Accessible Version

U.S. BORDER 

COMMUNITIES

Ongoing DOT Efforts 

Could Help Address 

Impacts of 

International Freight 

Rail

Report to Congressional Committees

January 2016

GAO-16-274

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-274, a report to 

congressional committees

January 2016

U.S. BORDER COMMUNITIES

Ongoing DOT Efforts Could Help Address Impacts of 

International Freight Rail

Why GAO Did This Study

About 93 trains a day on average 

crossed into the continental United 

States from Canada and Mexico in 

2014, according to DOT’s Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS). Trains 

enter and leave the United States

through 30 POEs—23 on the northern 

border and 7 on the southern border. 

Although international freight rail plays 

an important role in U.S. economic and 

trade interests, the movement of rail 

through U.S. communities at the 

border can result in blocked highwayrail grade crossings and vehicle traffic 

congestion. House Report 113-464 

accompanying the Departments of 

Transportation, and Housing and 

Urban Development Appropriations Act 

included a provision for GAO to review 

the impact of international rail 

crossings on U.S. border communities. 

This report (1) describes the factors 

that affect the movement of freight rail 

and the actions taken by federal 

agencies and others to expedite freight 

rail in selected POEs and (2) examines 

what is known about the impacts of 

freight rail operations on highway-rail 

grade crossings in POE communities. 

GAO visited four POE communities 

that were selected in part based on 

BTS’s 2010–2014 data on average 

incoming train volume. In each POE, 

GAO interviewed officials from local 

and state governments, the railroad, 

CBP, and FRA. GAO also interviewed 

officials from DOT, CBP, the Border 

Trade Alliance, and the Association of 

American Railroads.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report. DOT and CBP provided

technical comments, which were 

incorporated. 

What GAO Found

Factors such as inspections and crew changes affect freight rail movements in 

the four U.S. border port of entry (POE) communities GAO visited, which can 

result in blocked highway-rail grade crossings. Federal agencies and others have 

taken actions to expedite rail in these communities. As part of its mission to 

safeguard the border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) scans inbound 

rail cars on both borders using the Rail Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (RVACIS), a machine used to detect anomalies and threats to national security. 

CBP generally requires trains to slow in order to pass through R-VACIS. To 

expedite freight rail and reduce blocked highway-rail grade crossings, CBP, for 

example, adjusted its procedures to allow certain trains to go through R-VACIS 

faster at two POEs on the northern border. Similarly, crew changes can result in 

stopped trains and blocked U.S. highway-rail grade crossings, particularly on the 

southern border. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that 

crew changes are required due to differences in safety regulations between the 

U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Mexico. Railroads have 

expressed interest in eliminating such crew changes but face challenges such as 

FRA and labor union safety concerns.

The impacts of international freight rail on highway-rail grade crossings in 

communities GAO visited vary based on border-specific factors and community 

characteristics, and DOT improvement efforts including the issuance of a final 

rule could provide better data for help determining these impacts in the future. 

Inspections and crew changes, as well as rail traffic levels, can vary across 

POEs. For example, some factors play a role at southern, but not northern POEs. 

In addition, freight rail impacts vary based on community characteristics such as 

the availability of overpasses. State and local officials face data limitations, which 

reduce their ability to quantify rail-related community impacts. For example, local 

officials often do not have data on the number and length of trains passing 

through the community. In September 2014, GAO recommended that DOT 

improve the availability of national data to assess freight impacts on traffic 

congestion. DOT agreed and has actions under way. In January 2015, the FRA 

issued a final rule requiring railroads to update FRA’s highway-rail crossing 

inventory once every 3 years. Prior to this rule, railroads voluntarily submitted 

data that were not always updated. DOT data efforts could better equip state and 

local governments to define the extent of blocked highway-rail grade crossings in 

communities nationwide, including at rail border communities. 

A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing in Laredo, Texas

View GAO-16-274. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming (202) 512-2834 or 

flemings@gao.gov
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Background 4

Inspections and Crew Changes Affect Rail Movements in Selected 

POE Communities, and Some Actions Have Been Taken to 

Expedite Trains 11

International Freight Rail Impacts Vary by Community GAO 

Visited, and DOT’s Data Improvement Efforts Could Help 

Determine the Extent of Blocked Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 19

Agency Comments 31

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Transportation 35

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 36

GAO Contact 36

Staff Acknowledgments 36

Appendix IV: Accessible Data 37

Agency Comment Letter 37

Figures

Figure 1: The 30 Rail Port of Entry Communities and Average Daily 

Number of Inbound Trains, 2010–2014 6

Figure 2: A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing in Laredo, Texas 8

Figure 3: R-VACIS in Blaine, Washington, (left) and a train proceeding 

through R-VACIS in Laredo, Texas (right) 10

Figure 4: The “Live Lift” System at Ranier, Minnesota 14

Figure 5: Examples of Factors That Can Affect the Time That HighwayRail Grade Crossings Are Blocked in U.S. Port of Entry 

Communities 20

Figure 6: At-Grade and Grade Separated Highway-Rail Crossings in 

Ranier, Minnesota 22

Figure 7: Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Blaine, Washington 24

Figure 8: Selected Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Laredo, Texas 25

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Abbreviations

AAR Association of American Railroads

BLET Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

CBP Customs and Border Protection

DOT Department of Transportation

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

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

MPO metropolitan planning organization

POE port of entry

R-VACIS Rail Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 28, 2016

The Honorable Susan Collins

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

 and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart

Chairman

The Honorable David Price

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

 and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States House of Representatives

Approximately 34,000 trains—about 93 trains a day on average—crossed 

into the continental United States from Canada and Mexico through 30 

ports of entry (POE) in 2014, according to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).1 The 

vast majority of these trains carry freight such as chemicals, lumber, and 

manufactured goods.2 According to BTS, freight rail carried about 15 percent of 

the total value of all U.S. freight flows between the United States and Canada 

and Mexico in 2014. In that year, trucks carried the majority (about 60) 

percent of these freight flows, which amounted to $1.2 trillion worth of 

freight, in total.

 

1The BTS does not collect data on outbound trains. However, trains also leave the United States 

through these same POEs. This 30 excludes Warroad and Baudette, Minnesota, which are in transit 

POEs, meaning that trains pass through but do not stop for inspection in the U.S. This also 

excludes Skagway, Alaska, because it is outside the continental U.S. 

2

Passenger trains pass into the U.S. through three northern POEs: Blaine, Washington; BuffaloNiagara Falls, New York; and Champlain-Rouses Pt., New York. Amtrak runs 2 inbound 

trains a day through Blaine and 1 inbound train per day at the two New York POEs. 

Letter
Although international freight rail plays an important role in U.S. economic 

and trade interests, the movement of rail through U.S. border 

communities where POEs are located can temporarily block highway-rail 

grade crossings and contribute to traffic congestion. We have previously 

reported that overall freight rail traffic has increased since 2009 and may 

exacerbate traffic congestion concerns in many communities nationwide.

Page 2 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

3

In addition, due to customs inspections and other processes at rail POEs, 

communities in these areas may face additional time that highway-rail grade 

crossings are blocked. In particular, as trains enter the United States, they 

are subject to inspections by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Trains entering from Mexico are 

also subject to equipment safety inspections required by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA). Similarly, freight trains leaving the United 

States may be subject to inspections by Canadian or Mexican customs 

agencies. In addition, crew changes may occur, when the train is handed 

off between foreign and U.S. crews. As a result, trains may travel at slow 

speeds through or temporarily stop in rail POE communities. When this 

occurs as trains travel through highway-rail grade crossings, vehicle 

traffic must wait for the train to clear, potentially resulting in queues of 

vehicles, wait times, and increased congestion.

