#####  Technical Report Documentation Page 

+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 1\. Report No.        | 2\.       |           | 3\.       |          |
|                       | G         |           | Rec       |          |
| TX-01/50-1XXA3038     | overnment |           | ipient\'s |          |
|                       | Accession |           | Catalog   |          |
|                       | No.       |           | No.       |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 4\. Title and         |           |           | 5\.       |          |
| Subtitle              |           |           | Report    |          |
|                       |           |           | Date:     |          |
| TRUCK TRANSPORTATION  |           |           |           |          |
| THROUGH BORDER PORTS  |           |           | November  |          |
| OF ENTRY: ANALYSIS OF |           |           | 2002      |          |
| COORDINATION SYSTEMS  |           |           |           |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
|                       |           |           | 6\.       |          |
|                       |           |           | P         |          |
|                       |           |           | erforming |          |
|                       |           |           | Org       |          |
|                       |           |           | anization |          |
|                       |           |           | Code      |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 7\. Author(s):        |           |           | 8\.       |          |
|                       |           |           | P         |          |
| Mark I. Ojah, Juan C. |           |           | erforming |          |
| Villa, William R.     |           |           | Org       |          |
| Stockton, David M.    |           |           | anization |          |
| Luskin, Robert        |           |           | Report    |          |
| Harrison              |           |           | No.       |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           | Report    |          |
|                       |           |           | 50        |          |
|                       |           |           | -1XXA3038 |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 9\. Performing        |           |           | 10\. Work |          |
| Organization Name and |           |           | Unit No.  |          |
| Address               |           |           | (TRAIS)   |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
| Texas Transportation  |           |           |           |          |
| Institute             |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
| The Texas A&M         |           |           |           |          |
| University System     |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
| College Station,      |           |           |           |          |
| Texas 77843-3135      |           |           |           |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
|                       |           |           | 11\.      |          |
|                       |           |           | Contract  |          |
|                       |           |           | or Grant  |          |
|                       |           |           | No.       |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           | Project   |          |
|                       |           |           | No.       |          |
|                       |           |           | 7-50      |          |
|                       |           |           | -1XXA3038 |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 12\. Sponsoring       |           |           | 13\. Type |          |
| Agency Name and       |           |           | of Report |          |
| Address               |           |           | and       |          |
|                       |           |           | Period    |          |
| Texas Department of   |           |           | Covered   |          |
| Transportation        |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           | Research: |          |
| Research and          |           |           |           |          |
| Technology            |           |           | August    |          |
| Implementation Office |           |           | 2001-     |          |
|                       |           |           | August    |          |
| P. O. Box 5080        |           |           | 2002      |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
| Austin, Texas         |           |           |           |          |
| 78763-5080            |           |           |           |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
|                       |           |           | 14\.      |          |
|                       |           |           | S         |          |
|                       |           |           | ponsoring |          |
|                       |           |           | Agency    |          |
|                       |           |           | Code      |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 15\. Supplementary    |           |           |           |          |
| Notes                 |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
| Research performed in |           |           |           |          |
| cooperation with the  |           |           |           |          |
| Texas Department of   |           |           |           |          |
| Transportation and    |           |           |           |          |
| the U.S. Department   |           |           |           |          |
| of Transportation,    |           |           |           |          |
| Federal Highway       |           |           |           |          |
| Administration.       |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
| Research Project      |           |           |           |          |
| Title: Coordination   |           |           |           |          |
| System for the        |           |           |           |          |
| Operation of Border   |           |           |           |          |
| Ports-of-Entry        |           |           |           |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 16\. Abstract This    |           |           |           |          |
| report identifies     |           |           |           |          |
| shortcomings in       |           |           |           |          |
| coordination at U.S.  |           |           |           |          |
| -- Mexico border      |           |           |           |          |
| ports-of-entry and    |           |           |           |          |
| recommends            |           |           |           |          |
| alternatives that     |           |           |           |          |
| would improve         |           |           |           |          |
| operations and reduce |           |           |           |          |
| congestion and delay. |           |           |           |          |
| Based on the review   |           |           |           |          |
| of numerous previous  |           |           |           |          |
| reports and more than |           |           |           |          |
| 100 on-site           |           |           |           |          |
| interviews from Texas |           |           |           |          |
| to California, the    |           |           |           |          |
| authors analyze       |           |           |           |          |
| existing shortcomings |           |           |           |          |
| and their causes.     |           |           |           |          |
| They conclude that    |           |           |           |          |
| the underlying        |           |           |           |          |
| problem is the        |           |           |           |          |
| absence of an         |           |           |           |          |
| overarching forum for |           |           |           |          |
| coordinated planning  |           |           |           |          |
| and operations. As a  |           |           |           |          |
| result of this        |           |           |           |          |
| fundamental           |           |           |           |          |
| limitation, each of   |           |           |           |          |
| the public and        |           |           |           |          |
| private stakeholders  |           |           |           |          |
| plans and operates in |           |           |           |          |
| ways that optimize    |           |           |           |          |
| their individual      |           |           |           |          |
| missions rather than  |           |           |           |          |
| the system as a       |           |           |           |          |
| whole. Issues that    |           |           |           |          |
| surfaced a decade ago |           |           |           |          |
| still plague border   |           |           |           |          |
| operations because    |           |           |           |          |
| the forum to resolve  |           |           |           |          |
| those issues has not  |           |           |           |          |
| been established.     |           |           |           |          |
| Further compounding   |           |           |           |          |
| the challenges are    |           |           |           |          |
| the findings that     |           |           |           |          |
| neither physical      |           |           |           |          |
| infrastructure nor    |           |           |           |          |
| human resources have  |           |           |           |          |
| kept pace with        |           |           |           |          |
| growth. A dearth of   |           |           |           |          |
| basic data and        |           |           |           |          |
| benchmarks prevents   |           |           |           |          |
| all stakeholders from |           |           |           |          |
| objectively attacking |           |           |           |          |
| the problems. This    |           |           |           |          |
| reports lists         |           |           |           |          |
| specific actions to   |           |           |           |          |
| address existing      |           |           |           |          |
| problem areas and     |           |           |           |          |
| create an ongoing     |           |           |           |          |
| forum structure.      |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
| The authors recommend |           |           |           |          |
| a pilot project to    |           |           |           |          |
| incorporate the       |           |           |           |          |
| alternatives devised  |           |           |           |          |
| in this study. The    |           |           |           |          |
| pilot would test the  |           |           |           |          |
| specific              |           |           |           |          |
| recommendations, as   |           |           |           |          |
| well as develop a     |           |           |           |          |
| process whereby all   |           |           |           |          |
| ports-of-entry can    |           |           |           |          |
| tackle planning and   |           |           |           |          |
| operations            |           |           |           |          |
| coordination          |           |           |           |          |
| effectively.          |           |           |           |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 17\. Key Words:       |           | 18\.      |           |          |
| Border                |           | Dis       |           |          |
| Ports-of-Entry,       |           | tribution |           |          |
| Border Crossings,     |           | Statement |           |          |
| U.S.- Mexico Trade    |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           | No        |           |          |
|                       |           | rest      |           |          |
|                       |           | rictions. |           |          |
|                       |           | This      |           |          |
|                       |           | document  |           |          |
|                       |           | is        |           |          |
|                       |           | available |           |          |
|                       |           | to the    |           |          |
|                       |           | public    |           |          |
|                       |           | through   |           |          |
|                       |           | NTIS:     |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           | National  |           |          |
|                       |           | Technical |           |          |
|                       |           | In        |           |          |
|                       |           | formation |           |          |
|                       |           | Service   |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           | 5285 Port |           |          |
|                       |           | Royal     |           |          |
|                       |           | Road      |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
|                       |           | Spr       |           |          |
|                       |           | ingfield, |           |          |
|                       |           | Virginia  |           |          |
|                       |           | 22161     |           |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+
| 19\. Security         | 20\.      |           | 21\. No.  | 22\.     |
| Classif.(of this      | Security  |           | of Pages  | Price    |
| report)               | Cl        |           |           |          |
|                       | assif.(of |           |           |          |
| Unclassified          | this      |           |           |          |
|                       | page)     |           |           |          |
|                       |           |           |           |          |
|                       | Unc       |           |           |          |
|                       | lassified |           |           |          |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+

**Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized**

**TRUCK TRANSPORTATION THROUGH BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY:**

**ANALYSIS OF COORDINATION SYSTEMS**

by

Mark I. Ojah, Assistant Transportation Researcher

Juan Carlos Villa, Associate Transportation Specialist

and

William R. Stockton, P.E., Associate Director

Texas Transportation Institute

The Texas A&M University System

with

David M. Luskin, Research Economist

and

Rob Harrison, Deputy Director

Center for Transportation Research

University of Texas at Austin

Report 50-1XXA3038

Project Number 50-1XXA3038

Research Project Title: Coordination System for the Operation of Border
Ports of Entry

Sponsored by the

Texas Department of Transportation

In Cooperation with the

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Joint U.S. -- Mexico Working Committee

November 2002

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas 77843-3135

**DISCLAIMER**

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein.
The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view or policies of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT). This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. The engineer in charge was William R.
Stockton, P.E., (Texas, \# 41188).

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**

This project was conducted in cooperation with TxDOT and FHWA. The
authors wish to acknowledge the excellent guidance and feedback provided
by Michelle Conkle and Jack Foster of the Transportation Planning and
Programming Division of the Texas Department of Transportation. Members
of the Joint Working Committee also provided comments and questions that
significantly improved the quality and usefulness of the results. The
many public officials and private sector participants who generously
gave of their time and expertise are too numerous to mention by name,
but whose input was essential. It has been a pleasure to coordinate with
our Mexican counterparts, Reyes Juárez, Ricardo Peña, Juan González, and
other staff at Felipe Ochoa and Associates, as well as Claude Cortez
with the Mexican Transportation Ministry (SCT).

#### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

[List of Figures v](#__RefHeading___Toc26675745)

[List of Tables vi](#__RefHeading___Toc26675746)

[Executive Summary 1](#__RefHeading___Toc26675747)

[Old Issues Won't Go Away 1](#__RefHeading___Toc26675748)

[Little Data, Few Benchmarks 2](#__RefHeading___Toc26675749)

[Infrastructure Has Not Kept Pace 2](#__RefHeading___Toc26675750)

[Bottom Line: Border Crossing is not Treated as a System
3](#__RefHeading___Toc26675751)

[Chapter 1: Introduction 7](#__RefHeading___Toc26675752)

[Introduction 7](#__RefHeading___Toc26675753)

[Background 8](#__RefHeading___Toc26675754)

[Project Objectives and Report Organization
9](#__RefHeading___Toc26675755)

[Project Objectives 9](#__RefHeading___Toc26675756)

[Report Organization 9](#__RefHeading___Toc26675757)

[Chapter 2: Literature Review And Information Collection
13](#__RefHeading___Toc26675758)

[Overview of Information Collection 13](#__RefHeading___Toc26675759)

[Literature Review 13](#__RefHeading___Toc26675760)

[The Border-Crossing Process 14](#__RefHeading___Toc26675761)

[Stakeholder Interviews 19](#__RefHeading___Toc26675762)

[Port-of-Entry Site Visits 19](#__RefHeading___Toc26675763)

[Chapter 3: Classification Of Issues And Identification Of Alternatives
21](#__RefHeading___Toc26675764)

[Classification of Issues 21](#__RefHeading___Toc26675765)

[Problem/Alternative Identification 22](#__RefHeading___Toc26675766)

[Chapter 4: Estimating Impacts Of Improvement Alternatives
35](#__RefHeading___Toc26675767)

[Estimating Impacts of Selected Coordination Improvements
35](#__RefHeading___Toc26675768)

[Total Cost of Delay 38](#__RefHeading___Toc26675769)

[Impact of Alternatives 38](#__RefHeading___Toc26675770)

[Alternatives with Quantifiable Benefits
38](#__RefHeading___Toc26675771)

[Congestion Pricing 38](#__RefHeading___Toc26675772)

[Value Pricing 39](#__RefHeading___Toc26675773)

[Increased Incentives for Participation in Pre-clearance Programs
40](#__RefHeading___Toc26675774)

[How Quantification was Conducted 41](#__RefHeading___Toc26675775)

[Savings in Costs of Trucking Inputs 41](#__RefHeading___Toc26675776)

[Benefits from Time Savings for Freight Delivery
41](#__RefHeading___Toc26675777)

[Reduction in Pollution 42](#__RefHeading___Toc26675778)

[Other Elements 42](#__RefHeading___Toc26675779)

[Chapter 5: Pilot Project Recommendations
45](#__RefHeading___Toc26675780)

[Phases of Pilot Project 45](#__RefHeading___Toc26675781)

[Phase III-A -- Develop Consensus Implementation Plan
45](#__RefHeading___Toc26675782)

[Identify the Relevant Stakeholders 45](#__RefHeading___Toc26675783)

[Develop Issue Priorities 45](#__RefHeading___Toc26675784)

