million TIFIA loan. DOT awarded 
the loan to a private entity to help finance the construction of the 
tunnel, which provides direct access to the port from the nearby 
interstates and helps reduce port-related traffic congestion on 
downtown streets. Under this arrangement, the private partner 
financed, designed, and constructed the tunnel and will operate and 
maintain it over the next 30 years. The public sector (Florida DOT, 
Miami-Dade County, and the City of Miami) agreed to repay all of the 
capital, operations, and maintenance expenses associated with the 
tunnel by making periodic, performance-based payments to the private 
partner. 

Railroads' Contributions for Mitigating Freight-Related Traffic 
Congestion Are Primarily Driven by the Potential Operational Benefits: 

As noted above, private contributions to projects we reviewed aimed at 
mitigating freight-related traffic congestion typically came from 
railroad companies.[Footnote 48] Railroad representatives we spoke 
with told us that their companies rely on cost-benefit analyses to 
make decisions about whether and how much to contribute toward public-
private partnerships, and that the contributions generally align with 
a project's potential operational benefits to the company. For 
example, CSX officials told us that, among other factors, they 
consider the potential operational benefits to the company when 
determining whether to participate in a public-private partnership. 
They noted that if they find that a project has value to the company 
and the overall partnership makes sense, CSX will provide funding 
commensurate with its private benefit. In their view, contributions 
beyond that amount would be paying for benefits to the environment or 
the community, but not the railroad. Similarly, as part of its 
framework for public-private partnerships, Union Pacific Railroad 
includes the following principles: 1) the railroad pays for private 
benefits that will accrue to the company and 2) public entities pay 
for the benefits that are enjoyed by the public at large through 
public or general revenue sources. 

Federal regulations pertaining to railroads' contributions for grade 
crossing elimination projects--such as grade separations or crossing 
closures--also reflect the estimated operational benefit of these 
projects to the railroads. Specifically, FHWA's regulations require 
railroad companies to contribute 5 percent toward grade-crossing 
elimination projects that receive funding from FHWA's Railway-Highway 
Crossings Program.[Footnote 49] According to DOT officials, the 5 
percent railroad contribution to grade-crossing elimination projects 
is based on a cost-benefit analysis and represents the estimated 
benefit to the railroad of no longer having to operate and maintain 
the crossing.[Footnote 50] 

Railroad companies we spoke with told us that FHWA's 5 percent 
requirement generally reflects an appropriate contribution toward 
grade separation projects for railroads, since these projects 
typically do not provide significant operational benefits to their 
companies. For instance, according to Chicago Transportation 
Coordinating Office representatives, although grade separation 
projects result in some benefit to the railroads, the bulk of the 
benefits accrue to the community in the form of safety improvements 
and congestion relief. In addition, BNSF representatives told us that 
the company typically expects to contribute the required 5 percent to 
grade separation projects funded by the Railway-Highways Crossings 
Program, since crossing closures generally do not produce significant 
financial benefits to the company. However, according to BNSF 
officials, if the results of the company's cost-benefit analysis 
indicate that a crossing closure would produce benefits greater than 5 
percent, either through cost avoidance or increased revenues, BNSF 
would be willing to negotiate a contribution greater than the minimum 
amount required. 

In certain circumstances, STB--which issues licenses to railroads for 
rail construction and acquisition projects--can order a railroad to 
contribute more than 5 percent towards a grade separation project as a 
condition of its license approval. STB can impose this license 
condition on a railroad only if: 

* the railroad is applying for a license from STB to construct a new 
line that is extending into new territory, or is merging, 
consolidating, or acquiring control of a rail carrier that is under 
the jurisdiction of STB; and: 

* the transaction is consistent with the public interest.[Footnote 51] 
STB makes the determination based on whether its environmental review 
of the proposed construction or acquisition would result in 
environmental impacts that justify a grade separation.[Footnote 52] 

For example, STB used this authority to order Canadian National 
Railroad to pay for most of the costs of two grade separation projects 
(67 percent and 78.5 percent respectively) as part of its acquisition 
of the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway rail line.[Footnote 53] 
According to STB officials, in this case, their review determined that 
the railroad would receive substantial economic benefits from STB's 
approval of the acquisition and the community would experience 
significant environmental impacts due to the additional trains 
operating on the line. As a result, STB determined it was appropriate 
to require the railroad to incur the majority of the grade 
separations' cost. STB officials informed us that during the 
environmental review process, rail applicants often offer voluntary 
environmental mitigation measures to respond to community concerns, 
including freight-related traffic congestion. In several cases, STB 
has not had to impose grade separation conditions due to railroads' 
voluntary mitigation. 

STB officials emphasized that STB has no authority to require 
railroads to pay for grade separations along existing lines unless 
they are part of a construction or acquisition project that 
necessitates an environmental review by STB. In addition, they told us 
that STB cannot mitigate freight-related traffic congestion issues in 
communities by regulating changes in rail traffic levels because 
freight railroads generally have the discretion and authority to 
determine how to route their trains.[Footnote 54] 

Communities Face Several Challenges Funding Projects to Address 
Freight-Related Traffic Congestion: 

Although the public sector contributed the vast majority of funding 
for projects aimed at mitigating freight-related traffic congestion in 
our selected communities, securing funding for these projects can be 
challenging for state and local transportation officials. For 
instance, local officials in Glendive, Montana, and neighboring Baker, 
Montana, told us that their communities have experienced significant 
increases in truck and rail traffic due to the recent development of 
crude oil development in the Bakken region, but the officials have not 
identified funding for mitigation projects. Several of the communities 
we visited with ongoing or recently completed projects also had 
additional planned projects that were not yet funded. For example, 
Chicago's CREATE Program lacks about $2.0 billion to complete 22 
remaining projects, 13 of which are grade separations. 

At the federal level, funding programs that can be used to address 
freight-related traffic congestion have broader goals and objectives 
that do not always align with communities' congestion mitigation needs 
(see table 1 above for descriptions of these programs). For instance, 
DOT's Railway-Highway Crossings Program--which provides funding to 
states for highway-rail grade crossing improvements--is focused on 
addressing safety issues, not congestion. According to DOT officials, 
Railway-Highway Crossings Program funds can be used to address freight-
related traffic congestion so long as the congestion also presents a 
safety issue.[Footnote 55] However, stakeholders noted that 
communities' congestion and safety issues do not always intersect. For 
instance, Washington State DOT (WSDOT) officials told us that while 
the Railway-Highway Crossings Program's focus on safety is important, 
some communities face major congestion issues that cannot be easily 
incorporated into a safety-related project. They also noted that the 
concerns about highway-rail grade crossings that WSDOT hears from 
communities across the state primarily involve congestion issues, not 
safety issues. In cases when there is overlap between congestion and 
safety issues, it can be difficult for states to fund qualifying grade 
separation projects using these funds. The average cost of the seven 
grade-separation projects we reviewed was $37 million, yet most states 
receive less than $10 million from this program annually and 50 
percent of states' funds must be spent on grade-crossing warning 
devices.[Footnote 56] 

At the state and local level, several transportation agencies told us 
that much of their funding is needed to operate and maintain existing 
infrastructure. As a result, very little funding is available to 
complete new projects or to serve as a local match for federal-funding 
programs.[Footnote 57] For instance, New Jersey DOT (NJ DOT) officials 
told us that maintaining the state's existing infrastructure--much of 
which is old and in need of repair--is the state's priority and takes 
up most of NJ DOT's funding. Consequently, the number of new projects 
NJ DOT can undertake to address congestion is low. Similarly, an 
official in Billings, Montana, told us that local transportation 
agencies are reluctant to undertake major new projects, including 
those that are aimed at alleviating freight-related traffic 
congestion, because funding is limited and one major project can tie 
up 5 or 6 years worth of available funds. In addition, local 
transportation officials in Miami stated that it is almost impossible 
for many communities to come up with a local match for freight-related 
projects because most local revenues are used to operate and maintain 
existing infrastructure and fund other priorities. 

We have previously found that freight projects may not compete well 
with other types of transportation projects for limited available 
public funds because their benefits are not always obvious to the 
public.[Footnote 58] We have also found that public planners are wary 
of providing public support for projects that directly benefit the 
private sector, a wariness that may make it less likely that 
metropolitan planning organizations or state departments of 
transportation will prioritize freight projects.[Footnote 59] Although 
projects to mitigate freight-related traffic congestion in communities 
may have more discernible public benefits than other freight projects, 
other factors can affect their ability to compete or receive priority 
for funding. For example, local transportation officials in Spokane, 
Washington, told us that progress on the Bridging the Valley project 
has stalled because they have been unable to secure funding for the 
project and operational commitments from the two railroad companies 
involved. Local officials in Billings stated that efforts to resolve 
long-standing traffic congestion issues at highway-rail grade 
crossings in the city have been stalled both by a lack of funding and 
by a lack of consensus on the best alternative for addressing these 
issues. In addition, officials with the Port Authority of New York and 
New Jersey told us that it is difficult for the Port Authority to 
invest in roads that connect highways to ports because--unlike the 
tunnels and bridges it operates--it doesn't own or receive revenue 
from these roads. To address challenges associated with funding 
connector roads, the National Freight Advisory Committee recommended 
in June 2014 that DOT develop federal-funding programs that support 
and prioritize connectors that are part of regionally or nationally 
significant freight networks. 

