1

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration
Introduction ................................................................................................1 

Large and Growing Demand for Freight Transportation............................ 3 

Demands on the Transportation System .................................................. 5 

Major Freight Corridors ............................................................................12 

Freight and Congestion ............................................................................15

Highway Congestion ..........................................................................16

Railroad Congestion.......................................................................... 20

Waterway Congestion ...................................................................... 22 

Safety and Environmental Concerns ...................................................... 23 

The Economic Costs of Freight Transportation ...................................... 25 

The Freight Challenge.............................................................................. 27 

Responses to the Freight Challenge........................................................ 29

Government Responses at the National Level.................................. 29

Responses at the State Level .......................................................... 34

Responses at the Local Level .......................................................... 35

Private Sector and Public-Private Responses .................................. 35 

Conclusion .............................................................................................. 37 

Table of Contents

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to

serve government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews

quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Quality Assurance Statement 
1

The Freight Story 2008

The U.S. economy depends on freight transportation

to link businesses with suppliers and markets

throughout the nation and the world. American

farms and mines reach out to customers across and

beyond the continent, using inexpensive transportation to compete against farms and mines in other

countries. Domestic manufacturers increasingly use

distant sources of raw materials and other inputs to

produce goods for local and distant customers, all of

which require efficient and reliable transportation to

maintain a competitive advantage in a global marketplace. Wholesalers and retailers depend on fast and

reliable transportation to obtain inexpensive or specialized goods through extensive supply chains. In

the expanding world of e-commerce, households

increasingly rely on freight transportation to deliver

purchases directly to their door. Even service

providers, public utilities, construction companies,

and government agencies depend on freight transportation to get needed equipment and supplies from

sources scattered throughout the world.

The U.S. economy requires effective freight transportation to operate at minimal cost and respond

quickly to demand for goods. As the economy

grows, the demand for goods and related freight

transportation activity will increase. Current volumes

of freight are straining the capacity of the transportation system to deliver goods quickly, reliably, and

cheaply. Anticipated long-term growth of freight

could overwhelm the system’s ability to meet the

needs of the American economy unless public agencies and private industry work together to improve system performance.

This report provides an overview of freight movement

on the U.S. transportation system today and in the

future. It discusses where the largest freight flows are

concentrated and the pressures that existing and anticipated freight volumes place on the system. Special

attention is given to freight congestion and its effects

on highways, railroads, and waterways. The economic costs to shippers, carriers, and the overall economy

also are examined. In addition, the report describes

government and private sector efforts to improve

freight transportation and mitigate the safety and

environmental effects of growing volumes of freight.

Finally, the report outlines a policy framework to help

further discussion on ways to improve the freight 

system.

The Freight Story 2008
2

Notes on Statistics

The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF), version 2.2, is the source of all statistics in this

report unless otherwise noted. FAF covers all freight flows to, from, and within the

United States except shipments between foreign countries that are transported through

the United States. Shipments to and from Puerto Rico are counted with Latin America.

For more information, see www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf.

FAF covers all modes of transportation. The truck, rail, and water categories include

shipments transported by only one mode. Air includes shipments weighing more than

100 pounds moved by air or by air and truck. Intermodal includes all other shipments

transported by more than one mode, such as bulk products moved by water and pipeline

and mixed cargo hauled by truck and rail. Intermodal also includes courier and postal

shipments weighing less than 100 pounds transported by any mode. Pipeline includes a

small quantity of shipments moved by unknown modes.

The total value of commodities in FAF is greater than the U.S. Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) because many products counted once for GDP may move multiple times during

the year. For example, grain may move initially from farm to grain elevator, then from

grain elevator to processing plant, and finally as cereal or bread from processing plant to

market. These movements are counted three times in freight statistics but only once in

GDP as food purchased by households.

The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, publishes FAF

and other statistics in the annual Freight Facts and Figures publication. The 2007 edition

is available at

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures.

Many statistics are based on the Economic Census, which is conducted once every five

years. The 2002 Economic Census is the most recently published data.
3

According to the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF),

the U.S. transportation system moved an average of

53 million tons of freight worth $36 billion per day in

2002 to serve 109 million households, 24.8 million

business establishments, and almost 88,000 units of

government (USDOC Census Bureau 2006). More

than one-half of the tonnage moved within local

areas, and less than 10 percent was an import from or

export to another country. Trucks hauled close to 60

percent of the weight and two-thirds of the value of

shipments (Figure 1). Goods transported by more

than one mode accounted for only 1 percent of

domestic tons, but represented 60 percent of the

weight of exports and almost 70 percent of imports.

FAF provisional estimates1 for 2007 show an increase

in tons moved by truck, rail, pipeline, intermodal, and

air modes, with a slight decrease in tonnage moved

by water. While the volume of freight moved by air

and intermodal modes grew at faster rates between

2002 and 2007, the truck mode experienced an

increase of more than ten percent in the same five

years and carried more total tonnage than all other

modes combined. These provisional estimates are

consistent with annual growth rates in the FAF forecast for 2035. 

The volume of freight increases as the economy

expands and, in some cases, at a much greater rate.

The Freight Story 2008

Large and Growing Demand for Freight Transportation

1

Provisional estimates are less detailed and based on less complete observations than the FAF base year estimate for 2002.

Tons Value

Figure 1. Goods Movement by Mode: 2002

Notes: Intermodal includes U.S. Post Service and courier shipments and all intermodal combinations, except air and truck. Intermodal also includes

oceangoing exports and imports that move between ports and interior domestic locations by modes other than water. Pipeline and unknown shipments are combined because data on region-to-region flows by pipeline are statistically uncertain. Data do not include imports and exports that 

pass through the United States from a foreign origin to a foreign destination by any mode. Numbers may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Analysis

Framework, version 2.2, 2007.
4

Between 1999 and 2004, container traffic increased 44

percent while U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in

constant dollars increased 13 percent (USDOT MARAD

2004 and EOP 2008). Over the next three decades,

U.S. GDP is expected to grow by almost 3 percent

annually, driven in part by a population increase from

300 million people in 2008 to almost 380 million in

2035 (NSTP-RSC 2007 and USDOC Census Bureau

2004a). As a result, domestic tons are forecast to

increase 2 percent each year, almost doubling between

now and 2035 (Table 1). International trade is expected

to increase even faster, which is consistent with its substantial growth rate over the last four decades (Figure 2).

In addition to moving larger volumes of freight, the

transportation system is moving goods over greater

distances. During the past decade, domestic tons

transported increased by slightly more than 20 percent

while ton miles rose by almost 30 percent (USDOT

BTS 2006). This increase in the weighted average distance of shipments may be caused by the growth in

East Coast demand for Asian products that are

reshipped through the West Coast, the increase in

agricultural exports, and the shift by Midwestern power

plants from local sources to Powder River Basin coal.

The Freight Story 2008

Table 1. Goods Movement: 2002 and 2035

Figure 2. Value of Merchandise Trade by Coasts and Borders: 1951 to 2007

Mode

2002 

(million tons) Percent

2035 

(million tons) Percent

Percent Change 

2002-2035

Total 19,328 100 0. 37,211 100 0. 92.5

Domestic 17,670 91 4. 33,667 90 5. 90.5

Imports plus exports 1,658 8 6. 3,544 9 5. 113.7

Note: Data do not include imports and exports that pass through the United States from a foreign origin to a foreign destination by

any mode.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, 

Freight Analysis Framework, version 2.2, 2007.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Freight Facts and Figures 2008 (Washington, DC:

Forthcoming), figure 2-1.
Freight moves throughout the United States on

985,000 miles of Federal-aid highways, 141,000 miles

of railroads, 11,000 miles of inland waterways, and

1.6 million miles of pipelines (USDOT FHWA 2007a

and USDOT FHWA 2007b). Figure 3 shows where

flows are concentrated on highway, rail, and inland

waterway networks.