[Address Individual Stakeholder Concerns
46](#__RefHeading___Toc26675785)

[Gain Consensus on Improvements 46](#__RefHeading___Toc26675786)

[Prepare Detailed Implementation Plan 46](#__RefHeading___Toc26675787)

[Present and Approve Implementation Plan
46](#__RefHeading___Toc26675788)

[Phase III-B -- Implement and Evaluate Changes
47](#__RefHeading___Toc26675789)

[Implement Changes 47](#__RefHeading___Toc26675790)

[Collect Data and Resolve Problems 47](#__RefHeading___Toc26675791)

[Present Evaluation Results and Prepare Consensus Recommendations
47](#__RefHeading___Toc26675792)

[Prepare Final Report 47](#__RefHeading___Toc26675793)

[El Paso-Ciudad Juárez Pilot Project Illustration
47](#__RefHeading___Toc26675794)

[Data Collection and Benchmarking 48](#__RefHeading___Toc26675795)

[Planning for Port of Entry Capacity, Retrofitting, and Improved Traffic
Circulation 49](#__RefHeading___Toc26675796)

[Stakeholder Schedules 49](#__RefHeading___Toc26675797)

[ITS Package, Information Technology, and Pre-emption of Queue
Development 50](#__RefHeading___Toc26675798)

[Opportunities to Improve Inspection Sequencing
50](#__RefHeading___Toc26675799)

[Trailer Seal Notation Protocol 51](#__RefHeading___Toc26675800)

[Commercial Traffic Segregation and Pricing Instruments
51](#__RefHeading___Toc26675801)

[Bibliography 53](#__RefHeading___Toc26675802)

**Appendix A: Summary of Literature Review**

Appendix B: Description of The Northbound Border-Crossing Process

Appendix C: Summary of Stakeholder Interviews

Appendix D: Description of Coordination Problems And Alternatives

Appendix E: Quantification of Impacts of Alternatives

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675745 .anchor}List of Figures

Page

[S-1. Schematic Flowchart of Northbound Border-crossing Process for
Trucks 5](#__RefHeading___Toc26064181)

[Figure 1. Northbound Truck Crossings from Mexico
8](#__RefHeading___Toc26064182)

[Figure 2. U.S. and Mexico Commercial Gateways Examined in Case Studies
10](#__RefHeading___Toc26064183)

[Figure 3. Schematic Flowchart of Northbound Border-crossing Process for
Trucks 17](#__RefHeading___Toc26064184)

[Figure 4. Simplified Description of the Northbound Border-Crossing
Process 18](#__RefHeading___Toc26064185)

[Figure 5. Fishbone Classification of Border Coordination Problems and
Issues 23](#__RefHeading___Toc26064186)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675746 .anchor}List of Tables

**Page**

[Table 1. Principal Stakeholders in the Mexico-U.S. Border Crossing
Process 16](#__RefHeading___Toc26064187)

[Table 2. Summary Key to Coordination and Related Issues
24](#__RefHeading___Toc26064188)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits
25](#__RefHeading___Toc26064189)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
26](#__RefHeading___Toc26064190)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
27](#__RefHeading___Toc26064191)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
28](#__RefHeading___Toc26064192)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
29](#__RefHeading___Toc26064193)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
30](#__RefHeading___Toc26064194)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
31](#__RefHeading___Toc26064195)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
32](#__RefHeading___Toc26064196)

[Table 3. Description of Issues, Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)
33](#__RefHeading___Toc26064197)

[Table 4. Coordination Problem -- POE Matrix
37](#__RefHeading___Toc26064198)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675747 .anchor}Executive Summary

The following report contains considerable detail about the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of this project. During the course of
the field investigations and analyses required to develop improvements
in coordination, a handful of salient issues have emerged. For those
readers who have only a few minutes to devote to this report, these
"findings in brief" will provide a useful overview.

This report summarizes findings of a binational study examining
stakeholder coordination problems that compromise the efficiency and
integrity of the U.S. -- Mexico border-crossing process for truck trade.
Findings cover:

-   Analysis of the roles of public and private-sector stakeholders in
    the border-crossing process;

-   Assessment of prevailing coordination systems in place at the border
    though stakeholder interviews and port-of-entry site visits;

-   Identification of the cause and effect of problems resulting from a
    lack of stakeholder coordination;

-   Alternative stakeholder coordination systems; and

-   Estimates of the economic impact of coordination alternatives where
    possible.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675748 .anchor}Old Issues Won't Go Away

Many issues identified independently in this project are not new and, in
fact, have been on the issues list for a decade or more. They are still
around because the multi-stakeholder coordination needed to effectively
and permanently resolve them does not exist, mostly because there is no
mechanism to foster coordination. Because there is no forum or umbrella
structure within which planning and operational decisions are made,
individual stakeholders or subgroups of stakeholders make changes that
address their needs without the ability to understand how those changes
may affect the overall process. The United States Customs Service
(Customs) has been very dutiful in its ongoing attempts to include
stakeholder groups in the planning and deployment of Customs
initiatives, but the needs for coordination extend beyond the purview of
Customs. The relatively new Border Station Partnership Council may offer
the first opportunity to achieve truly broad stakeholder involvement,
but considerable effort will be required to assure that all stakeholders
participate fully. A pilot project to demonstrate the process and
potential results of an umbrella planning and operations endeavor is
proposed for the ports-of-entry in the El Paso-Juárez area.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675749 .anchor}Little Data, Few Benchmarks

The absence of consistent, reliable data and meaningful benchmarks makes
effective planning difficult, if not impossible. Some agencies collect
and retain data that are meaningful to their individual missions and
some private entities maintain cross-border trade databases, but
comprehensive data that will support operational and planning decisions
are either non-existent or protected for security or trade reasons. The
long-anticipated rollout of Customs' Automated Commercial Environment
(ACE) represents an opportunity to cure this chronic lack of crossing
data. Between the non-sensitive data available from ACE and supplemental
data that would need to be added to ACE data, the data shortages could
be largely eliminated. What is needed at this point is a review of data
required to effectively plan and operate crossing process, and the
development of a plan to collect and fuse those data into useful
information.

Another notable absence is meaningful benchmarks. Though individual
agency mission objectives may be benchmarked, the complexity of the
border-crossing process cannot be adequately measured by simply
assembling the available measures. Unlike more traditional
transportation processes, "throughput" is not a meaningful measure by
itself, as throughput must be balanced against other critical measures
of effectiveness, such as compliance with trade laws and interdiction of
contraband. In spite of these seemingly diametrically opposed
objectives, decision makers must have logical benchmarks to allow them
to set priorities, both among functions within a port of entry (POE) and
between POEs. Otherwise, it will be impossible to set overall goals for
the process, to set priorities for spending, and to monitor progress. A
comprehensive, multi-stakeholder analysis to incorporate all relevant
benchmarks is needed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675750 .anchor}Infrastructure Has Not Kept Pace

Internal and external access and circulation at most POEs have not kept
pace with the growth in truck volume and changes in inspection
requirements and techniques. Increases in truck volume over the last
decade have exposed significant capacity limitations, not only within
the POEs themselves, but also on the public roadways and bridges that
provide access and egress to the ports.

Similarly, changes in inspection technologies and practices over the
last decade, such as the introduction of non-intrusive inspection (NII)
equipment, are not compatible with the original design of most POEs. At
present, many POEs have dock space that is commensurate with the
labor-intensive nature of inspections that predates current technology.
Many of those same ports have severe space constraints that limit their
ability to deploy the needed levels of NII equipment, in some cases
because unused dock space takes up a significant portion of the port.

Poor circulation causes two different problems. One problem is a common
traffic problem associated with streams of traffic crossing each other,
creating congestion for both. The second problem is that the
configuration of many ports does not provide for positive separation of
cleared and uncleared vehicles, but relies instead on manual tracking,
driver compliance, and inspector verification to assure that all
required clearances have been received.

A binational port planning effort should be coordinated with local
planning functions, such as metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs),
to improve the coordination and reduce adverse impacts on both the POEs
and the surrounding communities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675751 .anchor}Bottom Line: Border Crossing is
not Treated as a System

Figure 3 in the body of the report illustrates the complex relationship
among multiple layers of government agencies and numerous private
stakeholders. Because there are so many participants acting
independently, there is no single entity or coalition that has oversight
and responsibility for the successful functioning of the entire system.
As a result, initiatives, improvements, and changes are, at best,
piecemeal. Programs to promote compliance may not meet their potential
because incentives are limited to the purview of the agency involved.
Schedules of public and private stakeholders do not match well because
there is no forum and few incentives to make them match. Finally,
initiatives tend to be focused on a single objective, rather than
representing the broad range of objectives of a border-crossing
"system."

To achieve the level of coordination necessary to assure the highest
level of effectiveness and efficiency, the process must take on system
characteristics, including: an oversight or umbrella planning structure,
effective benchmarking and monitoring to chart progress, and matching
infrastructure and operating systems to achieve the operational
objectives of the border-crossing system, and not just those of
individual stakeholders. Coordination initiatives designed to
incorporate all of the multi-faceted nature of trade across the southern
border will ultimately achieve the greatest overall improvement in the
Mexico-U.S commercial border-crossing system.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064181 .anchor}S-1. Schematic Flowchart of
Northbound Border-crossing Process for Trucks

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675752 .anchor}Chapter 1: Introduction

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675753 .anchor}Introduction

In 2001, the Joint Working Committee (JWC) sponsored the first of two
phases of a binational study examining stakeholder coordination problems
that compromise the efficiency and integrity of the U.S -- Mexico
border-crossing process for truck trade. Through the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) and the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte
(SCT), U.S. and Mexico project teams were contracted to undertake
examinations of coordination issues affecting the movement of
truck-borne trade into their respective countries. In accordance with
the scope of work established among the project sponsors and
consultants, the U.S. team was charged with:

-   conducting a literature review and establishing a web-based library
    containing a summary of findings from previous studies;

-   analyzing the roles of public- and private-sector stakeholders in
    the border-crossing process;

-   assessing the prevailing coordination systems in place at the border
    through stakeholder interviews and port-of-entry site visits;

-   identifying the cause and effect of problems resulting from a lack
    of stakeholder coordination;

-   developing alternative stakeholder coordination systems; and

-   quantifying the economic impact of coordination alternatives where
    possible.

Each of these points is succinctly addressed in the present report and
elaborated in further detail in the attached appendices.

####  

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675754 .anchor}Background

The explosion of U.S. -- Mexico trade during the past two decades has
had a significant impact on the volume of trucks crossing the border.
Since the mid-1980s, northbound truck traffic from Mexico to the United
States has experienced growth in excess of 400 percent (Figure 1).
Despite an economic downturn in 2001 that resulted in the first decline
in U.S. -- Mexico commercial traffic in more than a decade, continued
expansion of cross-border trucking is forecast for the foreseeable
future.

![](media/image1.wmf)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064182 .anchor}Figure 1. Northbound Truck
Crossings from Mexico

> Source: U.S. Customs

Although 25 commercial border crossings dot the 2,066-mile U.S. --
Mexico border, the majority of truck movements are concentrated at a
handful of gateways. Capacity at these locations has been overwhelmed by
daily peak truck flows, particularly during the busiest shipping
seasons.

Rapid growth, coupled with the large number of stakeholders -- federal
agencies, shippers, carriers, brokers, etc. -- has made effective
coordination so difficult that it often does not happen. The adverse
effects of uncoordinated border activities and systems include increased
levels of congestion, delay and pollution, higher border-crossing costs,
and unnecessary wear on local infrastructure. Efforts to mitigate these
effects have enjoyed varying degrees of success, but the inefficient,
multi-step border-crossing process remains largely intact. Enhancing
coordination among the stakeholders involved in the crossing process
provides an opportunity to achieve lower and more consistent truck
transit times between Mexico and the United States, greater border
security, and reduced system costs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675755 .anchor}Project Objectives and Report
Organization

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675756 .anchor}Project Objectives

This project was undertaken to

-   identify, quantify, and raise awareness of coordination problems in
    the Mexico and U.S. commercial border-crossing process, and

-   develop alternative coordination systems that could enhance border
    operations.

Coordination problems lending themselves to mathematical analysis were
quantified to estimate the economic cost of not pursuing alternatives.
This report summarizes impediments to border efficiency and alternatives
for improving the crossing process that this project identified. The
appendices contain detailed explanations.

The range of problems and issues analyzed by the project team were
governed by a relatively broad definition of coordination. This approach
was necessary in order to capture the full impact of stakeholder
interactions that affect overall border efficiency. Coordination was
thus interpreted as*: the actions of participants in the border-crossing
process that are harmoniously related to produce a desired result*. Four
fundamental questions arise from this definition:

-   Who are the participants?

-   What are the actions?

-   How are participants and actions related?

-   What are the desired results?