Data limitations may also make it challenging for project sponsors to 
fully document the impacts of freight movements and compete for 
limited available funding. As described previously, communities we 
visited had varying levels of data on local impacts of freight-related 
traffic congestion, with some communities lacking specific information 
on train or vehicular movements to effectively measure these impacts. 
Moreover, national data in this area also has limitations--
specifically related to the timeliness and completeness of the data at 
the local level. These limitations are described in more detail later 
in this report. 

DOT's Efforts to Implement MAP-21 Freight Provisions Incorporate Some 
Consideration of Community Impacts but Do Not Establish a Clear 
Federal Role: 

Although communities have faced funding challenges in mitigating 
freight-related traffic congestion, officials from freight trucking, 
rail, intermodal, and shipping associations or companies and from 
various state or local transportation agencies we contacted and the 
American Association of State Transportation Officials agreed that MAP-
21 was a positive step in defining a national focus on freight. As 
previously described, MAP-21 does not establish as an explicit goal 
that the national freight policy address community impacts of freight, 
such as local traffic congestion impacts. However, MAP-21 does include 
a goal to reduce congestion--which could incorporate local traffic 
congestion caused by freight flows--and a goal to reduce the 
environmental impacts of freight movement on the national freight 
network, which relates to a type of community impact that can be 
caused by freight congestion. MAP-21 also includes as a required 
element of a national freight strategic plan the identification of 
best practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement on 
communities. Within this framework of limited direction related to 
community impact issues, DOT has taken some steps to address local 
impact issues in its efforts to implement MAP-21's freight provisions, 
but to date has not fully integrated local impact issues, including 
freight-related traffic congestion, or established a clear federal 
role in this area, in part due to data limitations.[Footnote 60] 

With Mileage Limitations and No Clear Purpose Established, DOT's Draft 
Highway Primary Freight Network Omits Some Road Types with Local 
Freight Impacts: 

As a component of establishing a national freight network, MAP-21 
requires DOT to establish a highway primary freight network consisting 
of not more than 27,000 centerline miles of existing roadways that are 
most critical to the movement of freight.[Footnote 61] The 
significance of the 27,000 mileage limitation is not clear. In 
November 2013, DOT issued for comment its draft primary freight 
network. However, DOT and other national and state freight 
stakeholders that commented on the draft network raised concerns that 
the lack of a defined purpose for the network in MAP-21 and the 
mileage limit requirement--that it be limited to 27,000 centerline 
miles--had resulted in a network that omits the types of roads where 
local traffic congestion impacts of national freight movements are 
often experienced. MAP-21 established a general vision for the 
national freight network,[Footnote 62] stating that the national 
freight network is to assist states in strategically directing 
resources toward improved system performance for efficient movement of 
freight on highways, including the National Highway System, freight 
intermodal connectors, and aerotropolis transportation systems. 
[Footnote 63] MAP-21 also includes eight factors that DOT is to 
consider in establishing the highway primary freight network.[Footnote 
64] While these factors do not specifically mention local traffic 
congestion impacts of freight movement, they do incorporate several 
areas where such impacts are typically experienced, such as land and 
maritime ports of entry, access to energy exploration or production 
areas, and population centers. 

However, DOT stated in its comments that its ability to designate a 
highway primary freight network that successfully takes into account 
all eight factors was hampered by the lack of a clear purpose 
established for the primary freight network and by the mileage limit 
requirement of 27,000 centerline miles, in which the mileage of each 
road included in the network is counted against this mileage limit. In 
contrast to this centerline approach, DOT has at times used a corridor 
approach in past transportation work, in which the mileage of a 
transportation corridor (such as the corridor between Washington, 
D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland) would be counted towards the mileage of 
a network, while allowing multiple roads--or even rail lines, if the 
corridor was multimodal--along that corridor to also be included as 
part of a network. In fact, when it issued the draft primary freight 
network of 27,000 centerline miles for comment, DOT also identified a 
broader draft network of more than 41,000 centerline miles that, 
according to DOT's analysis, would be necessary to establish a primary 
freight network that consisted of a comprehensive, connected set of 
roads for transporting goods efficiently on highways throughout the 
nation. The comment period on the draft primary freight network closed 
on February 15, 2014. According to DOT officials, DOT is in the 
process of reviewing comments on the highway primary freight network. 

Several organizations representing public or private freight-related 
officials also commented that the prescribed mileage limit and 
centerline approach had contributed to the selection of a network in 
which the roads connecting ports or other freight centers to the 
Interstate Highway System were not included. For example, according to 
the National Freight Advisory Committee, few ports are connected to 
the proposed network, including some of the busiest ports. One 
analysis found that 82 percent of the over 150 policy-related comments 
submitted stated that freight intermodal connectors--such as roads 
connecting ports to freeways--should be included in the highway 
primary freight network.[Footnote 65] The National Freight Advisory 
Committee commented that the draft primary freight network fell short 
in part because it generally does not include these connector roads, 
and the roads that trucks use to carry freight from and into 
communities--the roads where community impacts are most directly 
experienced. Similarly, the I-95 Corridor Coalition criticized the 
draft, stating that it omitted roads connecting major metropolitan 
areas and roads serving important resource areas, such as those 
connecting the New York State and Pennsylvania gas and oil fields to 
the region's processing and population centers. These types of roads, 
which were largely not included in the network in order to meet the 
mileage limit, are all areas in which freight movement is likely to 
cause local traffic congestion. In addition, the American Association 
of State Highway and Transportation Officials stated that after seeing 
DOT's draft highway primary freight network, it became apparent that a 
27,000 mile network based on centerline miles is far too small--and it 
urged Congress to adopt a corridor-based approach which incorporates 
multiple highway facilities rather than highway centerline miles. 

In addition, the highway-focused and centerline approach precludes 
including those rail line corridors where high levels of rail traffic 
going through communities are likely to lead to local traffic impacts 
at highway-rail grade crossings. Railroad and DOT officials we spoke 
to told us that grade crossing separations are considered largely a 
highway, not a railroad issue. If those roadways where highway-rail 
grade crossings cause delays are not included in the highway primary 
freight network, it may limit states' flexibility to mitigate them if, 
for example, funding were to be attached to the primary freight 
network. 

DOT and the National Freight Advisory Committee expressed the concern 
that without clear goals for the highway primary freight network--and 
in the context of the mileage limitation--it was difficult to select 
or comment on which roads should be included in the network. As stated 
above, Congress provided a general overarching vision for the national 
freight network--to assist states in strategically directing resources 
toward improved system performance for efficient movement of freight 
on highways. However, as the National Freight Advisory Committee 
stated in its comments on the draft primary freight network, the 
intended purpose of the primary freight network was not defined, 
including such questions as how the primary freight network will be 
used and whether it will be used to prioritize needs, justify future 
investment, or to develop rules or regulations specific to the freight 
industry. DOT stated that without a better understanding of the goals 
for the highway primary freight network, it was challenging to gauge 
whether the resulting network would meet future public planning and 
investment needs. 

Leading practices in capital planning emphasize that vision is a 
critical success factor--and that in establishing a vision, a defined 
purpose and goals are critical for determining which areas should 
receive increased emphasis and funding and which areas should remain 
stable or receive reduced emphasis.[Footnote 66] In addition, our 
prior work has identified a framework of principles that can help 
inform Congress in assessing federal surface transportation programs. 
These principles include creating well-defined goals based on 
identified areas of national interest and establishing and clearly 
defining the federal role in achieving each goal in relation to the 
roles of state and local governments and other stakeholders.[Footnote 
67] In line with this framework, in prior work, we found that clearly 
defining the federal interest allows policymakers to clarify the goals 
for federal involvement and can clearly define the roles of federal, 
state, and local government in working toward each goal.[Footnote 68] 
The lack of a clearly defined purpose for the highway primary freight 
network, combined with the mileage limit imposed, resulted in a draft 
network that omits certain types of freight-related roads, such as 
roads connecting ports to freeways, while including others, such as 
major Interstate freeways with heavy truck volumes, without a clear 
understanding that this was the network Congress intended or of the 
ramifications of these choices. According to DOT officials, the 
omission of certain types of freight-related roads from the national 
freight network--of which the primary freight network is one part--was 
driven by several factors, including the requirement that all 
interstate highways be included in the national freight network. DOT 
stated that the non-inclusion of roads connecting ports to freeways 
was due to the fact that MAP-21 allows rural freight connectors to be 
designated by the states as part of the national freight network but 
did not allow urban freight connectors to be designated by the states 
as part of the national freight network. Moreover, DOT cited a lack of 
data on these roads connecting ports to the Interstate Highway System 
that makes it difficult to identify at the federal level which ones 
should be a part of the national freight network. 