Most of the nation’s freight transportation network

was developed before 1960 to provide national connectivity, move goods from farm to market and from

fort to port, and serve industrial and population centers concentrated in the Northeast and the Midwest.

The growth of population and manufacturing in the

South and along the West Coast, the restructuring of

The Freight Story 2008

5

Demands on the Transportation System

Figure 3. Tonnage on Highways, Railroads, and Inland Waterways: 2002

Sources: Highways: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, 

Freight Analysis Framework, version 2.2, 2007. 

Rail: Based on Surface Transportation Board, Annual Carload Waybill Sample and rail freight flow assignments done by Oak Ridge National

Laboratory. Inland Waterways: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Annual Vessel Operating Activity and Lock Performance Monitoring

System data, as processed for USACE by the Tennessee Valley Authority; and USACE, Institute for Water Resources, Waterborne Foreign Trade

Data. Water flow asssignments done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
6

the economy from heavy industries to services, and

the explosion of international trade are placing new

demands on the freight system. Accordingly, ports,

airports, and border crossings handle huge volumes of

traffic. Railroads and steamship companies accommodate an enormous number of containers that would

have been a technological novelty five decades ago.

Trucks serve new inland distribution centers beyond

the urban fringe, and air carriers deliver parcels anywhere in the country overnight. The freight system

must serve an economy that is increasingly decentralized and organized around just-in-time delivery.

Pressures from existing and anticipated volumes of

freight on the transportation system vary by the type

of freight moved. The transportation of high-value,

time-sensitive goods requires different routes, facilities, and services than does the movement of lowvalue bulk commodities (Table 2). Transportation

facilities and services that handle bulk products tend

to be specialized and seldom overlap with facilities

and services for high-value, time-sensitive products.

As shown in Figure 4, maritime facilities that serve

bulk shipments are concentrated at Gulf Coast and

Middle Atlantic ports while facilities that handle

high-value, time-sensitive shipments are located at

The Freight Story 2008

Table 2. The Spectrum of Freight Moved in 2002

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations,

Freight Analysis Framework, version 2.2, 2007.

High Value 

Time Sensitive Bulk

Top 5 Commodity Classes Machinery Natural Gas

Electronics Gravel

Mixed freight Cereal grains

Motorized vehicles Crude petroleum

Textiles and leather Coal

Share of Total Tons 30% 70%

Share of Total Value 85% 15%

Key Performance Variables Reliability Reliability

Speed Cost

Flexibility

Share of Tons by Domestic Mode 88% Truck 51% Truck

7% Rail 12% Rail

5% All Other 32% Pipeline

5% Water

<1% Air and Intermodal

Share of Value by Domestic Mode 83% Truck 36% Truck

10% Intermodal 5% Rail

3% Rail 53% Pipeline

4% All Other 4% Water

2% Air and Intermodal
7

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 4. Top Water Ports by Tonnage: 2006

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006 Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 5, National Summaries (New Orleans, LA: 2007), 

table 5-2.
8

ports and airports in major cities and at several border

crossings (Figure 5). The few ports that handle both

high-value, containerized goods and bulk products

use separate docks because different handling equipment is required.

During most of the twentieth century, the growth in

bulk shipments stressed the transportation system.

Examples include railcar shortages during grain harvests and port capacity limitations during the coal

export boom. While many past stresses were relieved

by the deregulation of transportation carriers and

changes in the economy, continued growth of bulk

movement and new economic conditions may be creating new stresses.

The twenty-first century economy emphasizes highvalue, time-sensitive goods in the mix. The value of

goods moved is forecast to grow in constant dollars

by over 190 percent between 2002 and 2035, which

is nearly twice the growth rate forecast for tonnage.

As the value of goods transported grows, the cost of

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 5. Top 25 Foreign-Trade Gateways by Value: 2006

Notes: Data for all air gateways include a low level of small user-free airports located in the same region. Data for courier operations are included in

the airport totals for JFK International Airport, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Anchorage. The New Orleans/Memphis Airports

include all of Louis Armstrong International air cargo and the Federal Express portion of Memphis, which are not separated in the reporting system.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National

Transportation Statistics 2007 (Washington, DC: 2007).
9

The Freight Story 2008

holding inventory in warehouses or in transit also

increases. Many industries have shifted to just-in-time

delivery systems to minimize inventory costs and

maximize responsiveness to rapidly changing markets,

and just-in-time systems depend on fast and reliable

transportation. According to one estimate, companies

judged to be best in class for supply chain management have 40 percent higher profitability and 25 

percent higher sales growth than those considered

median class (Hermans 2006).

Just-in-time delivery systems contribute to an increase

in transportation activity per ton mile and thus capacity requirements per ton. For many products, just-intime logistical systems require more vehicles hauling

smaller payloads to meet market demands. Consider

pizza delivery: the marketplace will not wait for the

accumulation of enough orders to fill a large vehicle

before pizzas are dispatched to consumers (Pisarski

2001). This shift to more vehicles carrying less per

vehicle has contributed to the 71 percent growth in

the number of trucks used in for-hire transportation

and the 115 percent increase in their vehicle miles of

travel over the last 20 years of the twentieth century

(USDOC Census Bureau 1995 and 2004b).

Anticipated growth in demand for high-value, timesensitive goods is driving the forecast growth of

trucking, both for truck-only service and for truck

portions of intermodal service. As a consequence,

trucks are becoming a significant portion of traffic on

an increasing number of highways. 

Additionally, typical freight-hauling vehicles are more

than twice as long as passenger vehicles. They take

up even more space when differences in operating

characteristics and motorists’ reactions to trucks are

taken into account. Because of these factors, trucks

have become a dominant part of the traffic stream

when they are every fourth vehicle on the road.

Trucks accounted for at least 25 percent of average

daily traffic on almost 31,000 miles of the National

Highway System (NHS) in 2002 and are expected to

account for that share of traffic on 37,000 miles in

2035 (Figures 6 and 7, see pages 10-11).

Most freight moving by truck uses the Interstate

System. Although all vehicle miles of travel are divided about equally among Interstate highways, the balance of the NHS, and other public roads, the

Interstate System carries one-half of truck travel and

three-fourths of travel by freight-hauling trucks serving places at least 50 miles apart (Table 3).

Table 3. Share of Vehicle Miles of Travel by Highway System

Interstate Highway 

(Percent) 

Balance of National 

Highway System 

(Percent)

Other 

Highways 

(Percent)

All vehicles 35 30 35

All trucks 49 26 25

Freight-hauling trucks serving places at 

least 50 miles apart 75 20 6

Note: Numbers do not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and

Operations, Freight Analysis Framework, version 2.2, 2007. 
10

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 6. Major Truck Routes on the National Highway System: 2002

Notes: AADTT is average annual daily truck traffic and includes all freight-hauling and other trucks with six or more tires. AADT is average annual

daily traffic and includes all motor vehicles.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Analysis

Framework, version 2.2, 2007.
11

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 7. Major Truck Routes on the National Highway System: 2035

Notes: AADTT is average annual daily truck traffic and includes all freight-hauling and other trucks with six or more tires. AADT is average annual

daily traffic and includes all motor vehicles. 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Analysis

Framework, version 2.2, 2007. 
Major Freight Corridors

12

The largest freight flows are concentrated on a relatively small number of corridors. Figure 8 highlights

segments of the freight transportation network that

carry more than 50 million tons per year, including:

• Highway segments that carry at least 8,500 trucks

per day, which is the number needed to move 50

million tons per year at 16 tons per truck.

• Additional highway segments and parallel rail lines

that together carry at least 8,500 truck, trailer-onflatcar, and container-on-flatcar payloads of typically high-value, time-sensitive cargo at 16 tons per

payload.

• Rail lines and waterways that carry 50 million tons

in bulk cargo per year.