This report addresses each of these questions, with particular emphasis
on the relationship among stakeholder activities, the objectives that
are sought, and the impact these and alternative strategies have on
border efficiency.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675757 .anchor}Report Organization

The report begins in Chapter 2 with an overview of the information
collection phase of the project, which entailed a comprehensive
literature review, identification and mapping of stakeholder activities
and interactions, extensive private- and public-sector interviews, and
site visits to selected ports of entry. In accordance with the project
work plan defined with the JWC and the Mexican team, the U.S. project
team's analysis of border operations focused on northbound truck
movements through the eight border gateways listed below and shown in
Figure 2.

1.  Otay Mesa, California -- Tijuana, Baja California;

2.  Nogales, Arizona -- Nogales, Sonora;

3.  Santa Teresa, New Mexico -- San Jerónimo, Chihuahua;

4.  El Paso, Texas (Bridge of the Americas) -- Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua;

5.  El Paso, Texas (Ysleta-Zaragoza Bridge) -- Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua;

6.  Laredo, Texas (Colombia Solidarity Bridge) -- Colombia, Nuevo León;

7.  Laredo, Texas (World Trade Bridge) -- Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; and

8.  Pharr, Texas -- Reynosa, Tamaulipas.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.009722222222222in"
height="3.6631944444444446in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064183 .anchor}Figure 2. U.S. and Mexico
Commercial Gateways Examined in Case Studies

Source: Texas Transportation Institute

Chapter 3 explains how the research team classified and analyzed the
border problems and opportunities identified in the information
collection phase of the project to determine whether quantification of
the proposed alternatives was possible. Chapter 4 qualitatively
describes alternative coordination systems for which no quantifiable
impact estimations could be made. Where quantification was possible,
detailed descriptions of methodology and application were documented,
and have been included in the appendices. Also in Chapter 4, alternative
coordination systems for enhancing operations at U.S. and Mexican border
ports are proposed for consideration by the JWC and border stakeholders
for implementation in a pilot project. In Chapter 5 the team provides
recommendations for a pilot project.

## 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675758 .anchor}Chapter 2: Literature Review And
Information Collection

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675759 .anchor}Overview of Information
Collection

The coordination problems addressed in this study were identified from
three sources:

a)  a comprehensive review of literature,

b)  private- and public-sector stakeholder interviews, and

c)  site visits to eight commercial border crossings between the U.S.
    and Mexico.

Although the events of September 11, 2001, precluded a thorough
first-hand review of port operations during site visits, the researchers
gathered sufficient information in the other phases of the project to
undertake an analysis of border coordination systems.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675760 .anchor}Literature Review

The departure point for this project was an extensive search for
port-of-entry studies and related literature produced within the last
five years. Over 40 reports and dozens of articles and presentations
were drawn from a wide range of sources including web-based archives,
the Transportation Research Information Service, bibliographies from
recent border studies, and a variety of other government,
private-sector, and academic sources.

The objective of the literature review was twofold. First, the study
team inventoried existing conditions and identified potential
impediments to efficient border-crossing systems. Documents collected
enabled researchers to gain insight into the activities and interactions
of key stakeholders influencing the movement of freight from its origin
in Mexico to its destination in the United States. Background
information was also obtained on the prevailing operational conditions
at the eight commercial crossings analyzed in the study. This groundwork
was vital in providing a context for stakeholder coordination issues
analyzed in subsequent phases of the study.

Several recurring themes emerged through the review of previous border
work.

-   Poor stakeholder communication, cooperation, and activity scheduling
    and execution were identified as primary causes of border congestion
    and delay for Mexico -- U.S. commercial traffic.

-   Some antiquated and labor-intensive processes and systems persist,
    despite the availability of more streamlined systems and technology
    solutions.

-   Infrastructure and space constraints contributed substantially to
    the narrowing of bottlenecks at some border crossings, especially at
    older gateways confined by urban development.

-   The lack of customer service training and culture among border
    agencies hindered public- and private-sector interaction and
    cooperation.

-   The mingling of diverse commercial traffic types at the border
    produced traffic conflicts and congestion that impede efficient
    crossings for pre-cleared and other low-risk shipments. This problem
    is exacerbated by extremely high levels of empty and bobtail
    movements and the development of fragmented crossing programs that
    offer inadequate incentives to encourage large-scale private-sector
    participation across the southern border.

A list of the principal findings and recommendations identified in the
most relevant reports reviewed by the project team is provided in
Appendix A.

The second objective of the literature review was to create a web-based
library that would act as a clearinghouse for border literature and
project information. Summaries of approximately 40 documents were
written or compiled for this purpose and posted to the project website
(<http://bordercross.tamu.edu/cpoe/>). Additional features of the
website include full text reports, English and Spanish versions of
presentations prepared for the Joint Working Committee, and a selection
of links to border-related web pages.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675761 .anchor}The Border-Crossing Process

Although the port of entry is the physical symbol of the border
crossing, the process itself extends well into Mexico and the United
States. To facilitate an understanding of trans-border freight
movements, the study team development documents explaining the roles and
responsibilities of the various stakeholders in the crossing process.
There are literally dozens of parties involved in the preparation,
transportation, logistics, documentation, monitoring, enforcement, and
measurement of U.S. -- Mexico truck-borne trade. However, most of these
parties influence a relatively small portion of shipments or do not
engage in activities that disrupt the physical movement of freight from
origin to destination.

Stakeholders whose activities and level of coordination have the
potential to substantially impact the speed and efficiency of the U.S.
-- Mexico border-crossing process include U.S. public agencies, Mexican
public agencies, and private firms. The primary functions of these
stakeholders are described in Table 1. Although the influence of Mexican
agencies is more pronounced in the southbound direction, they have been
included below to familiarize the reader with the agency
responsibilities as they relate to binational planning and coordination.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064187 .anchor}Table 1. Principal Stakeholders
in the Mexico-U.S. Border Crossing Process

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| **Stakeholder**             | **Function**                            |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| > ***U.S. Public            |                                         |
| > Agencies***               |                                         |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| U.S. Customs Service (USCS) | Ensures goods and services entering /   |
|                             | exiting the U.S. abide by laws and pay  |
|                             | applicable duties and taxes             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Immigration and             | Regulates entry of visitors and         |
| Naturalization Service      | immigrants into the U.S. and prevents   |
| (INS)                       | unlawful employment                     |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| U.S. Department of          | Inspects animals, plants, related       |
| Agriculture (USDA)          | products entering the U.S.              |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Food and Drug               | Regulates entry of food, drugs, bio     |
| Administration (FDA)        | products into the U.S.                  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Environmental Protection    | Regulates transportation of hazardous   |
| Agency (EPA)                | materials in the U.S.                   |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| General Services            | Designs, owns, and operates U.S. ports  |
| Administration (GSA)        | of entry                                |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Department of               | Enforce U.S. motor carrier, driver, and |
| Transportation (DOT),       | vehicle safety regulations              |
| Department of Public Safety |                                         |
| (DPS)                       |                                         |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| > ***Mexican Public         |                                         |
| > Agencies***               |                                         |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Secretaría de Haciendo y    | Ensures goods and services entering /   |
| Crédito Público (SHCP)      | exiting Mexico abide by laws and pay    |
|                             | taxes - Mexican counterpart of U.S.     |
|                             | Customs                                 |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Secretaría de Agricultura,  | Conducts phytosanitary inspections of   |
| Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural | plant and meat products -- Mexican      |
| (SAGAR)                     | counterpart of USDA                     |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Caminos y Puentes Federales | Administration, operation, and          |
| de Ingresos y Servicios     | maintenance of roads and international  |
| Conexos (CAPUFE)            | bridges                                 |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Secretaría del Medio        | Regulation of hazardous materials and   |
| Ambiente y Recursos         | fumigation of forest products --        |
| Naturales (SEMARNAT)        | Mexican counterpart of EPA              |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Comisión Nacional de        | Manages and operates Mexican port of    |
| Avalúos de Bienes           | entry facilities --                     |
| Nacionales (CABIN)          |                                         |
|                             | Mexican counterpart of GSA              |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Instituto Nacional de       | Mexican immigration authority inspects  |
| Migración (INM)             | documentation 20 miles south from the   |
|                             | border -- Mexican counterpart of INS    |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Secretaría de               | SCT enforces motor carrier, driver, and |
| Comunicaciones y            | safety regulations -- Mexican           |
| Transportes (SCT)           | counterpart of DOT                      |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| > ***Private Firms***       |                                         |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Mexican Shipper             | Loads trailer at origin and provides    |
|                             | sales documentation                     |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Mexican Long-Haul Carrier   | Transports trailer from origin to the   |
|                             | border                                  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Mexican or U.S. Drayage     | Shuttles trailer across border          |
| Carrier                     |                                         |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Mexican Customs Broker      | Prepares, files export documentation    |
|                             | with Mexican Customs                    |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| U.S. Customs Broker         | Prepares and files import documentation |
|                             | with U.S. Customs                       |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| U.S. Importer (final        | May provide shipment information to     |
| consignee)                  | customs brokers                         |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

The project prepared a detailed flowchart of the northbound
border-crossing process and an accompanying text narrative to provide a
context for discussion of the stakeholder activities summarized in
Table 1. These documents are based on information that the team
collected during the literature review and subsequently revised and
supplemented throughout the project. Condensed versions of the flowchart
(Figure 3) and text narrative (Figure 4) are presented in this report
for reference purposes and to sensitize the reader to the complexity of
the border-crossing process. Full versions of these documents are
provided in Appendix B.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064184 .anchor}Figure 3. Schematic Flowchart of
Northbound Border-crossing Process for Trucks

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064185 .anchor}Figure 4. Simplified Description
of the Northbound Border-Crossing Process

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675762 .anchor}Stakeholder Interviews

More than 100 public- and private-sector stakeholders intimately
involved in the border-crossing process were interviewed by U.S. and
Mexican project team members. Interviewees included shippers,
consignees, long-haul and drayage carriers, customs brokers, third-party
logistics providers, and officials from various public-sector border
agencies among others.

Private-sector interviews were typically held at the interviewee's place
of business in the towns and cities surrounding the eight border
crossings examined in the study. Public agency interviews with
high-level Customs and USDA officials were also arranged at the
case-study gateways. Additional informal interviews with public-sector
officials were conducted by team members at border conferences and
meetings in Mexico City, San Diego, San Antonio, Washington D.C.,
Tucson, and elsewhere. Issues explored during public-sector interviews
and consultations included infrastructure, staffing, scheduling,
technology, processes, planning, programs, binational initiatives, data
collection, security, and border-agency organization. The variety of
port-specific and border-wide coordination issues and problems raised by
stakeholders during consultations with the project team are highlighted
in a summary table provided in Appendix C.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675763 .anchor}Port-of-Entry Site Visits

Directors of the Otay Mesa, El Paso-Ysleta, and Nogales ports of entry
granted project team members tours of their respective commercial
compounds following public-agency interviews at those facilities.
Anecdotal information gathered during local stakeholder interviews and
findings identified in recent border studies expand the descriptions of
observations. This information was compiled to develop border system
profiles that account for unique conditions encountered at specific
ports of entry, such as the prevalence of pre-cleared, maquiladora,
agricultural, traditional, or empty/bobtail movements.

[]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675764 .anchor}Chapter 3: Classification Of
Issues And Identification Of Alternatives

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675765 .anchor}Classification of Issues
[]{.mark}

A total quality management tool known as a "cause and effect" (or
fishbone) diagram was utilized to identify cause and effect
relationships within the border coordination systems analyzed. The
diagram organizes impediments to efficient truck freight transportation
from Mexico to the United States into seven broad categories, which are
based on the primary nature of the problem. Issues are then further
refined until an action-level of detail is determined.

The fishbone diagram underscores the interconnections of various
coordination elements contributing to congestion and delay at the
border. Problems that are classified under one heading often comprise
components closely related to issues addressed elsewhere in the diagram.
The proposed alternatives to these problems aim to eliminate stakeholder
disconnects and bridge coordination gaps that currently inhibit more
comprehensive goal setting among system participants and prevent
coordinated execution of stakeholder activities.

This study appears to be the first time that impediments to border
coordination have been defined in a structured manner that facilitates
the development of remedies and alternatives. Using the fishbone
approach, the project team identified the following categories of
problems:

-   *Physical Layout and Truck Movement*: infrastructure issues that
    constrain the movement of trucks across the border, and traffic flow
    concerns related to the efficiency and organization of inspections;

-   *Demand Management:* problems associated with the formation of
    congestion at the border and the absence of effective instruments to
    manage it;

-   *Standards:* the lack of harmonized processes and regulations to
    improve security and reduce delays for international truck
    movements;

-   *Information Management:* weaknesses in information collection and
    sharing mechanisms that represent significant impediments to
    efficient border coordination;

-   *Stakeholder Coordination:* stakeholder schedules, practices, and
    coordination structures that are suitable to individual stakeholders
    but have unintended negative consequences in the system as a whole;

-   *Planning:* short, medium, and long-term border planning processes
    that frequently do not include the full range of affected
    stakeholders; and

-   *Staff Management:* personnel availability and assignment practices
    among public agencies that restrict the capacity of border ports and
    reduce the efficiency of crossing systems.