The House Report accompanying the Departments of Transportation, and 

Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act of 2015 included a provision for us to review international rail border 

crossing times and the blockage of highway-rail grade crossings on the 

U.S. side.4 This report (1) describes the factors that affect the movement of 

freight rail through selected ports of entry and the actions taken by federal 

agencies and others to expedite freight rail in these locations, and (2) 

examines what is known about the impacts of freight rail operations on 

highway-rail grade crossings in U.S. port of entry communities.

To determine the factors that affect the movement of freight rail and the 

impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail grade crossings in U.S. 

border communities, we selected nine rail POE communities—Nogales, 

Arizona; El Paso, Eagle Pass, Brownsville, and Laredo, Texas; Blaine, 

Washington; Ranier, Minnesota; Port Huron, Michigan; and Rouses Point, 

 

3GAO, Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit from Added Focus on 

Community Congestion Impacts. GAO-14-740 (Washington, D.C., Sep. 19, 2014). 

4H. R. Rep. No. 113-464 accompanying Pub. L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130 (2015). 
New York. We selected communities that had at least one incoming train 

per day from 2010 through 2014 based on BTS border crossing data and 

excluded certain rail POEs, such as those outside of the continental 

United States or those with largely grade-separated infrastructure, 

meaning the rail line rarely intersects with vehicular traffic.

Page 3 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

5 Of these, we 

conducted visits to four rail POE communities—Brownsville and Laredo, Texas; 

Ranier, Minnesota; and Blaine, Washington—that were selected to include 

communities with heavy inbound train traffic and a mix of northern and 

southern border locations. At each site visit, we interviewed 

representatives from the city or county, the metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO, if applicable),6the state department of transportation, 

CBP, FRA regional office, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and 

Trainmen (BLET)—a union representing train operators. We also interviewed 

representatives from the five railroads that operate trains passing through 

each of the four rail POE communities we visited. For the remaining five 

of nine selected communities that we did not visit, we interviewed local 

officials by phone.7 Furthermore, we interviewed officials and reviewed 

documents from CBP, DOT, FRA, and Department of State and 

interviewed representatives of the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, the Border Trade Alliance, and the 

Association of American Railroads (AAR). To examine what is known 

about the impacts of international freight rail operations on highway-rail 

grade crossings, we reviewed relevant DOT documentation such as the 

reporting requirements for the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory 

and interviewed DOT officials on available data sources. To estimate the 

total time highway-rail grade crossings are blocked in eight of the nine

selected rail POE communities;8 we calculated the average time that freight 

trains would block key intersections in these communities based on the 

average speed of trains, length of trains, and frequency of trains that were 

reported by railroad representatives. We attempted to collect data from 

 

5BTS does not collect data on outbound trains.

6Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) are federally mandated entities responsible for 

carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning process in urbanized areas with a 

population of more than 50,000 people. (23 USC 134).

7We also interviewed officials from MPOs in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York, to 

understand the impacts of international freight rail in these communities.

8Brownsville was excluded because at the time of our visit in late June to early July 2015, the new 

international rail bridge was nearing completion, and as a result, the railroad was in the 

process of changing its travel pattern, making it difficult to characterize the impacts of 

freight rail on the community.
five railroads,

Page 4 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

9 but we received incomplete information in response and were 

able to analyze information from two of these railroads.10 Finally, we 

observed the CBP inspection process and the geography and relevant highwayrail crossings in each community we visited to gain additional insights related to 

international freight rail and the related POEs.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2015 to January 

2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Canada and Mexico are the United States’ first and third largest trading 

partners, respectively, and most freight between the United States and 

these countries is transported by truck and rail. Freight trains include bulk 

freight and intermodal freight. Bulk freight—such as grain, automobiles 

and component parts, coal, and chemicals—are transported in rail cars. 

For example, railroads deliver automotive parts made in the United States 

to assembly plants in Mexico by rail, and return finished automobiles from 

Mexico by rail. In addition, according to AAR representatives, bulk freight 

such as grain and lumber enters the United States along the northwestern 

border with Canada. Further, “intermodal” freight consists of containers 

carried by rail and transferred to or from other transportation modes, such 

as ships or trucks. For example, intermodal freight containers arrive at 

Prince Rupert in western Canada from Asia by ship and are transferred to 

rail and exported to the United States, entering through Ranier, 

Minnesota. Intermodal freight generally consists of consumer goods such 

as furniture and computers and, according to FRA, has been the fastest 

growing segment of the freight rail industry in the United States since 

1980.

 

9These railroads were: Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad 

Company, BNSF Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company, and Canadian 

Pacific Railway. 

10We received information from three railroads, but information from one of these railroads was 

incomplete. 

Background
Inbound international rail traffic has grown over the past 5 years, but the 

increase is not uniform across U.S. POEs and is projected to increase 

further in certain POEs. According to BTS data, the number of inbound 

trains increased 6 percent on the northern border and 29 percent along 

the southern border from 2010 through 2014.

Page 5 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

11 All international rail traffic 

enters and exits the continental United States through 30 different rail POEs—23 

along the Canadian border and 7 along the Mexican border.12,13 The top 8 rail 

POEs on the northern and southern borders carried 68 percent of inbound rail 

traffic while 14 rail POEs—mainly along the northern border—received 

less than one inbound train a day on average over the past five years 

according to BTS data (see fig. 1). Ranier, Minnesota, and Laredo, 

Texas, have the highest number of inbound trains on the northern and 

southern borders with an average of 10 and 9 trains per day from 2010 

through 2014, or an average of 3,675 and 3,466 inbound trains per year, 

respectively. Some stakeholders predict growth in international rail traffic 

in certain POEs. For example, representatives from one railroad noted 

that intermodal traffic through Ranier, Minnesota, will continue to grow 

since the port at Prince Rupert in Canada has announced an expansion 

of its capacity. In addition, carmakers announced that they have added 

 

11BTS does not collect data on outbound trains. However, railroad representatives in the four 

POEs we visited noted that the same number of trains travel inbound as outbound in 

those locations on a typical day. 

12This 30 excludes Warroad and Baudette, Minnesota, which are in transit POEs, meaning that 

trains pass through but do not stop in the U.S., and thus are not subject to full CBP 

inspections. This number also excludes Skagway, Alaska, because it is outside the 

continental U.S. In some cases, the official POE name differs from the name of the U.S. 

community with the international rail line. For the remainder of this report we will refer to 

the name of the rail POE communities rather than the POE name. As a result, we refer to 

the International Falls POE as Ranier, Minnesota; the Pembina, North Dakota POE as 

Noyes, Minnesota; the Buffalo-Niagara Falls POE as Buffalo, New York; the ChamplainRouses Pt. POE as Rouses Pt., New York; and the Trout River/Fort 

Covington/Chateaugay POE as Fort Covington, New York.

13According to BTS data, there were 88 POEs where at least one truck per day entered the 

continental United States in 2014. 
additional plants and increased capacity in Mexico, which is likely to result 

in additional automotive traffic by rail over the southern border.

Page 6 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

14

Figure 1: The 30 Rail Port of Entry Communities and Average Daily Number of Inbound Trains, 2010–2014

 

14Audi of America, Inc., Audi on track for growth in Mexico, (Ingolstadt, Germany: Jan. 22, 2014); 

The BMW Group, BMW group to build plant in Mexico, (Munich, Germany and Mexico 

City, Mexico: Mar. 7, 2014); General Motors Co., GM to Invest $5 billion in Mexico from 

2013-2018, (Federal District, Mexico: GM News, Dec. 11, 2014); Honda, Honda Increases 

North American Manufacturing Footprint with Production Start of Fuel-Efficient, 

Subcompact Vehicles at New Auto Plant in Mexico, (Celaya, Mexico: Feb. 21, 2014).
Train movements can result in blocked highway-rail grade crossings, 

where vehicular traffic must wait to cross the tracks when trains are 

slowed or stopped (see fig. 2). The amount of time that highway-rail grade 

crossings are blocked depends on a number of factors, and is typically a 

function of the number, speed, and length of trains. Blocked highway-rail 

grade crossings can contribute to community vehicular congestion, and 

communities face challenges prioritizing and funding projects to alleviate 

these impacts. Negative community effects resulting from blocked 

highway-rail grade crossings include delays to motorists, blocked 

emergency vehicles, and quality of life impacts.