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 8. Components of Major Freight Corridors

Notes: Highway & Rail is daily truck payload equivalents based on annual average daily truck traffic plus average daily intermodal service on parallel railroads. Average daily intermodal service is the annual tonnage moved by container-on-flatcar and trailer-on-flatcar service divided by 365 days

per year and 16 tons per average truck payload. 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, 2008. 
13

Figure 9 shows major freight corridors by connecting

gaps less than 440 miles (the distance a truck can

travel in 8 hours at 55 miles per hour) between highway segments displayed in Figure 8 and adding routes

that parallel bulk cargo rail lines and waterways. The

corridors in Figure 9 include approximately 26,000

miles of highways plus an additional 1,500 miles of

bulk cargo rail and waterway routes measured along

the nearest parallel highway. Interstate highways

account for over 95 percent of the total 27,500 miles.

The total mileage is about 60 percent of the length of

the Interstate System and less than 17 percent of the

National Network designated for conventional combination trucks. 

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 9. Major Freight Corridors

Notes: Highway & Rail is daily truck payload equivalents based on annual average daily truck traffic plus average daily intermodal service on parallel railroads. Average daily intermodal service is the annual tonnage moved by container-on-flatcar and trailer-on-flatcar service divided by 365 days

per year and 16 tons per average truck payload. 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, 2008. 
The National Network

The National Network was authorized by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (P.L.

97-424) and specified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 658) to require states to

allow conventional combinations on “the Interstate System and those portions of the Federal-aid

Primary System ... serving to link principal cities and densely developed portions of the States ...

[on] high volume route[s] utilized extensively by large vehicles for interstate commerce ... [which

do] not have any unusual characteristics causing current or anticipated safety problems.”

Conventional combinations are tractors with one semitrailer up to 48 feet in length or with one

28-foot semitrailer and one 28-foot trailer, and can be up to 102 inches wide.

The National Network differs in extent and purpose from the National Highway System (NHS),

which was created more than a decade later by the National Highway System Designation Act of

1995 (P.L. 104-59). Both are about the same length, roughly 200,000 miles, but the National

Network includes approximately 65,000 miles of highways beyond the NHS, and the NHS

includes about 50,000 miles of highways that are not on the National Network. The National

Network supports interstate commerce by regulating the size of trucks, while the NHS supports

interstate commerce by focusing federal investments.

The National Network has not changed significantly in a quarter century. It is modified only if segments are added to the Interstate highway system or if states petition to have a segment beyond

the Interstate highway system added or deleted. Petitions for modifications have not been

received in years, even though the geography of interstate commerce has changed significantly

with the growth of smaller communities into principal cities and the emergence of new, densely

developed areas. Consistency between the National Network and freight-related portions of the

more recent NHS is not required.

The definition of conventional combinations is also unchanged, even though 48-feet is no longer

the maximum length of a single trailer in the majority of states. Single 53-foot trailers are allowed

in 25 states without special permits and in an additional 3 states subject to limits on distance of

kingpin to rearmost axle.

14
Freight and Congestion

15

(FHWA) identified intersections in large cities, where

both personal vehicles and trucks clog the road, as

the largest highway freight bottlenecks (USDOT

FHWA 2005a).

As passenger cars and trucks compete for space on the

highway system, commuter trains and freight trains

compete for space on the railroad network in metropolitan areas. The growth in rail freight is occurring

at the same time rising fuel prices and environmental

concerns are encouraging greater use of transit.

Congestion also is caused by restrictions on freight

movement, such as the lack of space for trucks in

dense urban areas and limited delivery and pick-up

times at ports, terminals, and shipper loading docks.

One estimate of urban congestion attributes 947,000

hours of vehicle delay to delivery trucks parked at

curbside in dense urban areas where office buildings

and stores lack off-street loading facilities (ORNL

2004). Limitations on delivery times place significant

demands on highway rest areas when large numbers

of trucks park outside major metropolitan areas each

night waiting for their destination to open and accept

their shipments (USDOT FHWA 2002).

Bottlenecks cause recurring, predictable congestion in

selected locations while the temporary loss of capaciThe Freight Story 2008

Congestion affects economic productivity in several

ways. American businesses require more operators

and equipment to deliver goods when shipping takes

longer, more inventory when deliveries are unreliable,

and more distribution centers to reach markets quickly when traffic is slow. Likewise, both businesses and

households are affected by sluggish traffic on the

ground and in the air, reducing the number of workers and job sites within easy reach of any location.

The growth in freight is a major contributor to congestion in urban areas and on intercity routes, and

congestion affects the timeliness and reliability of

freight transportation. Long-distance freight movements are often a significant contributor to local 

congestion, and local congestion typically impedes

freight to the detriment of local and distant economic

activity.

Growing freight demand increases recurring congestion at freight bottlenecks, places where freight and

passenger service conflict with one another, and

where there is not enough room for local pickup and

delivery. Congested freight hubs include international gateways such as ports, airports, and border crossings, and major domestic terminals and transfer points

such as Chicago’s rail yards. Bottlenecks between

freight hubs are caused by converging traffic at highway intersections and railroad junctions, steep grades

on highways and rail lines, lane reductions on highways and single-track portions of railroads, and locks

and constrained channels on waterways. A preliminary study for the Federal Highway Administration
16

ty, or nonrecurring congestion, is widespread and less

predictable. Sources of nonrecurring delay include

incidents, weather, work zones, and other disruptions.

These nonrecurring, often-unpredictable, sources of

highway delay have been estimated to exceed delay

from recurring congestion (ORNL 2004). Weather,

maintenance activities, and incidents have similar

effects on aviation, railroads, pipelines, and waterways. Aviation is regularly disrupted by local weather

delays, and inland waterways are closed by regional

flooding and droughts.

Additionally, freight congestion is caused by other

factors that are considered either recurring if they are

systemic problems or non-recurring if they represent

an isolated event. Recurring and non-recurring

sources of freight congestion include equipment

shortages, short-term labor disruptions, and long-term

shortages in key occupations such as truck drivers,

inefficient operating practices at terminals and border

crossings, and traffic backups at toll booths.

Technology is reducing some of these sources, such

as through electronic toll collection.

Highway Congestion

Trucks must contend with congested urban areas for

most intercity trips. Recurring peak-period congestion slowed traffic on more than 10,600 miles of the

NHS and created stop-and-go conditions on an additional 6,700 miles in 2002. Interstate commerce is

most affected on congested segments that carry at

least 10,000 trucks per day, including 3,300 miles

with slowed traffic and an additional 3,000 miles with

stop-and-go conditions (Figure 11, see page 18).

Congestion is forecast to spread from larger urban

areas and a few intercity routes to large stretches of

intercity highways in both urban and rural areas.

Without operational improvements or additional

capacity between now and 2035, recurring peak-period congestion is forecast to slow traffic on 20,000

miles of the NHS and create stop-and-go conditions

on an additional 45,000 miles. Highway segments

with slow traffic and more than 10,000 trucks per day

are forecast to increase to more than 10,000 miles,

while stop-and-go traffic on segments with more than

10,000 trucks per day is expected to occur on an

additional 23,000 miles (Figure 12, see page 19).

Although freight congestion occurs throughout the

nation, some local bottlenecks account for a substantial share of the total disruption. The top 10 highway-interchange bottlenecks cause an average of 1.5

million annual truck hours of delay each, compared to

less than 250,000 annual hours of truck delay for

other truck bottlenecks (USDOT FHWA 2005a).

Until recently, estimates of highway delay have been

based on comparisons of traffic volumes to physical

highway capacity. To supplement these estimates

with direct measures, FHWA and the American

Transportation Research Institute are working together to calculate average truck speeds and travel time

reliability using automatic vehicle location and mapping technologies. Data are being collected for

approximately 32,000 miles of Interstate highways on

25 of the most heavily traveled routes (Figure 10) and

at major border crossings (USDOT FHWA 2006).

These data identify congested locations from all

sources of delay, including both recurring and nonrecurring congestion.