These groupings and their respective components are graphically
represented in the fishbone diagram shown in Figure 5.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675766 .anchor}Problem/Alternative
Identification

Table 2 provides a one-page overview of the issues elaborated in Table
3. In both tables the issues are segregated according to the degree to
which changes in coordination are likely to produce a significant
benefit. On the left side of both tables are those issues identified by
the team as primarily coordination. On the right side are related issues
that will affect border crossing congestion and delay, but which are
beyond the scope of coordination solutions. They are included because
improvements undertaken without considering these issues would likely be
less successful.

Table 3 provides a more detailed description of the problems and issues
identified by the project team as impediments to improved border
coordination and efficiency. The proposed alternative actions would
address these problems, and the adjacent columns summarized subsequent
benefits of such actions. There is no particular significance to the
order of presentation or the numbers assigned to the individual issues.
In order to facilitate problem analysis, the table has been arranged
according to the groupings presented in the fishbone diagram, rather
than by alternative priority, feasibility, or other criteria. For
readers interested in learning more about a specific problem or
alternative, further detail and background information are offered in
Appendix D. The numbering and sequencing of issues in Appendix D are
consistent with that of Tables 2 and 3.

![](media/image3.wmf)

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064186 .anchor}Figure 5. Fishbone Classification
of Border Coordination Problems and Issues

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064188 .anchor}Table 2. Summary Key to
Coordination and Related Issues