DOT's surface transportation reauthorization proposal, GROW America, 
which was introduced in the House of Representatives in June 2014, 
could address concerns about establishing a clear purpose for the 
primary freight network and the mileage limit requirement of 27,000 
centerline miles. GROW America would replace MAP-21's highway primary 
freight network with a multimodal national freight network--with no 
mileage limit--that has a defined purpose to inform public and private 
planning, prioritize for federal investment, aid the public and 
private sector in strategically directing resources, and support 
federal decisionmaking to achieve national freight policy goals. 
[Footnote 69] DOT stated that this proposal would also eliminate the 
causes described above that led to a lack of inclusion in the primary 
freight network of roads connecting ports to highways. Whether 
Congress adopts DOT's legislative proposal or otherwise, without 
establishing a clear purpose for the national freight network and 
revising the mileage limit requirement of the primary freight network 
so that more freight-significant road segments could be included in 
it--including those where community impacts of freight are often 
experienced--the federal role in freight-related traffic congestion 
will remain unclear. 

With Limited Guidance from MAP-21, DOT Has Not Yet Defined the Federal 
Role in Addressing Local Freight Impacts and Lack of Data Hampers 
Effort: 

In the context of limited direction in MAP-21 related to community 
impact issues, to date, DOT's efforts to implement certain freight 
requirements in MAP 21 do not clearly establish a federal role related 
to local impacts such as freight-related traffic congestion by 
identifying goals, objectives, or measures in this area. As previously 
described, MAP-21 does not establish as an explicit goal that the 
national freight policy address community impacts of freight, such as 
local traffic congestion impacts, although it does include a goal to 
reduce congestion--which could incorporate local traffic congestion 
caused by freight flows--and a goal to reduce the environmental 
impacts of freight movement on the national freight network, which 
relates to a type of community impact that can be caused by freight 
congestion. MAP-21 does include as a required element of the freight 
strategic plan the identification of best practices to mitigate the 
impacts of freight movement on communities. [Footnote 70] 

In spite of this limited direction from MAP-21, DOT has taken some 
steps to address local impact issues in implementing MAP-21's freight 
provisions. In 2012, DOT issued interim guidance to states on 
developing state freight plans.[Footnote 71] MAP-21 states that the 
state freight plans are to provide a comprehensive plan for the 
immediate and long-range planning activities and investments of the 
state with respect to freight. Furthermore, DOT outlines in its 
interim guidance to states that it plans to rely significantly on 
state freight plans in preparing the National Freight Strategic Plan. 
Several state, local, and private-sector freight-transportation 
officials we spoke with said state freight plans were a good step to 
encourage states to specifically plan for freight within the state and 
to facilitate their work with corridor-focused groups.[Footnote 72] 
Moreover, the National Freight Advisory Committee recommended that DOT 
should require and fund the development of state freight plans and set 
up mechanisms to ensure that state departments of transportation 
interact with all transportation modes, users, regional and multi-
state agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations.[Footnote 73] 

State freight plans may provide an opportunity to better define roles 
and prioritize freight-planning efforts. As described above, our prior 
work has identified a framework of principles that can help inform 
Congress in assessing federal surface transportation programs. These 
principles include creating well-defined goals based on identified 
areas of national interest through an examination of the relative 
priority of existing programs and establishing and clearly defining 
the federal role in achieving each goal in relation to the roles of 
state governments and other entities.[Footnote 74] DOT's interim 
guidance on state freight plans lists "reducing adverse environmental 
and community impacts of the freight transportation system" as one of 
six national goals and generally discusses in the guidance that states 
should develop measures of conditions and performance for all six 
goals. According to DOT officials, while reducing the adverse 
community impacts of freight transportation was not included as one of 
the goals of the national freight policy in MAP-21, DOT included 
reducing adverse community impacts as one of the goals in its interim 
state freight plan guidance in part because of the requirement that 
the National Freight Strategic Plan discuss best practices to mitigate 
the impacts of freight movement on communities and in part because of 
DOT's commitment to enhancing livability and quality of life. DOT 
stated that by including such impacts as a goal, it went further than 
required by MAP-21. DOT also stated that as required by MAP-21, it 
plans to incorporate a discussion of best practices to mitigate the 
impacts of freight movement on communities in the National Freight 
Strategic Plan, which is due in 2015. 

DOT's inclusion of community impacts as one of six goals in the 
interim guidance on state freight plans is a positive step that could 
help further the understanding of the federal role in considering such 
impacts as well as encourage states to incorporate information in 
state freight plans that could be helpful to DOT's efforts to include 
best practices in this area in the National Freight Strategic Plan, as 
required by MAP-21. However, DOT's interim guidance to states on state 
freight plans did not identify specific goals, objectives, or 
performance measures for addressing freight-related congestion in 
local communities, and does not provide details on how states could 
consider documenting or addressing community impacts such as freight-
related traffic congestion.[Footnote 75] 

According to DOT officials, DOT did not include details in its state 
freight plan guidance on how states could consider documenting or 
addressing community impacts because MAP-21 does not require state 
freight plans to consider community impacts, and because states are 
not required to adopt federal goals and are not required to prepare a 
state freight plan. Moreover, DOT officials stated that it should be 
up to the states to identify goals, objectives, and performance 
measures in their state freight plans. However, without specific 
guidance related to how to consider community impacts amongst other 
freight priorities, it may be difficult for those states with concerns 
related to the local traffic congestion impacts of freight to fully 
incorporate these concerns and issues in their state freight plans. 
This difficulty, in turn, could reduce the usefulness of state freight 
plans to DOT in considering these issues for the National Freight 
Strategic Plan in order to more clearly articulate the federal and 
state roles in this area. 

In addition, DOT has begun work on the required Freight Transportation 
Conditions and Performance Report, which is due in October 2014, and 
which will also eventually feed into the National Freight Strategic 
Plan. According to DOT officials, for the Freight Transportation 
Conditions and Performance Report, DOT is developing performance 
measures in six areas, one of which--reducing adverse environmental 
and community impacts--relates to the impacts of freight on local 
communities.[Footnote 76] However, DOT officials stated that they have 
not established a clear vision of the federal role in this area 
because of a lack of national data on these issues.[Footnote 77] For 
example, DOT officials stated that while they have been working to 
develop quantitative measures in each of the six areas established for 
the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance Report, they do 
not have national data on adverse environmental and community impacts 
and will probably discuss these issues anecdotally. As a result, in 
the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance Report, DOT is 
not planning to identify specific goals, objectives, or measures for 
addressing freight-related congestion in local communities. 

DOT also expressed concerns about the availability of national freight 
data in its comments on the draft primary freight network. 
Specifically, DOT expressed concern that data limitations could reduce 
the likelihood that certain types of roads where freight-related 
congestion impacts are likely to be felt would be included in the 
highway primary freight network. DOT stated that the data utilized for 
the development of the draft primary freight network comprises the 
best information available on freight behavior at a national 
level.[Footnote 78] However, DOT commented that urban and rural areas 
that are the site of significant freight facilities where highway 
freight intersects with other modes, such as ports, do not always show 
up well in the available national data sets it used for developing the 
highway primary freight network. 

In June 2014, the National Freight Advisory Committee cited the lack 
of data for monitoring and analyzing the freight system as a barrier 
to improved system performance and made several recommendations 
related to improving data. These recommendations included, among other 
things, that data collection efforts should be tailored to performance 
measures that are in line with specific outcomes that DOT and Congress 
want to obtain, with increased emphasis on the multimodal national 
freight system, and that DOT should partner with objective third party 
organizations to facilitate data collection agreements with private 
industry.[Footnote 79] 

Leading practices in capital planning emphasize that another important 
success factor in effective decisionmaking is the availability of good 
information. Good data and information systems are essential to 
supporting sound capital planning and decision-making. The data and 
information provided by well-planned information systems give 
organizations the ability to build comprehensive measures, collect 
relevant data, and perform analyses that can be used to support 
strategic as well as operational budgeting decisions.[Footnote 80] As 
previously described, we also found that data limitations reduced our 
ability to analyze highway freight trends--information that could be 
key to helping states and the federal government establish relevant 
goals and prioritize mitigation efforts in these areas. We found the 
following causes of these data limitations: 

* While states are required to annually submit information on highway 
traffic counts for DOT's Highway Performance Monitoring system (a 
national level highway information system that includes data on the 
extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of 
the nation's highways), some DOT officials cautioned against using 
this information as a measure of freight flows because of concerns 
that information on truck traffic percentages is not consistently 
recorded. Moreover, the truck volume information submitted by states 
is not separated out by freight truck versus other types of trucks, 
but rather by vehicle class, such as light truck, single unit, or 
combination unit. DOT does present data on national freight truck 
flows through its freight analysis framework, which, according to DOT, 
integrates data from a variety of sources to create a comprehensive 
picture of freight movement among states and major metropolitan areas 
by all modes of transportation. DOT considers this data to be 
reliable, but this framework depends, in part, on Census data and 
additional analysis by DOT, and is updated only every 5 years, with 
over a 2-year reporting lag. In other words, the currently available 
freight analysis framework data is from 2007, and the updated freight 
analysis framework data, which will be based on 2012 data, is not 
expected to be released until 2015. 