Page 7 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

15 State and local 

departments of transportation, which have primary responsibility for building, 

maintaining, and operating roads, can plan and fund projects to alleviate 

freight-related traffic congestion. In addition, some MPOs assist state and 

local governments in planning and prioritizing such projects, including 

grade separation projects such as overpasses and underpasses to allow 

vehicular traffic to bypass freight rail movements. The freight rail system 

operates almost exclusively on infrastructure that is owned, built, 

maintained, and funded by private railroads, particularly the seven largest 

freight railroads.16 Generally, train movements within the United States are 

dispatched, or controlled, by railroad personnel located in the United States.17

 

15GAO-14-740.

16These railroads are referred to as Class I railroads. Freight railroads are classified based on 

operating revenues. Class I railroads have annual operating revenues of $467 million or 

more. As of 2013, AAR reported that the seven Class I railroads are BNSF Railway

Company, CSX Transportation, Grand Trunk Corporation, Kansas City Southern Railway

Company, Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and 

Union Pacific Railroad Company. 

17See 49 C.F.R. § 241.9—Prohibition against extraterritorial dispatching; exceptions.
Figure 2: A Highway-Rail Grade Crossing in Laredo, Texas

Page 8 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

While DOT has a role in directing federal transportation policy, including 

freight rail, FRA issues regulations as part of its role to oversee the safety 

and reliability of the national freight network. In 2012, the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) transportation 

reauthorization established a framework for a national freight policy and, 

among other things, directed DOT to develop a national freight strategic 

plan.18 The plan was to be developed in consultation with state departments of 

transportation and other transportation stakeholders and was to include best 

practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movements on communities. 

MAP-21 also required DOT to encourage states to develop freight plans 

with a description of procedures to guide states’ investment decisions 

involving freight transportation. FRA issues regulations that set 

requirements for train crews and equipment operating in the United 

States. Additionally, FRA manages a National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory that provides a uniform national database of the nation’s 

highway-rail grade crossings, which can be used for planning and 

implementation of crossing safety improvements. According to the FRA, 

train lengths in general have been increasing in recent years and agency 

 

18Pub. L. No. 112-141, §1115, 126 Stat. 405, 468. 23 U.S.C. § 167(f). 
regulations do not place restrictions on the amount of time trains can 

block highway-rail grade crossings or on train lengths. Representatives 

from two railroads noted that current maximum train lengths are generally 

10,000 feet—or about 2 miles. These representatives noted that these 

maximum train lengths are largely determined based on the capacity of 

the current rail system infrastructure.

As part of its mission to safeguard U.S. borders while enabling legitimate 

trade and travel, CBP has personnel, including CBP Agricultural 

Specialists, located at rail POEs that scan inbound trains for security 

threats. CBP procedures generally include the following, which CBP 

officials said may vary slightly by POE:

· Advanced targeting: About 2 hours before the train arrives at the 

border, CBP electronically obtains the train’s manifest, which provides 

information on the train’s contents, from the railroad. Using CBP’s 

Automated Targeting System, CBP officials identify rail cars deemed 

high-risk for additional inspection.

Page 9 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

19 For example, as part of efforts to 

identify high-risk shipments, CBP Agricultural Specialists check the 

manifest against U.S. quarantine regulations.

· Rail Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (R-VACIS): Inbound trains 

slow to pass through R-VACIS, a machine that produces an image of 

the inside of railcars using gamma radiation technology (see fig. 3). 

CBP officers review the scanned images for anomalies that may 

indicate the presence of un-manifested goods and contraband, 

including threats that could pose a risk to national security.

 

19CBP’s Automated Targeting System is an Intranet-based enforcement and decision support 

system that compares traveler, cargo, and conveyance information against intelligence and other 

enforcement data.
Figure 3: R-VACIS in Blaine, Washington, (left) and a train proceeding through R-VACIS in Laredo, Texas (right)

Page 10 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

· Secondary physical inspections: Depending on the outcome of the 

advanced targeting and R-VACIS scan, CBP conducts secondary 

physical inspections of rail cars.

Both DOT and CBP participate in working groups consisting of 

representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico that seek to 

improve processes related to the safety and fluidity of international trade, 

including freight rail. Coordination between the United States and Mexico 

and Canada is generally framed by larger government-to-government 

partnerships. The U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border Initiative addresses 

cross border policies and the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation 

Council coordinates the joint development of regulatory standards 

between the United States and Canada, and the High Level Economic 

Dialogue between Mexican and U.S. officials is designed, in part, to 

secure trade flows and cross-border cooperation between the two 

countries. In addition, the Transportation Border Working Group between 
the United States and Canada and the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working 

Committee on Transportation Planning focus on transportation issues. 

For example, the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on 

Transportation Planning led efforts to create border master plans to 

prioritize transportation needs along the southern border, including at rail 

POEs. To develop these border master plans, local, regional, state, and 

federal stakeholders on both sides of the border coordinated to prioritize 

transportation projects.

Page 11 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

In all four communities we visited, stakeholders such as railroads, local 

officials, and BLET representatives identified R-VACIS inspection 

procedures, which affect inbound trains, as a key source of reduced train 

speeds. CBP has directed that inbound trains pull through the R-VACIS at 

a predetermined rate of speed set by CBP in order to obtain and review 

quality scans.20 The impacts of R-VACIS inspections on train movements and 

highway-rail grade crossings can vary by the location of the R-VACIS. 

According to CBP officials, the machine is typically located right at the 

international border, with the exception of three locations on the northern 

border. The R-VACIS in Blaine is located approximately 3 miles inland 

from the Canadian border.21 According to a railroad representative in Blaine, 

the average maximum length of trains at this POE is 6,500 feet. Based on our 

 

20According to a 2004 CBP report, R-VACIS can scan moving freight train rail cars with a speed 

up to 5 miles per hour.

21CBP officials say the inland location of R-VACIS in Blaine is due to building restrictions on 

protected land near the border. 

Inspections and Crew 

Changes Affect Rail 

Movements in 

Selected POE 

Communities, and 

Some Actions Have 

Been Taken to 

Expedite Trains

Customs Inspections 

Affect Train Movements on 

Both Borders and CBP 

Has Modified Procedures 

in Certain Locations
calculations, it would take a train of this length approximately 15 minutes 

to pass through the R-VACIS at 5 miles per hour and may affect one or 

two highway-rail grade crossings. In contrast, CBP officials stated that the 

R-VACIS machines at the Port Huron and Detroit, Michigan, POEs are 

located in Canada. Trains pass through the R-VACIS in these locations at 

a predetermined speed and, once scanned, can proceed to enter the 

United States at a higher speed. CBP officials noted that these 

placements, which resulted from a Declaration of Principles for the 

improved security of rail shipments from Canada to the United States, 

were necessary because the tunnel infrastructure at these POEs requires 

that trains exit at high speeds. CBP officials also noted that they do not 

have the authority to physically inspect cargo in Canada.

Page 12 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

22

In addition, when secondary physical inspections occur, they may require 

trains to slow and stop, and CBP officials stated that the location of the 

inspections varies by POE and threat level CBP designated to the 

shipment. CBP officials also said that higher-risk threats, such as 

shipments containing suspected unauthorized persons (known as 

stowaways) or weapons, are inspected immediately and that lower-risk 

threats, such as paperwork discrepancies, are inspected later further 

away from the border. For example, CBP officials stated that CBP does 

not use R-VACIS to intentionally scan for people; however, CBP officials 

in Laredo said that if CBP officers do detect a stowaway on the train, the 

individual must immediately be secured and removed and could result in 

the train being stopped for about 45 minutes, during which highway-rail 

grade crossings on the U.S. side may be blocked. CBP officials in Laredo 

stated that eight stowaways were inadvertently detected on these trains 

last year, mostly at night. Meanwhile, more routine secondary physical 

inspections may involve stopping the train, uncoupling cars, reversing, 

stopping, and going forward again in order to set aside a rail car for CBP. 