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Coordination Issues**           | **Coordination-Related Issues**  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Planning**                      |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| C-1. Inadequate Long-Term         | R-1. Inadequate Incentives for   |
| Planning Strategy for Border      | Participation in Pre-Clearance   |
| Crossings                         | Programs                         |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-2. Lack of Data Collection and  |                                  |
| Benchmarks                        |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-3. Inconsistent Planning for    |                                  |
| Truck Safety Inspection           |                                  |
| Facilities                        |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Demand Management**             |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| C-4. Lack of Fee-Based Priority   | R-2. Lack of Congestion Pricing  |
| Shipment Lane                     |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-5. Commingling of Commercial    |                                  |
| Traffic Types                     |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Physical Layout and Truck       |                                  |
| Movement**                        |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| C-6. POE Configuration -- New     | R-3. POE Configuration           |
| inspection technologies cannot be | --Outdated facility layouts      |
| accommodated                      |                                  |
|                                   | R-4. Capacity --Some POEs lack a |
| C-7. POE Configuration - Poor     | sufficient number of primary     |
| Internal POE Circulation          | inspection booths                |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-8. Capacity - Inspection        |                                  |
| Sequencing                        |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-9. Capacity - Uncoordinated     |                                  |
| access road design and a limited  |                                  |
| number of lanes                   |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-10. Lack of ITS Solutions to    |                                  |
| Streamline Truck Movements        |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Staff Management**              |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| C-11. Personnel Turnover - USCS   | R-5. Insufficient Customs        |
| inspector attrition rates are     | Personnel                        |
| high                              |                                  |
|                                   | R-6. Personnel Turnover -        |
| C-12. No Mechanism to Predict and | Mexican Customs' rotation of     |
| Prevent Queue Development         | port directors                   |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Stakeholder Coordination**      |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| C-13. Poorly Coordinated          |  No Identified Stakeholder       |
| Stakeholder Schedules             | Issues                           |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-14. Inadequate Informal         |                                  |
| Stakeholder Coordination          |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-15. Untapped Opportunities to   |                                  |
| Enhance Broker Process            |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Standards**                     |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| C-16. Absence of Standardized     | No Identified Standards Issues   |
| Seal Notation Protocol            |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-17. Lack of Harmonized Truck    |                                  |
| Safety Standards                  |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Information Management**        |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| C-18. Information Systems         |  No Identified Information       |
| --Excessive Paperwork Preparation | Management Issues                |
| and Handling                      |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-19. Information Systems         |                                  |
| --Antiquated Technology           |                                  |
|                                   |                                  |
| C-20. No Advanced Threat          |                                  |
| Detection                         |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064189 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Coordination Issues**              | **Related Issues**            |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Planning**                         |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **C-1. Inadequate Long-Term Planning | > **R-1. Inadequate           |
| Strategy for Border Crossings**      | > Incentives for              |
|                                      | > Participation in            |
| **Problem / Issue:** Binational port | > Pre-Clearance Programs**    |
| planning is not coordinated to       |                               |
| include all U.S. and Mexican agency  | **Problem / Issue:**          |
| and private-sector requirements.     | Inconvenient enrollment       |
|                                      | structures and lengthy U.S.   |
| **Alternative:** Develop medium and  | pre-primary wait times for    |
| long-range plans for port-of-entry   | pre-approved traffic have     |
| and binational planning that involve | diminished private-sector     |
| all U.S. and Mexican public agencies | participation in              |
| and private-sector stakeholders. To  | pre-clearance programs and    |
| the extent possible and where        | reduced program               |
| applicable, incorporate planning     | effectiveness.                |
| into the local MPO process.          |                               |
|                                      | **Alternative:** Organize     |
| **Benefits:** *All Stakeholders*:    | comprehensive incentive       |
| More comprehensive border plans that | programs that provide         |
| consolidate and integrate            | tangible benefits to          |
| stakeholder requirements and         | participants, such as queue   |
| missions to reduce future problems   | by-pass or expedited          |
| and the need for corrective actions. | processing, thus increasing   |
|                                      | the efficiency and security   |
| **C-2. Lack of Data Collection and   | of the border-crossing        |
| Benchmarks**                         | process.                      |
|                                      |                               |
| **Problem / Issue:** Data            | **Benefits:** *Shippers,      |
| deficiencies inhibit problem         | Carriers*: Time waiting in    |
| identification and preclude          | queues reduced or eliminated. |
| benchmarking to understand the       | Predictable crossing times    |
| relative magnitude of needs within   | allow for better scheduling.  |
| and among POEs.                      |                               |
|                                      | *USCS*: Better able to        |
| **Alternative:** Coordinate public   | classify traffic. Provide     |
| agency technology and resources in   | only essential checks for     |
| Mexico and the United States to      | pre-approved traffic, focus   |
| gather, compile and disseminate data | resources on uncleared or     |
| on traffic characteristics and delay | unknown traffic.              |
| times. Develop a single source for   |                               |
| binational border planning data that |                               |
| can be utilized to establish where   |                               |
| and why border-crossing needs exist, |                               |
| what their relative magnitudes are,  |                               |
| and what remedial policies can be    |                               |
| introduced to mitigate them.         |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| **Benefits:** *USCS, GSA*:           |                               |
| Strengthens the basis for planning   |                               |
| and operations decisions. Provides   |                               |
| for objective comparisons of POE     |                               |
| needs, facilitating allocation of    |                               |
| funds. Allows targeting of           |                               |
| deficiencies within and between      |                               |
| POEs.                                |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| *Private Sector*: Allows improved    |                               |
| logistics planning. Facilitates      |                               |
| advocating for improvements and fund |                               |
| allocations.                         |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064190 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Coordination Issues**              | **Related Issues**            |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Planning (Cont.)**                 |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **C-3. Inconsistent. Planning for    |                               |
| Truck Safety Inspection Facilities** |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| **Problem / Issue:** Planning and    |                               |
| construction of U.S.. state vehicle  |                               |
| inspection facilities at the border  |                               |
| is being undertaken on a             |                               |
| state-by-state basis with little     |                               |
| integration with transportation      |                               |
| corridors.                           |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| **Alternative:** A standardized      |                               |
| facility planning process would      |                               |
| determine the location and           |                               |
| operations of safety inspection      |                               |
| sites and opportunities for          |                               |
| credentialing trucks for their       |                               |
| entire trip. This has clear links to |                               |
| Commercial Vehicle Operations and    |                               |
| ITS initiatives and required         |                               |
| coordination with the stakeholders   |                               |
| (GSA, USCS, DPS, DOTs, and FWHA) to  |                               |
| allow implementation.                |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| **Benefits:** *Shippers, Carriers*:  |                               |
| Provides predictability in           |                               |
| inspection process. Allows carriers  |                               |
| to make prudent investments in CVO   |                               |
| technology.                          |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| *Federal and State DOTs*:            |                               |
| Establishment of consistent          |                               |
| technology planning facilitates      |                               |
| development of credential and        |                               |
| inspection tracking, reducing        |                               |
| staffing, and increasing safety      |                               |
| verification.                        |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064191 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Coordination Issues**              | **Related Issues**            |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **Demand Management**                |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| **C-4. Lack of Fee-Based Priority    | **R-2. Lack of Congestion     |
| Shipment Lane**                      | Pricing**                     |
|                                      |                               |
| **Problem / Issue:** Time-sensitive  | **Problem / Issue:** Lack of  |
| shipments are mingled with other     | congestion pricing may cause  |
| traffic types. Shippers are faced    | excessive congestion and      |
| with a "one-size-fits-all" primary   | delays during peak            |
| inspection structure.                | border-crossing periods.      |
|                                      |                               |
| **Alternative:** Implement           | **Alternative:** Collect      |
| value-priced express lanes for       | additional data on traffic    |
| commercial traffic willing to pay    | and delays to identify when   |
| for shorter U.S. pre-primary waits.  | and how predictably peaks     |
| Represents alternative to congestion | occur. Authorize increase in  |
| pricing, focus on added value of     | fees during peak period to    |
| express service for additional fee.  | mitigate demand; fee increase |
|                                      | justified on the basis of     |
| **Benefits:** *Shippers, Carriers*:  | additional resources          |
| Allows option of expediting crossing | necessary to accommodate peak |
| operations; significantly reduces    | demand. Investigate likely    |
| transit times during peak periods;   | demand responses to           |
| increased predictability, thereby    | peak-period tolls and, where  |
| enhancing interlining schedules or   | warranted, perform            |
| intermodal movements.                | cost-benefit analysis of      |
|                                      | congestion pricing scenarios. |
| *Public Agencies*: Increases funding |                               |
| to provide additional inspection     | **Benefits:** *Public         |
| resources and facilities (Eligible   | Agencies*: Allows some        |
| for pilot project funding through    | leveling of peak demand,      |
| the Federal Highway Administration   | reducing acute conditions.    |
| (FHWA) Value Pricing Pilot Program). | Provides funds for additional |
|                                      | inspections and facilities.   |
| **C-5. Commingling of Commercial     |                               |
| Traffic Types**                      | *Private Sector*: Reduces     |
|                                      | extensive waiting periods,    |
| **Problem / Issue:** Lack of         | providing for more            |
| commercial vehicle segregation by    | predictable transit time.     |
| risk level, type, or time            | Provides lower-cost           |
| sensitivity exacerbates traffic      | alternative for off-peak      |
| conflicts prior to the U.S. primary  | shippers.                     |
| inspection station.                  |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| **Alternative:** Segregate           |                               |
| pre-cleared vehicles from            |                               |
| traditional trade and                |                               |
| empties/bobtails. Monitor and        |                               |
| enforce traffic-type segregation.    |                               |
| Implement latest pre-primary ITS     |                               |
| technologies in combination with     |                               |
| driver, vehicle, shipper databases   |                               |
| to aid identification of high-risk   |                               |
| movements and expedite processing of |                               |
| low-risk movements. Where            |                               |
| practicable, provide bypass lanes    |                               |
| for vehicles not requiring detailed  |                               |
| inspections.                         |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| **Benefits:** *Certified Shippers    |                               |
| and Carriers*: Reduces wait times.   |                               |
| Prevents certified shipments from    |                               |
| having to queue behind non-certified |                               |
| or non-time-sensitive shipments at   |                               |
| the border.                          |                               |
|                                      |                               |
| *USCS*: Provides incentives for      |                               |
| compliance with certification (see   |                               |
| Issue #R-1), allowing for better     |                               |
| focus of staffing and resources.     |                               |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064192 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Coordination Issues**                   | **Related Issues**       |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Physical Layout and Truck Movement**    |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **C-6. POE Configuration -- New           | **R-3. POE               |
| inspection technologies cannot be         | Configuration**          |
| accommodated**                            |                          |
|                                           | **Problem / Issue:**     |
| **Problem / Issue:** New inspection       | Outdated facility        |
| technologies and requirements cannot be   | layouts contribute to    |
| efficiently accommodated within many POE  | delays and safety        |
| layouts.                                  | hazards at some ports of |
|                                           | entry.                   |
| **Alternative:** Evaluate options for     |                          |
| retrofitting/reconfiguring port           | **Alternative:** Widen   |
| facilities to accommodate Non Intrusive   | POE access lanes and     |
| Inspection technologies, POE demand, and  | provide adequate and     |
| updated processing techniques.            | isolated hazardous       |
|                                           | materials inspection     |
| **Benefits:** *Inspection Agencies*:      | sites at designated      |
| Significant increases in the number and   | ports of entry.          |
| effectiveness of vehicles screened;       |                          |
| improved likelihood of identifying        | **Benefits:**            |
| smuggling or terrorist activity.          | *Inspection Personnel:*  |
|                                           | Safer working            |
| **C-7. POE Configuration -- Poor Internal | environment.             |
| POE Circulation**                         |                          |
|                                           | **R-4. Capacity --       |
| **Problem / Issue:** The combination of   | Number of Primary        |
| current processes and layouts produce     | Inspection Booths**      |
| internal circulation problems that        |                          |
| include the commingling of cleared and    | **Problem / Issue:**     |
| uncleared trucks.                         | Some POEs lack a         |
|                                           | sufficient number of     |
| **Alternative:** Redesign POE circulation | primary inspection       |
| to prevent uncleared trucks from exiting  | booths due to severe     |
| POEs unlawfully and reduce traffic        | space constraints.       |
| conflicts between cleared vehicles and    |                          |
| those awaiting inspection.                | **Alternative:** Explore |
|                                           | opportunities to expand  |
| **Benefits:** *Inspection Agencies*:      | the number or primary    |
| Reduces opportunity for uncleared         | inspection booths where  |
| vehicles to evade detection and           | required/feasible.       |
| inspection.                               | Improvements to port     |
|                                           | layouts, operations and  |
| **C-8. Capacity -- Inspection             | vehicle tracking, and    |
| Sequencing**                              | changes in peak arrival  |
|                                           | characteristics through  |
| **Problem / Issue:** There are untapped   | improved incentive       |
| opportunities for border agencies to      | planning may provide     |
| inspect vehicles while they are in the    | some relief to capacity  |
| queue for U.S. primary inspection.        | constraints. In some     |
|                                           | cases, acquiring land to |
| **Alternative:** Identify methods for     | expand the number of     |
| extending sequential screening/inspection | primary booths may be    |
| activities to take advantage of idle time | the only option.         |
| in queues (e.g. Nogales "drug barn").     |                          |
| Collapse activities when volumes do not   | **Benefits:** *All       |
| justify additional booths or pre-primary  | Stakeholders*: Improved  |
| screening.                                | traffic flow and process |
|                                           | efficiency.              |
| **Benefits:** *Inspection Agencies*:      |                          |
| Allows the expansion of inspections       | Expedited processing of  |
| longitudinally where lateral space is     | vehicles through U.S.    |
| limited. Increases effectiveness of       | primary (main bottleneck |
| inspections in the absence of space for   | in the border-crossing   |
| additional primary booths.                | process) during peak     |
|                                           | periods.                 |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064193 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Coordination Issues**                   | **Related Issues**       |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Physical Layout and Truck Movement      |                          |
| (Cont.)**                                 |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
| **C-9. Capacity -- Uncoordinated access   |                          |
| road design and a limited number of       |                          |
| lanes**                                   |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| **Problem / Issue:** Uncoordinated access |                          |
| road design and a limited number of lanes |                          |
| cause cross-border traffic to interfere   |                          |
| with local vehicular movement on roads    |                          |
| near border crossings.                    |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| **Alternative:** Coordinate access road   |                          |
| and port designs binationally and within  |                          |
| each nation. Use MPO planning processes   |                          |
| to incorporate border station and city    |                          |
| planning needs.                           |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| **Benefits:** *Public Sector, Shippers,   |                          |
| Carriers, Local Community*: Significant   |                          |
| improvements in traffic flow will reduce  |                          |
| transit time for border crossing and      |                          |
| reduce traffic on local streets.          |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| **C-10. Lack of ITS Solutions to          |                          |
| Streamline Truck Movements**              |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| **Problem / Issue:** Existing processes   |                          |
| in the crossing system are time           |                          |
| consuming, resource intensive, and        |                          |
| contribute to redundant information       |                          |
| verification.                             |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| **Alternative:** Develop ITS capabilities |                          |
| at the border that are interconnected     |                          |
| with CVO improvements and technology      |                          |
| initiatives along transportation          |                          |
| corridors. Deploy Dedicated Short Range   |                          |
| Communication (DSRC) transponder systems  |                          |
| and ITS technologies such as automated    |                          |
| toll collection, variable message signs,  |                          |
| weigh-in motion scales, and smart cards   |                          |
| to streamline and expedite the            |                          |
| border-crossing process for legitimate    |                          |
| trade. Work to incorporate vehicle/trade  |                          |
| links in ACE so that DPS data at vehicle  |                          |
| safety inspection stations can be         |                          |
| developed as part of the POE system.      |                          |
| Coordinate with the FHWA and U.S. State   |                          |
| DOTs along NAFTA corridors to develop a   |                          |
| credentialing system that spans the       |                          |
| entire supply chain.                      |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| **Benefits:** *Shippers, Carriers*:       |                          |
| Reduced stops, shorter transit time.      |                          |
|                                           |                          |
| *Inspection Agencies*: Reduced data       |                          |
| entry, less duplication of effort, fewer  |                          |
| errors.                                   |                          |
+-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064194 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Coordination Issues**            | **Related Issues**              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Staff Management**               |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **C-11. Personnel Turnover -- USCS | **R-5. Insufficient Customs     |
| inspector attrition rates are      | Personnel**                     |
| high**                             |                                 |
|                                    | **Problem / Issue:** U.S.       |
| **Problem / Issue:** USCS          | Customs staffing levels at POEs |
| inspector attrition rates are high | are often too low to take full  |
| due to positional requirements and | advantage of available          |
| lower pay than other agencies.     | Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII)  |
|                                    | technology.                     |
| **Alternative:** Establish a       |                                 |
| long-term plan to equalize agency  | **Alternative:** Provide        |
| compensation and reduce USCS       | specific funding for NII        |
| inspector attrition rates.         | operating personnel in          |
|                                    | coordinated NII                 |
| **Benefits:** *USCS*: Higher level | equipment-personnel             |
| of experience among Customs        | implementation plans.           |
| inspectors, improved inspector     |                                 |
| efficiency and productivity,       | **Benefits:** *USCS*: Improved  |
| significant savings in agency      | utilization of existing         |
| training expenses.                 | inspection technology.          |
|                                    |                                 |
| **C-12. No Mechanism to Predict    | Increased interdiction of       |
| and Prevent Queue Development**    | contraband and security         |
|                                    | threats. Shippers and Carriers: |
| **Problem / Issue:** Fixed primary | Shorter delays for vehicles and |
| inspection staffing schedules      | shipments sent to NII           |
| prevent the opening of additional  | inspection stations.            |
| primary booths as soon as demand   |                                 |
| warrants.                          | **R-6. Personnel Turnover --    |
|                                    | Mexican Customs' rotation of    |
| **Alternative:** Implement an      | port directors**                |
| arrival-rate monitoring device     |                                 |
| upstream of primary to provide     | **Problem / Issue:** Mexican    |
| port authorities with advanced     | Customs' rotation/ dismissal of |
| information on impending queue     | Port Directors results in       |
| development. This will allow       | communication problems and      |
| managers to make informed,         | disruption of valuable          |
| real-time decisions on staffing    | binational initiatives.         |
| and assignments.                   |                                 |
|                                    | **Alternative:** Establish      |
| **Benefits:** Trade Community:     | binational public-agency        |
| Reduction in queuing time          | communication plan to reduce    |
| attributable to a shortage of      | conflicts stemming from changes |
| available inspection booths.       | in Mexican or U.S. Customs      |
|                                    | management.                     |
| USCS: More efficient utilization   |                                 |
| of resources. Ability to rely on   | **Benefits:** *Public           |
| automated prediction of queues so  | Agencies*: Improved             |
| that staff assigned to booths only | synchronization of evening and  |
| when arrival rates warrant.        | holiday schedules. Binational   |
|                                    | cooperation that transcends     |
|                                    | changes in port management.     |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | *Private Sector*: More          |
|                                    | streamlined and integrated      |
|                                    | Mexico-U.S. border-crossing     |
|                                    | system.                         |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064195 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Coordination Issues**                                | **Related   |
|                                                        | Issues**    |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Stakeholder Coordination**                           |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **C-13. Poorly Coordinated Stakeholder Schedules**     | No          |
|                                                        | Identified  |
| **Problem / Issue:** Uncoordinated schedules between   | Stakeholder |
| two or more key stakeholders in the border-crossing    | Issues      |
| process contribute to congestion, and prevent the      |             |
| movement of freight across the border at off-peak      |             |
| periods.                                               |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative:** Organize public to private-sector     |             |
| consultation to facilitate identification of           |             |
| scheduling problems and enable adjustments that smooth |             |
| POE demand and reduce border congestion and delay.     |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits:** *Inspection Agencies*: Reduction in peak |             |
| demand patterns.                                       |             |
|                                                        |             |
| *Shippers, Carriers*: Reduction in idle time waiting   |             |
| for inspections in the border-crossing process.        |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **C-14. Inadequate Informal Stakeholder Coordination** |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Problem / Issue:** Stakeholder practices are         |             |
| typically designed to meet individual stakeholder      |             |
| needs, but may have unintended consequences for the    |             |
| system as a whole.                                     |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative:** Establish a forum for identification  |             |
| and resolution of stakeholder coordination problems.   |             |
| For example, provide web broadcasting of monthly       |             |
| Customs-broker community meetings to facilitate        |             |
| dissemination of port operations information among all |             |
| interest groups. Provide web-casting of truck queue    |             |
| lengths to facilitate off-peak scheduling for          |             |
| discretionary shippers.                                |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits:** *All Stakeholders*: Improved operations, |             |
| safety and efficiency from enhanced communication and  |             |
| interaction, resulting in minor adjustments and        |             |
| improvements throughout the system.                    |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **C-15. Untapped Opportunities to Enhance Broker       |             |
| Process**                                              |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Problem / Issue:** Where modern technology and       |             |
| practices have not been leveraged, the provision of    |             |
| broker services such as freight classification,        |             |
| stevedoring, drayage, and warehousing may involve      |             |
| delays and expense that are at cross-purposes with     |             |
| system efficiency.                                     |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative:** Automated crossing programs and a     |             |
| shipper/consignee education campaign on efficient      |             |
| crossing procedures would help familiarize             |             |
| supply-chain partners with broker activities and       |             |
| services, and expedite shipments across the border.    |             |
| Web-casting of monthly broker-Port Director meetings   |             |
| could also enhance private-sector understanding of     |             |
| problems contributing to crossing inefficiency.        |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits:** *Private Sector*: Identification of      |             |
| opportunities to realize border-crossing efficiencies  |             |
| within the private sector.                             |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064196 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Coordination Issues**                                | **Related   |
|                                                        | Issues**    |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Standards**                                          |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **C-16. Absence of Standardized Seal Notation          | No          |
| Protocol**                                             | Identified  |
|                                                        | Standards   |
| **Problem / Issue:** The lack of a standardized        | Issues      |
| binational procedure for documenting trailer and       |             |
| container seal numbers creates security                |             |
| vulnerabilities, liability concerns, and delays in the |             |
| border-crossing process.                               |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative:** Develop and implement a binational    |             |
| agreement on the procedure for documenting container   |             |
| and trailer seal numbers for shipments moving between  |             |
| Mexico and the United States. Explore opportunities to |             |
| incorporate this initiative into the development of    |             |
| new regulations governing the physical properties of   |             |
| trailer and container seals.                           |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits:** *USCS*: Enhances security and frees up   |             |
| resources associated with verification of seal         |             |
| numbers.                                               |             |
|                                                        |             |
| *Shippers and Carriers*: Minimizes inspection delays   |             |
| caused by inconsistent seal notation protocol.         |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **C-17. Lack of Harmonized Truck Safety Standards**    |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Problem / Issue:** Different commercial vehicle      |             |
| size, weight, and safety standards in the U.S.,        |             |
| Canada, and Mexico complicate inspection and           |             |
| enforcement activities at the border.                  |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative**: An existing NAFTA mechanism -- the    |             |
| Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS) --   |             |
| is charged with addressing the harmonization of North  |             |
| American trucking standards. With the opening of the   |             |
| border, the LTSS should revitalize its efforts to      |             |
| coordinate with state DOTs, the trucking industry, and |             |
| related stakeholders to determine a single NAFTA       |             |
| safety protocol.                                       |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits:** *State and Federal DOTs*: Facilitation   |             |
| of driver and vehicle safety inspections.              |             |
|                                                        |             |
| *Carriers*: Facilitation of adherence to U.S.,         |             |
| Mexican, and Canadian safety regulations.              |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064197 .anchor}Table 3. Description of Issues,
Alternatives, and Benefits (cont.)