* While DOT officials stated that they consider the Highway 
Performance Monitoring System data on vehicle counts for general 
vehicular (not specifically truck) traffic to be reliable for roads 
that receive federal aid, very limited data on roads off the national 
highway system is collected; thus, DOT officials do not consider 
Highway Performance Monitoring System data a good tool with which to 
understand specific local impacts of freight traffic. 

* According to some DOT, state, and local officials, private railroads 
are often unwilling to provide detailed information on train counts, 
lengths, speed, and times to local communities to help them quantify 
traffic impacts at highway-grade rail crossings. Some state officials 
had received much of this specific information for certain highway-
rail grade crossings, while others we spoke to said they had been 
unable to get this information. As previously described, BNSF 
officials stated they plan to work with communities to provide 
relevant information, and that they refer communities to FRA's Grade 
Crossing Inventory, but this inventory includes only average daily 
train numbers and the timetable (not actual) speed, and, as previously 
described, may not be current. 

DOT officials stated that in the absence of reliable national data 
related to potential adverse environmental and community impacts of 
freight, DOT will likely discuss this anecdotally in the Freight 
Transportation Conditions and Performance Report being developed. They 
stated that they planned to outline categories of community impacts 
that might be significant, including noise, heavy freight traffic on 
community streets, and railroads blocking highway-rail grade crossings 
and interfering with operations of emergency vehicles. DOT's efforts 
may represent the beginning of defining a national role related to the 
traffic-related congestion impacts of freight on communities. For 
example, the categories DOT told us they were considering align well 
with some of the areas that stakeholders told us were most problematic 
in terms of impacts on the community and with the areas where 
communities' mitigation efforts have been focused. According to DOT 
officials, DOT plans to attempt to define national data limitations in 
the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance Report and to 
describe what actions DOT is taking to reduce these limitations. 
However, DOT stated that it was not planning to put forward a strategy 
to improve the availability of national data to quantify and assess 
freight trends and impacts on local traffic congestion because of the 
difficulty of doing so. DOT stated that national data are, by 
definition, national, and cannot quantify impacts on local traffic 
congestion. DOT also stated that the question of how to aggregate 
local data to produce national measures is a difficult one, and it is 
not yet clear how this can be accomplished. We understand that 
improving the availability of national data to quantify and assess 
freight trends and impacts on local congestion is a difficult and 
complex task. Moreover, we understand that such an effort could 
involve some combination of improving the level of detail of national 
data or aggregating local data to produce national measures, and that 
efforts in each of these areas are likely to involve resolving many 
underlying issues. At the same time, DOT has developed guidance to 
help improve the granularity of national data in ways that could help 
improve the national understanding of local traffic congestion 
impacts. For example, in its current guidance to states on the Highway 
Performance Monitoring System (under frequently asked questions), DOT 
includes information on how states can work to improve the information 
they provide for this national data set on the percentage of trucks on 
road sample sections. In our Executive Guide on the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), we found that a key step for 
agencies to take to become more results-oriented was to define clear 
missions and desired outcomes--corresponding to the requirement in 
GPRA for federal agencies to develop strategic plans.[Footnote 81] 
Without a strategy defining clear missions and desired outcomes 
related to improving data that would help quantify freight-related 
traffic congestion, DOT may miss the opportunity to build on its 
current data-improvement efforts and identify future data-improvement 
efforts that could help establish and clarify the national role in 
this area. 

In addition, as previously described in this report, we found data 
limitations at the state or local level that reduced state or local 
officials' ability to quantify rail-related freight impacts on local 
communities. As a result, we found that communities we visited had 
varying levels of quantified information on impacts such as traffic 
delay times or costs. The inconsistency and incompleteness of such 
information at the state or local level is likely to reduce the 
ability of states to appropriately prioritize efforts to mitigate such 
impacts against other types of funding priorities and measure progress 
towards goals--and could also hamper DOT's efforts to consider these 
issues from a national perspective. Without reliable national and 
state data on the community impacts of freight, measuring the extent 
of freight-related traffic congestion and tracking the progress of 
efforts to mitigate the impacts will be difficult to do. However, 
DOT's interim guidance on state freight plans did not provide specific 
suggestions as to what data states could collect, report, or analyze 
in order to improve their ability to prioritize impacts of freight on 
local traffic congestion or other freight-related issues. 

DOT's efforts as previously described do not yet fully establish the 
federal role in this area, which could limit the usefulness of the 
eventual National Freight Strategic Plan in laying out a strategy 
related to these issues. In our Executive Guide on the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), we found that a key step for 
agencies to take to become more results-oriented was to define clear 
missions and desired outcomes--corresponding to the requirement in 
GPRA for federal agencies to develop strategic plans.[Footnote 82] The 
National Freight Strategic Plan is therefore an appropriate document 
for DOT to incorporate the key principles previously described for 
assessing surface transportation programs, including creating well-
defined goals based on identified areas of national interest, which 
involves examining the relevance and relative priority of existing 
programs in light of 21st century challenges and identifying emerging 
areas of national importance.[Footnote 83] The extent to which local 
traffic-congestion impacts of freight are of national importance has 
not been clearly established. However, it is clear that these impacts 
are caused by national freight movement that has national benefits--
but, especially in the case of pass-through traffic--does not 
necessarily have benefits for the communities experiencing the 
congestion or other negative impacts. Moreover, as described earlier, 
it appears that freight traffic may increase in coming years, 
particularly in certain states and along certain corridors, and these 
increases, if they occur, are likely to increase certain national 
benefits while also increasing negative local impacts in affected 
communities. The development of the National Freight Strategic Plan 
provides an opportunity to more clearly focus the federal role in this 
area. As we have concluded in prior work, without a clearly defined 
federal role, policymakers lack clarity on how to allocate scarce 
federal resources according to the level of national interest. 
[Footnote 84] 

Conclusions: 

Freight-related traffic congestion affects communities of all sizes in 
the U.S. In some locations, communities have struggled for decades to 
address long-standing freight-related traffic congestion issues due to 
funding and other challenges; elsewhere, such as in North Dakota's 
Bakken Region, these impacts have emerged relatively recently. Given 
that freight volumes are expected to continue to increase over the 
next 25 years and beyond, a growing number of communities will likely 
be seeking to devise and fund solutions to mitigate the impacts of 
freight-related traffic congestion. 

The implementation of MAP-21's requirements provides an opportunity to 
consider the extent to which there should be a national role in 
addressing freight-related traffic congestion. Although it is known 
that national freight movements contribute to local freight-related 
traffic congestion, neither MAP-21 nor DOT has yet established a clear 
federal role in mitigating or helping communities address these 
impacts. Defining this role is likely to be more important in coming 
years if freight traffic, in particular related to the movement of oil 
and coal for export by train and the intermodal movement of goods in 
and out of ports by truck or train, increases as expected. However, 
DOT's efforts related to the development the National Freight 
Strategic Plan--including its interim guidance to states on state 
freight plans--so far have not established a clear federal role by 
identifying specific goals, objectives, and measures for addressing 
freight-related congestion in local communities. These limitations 
could limit the usefulness of the eventual National Freight Strategic 
Plan in laying out a strategy related to these issues. Moreover, 
underlying any efforts to address freight-related traffic congestion 
are a number of data limitations both national and local, which if 
resolved, may assist in better defining the extent of freight-related 
congestion and its impacts and also assist in prioritizing projects to 
mitigate such impacts at both the state and national level. Finally, 
in its draft primary freight network, DOT was hampered in attempting 
to take into consideration all eight factors Congress provided as 
guidance by the lack of a clear purpose established for the highway 
primary freight network and by the mileage limit imposed. 
Consequently, it is unclear how the primary freight network will 
eventually be used or what Congress intended to be included or 
excluded from the primary freight network. Clarifying the purpose and 
goals of the network and determining the extent to which local roads 
and connectors should be included--and the extent to which the mileage 
requirements prohibit the inclusion of freight-important roads, 
including those where communities often experience freight related 
traffic congestion--would help to establish the federal role in 
freight-related traffic congestion. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

* In reauthorizing the federal highway program, Congress should 
consider establishing a clear purpose for the national freight network 
and primary freight network that incorporates inclusion of the types 
of roads where communities are likely to experience significant 
freight-related traffic congestion, and, as relevant to this purpose, 
consider revising certain requirements such as the mileage limit of 
27,000 miles or changing the requirement from a centerline to a 
corridor approach. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to clarify the federal role related to freight-related local 
traffic congestion, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation 
take the following two actions in implementing MAP-21 and any 
subsequent reauthorization: 

* in its final guidance on state freight plans, incorporate additional 
information to help states define and prioritize local community 
impacts of national freight movements, including traffic-congestion 
impacts, and to establish what data could be consistently collected 
and analyzed in order to prioritize impacts of freight on local 
traffic congestion; 

* include in the National Freight Strategic Plan a written statement 
articulating the federal role in freight-related local congestion 
impacts, by clearly identifying potential objectives and goals (under 
the general area DOT has established for the Freight Transportation 
Conditions and Performance Report of reducing adverse environmental 
and community impacts) for mitigating local congestion caused by 
national freight movements and the type of role federal and state 
stakeholders could play in achieving each objective and goal, and 
including a written strategy for improving the availability of 
national data needed to quantify, assess, and establish measures on 
freight trends and impacts on local traffic congestion. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOT. We 
received written comments from DOT's Assistant Secretary for 
Administration, which are reproduced in appendix II. This letter 
stated that upon preliminary review, DOT concurred with our 
recommendations and that DOT would provide a detailed response to each 
recommendation within 60 days of the report's issuance. 