The Freight Story 2008
17

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 10. Average Truck Speeds on Selected Interstate Highways: 2007

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Performance

Measurement Program, 2008.
18

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 11. Peak-Period Congestion on High-Volume Portions of the National Highway System: 2002

Notes: High-volume truck portions of the National Highway System carry more than 10,000 trucks per day, including freight-hauling long-distance

trucks, freight-hauling local trucks, and other trucks with six or more tires. Highly congested segments are stop-and-go conditions with volume/service flow ratios greater than 0.95. Congested segments have reduced traffic speeds with volume/service flow ratios between 0.75 and 0.95.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Analysis

Framework, version 2.2, 2007.
19

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 12. Peak-Period Congestion on High-Volume Portions of the National Highway System: 2035

Notes: High-volume truck portions of the National Highway System carry more than 10,000 trucks per day, including freight-hauling long-distance

trucks, freight-hauling local trucks, and other trucks with six or more tires. Highly congested segments are stop-and-go conditions with volume/service flow ratios greater than 0.95. Congested segments have reduced traffic speeds with volume/service flow ratios between 0.75 and 0.95.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Analysis

Framework, version 2.2, 2007.
20

Railroad Congestion

Class 1 (large interregional) freight railroads are experiencing significant growth in demand after decades

of responding to a relatively stagnant market by

reducing trackage by about 50 percent between 1960

and 2000 (USDOT BTS 2002). Trailer-on-flatcar and

container-on-flatcar service, once a small market, is

now a major source of traffic and revenue, with high

speed intermodal trains vying for space on the network with slower trains carrying bulk commodities.

Seasonal surges in freight demand and disruptions

from incidents and maintenance activities add to congestion as volumes reach capacity on the reduced

mainline railroad network. Class 1 railroads are

responding with operational improvements and capital expenditures. In 2006, railroads invested $8.5 billion on renewal of existing roadway, structures, and

equipment, and on expansion to serve additional traffic (AAR 2007). The results are relative stability in

average speeds and terminal dwell times for each of

the major railroads in 2007 (Railroad Performance

Measures 2008).

Investment in Southern California’s Alameda Corridor

illustrates how improved freight flows through a local

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 13. Current Train Volumes Compared to Current Capacity

Note: Level of Service (LOS) A through F approximates the conditions described in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000.

Source: Association of American Railroads, National Rail Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

(Washington, DC: September 2007), figure 4.4, page 4-10.
21

bottleneck affect destinations well beyond the metropolitan area and the State. The project reduced congestion on rail connections between the Ports of Los

Angeles and Long Beach and the rest of the nation, as

well as congestion on streets in the Los Angeles area

that formerly crossed the railroad at grade.

Congestion on the mainline railroad network is forecast to spread significantly by 2035 (Figures 13 and

14). Using volume-to-capacity comparisons similar

to highway calculations, the Association of American

Railroads reports that rail lines experiencing unstable

flows and service break-down conditions will increase

from 108 miles today to almost 16,000 miles (30 percent of the network) in 2035 if current capacity is not

increased. Rail routes that have moderate to very limited capacity to accommodate maintenance without

serious service disruptions and to recover quickly

from incidents will increase from 6,413 miles today to

over 12,000 miles in 2035, affecting 25 percent of the

network (AAR 2007).

The picture for short-line and regional railroads is less

clear. Very few statistics are collected on this segment of the industry, which included 34 regional railroads and 529 local railroads in 2001 (ASLRRA 2002).

The Freight Story 2008

Figure 14. Train Volumes in 2035 Compared to Current Capacity

Note: Level of Service (LOS) A through F approximates the conditions described in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000.

Source: Association of American Railroads, National Rail Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

(Washington, DC: September 2007), figure 5.4, page 5-5.
22

Some of these railroads provide links between port

facilities and Class 1 railroads, while others serve

small communities and shippers in rural areas.

Waterway Congestion

Deep draft ports experience congestion as space for

increasing volumes of import and export cargo is limited by factors such as environmental and community

concerns. Congestion also occurs when vessels arrive

at the same time rather than spread through the

week. Most ports must look to operational improvements to increase capacity and reduce congestion,

such as reducing the amount of demurrage allowed

for containers at terminals, instituting chassis pools,

and moving to stack operations.

Even when ports can berth and unload a ship quickly,

the increasing size of container ships is moving congestion from ports to access roads and railroads. The

number of the world’s Post-Panamax vessels, container

ships that are too large to fit through the Panama

Canal, increased from 331 in 2001 to 561 in 2004,

with another 426 on order (USDOT MARAD 2005).

On inland waterways, lock operations and aging

infrastructure cause continuous bottlenecks. In 2007,

31 percent of the 510,000 commercial vessel passages

through federal and state locks experienced delay.

Average delay for tows was 1 hour 32 minutes, and

average processing time was about 30 minutes

(USACE 2008). Inland waterways are especially susceptible to weather, including problems caused by

flooding, droughts, and ice or other storm-related 

disruptions.

The Freight Story 2008
Safety and Environmental Concerns

23

Freight transportation is not just an issue of throughput and congestion. The growth in freight movement

has heightened public concerns about safety and the

environment. The freight community must respond

to these concerns or face continuing constraints on

freight movement across the country.

Highways and railroads account for nearly all fatalities and injuries involving freight transportation.

Most of these fatalities involve people who are not

part of the freight transportation industry, such as

trespassers at railroad facilities and occupants of other

vehicles killed in crashes involving large trucks.

Approximately 12 percent of all highway-related

fatalities involve large trucks. Despite a doubling in

truck miles traveled, the number of large trucks

involved in crashes has remained stable or declined

over the last two decades. 

Air quality is a key environmental issue facing the

freight transportation industry today. A recent study

for FHWA shows that freight transportation accounts

for approximately one-half of nitrogen oxides (NOx)

emissions from mobile sources and 27 percent of all

NOx emissions at the national level. Freight transportation accounts for 36 percent of PM-10 emissions

(particulate matter 10 microns in diameter) from

mobile sources, which is less than 1 percent of all

U.S. PM-10 emissions (USDOT FHWA 2005b).

Diesel fuel use in heavy trucks, ships, and locomotives is the main source of both NOx and PM-10

emissions from mobile sources. Initiatives to reduce

diesel emissions from trucks, ships, and trains are

underway. 

Disposal of dredge spoil is a major challenge for

maintaining or deepening channels to allow larger

ships to berth. Land use and water quality concerns

are raised against all types of freight facilities, and

invasive species can spread through freight movement.

Incidents involving hazardous materials exacerbate

public concern and cause real disruption. The railcar

fire in the Howard Street tunnel under Baltimore City

in 2001 illustrates the perceived and real problems of

transporting hazardous materials (USDOT JPO

2002). This incident occurred on tracks next to a

major league baseball stadium at game time during

the evening rush hour. This incident forced the evacuation of thousands of people and closed businesses

in much of downtown Baltimore. A vital railroad link

between the Northeast and the South, as well as a

local rail transit line and all east-west arterial streets

through downtown, were closed for an extended period. The incident fueled demands to prohibit hazardous materials shipments by railroads through

Baltimore and Washington, DC, even though alternative routes are very circuitous and expose many other

communities to risk.

Restrictions on truck routes in urban areas are among

the most localized sources of conflict between freight

transportation and surrounding communities (TRB

2003). Typically the purview of local zoning and

The Freight Story 2008
24

planning boards, restrictions on truck routes can have

significant effects on the local economy and its connections with domestic and foreign trading partners.

Although federal laws ensure access for interstate

commerce by allowing conventional truck combinations on the National Network, public demands for

eliminating some truck routes and for other restrictions on trucks may increase as neighborhoods near

ports and industrial areas evolve into expensive residences and as trucks become a larger share of traffic

on an increasing number of highways.

The Freight Story 2008
The Economic Costs of Freight Transportation

25

Over the past 25 years, freight transportation has

become cheaper for a given level of service, contributing significantly to enhanced productivity and

economic growth. However, market forces, environmental concerns, rising fuel prices, and other factors

will increase the cost of moving all goods in the years

ahead. In addition, congestion and other issues will

affect the long and often vulnerable supply chains of

high-value, time-sensitive commodities. If these

forces are not mitigated, then the increased cost of

moving freight will be felt throughout the economy,

affecting businesses and households alike.