+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Coordination Issues**                                | **Related   |
|                                                        | Issues**    |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **Information Management**                             |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| **C-18. Information Systems -- Excessive Paperwork     | No          |
| Preparation and Handling**                             | Identified  |
|                                                        | Information |
| **Problem / Issue:** Required preparation, transfer,   | Management  |
| and submission of multiple paper documents slows /     | Issues      |
| complicates the border- crossing process and           |             |
| contributes to congestion and delay.                   |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative**: Introduce an internet-based           |             |
| information system accessible to authorized            |             |
| stakeholders (ACE/ITDS). Implement a paperless Mexican |             |
| Export process similar to the U.S. Export Declaration  |             |
| system. Complete harmonization of U.S. and Mexican     |             |
| tariff classification systems and develop joint        |             |
| information validation platform.                       |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits**: *Public Agencies*: Single-source access  |             |
| to required information. Faster, more reliable         |             |
| inspections.                                           |             |
|                                                        |             |
| *Shippers, Brokers, Carriers*: Reduction in paperwork, |             |
| duplicative data entry, and border-system costs and    |             |
| delays.                                                |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **C-19. Information Systems --Antiquated Information   |             |
| Systems**                                              |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Problem / Issue:** Separate public-agency            |             |
| information systems require multiple filing of         |             |
| documentation. Antiquated technology occasionally      |             |
| malfunctions causing delays and manual processing of   |             |
| documentation.                                         |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative:** An integrated information system such |             |
| as Automated Commercial Environment is required to     |             |
| streamline stakeholder transactions and processes and  |             |
| protect information privacy. Automation of manual toll |             |
| collection systems will be necessary as the            |             |
| border-crossing process becomes more **streamlined.**  |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits**: *Public Agencies*: Reduction in backlogs |             |
| due to manual processes and occasional system          |             |
| failures.                                              |             |
|                                                        |             |
| *Shippers, Brokers, Carriers*: Reduction in paperwork, |             |
| duplicative data entry, and border-system costs and    |             |
| delays.                                                |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **C-20. No Advanced Threat Detection**                 |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Problem / Issue:** Most border stations have limited |             |
| ability to identify and contain security threats at a  |             |
| safe distance from personnel and facilities. The lack  |             |
| of a binational threat detection / response capability |             |
| is a border security and coordination weakness.        |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Alternative:** Explore opportunities to expand       |             |
| intelligence sharing among U.S. and Mexican agencies.  |             |
| Implement detection technology and practices in        |             |
| advance of Mexican and U.S. border compounds to reduce |             |
| vulnerabilities and speed the crossing process for     |             |
| legitimate trade.                                      |             |
|                                                        |             |
| **Benefits:** *Public Agencies and Public at large*:   |             |
| More secure border-crossing process.                   |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675767 .anchor}Chapter 4: Estimating Impacts Of
Improvement Alternatives

Table 3 provides a snapshot of 20 border coordination problems and
issues adversely affecting U.S-Mexico transportation and trade. The
project team determined that pilot study of the nature and scope defined
in the original work plan could effectively address 15 of these issues.
Table 4 specifies the border crossings at which each of these problems
is most prevalent. Although several problems are virtually ubiquitous
along the border, only critical cases deemed appropriate for pilot
project study have been indicated.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675768 .anchor}Estimating Impacts of Selected
Coordination Improvements

Generally speaking, quantifiable benefits of coordination accrue to one
or more stakeholders when the mismatch between available capacity and
peak period demand can be mitigated. This mismatch can be mitigated
either by expanding the capacity of the bottleneck, by changing the
demand pattern, or by a combination of both.

Many of the historical approaches to reducing congestion have focused on
increasing the capacity of the infrastructure, either bridges or border
stations, since one or both may be a physical capacity constraint. Most,
but not all, capacity-enhancing alternatives are not
coordination-related; thus, they are beyond the scope of this project.
However, mitigating peak demand may be possible through low-cost changes
in coordination, thus many of the alternatives are focused on demand
patterns.

Finally, some variations in demand management include the segregation of
trucks according to the level of attention required at the border
station. With the exception of random inspection or other for-cause
inspections, certain types of trucks, such as empties and bobtails,
typically require less inspection than fully loaded trucks. Much as in
other service industries that have "express lanes," segregating these
lower-risk vehicles would allow the focusing of scarce resources on
other vehicles.

The primary quantifiable benefits the project team identified were:

-   reduced wait time upstream of primary inspection (these benefits
    accrue mainly to the private sector),

-   reduced air pollution from reduced idling (local communities
    benefit), and

-   reduced labor associated with inspection of selected trucks
    (accruing to the inspection agencies, principally Customs).

Other quantifiable benefits accrue from changes in POE configuration and
processing: however, those benefits are best estimated using queuing
models such as the Border Wizard.

  --------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ ---------- -------- ---------- ------------- --------
  **Most Prominent Pilot Project    **Pharr**   **Laredo   **Laredo     **El Paso  **El     **Santa    **Nogales**   **Otay
  Issues at POES**                              WTB**      Colombia**   Ysleta**   Paso     Teresa**                 Mesa**
                                                                                   BOTA**                            

  C-2. Lack of Data Collection and  **\***      **\***     **\***       **\***     **\***   **\***     **\***        **\***
  Benchmarks                                                                                                         

  R-2. Lack of Congestion Pricing   **\***      **\***                  **\***     **\***              **\***        **\***

  C-4. Lack of Fee-Based Priority   **\***      **\***                  **\***     **\***              **\***        **\***
  Shipment Lane                                                                                                      

  C-5. Commingling of Commercial    **\***      **\***                  **\***     **\***                            **\***
  Traffic Types                                                                                                      

  R-3. POE Configuration & Outdated                        **\***       **\***     **\***                            **\***
  facility layouts                                                                                                   

  C-6. POE Configuration & New                             **\***                                      **\***        
  inspection technologies cannot be                                                                                  
  accommodated                                                                                                       

  R-4. Capacity & lack a sufficient             **\***                  **\***     **\***              **\***        **\***
  number of primary inspection                                                                                       
  booths                                                                                                             

  C-9. Capacity & Uncoordinated     **\***                              **\***     **\***   **\***     **\***        **\***
  access road planning                                                                                               

  C-10. Lack of ITS Solutions to                                                                                     
  Streamline Truck Movements                                                                                         

  C-7. POE Configuration & Poor                            **\***       **\***     **\***                            **\***
  Internal POE Circulation                                                                                           

  C-8. Capacity & Inspection                                                                                         
  Sequencing                                                                                                         

  C-12. No Mechanism to Predict and **\***      **\***                  **\***     **\***                            **\***
  Prevent Queue Development                                                                                          

  C-13. Poorly Coordinated                                              **\***     **\***              **\***        **\***
  Stakeholder Schedules                                                                                              

  C-14. Inadequate Informal         **\***      **\***     **\***       **\***     **\***   **\***     **\***        **\***
  Stakeholder Coordination                                                                                           

  C-16. Absence of Standardized                                                                                      
  Seal Notation Protocol                                                                                             
  --------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ ---------- -------- ---------- ------------- --------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26064198 .anchor}Table 4. Coordination Problem --
POE Matrix

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675769 .anchor}Total Cost of Delay

Delay is identified as that added wait time upstream of primary
inspection that is a result of the demand for passage at primary booths
exceeding either the physical or inspection capacity. The project team
estimates that the total cost of this delay is on the order of \$60
million annually at the southern border.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675770 .anchor}Impact of Alternatives

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675771 .anchor}Alternatives with Quantifiable
Benefits

The alternatives presented previously, identified improvements that
could provide benefits through various mechanisms. Some of these
benefits are quantifiable, particularly those achieved by a reduction in
peak period demand. Alternatives intended to reduce peak period demand
include congestion pricing, value pricing, and preclearance programs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675772 .anchor}Congestion Pricing

Congestion pricing involves placing a surcharge on peak-period
crossings. This approach is very similar to load-leveling practices in
virtually all capacity-constrained industries -- utilities, airlines,
movie theaters -- all of which charge higher prices to use the
facilities during the peaks. The surcharge is not a penalty, rather it
is a fee to allow the service provider to augment resource levels to
better accommodate the peak demands.

Internal calculations show that there are net savings (which accrue
primarily to trucking) of \$16.10 for each truck that shifts from the
peak period to the off-peak periods. Thus, the cost of improvements that
successfully draw trucks from the peak can be weighed against this
benefit.

The project team estimated the benefit from reduced congestion and
pollution that results from a marginal change in peak-period traffic --
that is, from the diversion of a single vehicle from the peak period to
an uncongested off-peak period. The main value of this estimate is that
it provides a rough indication of the magnitude of the congestion charge
that would be appropriate. One could use this rough indication as a
starting point for investigation of the likely demand responses to
congestion pricing, perhaps within the context of a stated preference
analysis.

In addition to reducing the average border crossing time, congestion
pricing should reduce the variability of that time. Variability imposes
additional costs on the trading community because much of the variation
is unpredictable until a vehicle is nearly arrived at the border
crossing. Although the impact of congestion pricing on the amount of
unpredictable variation could not be estimated, the project team made a
preliminary effort toward quantifying the extent of the current problem.
For the wait times before U.S. primary inspection, the project team
analyzed how much of the variation can be predicted on the basis of
recent traffic volumes, day of the week, and the holiday effect, versus
how much of the variation cannot be predicted.

At the busier POEs, rescheduling a truck arrival from a peak congestion
period to an uncongested off-peak period will produce benefits in
reduced waiting time at primary inspection and reduced pollution. On a
rough estimate, these benefits would amount to \$16.10 per truck; this
figure is also a ballpark indication of the congestion charge that would
be economically warranted. This figure does not factor in the
congestion-induced delays that occur inside the POE, which can include
waits for secondary inspection. Factoring in these delays would increase
the estimate of benefit/congestion charge.

If 10 percent of the northbound trips are peak hour trips, and if 10
percent of those trips were diverted to the off-peak through congestion
pricing, the savings in delay and pollution would be roughly:

2,000,000 trips x 10% x 10% x \$16.10 per truck = \$322,000
(border-wide)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675773 .anchor}Value Pricing

While reasonably accurate estimates of total delay are important to
estimating the impact of congestion pricing, the analysis of value
pricing can proceed without an estimate of total delay. This alternative
provides an option for traffic with a high value of time (typically,
time-sensitive or high-value cargo). When such cargo is diverted from
the congested lanes, all traffic benefits. These savings have been
estimated for various illustrative scenarios involving different splits
in traffic between a value-priced express lane and the regular lane, and
different amounts of time saving from taking the express lane.

In illustrating the benefits of value-priced express lanes, the project
team considered a situation where, in the absence of value-pricing, all
vehicles would have to wait 60 minutes for primary inspection. In the
value-pricing scenarios, the wait remained 60 minutes on average, but it
was shorter for vehicles in the express lane and longer for vehicles in
the regular, unpriced lanes. The estimated benefits from this more
efficient distribution of delay time were appreciable. One of the
scenarios assigned one-fourth of the traffic to an express lane with a
15-minute wait and the rest of the traffic to a regular (unpriced) lane
with a 75-minute wait. Compared with the base case of no traffic
segregation, this division of the traffic would reduce the total cost of
the delay time (excluding pollution cost) by an estimated 39 percent.

Appendix E estimates that border-wide wait times likely exceed \$60
million annually. Applying the estimated 39 percent delay reduction
through value pricing produces a rough estimate of the potential
benefits as large as \$24 million.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675774 .anchor}Increased Incentives for
Participation in Pre-clearance Programs

The impact estimation for this alternative was similar to the estimation
performed for congestion pricing. The project team estimated the
reductions in the costs of pollution, congestion, and requirements for
U.S. Customs inspection labor. As with congestion pricing, the focus
here was on a marginal increase in participation -- the effects of a
single vehicle being precleared on a single crossing.

Estimation of the benefits from increased participation in preclearance
programs focused on one particular program, the Border Release Advanced
Selectivity and Screening (BRASS) system. The focus was further narrowed
to certain "external" benefits from BRASS participation -- benefits that
accrue to parties other than the participant. The external benefits
considered were the reduction in the time required of Customs inspectors
and the reductions in the queuing time for primary inspection. For a
single crossing of the border, these benefits amount to an estimated
\$8.56. An implication is the need for a per-crossing incentive to
participate in BRASS that equates to about this amount. The incentive
could be access to a fast lane at primary inspection or it could be
monetary. In the former case, the time savings from taking the fast lane
should be about 17 minutes. External benefits from BRASS participation
that could not be estimated are the improvement in national security and
the increased compliance with drug laws; if one could quantify these
benefits, the estimate of the appropriate incentive for BRASS
participation would be higher.

On the crude assumption that one loaded truck equals one entry, using
FY2000 data on loaded trucks entering the U.S., a 30 percent increase in
BRASS participation rate translates to 696,000 additional BRASS entries
per year. As a very rough estimate, that increase in number of BRASS
entries would generate external benefits of nearly \$6 million per year
(=\$8.56 multip. X 696,000). These benefits are roughly split between
savings in trucking delay and reductions in inspection agency labor
costs.

These savings represent productivity benefits to Customs and other
inspection agencies. A 10 percent increase in BRASS participation would
result in productivity savings of more than \$1,600,000.