In its letter, DOT stated that it is making significant progress in 
addressing community congestion impacts and the development of a 
national freight strategy. DOT stated that its proposed GROW AMERICA 
Act continues to build on the freight provisions in MAP-21 by 
identifying and mitigating congestion and other community impacts 
resulting from the transportation of freight. DOT also stated that in 
developing the National Freight Strategic Plan, DOT has heard from the 
National Freight Advisory Committee and other stakeholders 
recommending that DOT articulate a clear federal role in the movement 
of freight, including addressing first and last mile connectors in 
both urban and rural areas where community impacts are often most 
acutely felt. DOT also stated that it is incorporating these and other 
comments in the National Freight Strategic Plan, undertaking research, 
and developing data and tools to support an outcome-oriented, 
performance-based approach to freight projects and planning. 

In a draft version of this report provided to DOT, we recommended that 
DOT issue a legislative proposal that would address concerns raised in 
our report about the highway primary freight network, including the 
lack of a clear purpose for the primary freight network and the 
primary freight network's mileage limit requirement of 27,000 
centerline miles. In technical comments DOT provided to us after 
reviewing the draft, DOT stated that its surface transportation 
reauthorization proposal, GROW America, which was introduced in the 
House of Representatives in June 2014, would address these concerns 
through the establishment of a multimodal national freight network 
that would replace the primary freight network--and that had a defined 
purpose and no mileage requirement. We reviewed the GROW America 
proposal and agreed that the multimodal national freight network 
proposed to replace the primary freight network would address the 
concerns raised in our report about the primary freight network. We 
therefore revised our draft accordingly, including removing the 
recommendation and adding a Matter for Congressional Consideration 
related to the national freight network and the primary freight 
network. 

* As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the 
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 
6 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
appropriate congressional committees and to the Secretary of 
Transportation. In addition, the report is available at no charge on 
the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to 
this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Susan A. Fleming: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report addresses the following objectives: (1) how U.S. rail and 
truck freight flows are changing, and the extent to which freight-
related traffic congestion is reported to impact local communities; 
(2) how communities have funded efforts to mitigate freight-related 
traffic congestion, and what funding challenges, if any, communities 
report facing; and (3) the extent to which DOT's efforts to implement 
freight-related provisions of MAP-21 have addressed local freight-
related traffic congestion. 

To determine how U.S. rail flows are changing, we analyzed Surface 
Transportation Board (STB) data on rail carloads from 2007 to 2012, 
the most recent year available, including information on all carloads 
and on intermodal carloads, and on carloads of selected commodities, 
including coal and crude oil. We selected carloads as a measure 
because of its relevance to traffic congestion at highway-rail grade 
crossings. We chose to analyze STB data beginning in 2007 after being 
advised by STB officials that to examine recent trends, 2007 was more 
indicative than 2008 of rail traffic before the recent U.S. economic 
recession. We focused on trends related to intermodal, coal, and crude 
oil transportation by rail because they were emphasized by STB and AAR 
officials as having a significant impact on changes in rail traffic in 
recent years. In addition, intermodal and coal carloads are the only 
two product types to make up at least 20 percent of all rail carloads 
in 2012, and, while crude oil represented only about 1 percent of all 
rail carloads in 2012, the percentage increase in crude oil carloads 
from 2007 to 2012--of approximately 3,188 percent--was far higher than 
the percentage change of any other commodity. We also looked at trends 
in carloads at the national and state level, using the STB data's 
state-through indicator as the measure of whether a carload was in a 
state. We reviewed the reliability of STB's data by reviewing related 
documentation, examining the data for irregularities, and interviewing 
agency officials about their data collection procedures and controls 
for maintaining the data. Carload figures are considered estimates 
because they are based on data sampling rather than complete 
reporting. We estimated that for 2007-2012, the margin of error for 
carloads of all commodities we examined was less than 5 percent except 
crude oil, which had a higher margin of error until 2012. Crude oil 
carloads, which existed in small numbers in 2007-2011, had for those 
years a declining margin of error that started at 26 percent in 2007 
and went down to about 8 percent in 2011. For 2012, the margin of 
error for crude oil carloads was less than 5 percent. We determined 
that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 
review. We also received information from the Association of American 
Railroads (AAR) on rail carload levels in 2013, according to AAR data. 

To provide context on freight flow volumes in the U.S., we reviewed 
the Department of Transportation's (DOT) methodology for a map it had 
published showing freight flow tonnage on highways, rail, and inland 
waterways for 2010. This map used a combination of DOT's 2007 Freight 
Analysis Framework data, updated through additional analysis involving 
DOT's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) truck flow data and 
economic information in order to present information on highway 
freight flows; STB data on rail volumes in 2010 as flowed over the 
rail network by DOT's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); and Army 
Corps of Engineers' 2010 data on freight tonnage on inland waterways. 
We investigated whether we could update this map to 2012 but learned 
that we could not because 2010 was the most recent year available for 
sufficiently reliable information on highway freight flows. We 
therefore analyzed these data to present a map of 2010 freight flows. 
We reviewed the reliability of these data by examining documentation 
from the agency, interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about the 
data collection procedures, and discussing with FRA officials their 
procedure for flowing STB rail data on rail lines. We concluded that 
these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes used in our 
report. 

To determine how truck freight flows are changing, we investigated 
whether we could use a federal data source on truck flows, but on 
reviewing the options with DOT officials, learned that the main 
federal source of data, HPMS, could not reliably be used to analyze 
freight truck trends from 2007 to 2012 because, among other things, 
the data do not sufficiently distinguish among classes of trucks. As a 
result, to provide general information on trends in truck flows from 
2007 to 2012, we reported information available in studies by the ATA 
and the American Transportation Research Institute, the research arm 
of ATA, which performs some of its studies in partnership with the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We reviewed DOT's evaluation of 
the ATA truck tonnage data and the methodologies used in the American 
Transportation Research Institute studies and determined that they 
were sufficiently reliable to use to provide contextual information. 
We also obtained some information on freight truck levels in 2013 from 
ATA and ATRI and interviewed ATRI, ATA, Owner-Operator Independent 
Drivers Association, and DOT officials. 

To present a map of public highway-rail grade crossings that had over 
certain thresholds of both rail and vehicular traffic, we analyzed 
data from three sources: FRA's National Grade Crossing Inventory for 
the location of highway-rail grade crossings, DOT's 2012 HPMS data on 
average annual daily traffic (AADT) for vehicular traffic, and STB's 
2012 data on rail carloads annually, as flowed over the rail lines by 
FRA. We used DOT's 2012 HPMS data and STB's 2012 rail data after 
determining that it was the most recent, reliable national data 
available for each type of traffic. Through discussions with DOT 
officials, we determined that HPMS's vehicular count data as measured 
by AADT (as opposed to its truck count data discussed above) are 
sufficiently reliable for purposes of our review. Our analysis showed 
that 44,982 grade crossings identified in FRA's National Grade 
Crossing Inventory were on roads for which 2012 HPMS data included 
AADT information (all federal-aid highways and highways designated on 
the National Highway System, covering about 25 percent of all public 
roads) and on rail lines that were included in FRA's flow of STB rail 
data for 2012 (rail lines used by rail carriers terminating 4,500 or 
more revenue carloads annually). Because of the lack of data on 
congestion at rail crossings, we were unable to identify the 
thresholds for levels of vehicular traffic or of train carload traffic 
above which a highway-rail grade crossing becomes problematic to a 
community due to local traffic congestion impacts. Moreover, from our 
interviews and case studies, we had determined that there are a number 
of factors that feed into how problematic a community considers a 
highway-rail grade crossing, such as the centrality of the crossing to 
a community and the extent to which emergency vehicles are located on 
one side of the crossing. Furthermore, our data selection, as 
described, only includes certain highways and railways, and there may 
be other roads and railways where communities experience local traffic 
congestion impacts of rail traffic. Nonetheless, we determined that it 
would be useful to display the geographic distribution of crossings 
that exceed these thresholds of vehicular and rail carload traffic. 