Congestion results in enormous costs to shippers, carriers, and the economy. For example, Nike must

spend an additional $4 million per week to carry an

extra 7-to-14 days of inventory to compensate for

shipping delays (Isbell 2006). One day of delay

requires American President Line’s eastbound transPacific services to increase its use of containers and

chassis by 1,300, which adds $4 million in costs per

year (Bowe 2006). A week-long disruption to container movements through the Ports of Los Angeles

and Long Beach could cost the national economy

between $65 and $150 million per day (US Congress

CBO 2006). The 2,110 freight bottlenecks on highways throughout the United States cause more than

243 million hours of delay to truckers annually

(USDOT FHWA 2005a). At a delay cost of $26.70

per hour, the conservative value used by FHWA’s

Highway Economic Requirements System model for

estimating national highway costs and benefits, these

bottlenecks cost truckers about $6.5 billion per year.

Congestion costs are compounded by continuing

increases in operating costs per mile and per hour.

The cost of highway diesel fuel increased 126 percent

over the decade ending in 2006 (USDOE EIA 2008).

Future labor costs are projected to increase at a faster

rate than in the past in response to the growing shortage of truck drivers (ATA 2005). To attract and retain

more drivers and adjust to new safety regulations, carriers may reduce the number of hours drivers are on

the road, which will in turn increase operating costs.

Railroads also are facing labor recruitment challenges

(USDOT FRA 2007). Beyond fuel and labor, truck

operating costs are affected by needed repairs to damaged equipment caused by deteriorating roads, taxes

and tolls to pay for repair of infrastructure, and insurance and additional equipment required to meet security, safety, and environmental requirements.

Increased costs to carriers are reflected eventually in

increased prices paid for freight transportation.

Between 2003 and 2006, prices increased 13 percent

for truck transportation, 25 percent for rail transportation, 11 percent for scheduled air freight, 11 percent

for water transportation, 9 percent for port and harbor operations, 5 percent for marine cargo handling,

22 percent for pipeline transportation of crude petroleum, and 8 percent for pipeline transportation of

refined petroleum products (USDOL BLS 2007).

The Freight Story 2008
26

When the entire economy is taken into account,

transportation services contribute more than 5 percent to the production of GDP (USDOT BTS 1998).

For-hire and in-house trucking accounts for more

than one-half of this contribution. The importance

of transportation varies by economic sector. For

example, $1 of final demand for agricultural products

requires 14.2 cents in transportation services, compared with 9.1 cents for manufactured goods and

about 8 cents for mining products. An increase in

transportation cost affects lower margin bulk commodities more than high-value, time-sensitive commodities that have higher margins. In either case, an

increase in transportation costs will ripple through all

these industries, affecting not only the cost of goods

from all economic sectors but also markets that may

remain open for the goods.

The Freight Story 2008
27

How can the nation move more goods cheaply and

reliably on an increasingly constrained infrastructure

without affecting safety and degrading the environment? No doubt, the challenge is enormous. To a

great extent, efficiency gains from economic deregulation have been achieved and absorbed by the system. Opportunities for operational improvements are

still available and need to be utilized. New physical

capacity is limited by available financing, competition

with other needs and uses, and environmental concerns. In addition, traditional strategies aimed at passenger travel may not apply.

The freight transportation challenge differs from that

of urban commuting and other passenger travel in

several ways:

• Freight moves long distances through localities and

responds to distant economic demands while the

majority of passenger travel occurs between local

origins and destinations. Freight movement often

creates local problems without local benefits. 

• Freight movements fluctuate more quickly and in

greater relative amounts than passenger travel.

While both passenger travel and freight respond to

long-term demographic change, freight responds

more quickly than passenger travel to short-term

economic fluctuations. Fluctuations can be national

or local. The addition or loss of just one major

business can dramatically change the level of freight

activity in a locality.

• Freight movement is heterogeneous compared to

passenger travel. Patterns of passenger travel tend

to be very similar across metropolitan areas and

among large economic and social strata. The

freight transportation demands of farms, steel mills,

and clothing boutiques differ radically from one

another. Solutions aimed at average conditions are

less likely to work because the freight demands of

economic sectors vary widely.

• Improvements targeted at freight demand are needed as freight accounts for a larger share of the transportation system, and as improvements targeted at

general traffic or passenger travel are less likely to

aid the flow of freight as an incidental by-product.

Local public action is difficult to marshal because

freight traffic and the benefits of serving that traffic

rarely stay within a single political jurisdiction. Onehalf of the weight and two-thirds of the value of all

freight movements cross a state or international

boundary. Federal legislation established metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) four decades ago

to coordinate transportation planning and investment

across state and local lines within urban areas, but

freight corridors extend well beyond even the largest

metropolitan regions and usually involve several

states. Creative and ad hoc arrangements are often

required through pooled fund studies and multistate

coalitions to plan and invest in freight corridors that

span regions and even the continent, but there are

few institutional arrangements that coordinate this

activity.

The Freight Story 2008

The Freight Challenge
28

The growing needs of freight transportation can

bring into focus conflicts between interstate and local

interests. Many communities do not want the noise

and other aspects of trucks and trains that pass

through with little benefit to the locality, but those

transits can have a huge impact on national freight

movement and regional economies.

Beyond the challenges of intergovernmental coordination, freight transportation raises additional issues

involving the relationships between public and private sectors. Virtually all carriers and many freight

facilities are privately owned. The private sector

owns $985 billion in transportation equipment plus

$558 billion in transportation structures. In comparison, public agencies own $486 billion in transportation equipment plus $2.4 trillion in highways.2

Freight railroad facilities and services are owned

almost entirely by the private sector, while trucks

owed by the private sector operate over public highways. Likewise, air cargo services owned by the private sector operate in public airways and mostly at

public airports. Privately owned ships operate over

public waterways and at both public and private port

facilities. Most pipelines are privately owned but significantly controlled by public regulation. 

In the public sector, virtually all truck routes are

owned by state or local governments, and airports

and harbors are typically owned by public authorities.

Air and water navigation is typically handled at the

federal level, and safety is regulated by all levels of

government. As a consequence of this mixed ownership and management, most solutions to freight problems require joint action by both public and private

sectors. Financial, planning, and other institutional

mechanisms for developing and implementing joint

efforts have been limited, inhibiting effective measures to improve the performance and minimize the

public costs of the freight transportation system.3

The Freight Story 2008

2

Fixed assets are for 2006 and include both passenger and freight transportation. See the Bureau of Economic Analysis at www.bea.gov/bea/dn/FA2004/.

3

Coordination issues are discussed on the U.S. Department of Transportation Freight Transportation Web site, www.freight.dot.gov.
Responses to the Freight Challenge

29

Freight has moved to the forefront of many debates

and plans concerning transportation in recent years.

Stakeholders increasingly express concern that piecemeal improvements to the freight transportation system are not enough. The freight challenge requires a

wide range of activities by the private sector and all

levels of government that may be organized formally

or informally to pursue common objectives.

To better understand the freight challenge and activities conducted by both the private sector and all levels of government, the Transportation Research Board

convened the Freight Transportation Industry

Roundtable. Comprised of individuals from transportation providers, shippers, state agencies, port

authorities, and the U.S. Department of

Transportation (USDOT), the Roundtable developed

an initial Framework for a National Freight Policy to

identify freight activities and focus those activities

toward common objectives (Table 5, see page 30).

The Framework for a National Freight Policy continues to evolve as a joint effort of USDOT and its partners in the public and private sectors to inventory

existing and proposed strategies, tactics, and activities to

improve freight transportation (USDOT 2008). The

framework’s focus is national

rather than federal, and

reflects the critical roles of

the Federal Government,

States, localities, and the

private sector. Each strategy has at least one tactic,

each tactic has at least one activity, and each activity

has “owners” who are responsible for establishing

milestones and articulating the consequences of moving the activity forward. The Framework is structured

to identify examples of good practice, actions that

would benefit from increased collaboration, conflicts

that require resolution, and issues that need more

attention. It provides a common ground for discussion rather than a forum for developing a formal

industry consensus or official USDOT views.