All of these options require some special actions by both the private
sector and the public sector. The public sector must provide incentives
and take actions that represent a net benefit to the process, even
though some groups might not benefit directly. In all cases, if a
private stakeholder is willing to change its operations or pay an extra
fee, it can receive improved service. The magnitude of the benefits
depends on the level of private- sector participation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675775 .anchor}How Quantification was Conducted

For each of the alternatives presented, impact estimation required an
assumed cost of time per hour for truck delays at the border.
Equivalently, this assumed value represents the benefit from a one
vehicle-hour reduction in delay. The components of this benefit are
savings in trucking inputs, benefits from time savings for freight
delivery, and reductions in pollution.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675776 .anchor}Savings in Costs of Trucking
Inputs

An hour reduction in border delay reduces the amounts of inputs such as
fuel and labor that a trip across the border consumes. To estimate the
benefit of these savings in inputs, the project team considered evidence
from the 1) Mexican consultant's contribution to the present study, 2)
the earlier Binational Border Transportation Planning and Programming
Study, 3) a recent study of the value of time among California truckers,
and 4) a 2001 report to the Mexican SCT.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675777 .anchor}Benefits from Time Savings for
Freight Delivery

Faster delivery of freight allows the trade community to realize various
benefits through the reorganization of supply chains, especially with
respect to changes in inventory and warehousing arrangements. Although
the project team could not make an estimate of this component of
benefit, a review of relevant literature has yielded information that
assists with the design of pilot studies.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675778 .anchor}Reduction in Pollution

Evidence from several studies of truck emissions and of the costs of
vehicle emissions to society was reviewed. The project team took
emission factors from a study from ICF Consulting that estimated factors
for cross-border drayage trucks, assumed to be Mexican-domiciled
vehicles with four or more axles. For measuring the costs of emissions,
the focus of estimation may either be the costs of damage to human
health or the "control costs," which are entailed in counter-measures
that are undertaken to offset the impact of vehicle emissions ("control
costs"). An example of counter-measures in the context of climate change
(which we did not consider) would be planting trees to absorb carbon
dioxide. The estimates of unit emission costs that are used in this
report are taken from a study that focused on control costs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675779 .anchor}Other Elements

The impact estimation involved many other data and analytical elements.
In brief, these were:

-   distribution among truck trips of the cost of time per hour (this
    element was central to the impact estimation for value pricing, and
    it was taken from the above-mentioned study of California
    truckers.);

-   data on delay at U.S. primary inspection stations, supplied by U.S.
    Customs;

-   data on border-crossing delays for commercial vehicles, collected by
    TTI and Battelle;

-   estimates of secondary inspection rates, based on a U. S. General
    Accounting Office (GAO) study and the project team's discussions
    with U.S. Customs officials at the border;

-   estimates of time required for primary and secondary inspections,
    based on the project team's observations and discussions with U.S.
    Customs officials at the border;

-   the cost of U.S. Customs inspector labor per hour, based on
    discussions with financial officers at the U.S. Customs national
    headquarters; and

-   econometric modeling with Ordinary Leased Squares (OLS) and logit
    regressions, to analyze the variation in pre-primary wait times in a
    way suitable for a limited dependent variable. (The dependent
    variable is "limited" because wait times cannot be less than zero,
    and, not infrequently, the recorded wait times are zero.)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675780 .anchor}Chapter 5: Pilot Project
Recommendations

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675781 .anchor}Phases of Pilot Project

The purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate and evaluate the
effectiveness and impacts of implementing selected alternatives to
address coordination shortcomings. Successful alternatives can then be
exported to other POEs, while careful analysis of unsuccessful options
should aid in understanding what factors may or may not be suitable for
further improvement.

The majority of the coordination issues identified in Phases I and II
are related to or exacerbated by inadequate interaction among all
pertinent stakeholders in either the planning or operations phases. For
this reason, the project team recommends that any pilot project include
the broad range of stakeholders, rather than focus on improving more
narrowly defined specific coordination issues, particularly since
priorities among the issues will vary among POEs. Further, as
coordination is a function of time and interaction, once proper
stakeholders are gathered, a full range of applicable issues can and
should be addressed, maximizing the effectiveness of increased
coordination. The proposed pilot accomplishes those things via the
following two-phased project:

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675782 .anchor}Phase III-A -- Develop Consensus
Implementation Plan

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675783 .anchor}Identify the Relevant
Stakeholders

Identify a comprehensive list of all relevant stakeholders from the
process chart developed during Phase II. The project team will verify
the list will be verified through key stakeholders, such as the port
director for the U.S. Customs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675784 .anchor}Develop Issue Priorities

Provide an initial workshop (Workshop #1) will involve all relevant
stakeholders. At this half-day workshop the project team will present
the results of the coordination study and facilitate a discussion among
the stakeholders. The purpose of the discussion is to refine the list of
issues, improve the accuracy of the team's assessment of the nature and
magnitude of the coordination, and gain group consensus on which issues
should be pursued for improvement. Table 4 shows the initial list of
issues for starting the discussion.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675785 .anchor}Address Individual Stakeholder
Concerns

Following the group meetings, the project team will meet one-on-one with
individual stakeholders to assure that all concerns and major objections
have been voiced and are receiving attention. This additional meeting
will occur two to three weeks after Workshop #1 to allow the
stakeholders time to identify concerns that may not arise in the initial
group setting. The application of Border Wizard to one or more of the El
Paso POEs may be valuable in identifying specific improvements.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675786 .anchor}Gain Consensus on Improvements

Based on Workshop #1 and the subsequent small-group discussions, the
project team will prepare specific improvement alternatives for
stakeholder discussion. This half-day Workshop #2 will focus on gaining
consensus on improvements to be explored and details to be worked out.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675787 .anchor}Prepare Detailed Implementation
Plan

Using the consensus "implementation plan" drafted by the stakeholders,
the project team will perform necessary data collection, analyses, and
related work to prepare a specific detailed implementation plan for
consideration by the stakeholder group. The plan will address actions
required of every stakeholder, and individual stakeholders will be
contacted as needed to assure understanding and willingness to pursue
implementation. The research team will identify alternatives to any
obstacles. Again, the development of the detailed implementation plan
will no doubt require the application of Border Wizard to evaluate
alternatives that affect layout and operation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675788 .anchor}Present and Approve
Implementation Plan

At Workshop #3, final implementation details will be presented to the
stakeholder group along with action plans and priorities for each
stakeholder. Final questions and concerns will be []{.mark}resolved. The
evaluation plan will be presented for group review and comment.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675789 .anchor}Phase III-B -- Implement and
Evaluate Changes

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675790 .anchor}Implement Changes

Following priorities identified by the stakeholders, the project team
will serve as facilitators to the individual stakeholders to implement
the consensus changes. This assistance may involve design, traffic
analysis, process planning, group coordination, or other activities. The
team's role is to provide those services that stakeholders would
normally have their staff do if they had time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675791 .anchor}Collect Data and Resolve Problems

Based on the evaluation plan agreed upon by the stakeholders, the
project team will collect ongoing or snapshot data, depending on the
nature of the evaluation. The team will work continually with affiliated
stakeholders to identify and remedy minor problems encountered in
operation. Using the data collected, team observations and stakeholder
experiences, the project team will prepare an evaluation and a set of
recommendations for review by the stakeholders.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675792 .anchor}Present Evaluation Results and
Prepare Consensus Recommendations

At the final half-day Workshop #4, the project team will present results
of the evaluation and facilitate discussions of the experiences among
the stakeholders. The primary purposes of this workshop will be to
identify a) what to keep, what to change, and what to delete, as well as
b) what types of improvements to recommend for general application at
other POEs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675793 .anchor}Prepare Final Report

The project team will prepare a final report documenting the pilot
project.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675794 .anchor}El Paso-Ciudad Juárez Pilot
Project Illustration

Viable pilot projects adhering to the structure outlined above could be
implemented at several points along the U.S.-Mexico border. For
illustrative purposes, the project team selected El Paso-Ciudad Juárez
to demonstrate potential elements to be included in the pilot project
undertaken. The El Paso-Ciudad Juárez gateway was chosen for the
following:

-   the opportunity to address coordination in a complex, high-volume
    border system in which a variety of factors contribute to congestion
    and delay;

-   the proximity of three commercial gateways within the system (Santa
    Teresa-San Jerónimo, Bridge of the Americas, and the Ysleta-Zaragoza
    bridge), which enables designation of initiatives to specific
    crossings;

-   the diverse size, infrastructure characteristics, and technological
    capabilities of the port facilities, which allow further options for
    port specialization;

-   the imbalance of truck volumes among crossings and the possibility
    of diverting trucks from congested crossings to crossings with
    excess capacity;

-   the prevalence of localized maquiladora movements that facilitate
    the organization of comprehensive stakeholder meetings; and

-   the expressed interest of port authorities, regional customs
    management, the trade community, and local elected officials in
    exploring new opportunities to enhance border operations (*critical*
    to the success of the proposed coordination effort).

Regardless of where the pilot project is undertaken, various
coordination alternatives would be proposed for implementation in
conjunction with one another. This strategy reduces competing or
contradictory initiatives and enables the development of synergies among
proposed solutions. Some examples of alternatives that could be combined
or otherwise tailored for implementation in an El Paso-Ciudad Juárez
pilot project include:

-   data collection and benchmarking (C-2);

-   planning for port capacity, retrofitting and traffic circulation
    (R-4);

-   stakeholder schedules (C-13);

-   ITS package, information technology and pre-emption of queue
    development\
    (C-10), (C-12);

-   opportunities to improve inspection sequencing (C-8);

-   trailer seal notation protocol (C-16); and

-   commercial traffic segregation and pricing instruments (C-4).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675795 .anchor}Data Collection and Benchmarking

A binational data collection initiative must be undertaken in order to
conduct a more precise evaluation of impediments to border efficiency,
understand their relative magnitude, and formulate effective remedial
policies. U.S. and Mexican public agency technology and resources at the
three commercial crossings in the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez border system
should be coordinated to gather, compile, and disseminate border data
more efficiently. These data should, at minimum, include detailed and
reliable statistics on disaggregated traffic flows (laden and
empty/bobtail), truck arrival rates, and delay times at various points
in the border-crossing process. Because Mexican and U.S. Customs already
collect much of this information through the scanning of documentation
and other means, these stakeholders would be closely involved in the
design and implementation of a binational data collection and sharing
effort.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675796 .anchor}Planning for Port of Entry
Capacity, Retrofitting, and Improved Traffic Circulation

Layouts of U.S. ports of entry at the Ysleta-Zaragoza and BOTA
commercial border crossings were designed to accommodate lower traffic
volumes and manual inspection processes. Despite modifications, they are
not presently configured for optimum throughput, safety, and security.
Current infrastructure and traffic engineering plans at the Ysleta POE
call for expansion of the primary inspection module, alternate traffic
flows through and around the POE, and adjustments to the exit gate and
egress route. Consultations regarding these plans should not be limited
to obvious stakeholders such as the USCS and GSA, but they should
involve non-traditional POE planning participants such as
representatives from the local drayage carrier community. As the direct
users of the system, these carriers are in the position to provide
valuable feedback on port design and traffic circulation plans for the
Ysleta-Zaragoza crossing. This information should be solicited under a
focus group structure in the border coordination forum.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675797 .anchor}Stakeholder Schedules

The schedules of some stakeholders in the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez
border-crossing system are established in isolation and contribute to
peaked traffic patterns at local commercial gateways. In addition to
promoting congestion and delay, the lack of schedule coordination among
key stakeholders such as the maquiladora community, U.S. Customs, and
the FDA shrinks the daily crossing window available to cross-border
movements. A broadly attended public--and private-private sector meeting
is required to identify and disseminate information about all scheduling
conflicts that contribute to border system inefficiency. This meeting
will illuminate the impact of scheduling practices among the various
stakeholders and enable the development of a more systemic approach to
activity scheduling and coordination.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675798 .anchor}ITS Package, Information
Technology, and Pre-emption of Queue Development

There are opportunities to improve the security and efficiency of the
border-crossing process in the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez region through more
extensive use of ITS technologies. Stakeholder consultation is a
critical component of the ITS implementation process. The Texas
Transportation-Center for Transportation Research (TTI-CTR) Model Border
Crossing Project could be utilized by stakeholders participating in the
border coordination forum to identify ITS technologies suitable for
implementation at the three local commercial crossings. ITS options to
be considered include transponder systems, automated toll collection,
variable message signing, weigh-in-motion scales, and smart cards. A new
commercial driver identification card currently in the trial stage at
the Ysleta and BOTA crossings may provide an opportunity for
piggybacking data collection and shipment tracking initiatives.

The deployment of vehicle arrival monitors would enhance the ability of
U.S. Customs to detect the impending formation of queues at primary
inspection and take pre-emptive action to adjust primary booth staffing
levels to reduce congestion and delay. Manual traffic monitoring duties
could be assigned to U.S. Customs personnel working in the vicinity of
primary inspection on an interim basis until automated monitoring
devices are installed.