After considering the thresholds used to by FRA to identify ranges of 
carload numbers presented in national maps of rail flows, and after 
considering AADT volume group ranges as identified by DOT in its HPMS 
field guide, we selected the threshold of 200,000 or more rail 
carloads annually and 10,000 or more AADT. We selected these 
thresholds because they represented crossings with higher vehicular 
and train carload traffic levels and because higher traffic levels are 
related to congestion. Because we lacked data that would directly link 
these thresholds to congestion, however, it is possible that some 
crossings above these thresholds do not experience congestion while 
other crossings below these thresholds do experience congestion. 
Selecting lower thresholds would produce more crossings and selecting 
higher thresholds would produce fewer crossings and would result in 
different spatial patterns. We identified that 3,762 crossings met 
both of these thresholds. These crossings represent about 8 percent of 
all crossings in our population. We reviewed the reliability of these 
data by reviewing documentation from the agency on the collection of 
this data and interviewing agency officials about their data 
collection procedures. We determined that these data were sufficiently 
reliable for the purposes they were used for in this report. 

To determine how freight-related traffic congestion impacts 
communities, how communities have funded mitigation efforts for 
freight-related traffic congestion, and what challenges, if any, 
exist, we selected twelve locations in seven states: Chicago, 
Illinois; Seattle, Spokane, and Edmonds, Washington; Billings and 
Glendive, Montana; Williston (and surrounding communities in the 
Bakken oil field region), North Dakota; Gulfport and Pascagoula, 
Mississippi; Miami, Florida; Paulsboro, New Jersey and the New York 
City metropolitan region, including projects for New Jersey and New 
York. We selected these locations to provide a range of population 
sizes and geographic locations. Sizes include a mix of three large 
cities (population greater than 500,000); three medium cities 
(population between 100,000 and 500,000); and six small, communities 
(population less than 100,000). The locations are in the east/mid 
Atlantic, south, mid-west, west and northwest regions of the country. 
We also selected locations with differing types of federal funding 
obtained, such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 
Act (TIFIA) assistance or Transportation Investment Generating 
Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, and locations with and without 
marine ports. 

Where feasible, at each location, we interviewed state and local 
officials, railroads, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), port 
officials, and private contractors, and toured congested areas with 
mitigation activities, such as improved intermodal connections, the 
relocation of rail interchanges, and grade separation projects. Where 
available we obtained information on the costs of mitigation projects 
and studies documenting and measuring freight congestion impacts. We 
reviewed the methodology and assumptions of these studies. We also 
reviewed information on transportation trends and conditions and state 
and local impacts of transporting certain commodities such as coal and 
oil, as well as the local impacts from rail and highway freight-
transportation operations including plans by localities for new truck 
routes to bypass their downtown. Where available we obtained state 
level documents and plans including state freight and rail plans. The 
results of the interviews at these locations are not generalizable to 
all locations experiencing freight-related traffic congestion. 
However, they do provide the perspectives and experiences of various 
types of communities on local congestion impacts related to freight 
and on efforts to mitigate these impacts. 

To understand the extent that MAP-21 addresses freight-related traffic 
congestion in communities, we reviewed federal laws and programs, 
including MAP-21 freight provisions, and documentation of DOT's 
efforts to implement MAP-21's freight provisions, such as its draft 
primary freight network, as well as DOT's April 2014 surface 
transportation reauthorization proposal. We also reviewed published 
draft recommendations of the National Freight Advisory Committee and 
attended two public meetings of this committee, and we interviewed DOT 
officials about ongoing efforts to implement MAP-21's freight 
provisions. 

To inform our understanding of all of these issues, we also analyzed 
documents related to these issues, including legislation and prior GAO 
work on surface transportation and capital planning issues. In 
addition, we interviewed numerous freight transportation stakeholders. 
This included officials from federal agencies, including DOT and its 
modal administrations FRA, FHWA--including officials in its national 
and division offices--and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, as 
well as STB. As part of our case study work, we interviewed or 
obtained prepared responses from state and local organizations 
including the Washington Department of Transportation; Seattle 
Department of Transportation and local officials in Edmonds, 
Washington; the Illinois Department of Transportation and Illinois 
Commerce Commission; Chicago Department of Transportation officials as 
part of the CREATE Program, the North Dakota Department of 
Transportation and local elected officials in Williston, ND, and the 
Three-Affiliated Tribal government in New Town, ND; and the City of 
Billings, MT. We also interviewed the transportation departments in 
New Jersey, Florida, Mississippi, and Montana including the 
Yellowstone County Commission and Planning Board in Billings, MT. We 
also interviewed a non-profit agency and representatives of academia 
and a specific rail terminal project in Bellingham, WA. We interviewed 
the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and MPOs 
located in Spokane and Bellingham, Washington; The Delaware Valley 
Region of Pennsylvania and New Jersey; Biloxi, Mississippi; and Miami-
Dade, Florida. 

We also interviewed or received written responses from industry 
stakeholders representing different freight transportation modes, 
including select U.S. railroad companies--Burlington Northern Santa 
Fe, the Union Pacific, CSX, and Norfolk Southern Corporation--and 
additional railroad partners involved with the CREATE Program 
including Belt Railway Company railroads in the Chicago Transportation 
and Coordination Office. We interviewed officials from industry 
associations including the American Association of Railroads; the 
American Trucking Association; Intermodal Association of North 
America; Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association; the American 
Association of State Transportation Officials; and the World Shipping 
Council. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to September 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Transportation: 

U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary of Transportation: 
Assistant Secretary for Administration: 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE: 
Washington, DC 20590: 

September 11, 2014: 

Susan Fleming: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is making significant progress 
on addressing community congestion impacts and the development of a 
national freight strategy. On April 29, 2014, the Department proposed 
the Grow America Act[Footnote l], which continues to build on the
freight provisions in MAP-21 by identifying and mitigating congestion 
and other community impacts resulting from the transportation of 
freight. In developing the National Freight Strategic Plan (Plan), the 
Department has heard from the National Freight Advisory Committee and 
other stakeholders recommending that the Department articulate a clear 
Federal role in the movement of freight, including addressing first 
and last mile connectors in both urban and rural areas where community 
impacts are often most acutely felt. Accordingly, DOT is incorporating 
these and other comments into the Plan, undertaking research, and 
developing data and tools to support an outcome-oriented, performance-
based approach to freight projects and planning. 

* The Grow America Act would establish a Multimodal National Freight 
Network that addresses issues identified with the MAP-21 Primary 
Freight Network and provides a clear purpose and support for Federal 
decision-making to achieve national freight policy goals, including 
reversing adverse community impacts. 

* The Multimodal National Freight Network will reflect input collected 
from stakeholders through a public process, to identify critical 
freight facilities that are vital links in national or regionally 
significant goods movement and supply chains. 

* MAP-21 does not list community impacts as one of the goals of the 
National Freight Policy; however, DOT has included community impacts 
within our goal areas to reflect the Department's commitment to 
quality of life. 

* The Grow America Act would establish a Multimodal Freight Incentive 
Program that States could use to relieve freight or non-freight 
access, congestion, or safety issues, and address first and last mile 
connectors. 

* The Grow America Act would establish a National Freight 
Infrastructure Program with an explicit goal to reduce the adverse 
environmental and community impacts of freight transportation. 

* States receiving grants from either program would be required to 
develop a freight plan that uses a comprehensive process that provides 
a mechanism to address local community impacts. 

* The National Freight Strategic Plan, currently under development, 
will identify objectives and goals concerning local congestion and 
other community impacts related to freight movements and clarify 
Federal, state, and local roles. The Plan will address data and other 
requirements needed to identify and mitigate adverse community 
impacts. The Department is also working on improved data and planning 
tools relating to adverse community impacts. 

Upon preliminary review, we agree with the recommendations for DOT. 
The Department will provide a detailed response to each recommendation 
within 60 days of the GAO report's Issuance. 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer additional perspective on the 
GAO draft report. Please contact Martin Gertel, Director of Audit 
Relations, at (202) 366-5145 with any questions or if the GAO would 
like to obtain additional details about these comments. 

Signed by: 

[Illegible] for: 
Brodi Fontenot: 
Assistant Secretary for Administration: 

Comment letter footnote: 

[1] Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated 
Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities 
throughout America Act. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant 
Director), Jeremy Auerbach, Melissa Bodeau, Mark Braza, Rick 
Jorgenson, Terence Lam, Alex Lawrence, John Mingus, Jaclyn Nidoh, 
Joshua Ormond, Cheryl Peterson, Maria Wallace, Alwynne Wilbur, and 
Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO. Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can 
Help Improve Freight Mobility. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-287] (Washington, D.C., Jan. 7, 
2008). 

[2] Freight-related traffic congestion can also affect the 
environment, such as by causing air pollution, and safety. We have 
recently issued a report focused on safety related to rail. See GAO. 
Rail Safety: Improved Capital Planning Could Address Emerging Safety 
Oversight Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-85] (Washington, D.C., Dec. 9, 
2013). 

[3] This report focuses on freight-related traffic congestion caused 
by rail and truck freight movements because rail and truck shipments 
comprise the majority of freight movements by weight. In addition, a 
survey by the Transportation Research Board found that the most often 
cited issues related to freight facilities and operations were 
concerns about impacts on traffic flow and congestion related to 
highway-rail grade crossings and trucks. See Transportation Research 
Board of the National Academies: Integrating Freight Facilities and 
Operations with Community Goals: A Synthesis of Highway Practice; 
Washington, D.C., 2003. 