Government Responses at the National Level

Freight is the focus of several congressional actions,

including the most recent reauthorization of the

Federal-aid Highway Program through the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity

Act: Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-059).

SAFETEA-LU authorized $4.6 billion for freight-oriented infrastructure investments (Table 4), expanded

eligibility for financing freight projects under the

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation

Act Program, extended the State Infrastructure Bank

Program, and modified the U.S. tax code to encourThe Freight Story 2008

Table 4. Direct Expenditures for Freight Infrastructure in SAFETEA-LU

Projects of National/Regional Signi!cance $1.779 billion over 5 years

National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement $1.948 billion over 5 years

Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program $833 million over 5 years

Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant Program $30 million over 5 years

Truck Parking $25 million over 4 years

Total $4.615 billion

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit:

Conditions and Performance (Washington, DC: 2007), page 14-7, available at

www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/chap14.htm.
The Freight Story 2008

30

Objectives

Improve the operations 

of the existing freight 

transportation system.

Add physical capacity to

the freight transportation

system in places where

investment makes 

economic sense.

Better align all costs and

benefits among parties

affected by the freight 

system to improve 

productivity.

Reduce or remove 

statutory, regulatory, and

institutional barriers to

improved freight transportation performance.

Proactively identify and

address emerging 

transportation needs.

Maximize the safety and

security of the freight

transportation system.

Mitigate and better 

manage the 

environmental, health,

energy, and community

impacts of freight 

transportation.

Strategies

Improve management and operations of existing facilities.

Maintain and preserve existing infrastructure.

Explore opportunities for privatization.

Ensure the availability of a skilled labor pool sufficient to meet transportation needs.

Provide physical access to interstate commerce.

Facilitate regionally-based solutions for nationally significant freight corridors and major gateways.

Utilize and promote new/expanded financing tools to incentivize private sector investment in 

transportation projects. 

Utilize public sector pricing tools.

Utilize private sector pricing tools.

Spend public revenues raised from transportation on transportation.

Explore opportunities for public-private partnerships and/or privatization.

Track progress of performance measured at system and program levels.

Ensure benefit-cost analysis and informed decision making are enacted at system and program levels.

Identify/inventory potential statutory, regulatory, and institutional changes.

Provide pilot projects with temporary relief from unnecessarily restrictive regulations and/or processes.

Encourage regionally-based intermodal gateway responses.

Actively engage and support the establishment of international standards to facilitate freight movement.

Develop data and analytical capacity for making future investment decisions.

Conduct freight-related research and development.

Maintain dialogue between and among public and private sector freight stakeholders.

Make public sector institutional arrangements more responsive.

Make the public sector transportation system and investments more accountable and 

performance oriented.

Establish the federal role in freight transportation.

Pursue activities that improve safety of the freight transportation system.

Manage public exposure to hazardous materials.

Ensure a balanced approach to security and efficiency in all freight initiatives.

Preserve redundant capacity for security and reliability.

Pursue pollution reduction technologies and operations.

Pursue investments to mitigate environmental, health, and community transportation impacts.

Promote adaptive reuse of brownfields and dredge material.

Prevent introduction of or control invasive species.

Pursue energy conservation strategies and alternative fuels in freight operations.

Vision: The United States freight transportation system will ensure the efficient, reliable, safe and secure 

movement of goods and support the nation's economic growth while improving environmental quality.

Table 5. Framework for a National Freight Policy

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Freight Transportation Web site, available at www.freight.dot.gov/freight_framework.
31

age up to $15 billion in investment in freight facilities

through private activity bonds.

Beyond concrete and steel, SAFETEA-LU funds

freight planning capacity building (P.L. 109-059,

Section 5204), supports freight analysis through the

surface transportation congestion relief solutions

research initiative (P.L. 109-059, Section 5502), and

established the National Cooperative Freight

Research Program (NCFRP) (P.L. 109-059, Section

5209), and Hazardous Materials Cooperative

Research Program (HMCRP) (P.L. 109-059, Section

7131). The research programs provide about $2 million per year on a range of projects (Table 6). Public

agencies and private industry work closely together

on the NCFRP and HMCRP and actively seek new

participants from diverse academic backgrounds and

experience to guide individual research through project panels.

SAFETEA-LU also established the National Surface

Transportation Policy and Revenue Study

Commission (P.L. 109-059, Section 1909(b)), which

stated, “The Commission believes the national interest in quality transportation is best served when ...

freight movement is explicitly valued. Operation of

The Freight Story 2008

Table 6. Cooperative Freight and Hazardous Research Projects through 2008

Project Number Project Title

NCFRP 01 Review and Analysis of Freight Transportation Markets and Relationships

NCFRP 02 Impacts of Public Policy on the Freight Transportation System

NCFRP 03 Performance Measures for Freight Transportation

NCFRP 04 Identifying and Using Low-Cost and Quickly Implementable Ways to Address Freight-System Mobility Constraints

NCFRP 05 Framework and Tools for Estimating Benets of Specic Freight Network Investment Needs

NCFRP 06 Freight-Demand Modeling to Support Public-Sector Decision Making

NCFRP 09 Institutional Arrangements in the Freight Transportation System

NCFRP 10 Separation of Vehicles: Commercial Motor Vehicle Only Lanes

NCFRP 11 Current and Future Contributions to Freight Demand in North America

NCFRP 12 Specications for Freight Transportation Data Architecture

NCFRP 13 Developing High Productivity Truck Corridors

NCFRP 14 Truck Drayage Practices

NCFRP 15 Understanding Urban Goods Movements

NCFRP 16 Representing Freight in Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Models

NCFRP 17 Synthesis of Short Sea Shipping in North America

HMCRP 01 Hazardous Materials Commodity Flow Data and Analysis

HMCRP 02 Hazardous Materials Transportation Incident Data for Root Cause Analysis

HMCRP 03 A Guide for Assessing Emergency Response Needs and Capabilities for Hazardous Materials Releases

HMCRP 04 Emerging Technologies Applicable to Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security

HMCRP 05 Evaluation of the Potential Benets of Electronic Shipping Papers for Hazardous Materials Shipments

HMCRP 06 Assessing Soil and Groundwater Environmental Hazards from Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents

Source: Transportation Research Board, NCFRP Projects, available at www.trb.org/CRP/NCFRP/NCFRPProjects.asp as of July 9, 2008; HMCRP

Projects, available at www.trb.org/CRP/HMCRP/HMCRPProjects.asp as of July 9, 2008.
National Freight Transportation Program to Enhance U.S.

Global Competitiveness

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission supports the 

creation and funding of a national freight transportation program to implement much needed

infrastructure improvements. The program will bring together local, state, and federal interests to make the national transportation system more reliable and efficient. As envisioned,

the program will “provide public investment in crucial, high-cost transportation infrastructure,”

especially on networks that carry large volumes of freight, such as intermodal connectors,

sections of interstate highways near port facilities, strategic national rail bridges, and corridor

development. Public-private projects that have the potential to facilitate international trade,

relieve congestion, or enable “green” intermodal facilities would be included under this 

program.

A key activity of the National Freight Transportation Program is the development of a 

national strategic plan to set goals and guide activities. The U.S. Department of

Transportation would use state and metropolitan-area plans as a basis for developing the

national plan. USDOT would work with states, local governments, multistate coalitions, and

other public and private-sector stakeholders to set state and metropolitan-area performance

standards for their programs. Each state and metropolitan area would be expected to meet

national standards.

Only projects identified in the national plan would be eligible for federal funds. Federal 

participation in individual projects would be set at 80 percent, with higher participation levels

based on the extent of national benefits. Apart from demonstrating that a proposed project

under a plan is cost effective and justified, additional federal requirements would be kept to a

minimum. 

