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