Depending on the rail infrastructure at the POE, this process may result in 

trains blocking highway-rail grade crossings.23 For example, in Blaine, a 

 

22According to CBP officials, if CBP officers want to physically inspect a train, they notify CBP 

officers in the United States to conduct the inspection upon its arrival. These officials also stated 

that in order to physically inspect cargo in Canada, CBP would require greater authority than 

that provided by the signing of a Declaration of Principles with Canadian Customs which 

requires legislative approval in both countries to go into effect.

23According to a CBP Laredo official, as of October 2015, routine physical inspections at this 

POE are being conducted at the railroad’s secondary exam station or warehouse. 

According to this official, only immediate threats result in stopped trains at the rail POE 

crossing.
BLET representative noted that putting a rail car aside for CBP, which generally 

occurs near the location of the R-VACIS, can take over an hour while blocking 

highway-rail grade crossings.

As previously mentioned, CBP’s primary mission is to maintain national 

security, and CBP officials report that they operate on risk-based 

assessments. However, CBP has taken steps to expedite customs 

inspections at some POEs. CBP officials note that at the POE level, CBP 

often works together with local communities to develop protocols to 

expedite rail and minimize the impact on vehicular traffic. In at least two 

POEs on the northern border, CBP has adjusted the R-VACIS procedures 

to expedite freight rail. In Blaine, CBP allows empty coal trains through at 

an increased speed predetermined by CBP during daylight hours unless 

information received indicates a security risk or there is an operational 

need, thereby reducing the estimated average blocked highway-rail grade 

crossing time. In Ranier, a CBP official noted that CBP held meetings to 

review operations and, as a result, increased the maximum allowable RVACIS speeds to a predetermined rate of speed set by CBP. One CBP 

official stated that CBP will not sacrifice security for expediency. In 

addition, at one POE, the railroad coordinated with CBP to expedite 

secondary inspections. Specifically, in Ranier, railroad officials said that 

the railroad invested approximately $10 million in equipment, staff, and 

infrastructure to build a “live lift” system to allow the removal of only the 

container of interest from intermodal trains for immediate inspection, 

instead of uncoupling the entire car which could hold several containers 

(see fig. 4). CBP officials and representatives from the railroad in Ranier 

stated that this investment reduced the overall secondary physical 

inspection process time and train delays, as well as the amount of time 

trains blocked a nearby highway-rail grade crossing.

Page 13 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 
Figure 4: The “Live Lift” System at Ranier, Minnesota

Page 14 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

CBP officials in Laredo and DOT officials stated that trains going into 

Mexico are also subject to customs inspections, including R-VACIS 

scans, conducted by Mexican customs officials, which can result in 

slowed and stopped outbound trains and blocked highway-rail grade 

crossings in the United States.24 AAR representatives stated that Mexico is 

becoming more aware of the need to streamline processes and increase 

efficiency, particularly now that automobile manufacturing is expanding in 

Mexico, and U.S. railroads have been working with Mexican officials and 

other stakeholders to improve processes. For example, AAR 

 

24CBP officials and railroad representatives at the two northern border POEs we visited 

stated that Canada does not use R-VACIS to scan inbound trains, and does not stop 

trains at the border for inspections. As a result, trains generally leave the United States at 

unimpeded speeds on the northern border. For example, a railroad representative in 

Blaine reported that outbound trains go through Blaine at a minimum of 45 miles per hour.
representatives said that they meet regularly with customs agencies in 

the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and that they support a Transborder Committee comprised of member railroads from all three countries 

to promote simplification and the development of electronic reporting 

systems to expedite freight rail traffic. At the POE level, CBP officials do 

not have authority over train movements once trains have crossed the 

border into Mexico or Canada.

Page 15 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

25

Trains entering the United States from Mexico must stop at the border for 

FRA-required brake inspections, and FRA has waived certain 

requirements to expedite this process.26 FRA regulation requires crews to 

perform full brake tests on trains at the origin location or at the interchange point, 

which is generally at the border as the trains enter the United States.27 An 

FRA region official stated that full brake tests were previously conducted with 

the whole train on the U.S. side, which could block highway-rail grade crossings 

for up to an hour. These brake tests include performing an air leakage test 

to ensure air brake pressure is maintained throughout the train, as well as 

a visual inspection of each car’s air brakes.28 Since the early 2000s, FRA has 

granted waivers to railroads to conduct abbreviated brake inspections at the 

border, provided the railroad submits a waiver request that meets certain 

criteria and is consistent with railroad safety. U.S. railroads on the 

southern border now have FRA brake inspection waivers in all but one 

POE, and FRA officials and railroad and BLET representatives said that 

such waivers to allow abbreviated brake tests have resulted in expedited 

train movements.29 The abbreviated brake tests allowed through the waiver can 

 

25We did not speak with Mexican or Canadian customs officials for this report. 

26Railroads must submit a waiver petition to FRA for consideration, and FRA will publish a 

notice seeking public comment and may conduct a field investigation or a public hearing if 

necessary. If FRA determines to grant a waiver, such waivers last for up to 5 years and

may be renewed upon request.

27On the northern border, according to DOT officials, FRA accepts brake inspections conducted in 

Canada due to greater harmonization of FRA regulations with Canadian regulations and strong 

similarities in safety requirements.

2849 C.F.R. § 232.205 Class I Brake test-initial terminal inspection states that each train 

and each car in the train will receive a Class I brake test by a qualified person, who has 

the required training, qualification, designation, and instruction to perform such functions. 

Throughout this report we refer to Class I brake tests as full brake tests.

29FRA has issued brake waivers for both of the southern POEs we visited—Laredo and 

Brownsville, Texas. 

Brake Inspections Affect 

Inbound Trains on the 

Southern Border, and FRA 

Has Waived Certain 

Requirements to Expedite 

Trains
take 20 to 25 minutes according to BLET representatives in Laredo. An 

abbreviated brake test requires a visual roll-by inspection and a set-andrelease test of the air brakes where the crew uses an end of train device 

to ensure air pressure is reaching the end of the train.

Page 16 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

30 As a condition of 

the waiver, crews are then required to conduct a full brake inspection at a 

U.S. rail yard away from the border.

Despite FRA’s efforts to expedite brake inspections along the southern 

border, inbound trains sometimes arrive from Mexico with missing or 

damaged equipment which can cause delays. According to BLET and 

railroad representatives in Laredo, trains from Mexico often arrive in the 

United States with missing “end-of-train devices” that are required for the 

abbreviated brake test, which can cause delays up to an hour as train 

crews locate a replacement device. In addition, railroad and BLET 

representatives in Laredo noted that it is common for other train 

equipment to be tampered with, a situation that requires the train to be 

stopped until repairs can be completed.

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 prohibits FRA from accepting

mechanical and brake inspections of rail cars performed in Mexico before 

entering the United States unless, among other criteria, FRA certifies that

the inspections are being performed under regulations and standards 

equivalent to those applicable in the United States.31 Moreover, according 

to DOT officials, FRA officials cannot verify brake inspections conducted in 

Mexico, in part, because the FRA officials face challenges coordinating with 

their counterparts due to security concerns.

32 As a result, brake inspections 

occur on the border between the United States and Mexico, typically on a bridge. 

According to DOT officials, greater harmonization between the pertinent U.S. 

 

3049 C.F.R. § 232.211 Class III Brake tests-trainline continuity inspection. Throughout this 

report we refer to Class III brake tests as abbreviated brake tests. An “end-of-train device”

is a portable electronic device placed at the end of freight trains to monitor air brake 

pressure. 