[4] This request was originally made by the former Chair of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Max Baucus, who 
resigned. 

[5] While Figure 1 shows tonnage of freight moved by rail in order for 
rail volumes to be easily comparable to truck and inland waterway 
volumes, the rest of this report focuses on rail carloads, since rail 
carloads are more closely associated with potential traffic congestion 
impacts in communities at highway-rail grade crossings. 

[6] Oil contained in underground shale formations was previously 
considered to be inaccessible because traditional techniques did not 
yield sufficient amounts for economically viable production. The 
application of horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing-
-a process that injects a combination of water, sand, and chemical 
additives under high pressure to create and maintain fractures in 
underground rock formations that allow oil to flow--have played a 
major role in the recent increases of U.S. crude oil production. 

[7] ITS technologies consist of a range of communications, 
electronics, and computer technologies, such as systems that collect 
real-time traffic data and transmit information to the public via 
dynamic message signs and other means. 

[8] According to DOT officials, another type of project to alleviate 
freight-related congestion is a re-design of railroad junction points 
that can reduce the amount of backing movements by trains that can 
block grade crossings for extended periods of time. DOT stated that it 
has reviewed projects of this type, for example, in Willmar and 
Moorhead, Minnesota. 

[9] Traditionally, federal surface transportation's funding has been 
primarily delivered through formula grant programs based on 
distributions prescribed by federal statute. Unlike formula grant 
programs, discretionary grant programs are generally based on a 
competitive selection process in which agencies may also need to 
comply with specific statutory or regulatory requirements as well as 
published selection criteria established for a program. 

[10] Some public port authorities are self-funding public entities, 
meaning that they rely exclusively on revenues generated from facility 
operations, such as tolls, user fees, and tenant leases. 

[11] GAO, Highway Public Private Partnerships: More Rigorous Up-front 
Analysis Could Better Secure Potential Benefits and Protect the Public 
Interest, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-44] 
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 8, 2008). 

[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-44]. 

[13] Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012) 

[14] The following are the goals for the national freight policy: to 
(1) invest in infrastructure improvements and implement operational 
improvements that strengthen the contribution of the national freight 
network to the economic competitiveness of the United States; reduce 
congestion; and increase productivity, particularly for domestic 
industries and businesses that create high-value jobs; (2) improve the 
safety, security, and resilience of freight transportation; (3) 
improve the state of good repair of the national freight network; (4) 
use advanced technology to improve the safety and efficiency of the 
national freight network; (5) incorporate concepts of performance, 
innovation, competition, and accountability into the operation and 
maintenance of the national freight network; (6) improve the economic 
efficiency of the national freight network; and (7) to reduce the 
environmental impacts of freight movement on the national freight 
network. 23 U,S,C, § 167(b). 

[15] The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 
Act: A Legacy for Users, (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 
Stat.1144 (2005). 

[16] Comments on the primary freight network were due on February 15, 
2014. 

[17] GAO Action Tracker on Economic Development: Surface Freight 
Transportation, Action 3. 

[18] GAO Action Tracker on Economic Development: Surface Freight 
Transportation, Action 2. 

[19] H.R. 4834, 113TH Cong. § 1101 (2014). 

[20] Due to a lag in data reporting, 2013 STB data were not available 
for this report. We chose to analyze STB data beginning in 2007 after 
being advised by STB officials that to examine recent trends, 2007 was 
more indicative than 2008 of rail traffic before the recent U.S. 
economic recession. 

[21] According to AAR officials, crude oil represented an estimated 
1.4 percent of total class-1-originated carloads in 2013. 

[22] Freight railroads also carry many other types of commodities, 
such as farm products, forest products, chemicals, food, textiles, and 
machinery. In this report, we are focusing on trends related to 
intermodal, coal, and crude oil transportation by rail because they 
were emphasized by STB and AAR officials as having a significant 
impact on changes in rail traffic in recent years. In addition, 
intermodal and coal carloads are the only two product types to make up 
at least 20 percent of all rail carloads in 2012. 

[23] According to STB data, a seventh state, Rhode Island, also 
experienced an increase of at least 5 percent in the total number of 
rail carloads, but due to the small number of carloads involved, this 
increase was not statistically significant. 

[24] We used STB's data's state-through indicator as the measure of 
whether a carload was in a state. This indicator is present when a 
carload originates or terminates in a state. In addition, this 
indicator is present when according to a model, the carload would have 
passed through a state given its origin and termination points. 

[25] In 2005, SAFETEA-LU authorized $197.5 billion for the federal-aid 
highway program for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. The American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated $48.1 billion to 
DOT to invest in transportation infrastructure. Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 
Sat 115 (2009). 

[26] Another 12 percent of crude-oil rail carloads that originated in 
the U.S. originated in Texas. No other state originated more than 3 
percent of these carloads in 2012. 

[27] GAO, Petroleum Refining: Industry's Outlook Depends on Market 
Changes and Key Environmental Regulations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-249] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 
2014). 

[28] Due to a lag in data reporting, 2013 STB data were not available 
for this report. We included 2013 AAR-reported data for illustrative 
purposes and to provide information as reported by the industry on 
trends after 2012. Because the data were not used to support our 
findings, conclusions, or recommendations, we did not independently 
analyze the AAR data. 

[29] The Energy Information Administration projects that total U.S. 
crude oil production will reach 9.6 million barrels per day in 2019, 
which is 3.1 million barrels per day more than in 2012. 

[30] AAR officials noted that even if the amount of crude oil shipped 
by rail doubled, it would still be less than 3 percent of total rail 
traffic. 

[31] Public rail crossings are those on highways under the 
jurisdiction of a public authority open to the traveling public. 
Private crossings are those on roadways privately owned and utilized 
only by the landowner or licensee. 

[32] Vehicle counts were measured as annual average daily traffic. 

[33] In December 2013, we reported that in 2012, there were 271 
fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings in the U.S., and 554 
trespasser fatalities. We did not focus on safety issues related to 
highway-rail grade crossings in this report, in part because we 
recently considered this issue in another report. In December 2013, we 
found that in addition to Federal Railroad Administration reportable 
train accidents, highway-rail grade crossing accidents and trespasser 
incidents constitute a majority of all fatalities associated with the 
railroad industry. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-85]. 

[34] CREATE is a partnership between the State of Illinois, City of 
Chicago, Metra, Amtrak, the Association of American Railroads, and 
U.S. DOT. It is comprised of 70 rail and highway infrastructure 
projects in Northeast Illinois, a region that handles a quarter of the 
nation's freight rail volume and experiences some of the highest 
freight congestion levels in the country. 

[35] Cambridge Systematics, Inc. for Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning 
Organization, Transportation and Economic Impacts of the Freight 
Industry in Miami-Dade County, (December 2011). 

[36] DOT's Highway Performance Monitoring System is a national-level 
highway-information system that includes data on the extent, 
condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of the 
nation's highways. 

[37] FRA's rail crossing inventory includes information on each rail 
crossing in the U.S., including the average number of daily train 
crossings. 

[38] ATA and ATRI undertake research on freight trucking issues. ATRI 
performs analyses of truck congestion in partnership with FHWA, 
analyses that include tracking about 500,000 trucks with GPS devices. 

[39] ATA officials stated that truck congestion, which ATRI studies 
nationally, is a good proxy for where truck flow volumes are highest. 

[40] National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 586: Rail 
Freight Solutions to Roadway Congestion--Final Report and Guidebook 
(Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2007). 

[41] Cambridge Systematics: Transportation and Economic Impacts of the 
Freight Industry in Miami-Dade County (December 2011). 

[42] U.S. DOT Maritime Administration, Panama Canal Expansion Study: 
Phase 1 Report: Developments in Trade and National and Global 
Economies (Nov. 2013); and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Port and 
Inland Waterways Modernization: Preparing for Post-Panamax Vessels 
(June 20, 2012). 

[43] See appendix I for more information about our selection 
methodology for site visit locations and congestion mitigation 
projects. 

[44] Local funds include those provided by public port authorities, 
which are often self-financing entities with their own revenue streams. 

[45] Two projects--the Port of Pascagoula's Intermodal Improvements 
and Seattle's Duwamish ITS Project--included contributions from one of 
the port's terminal operators and a private foundation, respectively. 

[46] This project restored and upgraded rail service between the Port 
of Miami and the Florida East Coast Rail Yard in Hialeah, FL, which 
was suspended in 2005 following damage to the rail bridge during 
Hurricane Wilma, and provided the Port of Miami with direct cargo 
access to the national rail system. 

[47] 23 U.S.C. § 602(a)(9). 