From National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, “Transportation

for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study

Commission,” Volume 1, 2008, at: www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report.

32
33

private and public sector freight systems (including

rail, trucking, waterways, and ports) that fully serve

the needs of the Nation’s economy is a priority”

(NSTP-RSC 2008). The Commission identified

freight as a key focus area in developing and funding

a future transportation program (see box on page 32).

Since passage of SAFETEA-LU, USDOT has

launched the Corridors of the Future program, a federal initiative aimed at reducing congestion and

improving freight transportation efficiency through

multijurisdictional planning and collaboration. Six

corridors, identified in Figure 15, were selected from a

pool of 38 to participate in the program. The six corridors account for nearly 23 percent of daily Interstate

travel. USDOT and representatives from the six corridors focus on 1) alternatives to tax-revenue financing, 2) regional planning and project development,

and 3) performance measures for the corridor. These

issues are at the forefront of how the transportation

network will be advanced in the coming decades. 

The Corridors of the Future program is part of the

broader USDOT initiative “National Strategy to

Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation

Network.” This initiative also includes urban partnerThe Freight Story 2008

Figure 15. Corridors of the Future

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Corridors of the Future Program, available at www.corridors.dot.gov. 
34

ships to reduce metropolitan congestion through pricing strategies and innovative technologies, as well as

measures to enhance aviation system capacity. For

more information, visit www.fightgridlocknow.gov.

Other federal freight initiatives include:

• The establishment of the cabinet-level Committee

on the Marine Transportation System to coordinate

the many federal agencies with responsibilities for

the complex and diverse system of waterways, ports,

and their intermodal connections. (For more information, visit www.cmts.gov.)

• The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program of the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to

improve safety among motor carriers. (For more

information, visit www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-security/

safety-initiatives/mcsap/mcsap.htm.)

• The Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness

grant program of the Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration to provide financial

and technical assistance as well as national direction

and guidance to enhance state, territorial, tribal, and

local hazardous materials emergency planning and

training. (For more information, visit 

http://hazmat.dot.gov/training/state/hmep/hmep.)

• The analysis and professional development programs of FHWA’s Office of Freight Management and

Operations to provide 1) a comprehensive picture of

commodity movements through its Freight Analysis

Framework; 2) highway travel time and reliability

measures through its Performance Measurement

Program; 3) new forecasting methods through its

Freight Model Improvement Program, and 4) training, technical assistance, and information sharing

among professionals in public agencies and industry

through its Freight Professional Development

Program. (For more information, visit

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight). 

• The Smartway program of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency to provide the trucking industry

with technical assistance and incentives to reduce

long-haul truck energy consumption and emissions.

(For more information, visit www.epa.gov/smartway.)

Responses at the State Level

Many state departments of transportation have established freight offices or designated freight coordinators, and several have initiated statewide freight plans.

For example, the Minnesota Department of

Transportation created a Freight Planning and

Development Unit to 1) review the Department’s

role in freight transportation; 2) develop strategies for

improving freight information; and 3) integrate

freight transportation into the policy, planning, and

investment processes. (For more information, visit

www.dot.state.mn.us/ofrw/freight.html.)

Washington State’s efforts go beyond planning to

include financing freight projects though its Freight

Mobility Strategic Investment Board. The Board’s

mission is to develop a comprehensive and coordinated state program to facilitate freight movement and to

mitigate its effects on local communities. To date, the

Board has funded dozens of freight mobility projects

and provided technical assistance to eliminate chokepoints so that freight moves smoothly and communities experience fewer disruptions in local traffic.

Board-funded projects must be ready for construction

within 12 months of receiving funding. To meet this

requirement, the Board works with project staff to

leverage funding, develop partnerships, and build

negotiation skills. (For more information, visit

www.fmsib.wa.gov.)

The Freight Story 2008
35

Many states realize that solutions to their freight

problems require actions well beyond the state’s borders. As a result, 12 corridor coalitions have been

created to pursue those solutions. (For more information, visit

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/corridor_coal.htm.)

Some coalitions sponsor research to better understand

freight problems throughout their corridor, while others develop specific plans through the Corridors of

the Future program. One group, the I-95 Corridor

Coalition, is developing a Freight Academy to provide continued education to the region’s freight transportation professionals. (For more information, visit

www.freightacademy.org.)

Growing state interest in freight issues is underscored

by activities of the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),

including publication of the Freight Bottom Line Report,

formal adoption of several freight policy proposals,

and the ongoing work of five freight committees and

subcommittees. (For more information, visit

http://freight.transportation.org.) AASHTO and

FHWA cosponsor biennial Freight Transportation

Partnership meetings attended by federal and state

officials and private sector representatives.

Participants share experiences and discuss organizational and institutional issues that need to be

addressed to better advance freight transportation

projects more effectively. (For more information,

visit www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/partnership.htm.)

Responses at the Local Level

MPOs in larger cities are developing freight plans

and programs and engaging private-sector stakeholders through advisory committees. For example, the

Atlanta Regional Commission and Georgia DOT

together developed a data-driven, policy-based

Regional Freight Mobility Plan for the Atlanta metropolitan area. The Plan examined regional goods

movement by all modes and culminated in the development of a framework to address regional freight

mobility needs and challenges. (For more information, visit www.atlantaregional.com/freightmobility.)

Similar efforts are underway in Philadelphia, Chicago,

and Los Angeles.

Another notable local initiative is the PierPASS

OffPeak program, which was created by the marine

terminal operators at the Ports of Los Angeles and

Long Beach to alleviate truck traffic congestion and

improve air quality in the region. (For more information, visit www.pierpass.org.) Trucks with loaded

containers entering or exiting marine terminals during

peak hours are charged a terminal mitigation fee. The

fee encourages cargo owners and their carriers to

move cargo at night and on weekends and defrays the

additional costs of keeping the terminal open longer

hours. As a result, congestion is reduced during peak

daytime periods at port gates and on major highways

around the ports, and air quality is improved.

Private Sector and Public-Private Responses

Carriers, shippers, terminal operators, and other private sector players in the freight transportation industry deal with the freight challenge on a daily basis,

either through the actions of individual businesses,

collective action through associations, or cooperative

ventures with public agencies. For example:

• Wal-mart established a Sustainable Value Networks

program with its suppliers and other partners to

reduce logistics costs through operating efficiency

The Freight Story 2008
36

improvements, less wasteful packaging, and alternative fuels use. (For more information, visit

www.walmartstores.com/Sustainability/7672.aspx.)

• The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management

Association, an association of 18 major ocean common carriers, formed the Consolidated Chassis

Management LLC in 2005 to develop and own

chassis pools. It currently has more than 35,000

chassis under management at pools in Denver, Salt

Lake City, Tampa, Memphis, Nashville, Charleston,

Atlanta, Charlotte, Jacksonville, and Savannah.

(For more information, visit www.ocema.org.)

• Several associations are proposing new or additional

infrastructure investments in freight corridors, such

as the “Critical Commerce Corridors” program of

the American Road and Transportation Builders

Association and the “Let’s Rebuild America” program

of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

• The Intermodal Freight Technology Working

Group (IFTWG), a public-private partnership,

focuses on the identification and evaluation of technology-based options for improving the efficiency,

safety, and security of intermodal freight movement.

(For more information, visit 

www.intermodal.org/iftwg_files/index.shtml.) 

The IFTWG worked with FHWA to establish the

Universal Electronic Freight Manifest initiative,

which provides all supply chain partners with timely

access to shipment information. (For more information, visit 

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/intermodal/efmi/

index.htm.)

The Freight Story 2008
Conclusion

37

The nation’s economy depends on the collective

action of all stakeholders to maintain and enhance the

freight transportation system within the context of

safety and environmental concerns. Bold ideas have

moved freight forward in the past, such as the domestic canals and railroads of the nineteenth century, the

Panama Canal at the beginning of the twentieth century, containerization and the Interstate highway system starting at mid-century, and the establishment of

nationwide, overnight delivery services in the last half

of the twentieth century. Few would claim to see the

next big idea with clarity, but most would agree that

creative solutions, both large and small, are needed to

keep goods moving and to meet the needs of the

economy and the nation.