31Under Pub. L. No. 110-432 § 416, 122 Stat. 4890 (2008) as codified in 49 U.S.C. § 

20107. For brake tests to be accepted from Mexico, inspections must meet certain criteria 

that are certified by the Secretary of Transportation. 

32The Department of State places travel restrictions on U.S. government employees in Mexico. 

U.S. government employees are subject to movement restrictions and a curfew between 

the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas due to violent crime. 

This includes Matamoros and Nuevo Laredo, which are the cities adjacent to Brownsville 

and Laredo, respectively. 
and Mexican regulations could result in the United States’ accepting brake 

inspections conducted in Mexico. DOT officials noted that although they 

would like to discuss rail regulatory and safety issues with Mexico and 

considers rail-related issues on occasion, no rail regulation harmonization 

efforts are currently underway, in part because Mexico is currently 

restructuring its rail regulatory body in an effort to increase its rail 

investments and networks. Furthermore, the U.S.-Mexico working group’s

coordination efforts such as the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on 

Transportation Planning, have had limited initiatives focused specifically 

on freight rail issues, having instead focused on issues facing passenger 

vehicles and freight trucks. As we have previously mentioned, 60 percent 

of the freight that moves between the United States and Canada and 

Mexico is carried by truck.

DOT officials told us that inbound and outbound trains on the southern 

border are required to stop at the border to change crew due to lack of 

comparable rail safety regulations between the United States and 

Mexico.

Page 17 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

33 While a BLET representative stated that crew changes can take 3 to 

5 minutes, this can vary greatly depending on crew availability. For 

example, BLET and railroad representatives in Laredo noted that crews, 

who deliver trains to the rail yard and then are driven by a rail crew van to 

the border to pick up another train, can get delayed at the yard or on the 

way back to the border by traffic congestion. Such delays, according to a 

BLET representative in Laredo, can result in crew changes exceeding 2 

or 3 hours. FRA regulations establish minimum federal safety standards 

for the eligibility, training, testing, certification, and monitoring of all 

locomotive engineers and conductors.34 According to DOT officials, the lack 

of Mexican safety regulations for the qualification and certification of locomotive 

engineers and conductors that are comparable to FRA regulations 

 

33FRA stated that crew changes are not mandatory on the northern border as the safety and 

qualification regulations and labor unions in Canada more closely resemble those in the United 

States. Of the two locations on the northern border we visited, only crews in Ranier 

changed at the border, which railroad representatives noted was in part for logistical and 

transportation considerations. Ranier city officials noted that eliminating crew changes 

could increase speeds and reduce the amount of time Ranier’s one highway-rail grade 

crossing is blocked. However, railroad representatives noted that eliminating crew 

changes, which do not result in stopped trains blocking this highway-rail grade crossing, 

would have a minimal impact on speeds at this location.

3449 C.F.R. Parts 240 and 242 Qualification and certification of locomotive engineers and 

conductors.

Crew Changes Affect 

Inbound and Outbound 

Trains on the Southern 

Border due to Factors 

Such as Differing Safety 

Regulations
prohibits the United States from allowing Mexican crews to operate trains 

in the United States. In addition, as previously mentioned, while greater 

regulatory harmonization could result in Mexican crews being able to 

operate in the United States, DOT officials noted that Mexico is currently

focused on creating a rail transport regulatory agency. According to DOT, 

FRA will invite Mexico to attend the annual North American Rail Safety 

Working Group Meeting in 2016 in an effort to encourage further 

harmonization.

Two railroads have expressed interest in developing an international pool 

of crew to eliminate the need for crew changes on the southern border; 

however, DOT and CBP officials, and BLET representatives cited barriers 

to this initiative. Specifically, DOT officials stated that qualification and 

certification regulations, varying operating rules and hours of service for 

crews, and labor and union concerns would need to be addressed. 

Additionally, CBP officials in Laredo stated that they do not currently have 

the capability needed to facilitate processing an international crew.

Page 18 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

35

BLET representatives also noted concerns such as liability for damages and 

personal injury and security if U.S. crews were to operate in Mexico, since 

federal workplace laws are not applicable to U.S. citizens injured on the 

job while working abroad.36 BLET representatives also noted concerns with 

personal security of crew members while on board the train or when returning to 

the United States by vehicle after delivering the train to its destination in 

Mexico. These representatives also noted that exceeding the federal 

maximum allowable hours of service might become an issue given delays 

re-entering the United States at the vehicle border crossing.37

CBP and FRA have limited information on the effects of the above factors 

on rail movements. Although CBP has personnel located at the border, it 

does not have visibility into all factors affecting train movements. For 

example, trains are often operated at restricted speeds through POEs, 

meaning speeds are dictated by factors such as the train’s stopping 

distance and the train operator’s range of vision. According to BLET 

 

35CBP officials stated that crews from Mexico and Canada require proper admissibility 

documents to enter the United States.

36Federal Employers Liability Act c. 149, 35 Stat.65 (1908) codified as amended in 45 

U.S.C. § 51, New York Central Railroad Company v. Chisholm, Administrator, 268 U.S. 29 

(1925).

3749 U.S.C. §21103 set the hours of work and rest of train employees.
representatives in Ranier, speeds can be anywhere from 0.5 to 10 miles 

per hour through town due to the long stopping distances of heavy trains 

combined with limited visibility as a result of factors such as inclement 

weather or the track curvature, regardless of factors such as CBP 

inspections. Meanwhile FRA, which is primarily focused on the safety of 

trains operating within the United States, does not have staff located at 

POEs. Instead, FRA officials stated that they rely on voluntary reporting 

from railroads on any delays occurring and the reasons for these delays. 

FRA officials noted that it is difficult to obtain data from railroads on the 

cause and extent of train-related delays in POEs. CBP and FRA officials 

stated that they rely on communication with stakeholders to inform 

decisions such as modifying CBP procedures or brake test waiver 

requirements. As discussed later in this report, FRA has undertaken

efforts to improve the availability of data on freight rail movements, 

including those at POEs.

Page 19 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

The factors noted above—customs inspections, brake inspections, and 

crew changes—can slow or stop trains travelling through U.S. POEs and 

consequently block highway-rail grade crossings in those communities, 

but different POEs are affected differently. As noted in Figure 5, the effect 

of factors such as customs inspections can vary based on whether the 

community is located on the southern or northern border. For example, an 

outbound crew change can result in the train stopped in one or more 

highway-rail grade crossings on the southern border, but is less likely to 

occur on the northern border because of greater harmonization, among 

other factors, between U.S. and Canadian safety regulations. In addition, 

although U.S. customs inspections can block U.S. highway-rail grade 

International Freight 

Rail Impacts Vary by 

Community GAO 

Visited, and DOT’s

Data Improvement 

Efforts Could Help 

Determine the Extent 

of Blocked HighwayRail Grade Crossings

Impacts of International 

Freight Rail on 

Communities GAO Visited 

Vary Based on BorderSpecific Factors and 

Community 

Characteristics
crossings for inbound trains on both borders, foreign customs inspections 

primarily impact outbound trains on the southern border.

Figure 5: Examples of Factors That Can Affect the Time That Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Are Blocked in U.S. Port of Entry 

Page 20 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Communities 

The extent to which the above factors may result in a train blocking a 

highway-rail grade crossing and delaying vehicular traffic also vary due to 

community characteristics, such as the number and location of highway-
rail grade crossings and the availability of overpasses. For example, as 

noted below, in Ranier, railroad representatives estimated that one key 

highway-rail grade crossing is blocked for about 8 hours per day. In 

contrast, MPO officials in Buffalo and Detroit reported that international 

freight rail movements have minimal impact on traffic congestion in those 

cities because the rail lines are largely grade-separated, meaning the rail 

line rarely intersects with vehicular traffic.

Furthermore, we have previously found that although communities may 

have long-standing concerns with the negative effects of highway-rail 

grade crossings, they have varying levels of quantified information on 

impacts such as traffic delay times or costs.