[48] Unlike railroads, other private entities, such as trucking firms 
and distribution center operators, do not own freight infrastructure. 
As a result, they may be less inclined to make direct contributions to 
specific congestion mitigation projects. For instance, according to 
ATA representatives, the trucking industry does not see it as its role 
to directly fund road infrastructure projects because this 
infrastructure is publicly-owned; rather, the trucking industry 
indirectly contributes to infrastructure projects through federal fuel 
taxes and other taxes, tolls, and registration fees. However, we have 
previously reported that at the national level, infrastructure costs 
attributable to commercial freight transported by trucks exceed the 
revenue that these freight transportation providers pay governments to 
fund that infrastructure. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-134]. 

[49] 23 U.S.C. § 130(b), 23 C.F.R.§ 646.210(b)(3). This contribution 
requirement only applies to the elimination of grade crossings that 
have active warning devices in place or ordered to be installed by a 
state regulatory agency. 

[50] Railroads companies determine their contributions to grade 
crossing elimination projects funded outside of the Railway-Highway 
Crossings Program; therefore these contributions may be less than or 
greater than 5 percent. 

[51] 49 U,S.C. § 11324. 

[52] STB's environmental reviews look at the direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts of the proposed construction or acquisition. They 
do not include pre-existing conditions, such as rail traffic levels 
prior to the proposed transaction. For example, if a rail line 
currently accommodates 15 trains a day--and due to an acquisition is 
expected to accommodate an additional 5 trains a day--the 
environmental review would only focus on the impacts of the 5 
additional trains. 

[53] The decision was upheld in Village of Barrington v. Surface 
Transportation Board 636 F. 3d 650, 394 U.S. App. DC 353 (2011). 

[54] STB can address transportation emergencies by directing traffic 
over particular routings, but such emergency service orders are 
statutorily limited in duration. STB can issue orders that affect 
routing on a permanent basis to address competitive issues, but not 
simply to mitigate freight traffic congestion. 

[55] For example, if traffic congestion at one grade crossing results 
in vehicle backups onto another grade crossing, the congestion issue 
at the first crossing could be addressed due to the safety issues it 
presents at the second crossing. 

[56] 23 U.S.C. § 130(e)(1). 

[57] Federal grants are typically intended to supplement the efforts 
of state and local governments rather than sup- 

plant them. To that end, many grant programs include matching 
requirements or maintenance-of-effort 

provisions that require state and local governments to partially pay 
for a program from nonfederal revenues. 

[58] GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address 
Planning and Financing Limitations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-165] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 
2003). GAO, Freight Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can 
Help Improve Freight Mobility, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-287] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 7, 
2008). In GAO-08-287, we recommended that DOT work with the Congress 
and freight stakeholders to develop a national strategy to transform 
the federal government's involvement in freight transportation 
projects. DOT's efforts to develop a national freight transportation 
strategy are discussed in the next section. 

[59] GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address 
Planning and Financing Limitations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-165] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 
2003). 

[60] DOT is early in the implementation process, so the extent to 
which community impact issues will be incorporated into final results 
cannot yet be determined. 

[61] 23 U.S.C. § 167(d)(1)(ii). According to DOT officials, the 
"centerline" requirement means that the length of each road segment 
included in the network must be counted against the mileage limit of 
the network. 23 U.S.C.§ 167(d)(2) provides for the designation of not 
more than 3,000 additional centerline mile of roadways critical to 
efficient movement of goods on the primary freight network. 

[62] MAP-21 requires that the national freight network is to include a 
primary freight network, portions of the Interstate System not 
designated as part of the primary freight network, and critical rural 
freight corridors. DOT officials stated that they have waited to 
provide guidance on establishing the critical rural freight corridors 
until the primary freight network is established. 

[63] As defined in MAP-21, an aerotropolis transportation system is a 
multimodal freight and passenger transportation network for a defined 
region of economic significance centered around a major airport. 

[64] MAP-21 includes the following factors for DOT to consider in 
designating the primary freight network: (1) the origins and 
destinations of freight movement in the U.S.; (2) the total freight 
tonnage and value of freight moved by highways; (3) the percentage of 
annual average daily truck traffic in the annual average daily traffic 
on principal arterials; (4) the annual average daily truck traffic on 
principal arterials; (5) land and maritime ports of entry; (6) access 
to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas; 
(7) population centers; and (8) network connectivity. 23 U.S.C. § 
167(d)(1)(B). 

[65] According to this analysis, of the 300 comments uploaded to the 
electronic document on the draft primary freight network by March 10, 
2014, 168 were policy related. 

[66] GAO. Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-
Making, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-99-32] 
(Washington, D.C., December 1998). This executive guide is based on 
extensive research to identify leading practices in capital decision-
making used by state and local governments and private sector 
organizations and identifies organizational attributes that are 
important to the capital decision-making process as a whole, as well 
as capital decision-making principles and practices used by 
outstanding state and local governments and private sector 
organizations. 

[67] GAO. Surface Transportation: Principles Can Guide Efforts to 
Restructure and Fund Federal Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-744T] (Washington, D.C., July 10, 
2008). We identified a framework of principles that can help inform 
Congress in assessing federal surface transportation programs through 
our prior analysis of surface transportation programs as well as a 
body of work that we have developed for Congress, including GAO's High-
Risk, Performance and Accountability, and 21ST Century Challenges 
reports. 

[68] GAO. High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on 
Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear 
Federal Role. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-317] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2009). 

[69] H.R.4834, 113TH Cong. § 1101 (2014). 

[70] 23 U.S.C. § 167(f)(1)(H). 

[71] Department of Transportation: "Interim Guidance on State Freight 
Plans and State Freight Advisory Committees," Federal Register, Vol. 
77 No. 199 (Oct. 15, 2012). According to DOT officials, as of April 
2014, about 25 states had completed a state freight plan and about 42 
had either completed or stated to DOT that they planned to complete a 
state freight plan. About 8 states stated they are not planning to 
complete one. These states generally told DOT they are not completing 
one due to the financial burden of completing one or because freight 
information included in other required plans is sufficient. 

[72] MAP-21, section 1116, provides that if a project is identified in 
an approved state freight plan, DOT can increase the federal share 
payable up to 95 percent for projects on the Interstate, and up to 90 
percent for any other project. According to DOT officials, two states, 
Indiana and Vermont, have done this so far. In these cases only, DOT 
reviews the state freight plans. It approved Indiana's, and at the 
time of our discussion, Vermont's was under review. 

[73] On July 14, 2014, DOT stated that the National Freight Advisory 
Committee's recommendations were under review by DOT. 

[74] GAO. Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed 
for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400] (Washington, D.C.; 
Mar. 6, 2008). 

[75] Interim Guidance on State Freight Plans and State Advisory 
Committee, 77 Fed. Reg. 62596 (Oct. 15, 2012). According to DOT 
officials, the interim guidance on state freight plans was prepared 
very quickly because states were eager to know what kind of state 
freight plan they needed to prepare in order to satisfy the 
requirements of section 1116 of MAP-21, which allows states, with the 
approval of the Secretary, to contribute a smaller state match on 
certain freight-related highway projects. According to DOT, due to 
this short time period, it was not practical to include detailed 
guidance on how to document each of the elements that the statute 
required state freight plans to include. 

[76] The other five areas are (1) Reducing congestion; (2) Improving 
safety and resilience; (3) Improving the state of good repair; (4) 
Enhancing economic efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness; and 
(5) Use of innovative technology, competition, performance management, 
and accountability. 

[77] In its recent recommendations to DOT, the National Freight 
Advisory Committee suggested that a potentially useful federal role in 
this area could be to develop a repository of best practice efforts at 
the local level related to mitigating the negative community impacts 
of freight, and it recommended that the National Freight Strategic 
Plan should develop a set of criteria for defining best practices to 
be shared with freight stakeholders through the establishment of a 
clearinghouse of freight best practices and a program for 
disseminating best practices. On July 14, 2014, DOT stated that the 
National Freight Advisory Committee's recommendations were under 
review by DOT. 

[78] In the Notice publishing its draft primary freight network, DOT 
listed multiple data sources used, including, among others, DOT's 
Freight Analysis Framework and Highway Performance Monitoring System. 

[79] On July 14, 2014, DOT stated that the National Freight Advisory 
Committee's recommendations were under review by DOT. 

[80] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-99-32]. This 
executive guide is based on extensive research to identify leading 
practices in capital decision-making used by state and local 
governments and private sector organizations and identifies 
organizational attributes that are important to the capital decision-
making process as a whole, as well as capital decision-making 
principles and practices used by outstanding state and local 
governments and private sector organizations. 

[81] GAO. Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C., June 
1996). For this guide, at the request of Congress, we studied a number 
of leading public sector organizations that were successfully pursuing 
management reform initiatives and becoming more results-oriented, and 
identified key steps commonly taken by these organizations to become 
more results-oriented. 

[82] GAO. Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C., June 
1996). For this guide, at the request of Congress, we studied a number 
of leading public sector organizations that were successfully pursuing 
management reform initiatives and becoming more results-oriented, and 
identified key steps commonly taken by these organizations to become 
more results-oriented. 

[83] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-744T] and also see 
GAO. Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed for 
More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400] (Washington, D.C.; March 6, 
2008). 

[84] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400]. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]