Freight Story 2008 provides a useful starting point for

discussions on the freight transportation challenge

and opportunities to improve system reliability and

efficiency. Current responses to the freight challenge

continue to evolve, and new responses are emerging

through discussions of future directions for transportation policies and programs. All stakeholders are

encouraged to contribute to these discussions and

advance ideas through the Framework for a National

Freight Policy.

The Freight Story 2008
References

38

AMERICAN SHORT LINE AND REGIONAL RAILROAD

ASSOCIATION (ASLRRA). 2002. Annual Data Profile.

Fargo, ND. Available at http://shortline.ugpti.org. 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS (ATA). 2005. The

U.S. Truck Driver Shortage: Analysis and Forecasts.

Prepared by Global Insight, Inc. Arlington, VA.

Available at

www.truckline.com/StateIndustry/Documents/

ATADriverShortageStudy05.pdf. 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS (AAR). 2007.

National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment

Study. Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Washington, DC: September). 

BOWE, JOHN. 2006. “The High Cost of Congestion.”

TRB Freight Roundtable, October 24. Available at

www.trb.org/conferences/FDM/Bowe.pdf. 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES (EOP). 2008. Economic Report of the President:

2008. Washington, DC. Available at 

www.gpoaccess.gov//eop/2008/B2.xls. 

HERMANS, MARK. 2006. Supply Chain Benchmarking.

Presentation to the TRB Freight Roundtable.

Washington, DC: October 23. Available at

www.trb.org/conferences/FDM/Hermans.pdf. 

ISBELL, JOHN. 2006. “Maritime and Infrastructure

Impact on Nike’s Inbound Delivery Supply Chain.”

TRB Freight Roundtable, October 24. Available at

www.trb.org/conferences/FDM/Isbell.pdf. 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND

REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION (NSTP-RSC). 2008.

Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface

Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

Washington, DC. Available at 

www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/. 

NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND

REVENUE STUDY COMMISSION (NSTP-RSC). 2007.

Forecasts of Economic Variable that Impact Passenger and

Freight Demand and the Implication of Alternative Economic

Assumptions on Modal Travel Demand. Volume III, Section

I, Technical Issue Papers, Briefing Paper 4B-06.

Prepared by Battelle. Washington, DC. Available at

www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/. 

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY (ORNL). 2004.

Temporary Losses of Highway Capacity and Impacts on

Performance: Phase 2. Oak Ridge, TN. Table 36.

Available at 

www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/tlc/tlc2_title.shtml.

PISARSKI, ALAN. 2001. Testimony before the

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of

Representatives, March 21, 2001. Available at

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/. 

RAILROAD PERFORMANCE MEASURES. 2008. 

Performance Reports. Available at www.railroadpm.org. 

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD (TRB). 2003.

NCHRP Synthesis 320—Integrating Freight Facilities and

Operations with Community Goals: A Synthesis of Highway

Practice. Washington, DC. Available at

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_

syn_320.pdf. 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE), Lock

Performance Monitoring System. 2008. Key Lock

Report. Alexandria, VA. Available at

www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/lpms/lock2007web.HTM.

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

(CBO). 2006. The Economic Costs of Disruptions in

Container Shipments. Washington, DC: March 26.

Available at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7106/03-

29-Container_Shipments.pdf. 

The Freight Story 2008
39

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (USDOC),CENSUS

BUREAU. 2006. Statistical Abstract of the United States:

2007. 126th Edition. Washington, DC, tables 57,

415, and 738. Available at www.census.gov/

compendia/statab/2007/2007edition.html. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (USDOC), CENSUS

BUREAU. 2004a. Detail file, U.S. Interim Projections

by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin.

Washington, DC. March. Available at

www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (USDOC), CENSUS

BUREAU. 2004b. 2002 Economic Census, Vehicle

Inventory and Use Survey, United States: 2002, EC02TVUS. Washington, DC: December. Table 2A.

Available at 

www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/products.html.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (USDOC), CENSUS

BUREAU. 1995. 1992 Economic Census, Truck

Inventory and Use Survey: United States, TC92-T-52.

Washington, DC: May. Table 2A. Available at

www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/products.html.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (USDOE), Energy

Information Administration (EIA). 2008. Annual

Energy Review 2007. Washington, DC. Table 5-24.

Available at

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0524.html. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (USDOL), Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS). 2007. Producer Price Index,

Industry Data. Available at www.bls.gov/ppi. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT).

2008. Framework for a National Freight Policy. Available

at www.freight.dot.gov/freight_framework.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2006.

Freight in America: A New National Picture. Washington,

DC. Table 10, p. 24. Available at www.bts.gov. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2002.

National Transportation Statistics 2001. Washington, DC.

Table 1-1. Available at 

www.bts.gov/publications/national_

transportation_statistics/html/table_01_01.html. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 1998. The

Economic Importance of Transportation Services: Highlights of

the Transportation Satellite Accounts, BTS/98-TS/4R.

Washington, DC: April. Available at

www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_

newsletter/issue_04. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of

Highway Policy Information. 2007a. Highway Statistics

2006. Washington, DC. Table HM-18. Available at

www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/roadway_

extent.htm.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of

Freight Management and Operations. 2007b. Freight

Facts and Figures 2007. Washington, DC. Table 3-1.

Available at

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_

freight_stats/docs/07factsfigures. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006.

Freight Performance Measurement: Travel Time in FreightSignificant Corridors. Washington, DC: December.

Available at

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/

perform_meas.htm. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005a.

An Initial Assessment of Freight Bottlenecks on Highway.

Prepared by Cambridge Systematics. Washington,

DC: October. Available at

www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/bottlenecks/.

The Freight Story 2008

References continued
References continued

40

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005b.

Assessing the Effects of Freight Movement on Air Quality at the

National and Regional Level: Final Report. Prepared by ICF

Consulting. Washington, DC: April. Available at

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/freightaq/index.htm. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2002.

Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities.

Washington, DC. Available at 

www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/01158/. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2007. An

Examination of Employee Recruitment and Retention in the U.S.

Railroad Industry. Washington, DC. Available at

www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1891. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT), ITS

Joint Program Office (JPO). 2002. Effects of

Catastrophic Events on Transportation System Management and

Operations: Howard Street Tunnel Fire, Baltimore City,

Maryland. Prepared by SAIC. Washington, DC).

Available at

www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/%5CJPODOCS/REPTS_

TE//13754.html. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (USDOT),

Maritime Administration (MARAD), Office of

Statistical and Economic Analysis. 2005. Containership

Market Indicators. Washington, DC. Available at

http://marweb.marad.dot.gov/MARAD_Statistics/

2005%20STATISTICS/Container%20Market%

20Indicators.pdf. 

The Freight Story 2008
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-HOP-08-051

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Freight Story 2008 November 2008

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Rolf Schmitt and Ed Strocko, Federal Highway Adminstration

Joanne Sedor, Battelle

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Battelle

901 D Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

The report provides an overview of freight movement on the U.S. transportation system today and in the

future. It discusses where the largest freight flows are concentrated and the pressures that existing and

anticipated freight volumes place on the system. Special attention is given to freight congestion and its

effects on highways, railroads, and waterways. The economic costs to shippers, carriers, and the overall

economy also are examined. Finally, the report describes government and private sector efforts to improve

freight transportation and mitigate the safety and environmental effects of growing volumes of freight.

17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement

Freight transportation, bulk products, high-value goods, congestion, 

corridors, emissions, energy use, tons, value, international trade,

metropolitan planning organizations, safety, state governments, 

federal government, U.S. economy

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 44 + Covers 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
1

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Freight Management and Operations

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590 

Phone: 202-366-9210

Fax: 202-366-3225

Web site: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight 

November 2008

FHWA-HOP-08-051