Page 21 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

38 Similarly, POE communities 

we visited provided some estimates of the amount of time highway-rail grade 

crossings are blocked, but were unable to provide data on the actual 

extent of blockage. For example, local officials in Blaine note that hourlong traffic disruptions can result from blocked highway-rail grade 

crossings, with 30 minutes waiting for the train and another 30 minutes 

waiting for the vehicle traffic queue to clear. However, local officials 

reported they did not have information on how regularly such delays 

occurred due to a lack of data.

The following discussion of the rail POE communities we visited illustrates 

how their characteristics impacted highway-rail grade crossings.

· Ranier, Minnesota: Ranier is a community of 145 according to the 

2010 Census, and is located about 3 miles northeast from the larger 

community of International Falls, Minnesota. Within Rainer, there is 

one highway-rail grade crossing—Spruce Street (see fig. 6).

 

38GAO-14-740.
Figure 6: At-Grade and Grade Separated Highway-Rail Crossings in Ranier, 

Page 22 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Minnesota

Spruce Street is blocked about 8 hours per day by the 20–22 trains 

traveling through per day—about 11 in each direction—according to 

representatives from the railroad. These representatives arrived at 

this total by estimating that a southbound train takes about 25 minutes 

to pass the highway-rail grade crossing, and a northbound train takes 

about 15 minutes, which amounts to over 7 hours a day for 11 trains 

to pass in each direction. These representatives report that the train 

traffic is distributed across nighttime and daytime hours because of 

the railroad’s aim to move traffic over its network evenly, which results 

in about one train travelling through Spruce Street per hour, including 

through the night. Speeds are slowed for inbound trains through 

Spruce Street due to CBP’s R-VACIS, although, as mentioned 

previously, CBP has taken efforts to expedite R-VACIS and the 
railroad and CBP have worked together to implement the live lift 

system to expedite secondary inspections. According to local officials, 

the blockage of Spruce Street has had a debilitating effect on 

businesses located north of Spruce Street. These officials report that 

due to the proximity of the Spruce Street intersection to Rainy Lake, it 

is impossible to build an overpass at that location. However, an 

overpass located approximately a mile away helps vehicle traffic 

reroute to get around the train. According to an FRA region official, 

the situation in Ranier does not constitute a serious effect on vehicle 

traffic, particularly compared with POE communities on the southern 

border and given the presence of the overpass.

· Blaine, Washington: Blaine, which is 35 miles south of Vancouver, 

Canada, is bordered on the north by the U.S./Canada border. The 

community—population 4,684 according to the 2010 Census—

includes both Central Blaine to the east and West Blaine, where the 

Semiahmoo resort and marina are located. The rail line is located 

close to the waterfront through Central Blaine. Local officials report 

that two key highway-rail grade crossings are affected by freight rail 

movements— Hughes Avenue, a sole access point to a neighborhood 

of approximately 300 residents; and Bell Road, a key route connecting 

Central Blaine to West Blaine’s resort and marina (see fig. 7). 

Page 23 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 
Figure 7: Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Blaine, Washington

Page 24 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

According to railroad representatives, 12 freight trains pass per day—

6 in each direction—through Blaine, at both day and nighttime 

hours.39 Local officials attribute issues related to blocked highway-rail grade 

crossings in Blaine to the R-VACIS; however, as mentioned previously, 

CBP has adjusted its procedures to enable certain trains to go 

through R-VACIS faster. Local officials were unable to provide data on 

the amount of time Hughes Avenue and Bell Road are blocked, and 

noted that it is difficult to fund traffic studies that take train traffic into 

 

39In addition, according to the state DOT, 4 passenger trains pass through Blaine per day—2 

northbound and 2 southbound. This Amtrak route runs from Oregon to Vancouver, Canada. 

However, according to local officials, passenger trains travel through Blaine at higher 

speeds than freight trains and are less of an issue in terms of blocked highway-rail grade 

crossings.
account, in part because the railroad does not contribute funding. 

Within Blaine there are no overpasses to enable traffic to reroute 

around trains. Furthermore, local officials reported it is not feasible to 

construct overpasses over Hughes Avenue and Bell Road due to 

geographic limitations such as the location of homes and a creek.

· Laredo, Texas: The 2010 census reported that Laredo is a city of 

approximately 236,000, and every day about 22 trains travel through 

Laredo—11 inbound and 11 outbound, according to CBP officials. 

Information provided by one of the railroads indicates that this traffic is 

fairly evenly split between daytime and nighttime hours. According to 

a 2006 study prepared for the MPO and the city, Laredo has over 80 

highway-rail grade crossings which are split fairly evenly between two 

rail lines, which are operated by two different railroads and carry traffic 

in different directions through the city. A railroad representative noted 

that train traffic has recently been evenly split between these two rail 

lines. One of these rail lines bisects the downtown area, with 13 atgrade highway-rail crossings located at about every block (see fig. 8). 

Figure 8: Selected Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Laredo, Texas

Page 25 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 
According to an MPO official, the majority of complaints regarding 

blocked highway-rail grade crossings are along this downtown portion 

of the rail line. CBP officials in Laredo noted that a single stopped 

train can stretch from the border to near Interstate 35, a distance of 

approximately 2 miles, blocking all of the highway-rail grade crossings 

in between, including the 13 located downtown. These officials noted 

that this can affect traffic downtown, including lawyers who are cut off 

from the federal courthouse located on the other side of the rail line 

from their offices. In 2012, the Laredo region developed a Border 

Master Plan, which convened local, regional, and federal officials on 

both the U.S. and Mexico side of the border to prioritize border 

transportation projects. According to Texas state DOT officials, the 

Border Master Plan demonstrated the need for accurate data, 

including on current and future vehicular traffic levels, for analyzing 

costs and benefits and prioritizing projects. In addition, in 2015, a 

Laredo MPO-commissioned study gathered data on the number of 

trains passing through the community and speed from the Highway 

Rail Crossing Inventory, as well as vehicular traffic counts. However, 

since this study was primarily focused on actions to reduce train horn 

noise, it did not calculate the total amount of time highway-rail grade 

crossings are blocked.

Page 26 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

40

· Brownsville, Texas: A community of about 175,000 people according 

to the 2010 Census, Brownsville currently has about 4 to 8 trains pass 

through the community per day, according to a railroad 

representative. On August 25, 2015, the first new international rail 

crossing between the United States and Mexico in 105 years was 

inaugurated in Brownsville. The new rail bridge relocates rail traffic 

away from the downtown area to the outskirts of Brownsville, with only 

one highway-rail grade crossing, and eliminates 14 highway-rail grade 

crossings downtown. Although moving the rail line outside of town has 

been discussed in other southern rail POE communities such as El 

Paso and Laredo, only Brownsville has succeeded in moving the rail 

 

40Under the train horn rule, locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 

seconds in advance of all public highway-rail grade crossings. The rule also provides an 

opportunity for communities to mitigate the effects of train noise by establishing “quiet 

zones.” To do so, communities must first mitigate the increased risk caused by the 

absence of a horn, such as implementing lights and gates at highway-rail grade crossings. 

49 C.F.R. Part 222. 
POE out of the downtown area.

Page 27 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

41 A Cameron County official noted that 

project planning began in the 1990s, that much of the data used to prioritize 

the project was taken from a detailed feasibility study, and that other 

communities should now have an easier time proposing similar

projects given that states are more involved with freight rail planning. 

According to a county official, the U.S. portion of the project cost over 

$40 million and most of the funding came from federal sources, 

including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.42

According to a railroad representative, the railroad agreed to transfer a 

portion of its existing right of way land to the county in exchange for the 

new right of way and infrastructure constructed by the county. 

Therefore, the railroad’s contribution to the project was the value of 

the land exchange rather than directly contributing funding for the new 

construction. In addition, a county official noted that coordinating with 

officials from Mexico and CBP were key challenges. Specifically, this 

official noted that monitoring the progress of the project on the 

Mexican side and coordinating with CBP on its requirements for the 

new bridge, such as the relocation of R-VACIS, posed challenges. 