Examination of the feasibility of incorporating vehicle and trade links
proposed under ACE should also be undertaken by the border coordination
forum so that DPS data at vehicle safety inspection stations can be
fully integrated into the border-crossing system. Coordination should be
initiated with the FHWA, the U.S. State DOTs and participants in other
segments of NAFTA transportation corridors to develop a credentialing
system that extends beyond the border.

The development of more rapid and seamless means of electronic
intelligence sharing among Mexican and U.S. public agencies is another
priority topic to be considered at the border coordination forum. A
broad-based stakeholder consultation group would assess the potential of
implementing these and other state-of-the-art technology, communications
and process applications at local truck crossings.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675799 .anchor}Opportunities to Improve
Inspection Sequencing

The U.S. primary inspection typically represents the greatest constraint
for northbound truck movements. The idle time trucks spend in queues
prior to the U.S. primary inspection module at the BOTA and Ysleta ports
of entry makes this one of the least productive segments of the El
Paso-Ciudad Juárez border-crossing system. Various inspection activities
currently carried out within these POEs could be conducted in advance of
the primary booths. Transfer of activities such as canine drug
inspections, driver interviews, vehicle safety screening, document
reviews, and weigh-in-motion screening could be relatively easy to
achieve, involve minimal capital expenditure, and improve the speed and
security of the crossing process. Pre-primary inspection activities can
be designed to be collapsed when they disrupt the flow of traffic into
the primary inspection module. Given the interest of U.S. Customs in
incorporating pre-primary inspection activities into redesigned
operations at the Ysleta port of entry, this is an opportune moment to
assess their feasibility and value in a pilot project.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675800 .anchor}Trailer Seal Notation Protocol

In order to ensure that cargo is not tampered with, seals are applied to
the container or trailer door. Recent focus on international cargo
security has prompted the development of standards governing the
physical properties of these container and trailer seals, but little has
been done to address the inconsistent manner in which seal numbers are
noted on shipment documentation. If a seal is broken by Mexican Customs
for export inspection purposes, an inspector signature, stamp, or other
form of authorization may accompany the new seal number on the
documentation. However, in some cases, no notification is made. This
binational coordination deficiency creates security vulnerabilities and
delays in the border-crossing process. In the absence of an agreement
governing the documentation requirements for resealing of trailers and
containers, authorities cannot determine whether conveyances have been
illegally tampered with or opened for legitimate inspection purposes. As
a result, these shipments are often needlessly sent to a U.S. secondary
inspection for re-examination. An informal binational seal protocol
could be tested in a pilot project at the three El Paso-Ciudad Juárez
commercial crossings. Opportunities to incorporate this initiative into
the development of new regulations governing the physical properties of
trailer and container seals should be considered by the border
coordination forum.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675801 .anchor}Commercial Traffic Segregation
and Pricing Instruments

The El Paso-Ciudad Juárez border-crossing system is unique in that it
encompasses three commercial gateways within close proximity to one
another. This facilitates the implementation of pilot project
alternatives that involve the dedication of border capacity to specific
initiatives. For example, approximately 45 percent of northbound truck
movements through El Paso-Ciudad Juárez area crossings are empties or
bobtails. Opportunities to reduce these movements and prevent them from
interfering with revenue loads and high-priority shipments are more
easily accommodated in this system due to higher levels of access lane
and processing capacity. The lack of traffic-type segregation and the
subsequent mixing of shipments with different risk characteristics,
priority levels, and processing requirements is undesirable because it
slows the movement of laden trucks and reduces the benefits of expedited
crossing programs for low-risk shippers and carriers.

Alternatives proposed by the project team for consideration and possible
implementation at El Paso-Ciudad Juárez crossings include:

-   monitored and enforced segregation of empties and bobtails from
    loaded movements,

-   the dedication of access lanes or a specific border crossing to
    certified/pre-cleared commercial traffic (such as C-TPAT
    participants),

-   the creation of dedicated fee-based border lanes for high-priority
    traffic, and

-   the implementation of congestion pricing at border gateways.

Given the underutilization of the Santa Teresa-San Jerónimo crossing,
measures to divert congestion to that gateway may hold promise. The
availability of excess capacity at Santa Teresa, and the subsequent
higher rates of inspection at that port, have counteracted efforts to
increase truck volumes at that port. Conversion of this crossing into a
high-speed corridor for certified traffic is a possible solution that
could be considered for analysis by participants in the border
coordination forum. This option would be evaluated in concert with other
initiatives to improve the efficiency of the regional border-crossing
system such as paving a northern border access route from Ciudad Juárez
to San Jerónimo (the current route south of mountains is circuitous).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc26675802 .anchor}BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; La Empresa S. de R.L., *Binational
border transportation planning and programming study: task 3 report:
inventory of selected port of entry systems on the U.S.-Mexican* border,
1998

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; La Empresa S. de R.L., *Binational
border transportation planning and programming study: task 3.1 report:
description of commercial motor vehicle trade flow process*, 1996

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; La Empresa S. de R.L., *Binational
border transportation planning and programming study: task 9 report:
port of entry case studies*, 1998.

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; La Empresa S. de R.L., *Binational
border transportation planning and programming study: task 13 report:
estimating border crossing utility,* 1998.

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; La Empresa S. de R.L., *Binational
border transportation planning and programming study: task 14 report:
methodologies for developing estimates of costs and benefits for
assessing transportation impacts of U.S.-Mexican trade*, 1998.

Coalition for Secure & Trade-Efficient Borders, *Rethinking our Borders:
A Plan for Action*, December 2001.

Congressional Research Service, *Reorganization Proposals for U.S.
Border Management Agencies*, Report Number 97-974 GOV. Washington, D.C.:
September 28, 1998.

DeJarnette, Kenneth R, *Trucking problems at the U.S.-Mexico border*
(prepared for Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress),
1996.

Drennan, R. Todd , *Understanding the U.S./Mexico border crossing
process*

(prepared for Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture),

GAIN Report #MX9058, 1999.

Dye Management Group. Inc, *Border efficiency initiative assessment,*
report to Texas Department of Transportation*,* 1999.

Economic Data Resources, *Estimates of Commercial Motor Vehicles Using
the Southwest Border Crossings* (prepared for U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration), September
2000.

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
*Assessment of border crossings and transportation corridors for North
American Trade*: report to Congress pursuant to Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, 1994.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, *Implementation of
commercial vehicle safety requirements at the U.S.-Mexico Border*,
Report: MH-2002-094, June 2002.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

Figliozzi, Miguel A. and Harrison, Robert, *Truck Trade Corridors
Between the U.S. and Mexico*, Center for Transportation Research
University of Texas at Austin, August 2001.

Hanania, J.; Harrison, R.; Martello, M.; McCullough, B.F., *Overview of
the Texas-Mexico border: background*, Center for Transportation
Research, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University of Texas at
Austin, 1994.

Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office, U.S. Department
of Transportation, *Intelligent transportation systems at international
borders: a cross cutting study, facilitating trade and enhancing
transportation safety*, Report FHWA-OP-00-003, 2001.

Kaiser, Frederick M., *Reorganization proposals for U.S. border
management agencies* (prepared for Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress), 1999.

Leidy, Joseph Paul; Lee, Clyde E.; Harrison, Robert, *Measurement and
analysis of traffic loads across the Texas-Mexico border*, Center for
Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering Research, The University
of Texas at Austin, 1995.

Lindquist, Eric, *Institutional Barriers to Implementing ITS
Technologies Along the Texas - Mexico Border*, Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas A&M University, October 1996.

Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee Working Group 2 - Vehicle
Weights and Dimensions, *Harmonization of Vehicle Weight and Dimension
Regulations Within the NAFTA Partnership*, 1997.

Paul Bellela - Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc, *Ambassador Bridge Border
Crossing System (ABBCS) field operational test: final evaluation
report,* report to Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program
Office, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.

Pérez, Sonia A.; Ashur, Suleiman; Weissman, Angela; Weissman, José,
*Traffic simulation at the international ports of entry: El Paso-Mexico
case study,* Center for Highway Materials Research, The University of
Texas at El Paso, 2000.

Rabkin, Norman J., *U.S. Customs Service: enforcement oversight issues:
statement of Norman J. Rabkin*, Director, Administration of Justice
Issues, General Government Division, U.S. Customs Service, 1999.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, *State functions at the
Texas-Mexico border and cross-border transportation,* 2001.

Texas Department of Transportation, *Existing and proposed international
bridges and border crossing: connecting Texas and the Mexican states of
Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Chihuahua*, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

Texas Department of Transportation, *Texas-Mexico International Bridges
and Border Crossings Existing and Proposed*, 2001.

Texas Transportation Institute and Battelle Memorial Institute,
*Evaluation of Travel Time Methods to Support Mobility Performance
Monitoring, FY 2001 Synthesis Report*, final report to Office of Freight
Mgt. and Operations, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2002.

Texas Transportation Institute and Battelle Memorial Institute,
*International Border Crossing Truck Travel Time*, report to Office of
Freight Management, Federal Highway Administration, 2001.

TransCore, *Arizona port efficiency study: final report*, 1997

U.S. Customs Service, *Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)
cost-benefit analysis,* 1999.

U.S. Customs Service, *U.S. Customs Service strategic plan fiscal years
2000-2005,* U.S. Customs Service, 2000.

United States General Accounting Office, *Commercial motor vehicles:
effectiveness of actions being taken to improve motor carrier safety is
unknown*: report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
2000. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Commercial trucking: safety
and infrastructure issues under the North American Free Trade Agreement
United States General Accounting Office*: report to Congressional
recipients*,* 1996. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Commercial trucking: safety
concerns about Mexican trucks remain even as inspection activity
increases,* 1997. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Customs and INS: random
inspection programs can be strengthened,* Report GAO-02-215R, 2001.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Customs Service drug
interdiction: internal control weaknesses and other concerns with
low-risk cargo entry programs*: report to the Honorable Dianne
Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Report GAO/GGD-98-175, 1998. General Accounting
Office, Washington, D.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)

United States General Accounting Office, *Customs Service: inspectional
personnel and workloads:* statement of Norman J. Rabkin, Director,
Administration of Justice Issues, General Government Division, before
the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and

Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of
Representatives, Report GAO/T-GGD-98-195, 1998. General Accounting
Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Customs Service modernization:
ineffective software development processes increase Customs system
development risks:* report to congressional requesters, Report
GAO/AIMD-99-35, 1999. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office*, Customs Service modernization:
results of review of first automated commercial environment expenditure
plan*: report to congressional committees, Report GAO-01-696, 2001.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Customs Service modernization:
serious management and technical weaknesses must be corrected*: report
to Congressional requesters, Report GAO/AIMD-99-41, 1999. General
Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Customs Service: process for
estimating and allocating inspectional personnel:* report to the
Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Report GAO/GGD-98-107, 1998.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Drug trafficking:
responsibilities for developing narcotics detection technologies:*
statement of David E. Cooper, Associate Director, Defense Acquisitions
Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division, Report
GAO/T-NSIAD-97-192, 1997. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *INS management: follow-up on
selected problems:* report to the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Report GAO/GGD-97-132, 1997. General Accounting
Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *INS\' southwest border
strategy: resource and impact issues remain after seven years*, Report
GAO-01-842, 2001. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Major management challenges
and program risks: Department of Justice*, Report GAO/OCG-99-10, 1999.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *Major management challenges
and program risks: Department of the Treasury*, Report GAO-01-254, 2001.
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY(continued)

United States General Accounting Office, *North American Free Trade
Agreement: coordinated operational plan needed to ensure Mexican trucks'
compliance with U.S. standards*, Report GAO-02-238, 2001. General
Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office*, Securing America\'s borders:
INS faces information technology planning and implementation
challenges*, Report GAO-02-148T, 2001.

United States General Accounting Office, *U.S.-Mexico Border: better
planning, coordination needed to handle growing commercial traffic*,
Report GAO/NSIAD-00-25, 2000. General Accounting Office, Washington,
D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *U.S.-Mexico border: despite
some progress, environmental infrastructure challenges remain*: report
to Congressional requesters, Report GAO/NSIAD-00-26, 2000. General
Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

United States General Accounting Office, *U.S.-Mexico border: issues and
challenges confronting the United States and Mexico:* report to
congressional requesters, Report NSIAD-99-190, 1999.

Weissmann, A.J.; Hanania, J.; Shamieh, M.; Said, C.; Harrison, R.;
McCullough, B.F.,

*Overview of the Texas-Mexico border: assessment of traffic flow
patterns,* Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of Engineering
Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 1994.

Western Highway Institute; SAIC Transportation Consulting Group, *EPIC
expedited processing at international crossings: evaluation final
report* (prepared for Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program
Office, U.S. Department of Transportation), 1998.

Wolfe, Michael, *Electronic Cargo Seals: Context, Technologies and
Marketplace* (prepared for Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint
Program Office Federal Highway Administration), July 2002.