CBP officials in Brownsville noted that the project did not begin with 

good coordination, and cited the need for strong coordination as a 

“lesson learned.” CBP, FRA region, and Brownsville MPO officials 

noted that the long-term success of the new rail bridge will largely 

depend on development of the area.43 These officials stated that 

increased development may result in new highway-rail grade crossings, 

which could result in traffic issues over time. A railroad representative 

noted that rail traffic through Brownsville is expected to increase in the 

future.

The effect that freight rail may have on communities also varies based on 

the time of day that trains pass through the rail POE communities, as well 

 

41A new rail POE is currently being studied in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, to divert rail traffic 

away from downtown El Paso, Texas. In addition, Laredo, Texas, has proposed three 

different locations for a new rail bridge over the years, although according to a 

representative from one railroad that operates through Laredo, none of the these 

proposals is currently being actively pursued.

42Pub. L. No. 111-5 123 Stat. 115 (2009). According to the county official, the costs for the bridge 

on the Mexico side were $80 million, for a total project cost of over $120 million.

43According to the Brownsville MPO representative, the City of Brownsville is responsible 

for zoning changes. This representative recommends changing the zoning in the 

immediate vicinity of the new rail corridor, which currently allows for residential 

development. 
as efforts made by railroads to prevent trains from blocking certain 

highway-rail grade crossings. For example, as noted above, trains pass 

through Ranier, Minnesota, around the clock, at an average of one per 

hour according to railroad representatives. Therefore, about half of the 

trains run through at night, when vehicle traffic is less and traffic 

congestion not an issue. In addition, according to railroad representatives 

and MPO officials in El Paso, trains cross the border during night time 

and early morning hours due to a Juarez, Mexico, city ordinance that

restricts train movements to those times. In some situations, railroads 

have worked to avoid blocking certain highway-rail grade crossings. For 

example, in Laredo, a railroad representative noted that crews make best 

efforts to avoid blocking a trucking route and street with a school nearby 

during school hours. In addition, in Blaine, a CBP official reported that the 

railroad tries to limit the number of trains going through the community 

during the morning rush hour to avoid delaying school buses.

We have previously found that a lack of publicly available data on freight 

rail movements and estimates of their impacts on vehicular traffic in 

communities across the United States creates difficulties in defining the 

extent of the problem and prioritizing potential solutions.

Page 28 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

44 Specifically, we 

found that limitations in both national and state and local data on freight 

rail movements reduce the ability of state or local officials to quantify

freight rail community impacts nationwide and that these limitations create 

challenges to appropriately prioritizing efforts to address freight rail 

impacts against other types of funding priorities. At the national level, data 

on freight-related traffic congestion for local communities have limitations 

in terms of timeliness and completeness. At the local level, communities 

have limited data such as the number of trains and length of trains 

assigned by date, speed, and time. As we have previously found, 

communities often find it difficult to communicate with the railroad industry 

to obtain information on the number, timing, and speed of trains.

We requested data directly from the railroads in order to quantify the 

extent that freight rail movements blocked highway-rail grade crossings in 

a selection of rail POE communities. Specifically, we requested data on 

the number of trains, the length of trains, and the speed of trains from 

railroads that operate in these POEs. This information would allow us to 

 

44GAO-14-740. 

DOT’s Data Improvement 

Efforts May Help 

Determine Extent of 

Blocked Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings in Rail 

POE Communities
estimate train blockage time at highway-rail grade crossings in these 

communities. However, although we requested data directly from the five 

railroads that operate in eight selected rail POE communities,

Page 29 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

45 we 

received complete information from two of the railroads.46 Based on this data, we 

calculated the time selected highway-rail grade crossings are blocked and found 

highway-rail grade crossings in two communities—Ranier and one of the 

two rail lines in Laredo—to be blocked on average 16-19 minutes per 

train.47

Recent DOT efforts could help improve the availability of freight rail data 

needed to assess community impacts such as blocked highway-rail grade 

crossings for communities across the country, including POE 

communities. FRA maintains the National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory that includes information such as the estimated number of daily 

trains in communities and the typical range of speed of trains that pass 

through a highway- rail grade crossing. However until recently this 

information was voluntarily submitted by railroads and states and 

according to FRA officials was not always current. On January 6, 2015, 

FRA issued a final rule requiring railroads to update the inventory once 

every 3 years.48 FRA officials said that the rule should improve the quality of 

the data, but that these improvements will not be fully evident for several 

years. Improved information on the average number of daily trains could 

better equip state and local governments to identify community 

congestion impacts from freight rail—including blocked highway-rail grade 

crossings located in POE communities along the border. Furthermore, in 

 

45We selected these communities based on BTS data on the number of inbound trains. BTS does 

not collect data on number of outbound trains or train length or speed.

46We received information from three railroads but information from one of these railroads 

was incomplete. We did not receive information from two railroads. As one railroad 

representative noted, it is problematic for railroads to obtain information on train speeds as 

speeds are typically managed by maintaining average speeds between points along a 

route’s corridor. A representative from another railroad referred us to the national 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory for all data.

47This includes both inbound and outbound trains. While the data from these railroads allowed us 

to calculate examples of blockage times, they do not allow us to calculate the range of 

blockage times that might be experienced in communities with different rail patterns. In 

particular, if we had obtained data on trains with different lengths and different speeds, we 

may have identified a different range of blockage times. 

4849 C.F.R. Part 234, 80 Fed. Reg. 746 (Jan. 6, 2015). This final rule implemented section 204(a) 

of Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432, Division A, Title II (Oct. 16, 

2008) codified at 49 U.S.C. § 20160.
a November 2015 letter to congressional committees regarding a surface 

transportation bill, DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx noted that given the 

concerns regarding blocked crossings in many communities, FRA would 

benefit from authorization and funding to study blocked crossings to 

collect information as to the severity, frequency, and other characteristics 

of railroad operations that block highway-rail grade crossings. Secretary 

Foxx also noted that neither the House or Senate versions of the bill 

propose such authorization and funding. On December 4, 2015, President 

Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, 

which did not contain such provisions regarding blocked crossings.

Page 30 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

49

In addition, in September 2014, we issued a report on freight-related 

community impacts and recommended, among other things, that DOT 

incorporate additional information to help states define and prioritize local 

community impacts of national freight movements, including trafficcongestion impacts, and to establish what data could be consistently 

collected and analyzed in order to prioritize impacts of freight on local 

traffic congestion in its final guidance to states in the development of their 

state freight plans.50 We also recommended that DOT include a strategy for 

improving the availability of national data needed to quantify, assess, and 

establish measures of freight trends and impacts on local traffic congestion for 

inclusion in its National Freight Strategic Plan. DOT agreed with our 

recommendations. On October 18, 2015, DOT issued a draft National 

Freight Strategic Plan for public comment. The draft noted that DOT 

should work closely with state and local governments and international 

partners, as well as private stakeholders, to coordinate strategies and 

investments and noted that new freight traffic data sources and improved 

public-private cooperation on state freight plans will assist in this effort. 

The draft also noted that DOT should continue to engage in strong border 

infrastructure planning with border states through working groups with 

Canada and Mexico. We will continue to monitor the status of DOT’s 

response to our recommendations and DOT’s efforts related to the 

National Freight Strategic Plan. A DOT strategy on data to prioritize the 

impacts of freight related traffic congestion in the National Freight 

 

49However, the Act stated that FRA shall develop a model of a state-specific highway-rail grade 

crossing action and distribute the plan to each state not later than one year after enactment. The

plan shall include, among other things, methodologies for identifying and evaluating 

highway-rail grade crossing safety risks, including the risks posed by blocked highway-rail 

grade crossings due to idling trains. See Pub. L. No 114-94 § 11401 (2015). 

50GAO-14-740.
Strategic Plan, along with improvements to the National Highway-Rail 

Crossing Inventory, could help address data limitations at both the 

national and local levels and help communities—including POE 

communities—better define impacts from blocked highway-rail grade 

crossings and prioritize projects to mitigate such impacts.

We provided a draft of this report to DOT and CBP for review and 

comment. In a response (reproduced in app. II), DOT highlighted efforts 

to minimize community impacts of international freight rail movement. 

DOT and CBP provided technical comments, which we incorporated. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and the 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix III.

Susan A. Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Page 31 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

This report (1) describes factors that affect the movement of freight rail 

through selected ports of entry and the actions taken by federal agencies 

and others to expedite freight rail in these locations, and (2) examines 

what is known about the impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail 

grade crossings in U.S. port of entry communities.

To determine the factors that affect the movement of freight rail through 

selected ports of entry and the actions taken to expedite freight rail in 

these locations, we interviewed officials and reviewed documents from 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and 

Department of State. We also interviewed representatives from the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the 

Border Trade Alliance, the Association of American Railroads, and the 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)—a union 

which represents train operators that we identified from prior GAO work. 

We interviewed FRA officials and reviewed FRA documentation regarding 

crew changes and brake inspections, including applicable regulations and 

FRA waiver decisions regarding brake inspections. We also interviewed 

DOT, FRA, and CBP officials and reviewed documentation on

international working groups involving transportation issues on both the 

northern border (i.e., the U.S.- Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council 

and the Transportation Border Working Group) and the southern border 

(i.e., the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue and the U.S.-Mexico 

Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning). To determine what 

is known about the impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail grade 

crossings in U.S. POE communities, we also reviewed previous GAO 

reports and recommendations and interviewed DOT officials on available 

data sources and reviewed relevant documentation, such as the reporting 

requirements for the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.

To determine the factors that affect the movement of freight rail and the 

impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail grade crossings, we 

selected nine rail POE communities— Nogales, Arizona; El Paso, Eagle 

Pass, Brownsville, and Laredo, Texas; Blaine, Washington; Ranier, 

Minnesota; Port Huron, Michigan; and Rouses Point, New York. These 

communities were selected because they had at least one inbound train 

on average per day from 2010 through 2014, according to DOT’s Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) Border Crossing data. As part of this 

selection, we excluded 11 communities where the rail POEs were in 

transit (where trains pass through but are not subject to full CBP 

procedures), outside of the continental United States, did not cross 

incorporated communities, or have largely grade-separated infrastructure. 

Page 32 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

We conducted visits to four of these selected communities—Brownsville 

and Laredo, Texas; Ranier, Minnesota; and Blaine, Washington—that 

were selected based on factors such as those with heavy inbound train 

volume from 2010 through 2014 according to BTS data, complaints 

received by CBP about blocked crossings, and a mix of northern and 

southern border locations. We also selected locations where actions had 

been taken to mitigate congestion or expedite rail, such as Brownsville, 

Texas, for its construction of a new international rail bridge. At each of the 

four site visits, we interviewed representatives from the city or county, the 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (if applicable), the state department of 

transportation, the FRA regional office, and BLET. We also interviewed 

representatives from the 5 railroads that operate trains through each 

selected POE. In each site visit we also interviewed officials from CBP 

and observed their inspection process as well as the geography and 

relevant highway-rail crossings of the community. We calculated the 

average time that freight trains would block key highway-rail grade 

crossings in selected communities based on the average speed of trains, 

length of trains, and frequency of trains that were reported by railroad 

representatives. To do so, we developed a data collection instrument and 

attempted to collect information from five railroads

Page 33 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

1 on the number, length, 

and speed of trains passing over the three highway-rail grade crossings closest to 

the international border on a typical weekday in July 2015 in eight of the selected 

communities. 2 As we note in the report, although we requested information 

from five railroads, we received incomplete information in response and 

were able to analyze information from two of these railroads.3In order to 

better understand the impacts of international rail in these communities, we 

spoke to local officials from the city or MPO by phone in each of the five

selected communities that we did not visit (Nogales, Arizona; El Paso and 

Eagle Pass, Texas; Port Huron, Michigan; and Rouses Point, New York). 

We also interviewed officials from the MPOs in Detroit, Michigan and 

 

1These railroads were: Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 

BNSF Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company, and Canadian Pacific Railway.

2Brownsville was excluded because at the time of our visit in late June to early July 2015, 

the new international rail bridge was nearing completion, and as a result, the railroad was 

in the process of changing its travel pattern, making it difficult to characterize the impacts 

of freight rail on the community. 

3We received information from 3 railroads but information from one of these railroads was 

incomplete.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Buffalo, New York, to understand the impacts of international freight rail in 

these communities.

We developed maps to provide context regarding the level of international 

freight rail traffic and impacts on communities. Specifically, we used BTS 

data to calculate the average number of inbound trains per day from 2010 

through 2014 by POE and displayed this information on a map. To 

determine the reliability of BTS data, we reviewed related documentation 

and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. We determined these 

data were sufficiently reliable for our purpose of providing contextual 

information. We also developed maps including the location of at-grade 

and grade separated highway-rail crossings for three of the four 

communities we visited—Ranier, Minnesota; Laredo, Texas; and Blaine, 

Washington. We did not include a map of Brownsville, Texas, since its rail 

traffic patterns are currently changing due to the construction of a new 

international rail bridge. To develop these maps, we used data from the

National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, as well as maps and 

observations obtained from our in-person visits to these communities. By 

reviewing related documentation, interviewing knowledgeable DOT 

officials, and comparing the data to our site visits, we determined the data 

were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of developing maps.

Page 34 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 
Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation

Page 35 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

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

In addition to the individual named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant 

Director), Mark Braza, Delwen Jones, Rick Jorgenson, Emily Larson, 

John Mingus, Ian P. Moloney, Cheryl Peterson, Nada Raoof, and Malika 

Rice made key contributions to this report.

Page 36 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Page 37 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 

U.S. Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Assistant Secretary for Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

JAN 14 2016

Susan Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW

Washington, DC 20548

Ms. Fleming,

The U.S. Department of Transportation has invested significant resources 

toward improving international freight rail movement while minimizing 

impacts to communities. Actions to reduce local impacts are critical as 

freight movements, particularly freight rail, are projected to increase 

substantially over the next 30 years. Highlights of our efforts include the 

following:

· Releasing a draft National Freight Strategic Plan for public 

comment that noted the need for closer collaboration between 

State and local governments, international partners, and private 

stakeholders to improve freight movement while minimizing the 

Appendix IV: Accessible Data

(541128)

Agency Comment 

Letter

Text of Appendix II: 

Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Transportation

Page 1
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

impacts to local communities. The draft plan also identified 

existing data gaps that this increased collaboration could help to 

fill.

· Engaging in working groups with Canada and Mexico to 

coordinate transportation planning and investment.

· Enhancing our highway-rail grade crossing data. The Federal 

Railroad Administration issued a final rule in early 2015 requiring 

states and railroads to update the National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory at least once every three years.

· Requiring railroads to have an Emergency Notification System 

which allows the public to directly report potentially unsafe 

conditions immediately and directly to the railroads.

The Department is committed to building upon its efforts to improve the 

flow of freight movements while minimizing community impacts. We will 

continue to seek solutions to the most challenging issues in international 

freight rail movements, whether it is enhancing data on highway-rail grade 

crossings or ensuring that proper coordination occurs between States, 

local governments, private stakeholders, and our international partners.

We appreciate this opportunity to offer an additional perspective on the 

GAO draft report. Please contact Madeline M. Chulumovich, Director of 

Audit Relations and Program Improvement, at (202) 366-6512 with any 

questions or additional details about our comments.

Sincerely,

Jeff Marootian

Assistant Secretary for Administration

Page 38 GAO-16-274 U.S. Border Communities 
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.