United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Highways, 

Transit, and Pipelines, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, House 

of Representatives

INTERMODAL 

TRANSPORTATION 

Challenges to and Potential 

Strategies for Developing 

Improved Intermodal 

Capabilities 

Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, June 15, 2006

 

GAO-06-855T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 15, 2006

INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION

Challenges to and Potential Strategies for 

Developing Improved Intermodal 

Capabilities 

Highlights of GAO-06-855T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Highways, 

Transit, and Pipelines, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, House 

of Representatives 

Mobility—that is, the movement of 

passengers and goods through the 

transportation system—is critical 

to the nation’s economic vitality 

and the quality of life of its citizens. 

However, increasing passenger 

travel and freight movement has 

led to growing congestion in the

nation’s transportation system, and 

projections suggest that this trend 

is likely to continue. Increased 

congestion can have a number of 

negative economic and social 

effects, including wasting travelers’ 

time and money, impeding efficient 

movement of freight, and degrading

air quality. U.S. transportation 

policy has generally addressed 

these negative economic and social

effects from the standpoint of 

individual transportation modes

and local government involvement. 

However, there has been an

increased focus on the

development of intermodal

transportation. Intermodal 

transportation refers to a system 

that connects the separate

transportation modes—such as 

mass transit systems, roads,

aviation, maritime, and railroads—

and allows a passenger to complete

a journey using more than one 

mode. My testimony today is based 

on GAO’s prior work on intermodal 

transportation, especially

intermodal ground connections to 

airports, and addresses (1) the 

challenges associated with 

developing and using intermodal 

capabilities and (2) potential 

strategies that could help public

decision makers improve 

intermodal capabilities. 

A number of financing, planning, and other challenges play significant roles

in shaping transportation investment decisions and the development of 

intermodal capabilities. Significant challenges to the development of 

intermodal capabilities are the lack of specific national goals and funding 

programs. Federal funding is often tied to a single transportation mode; as a 

result it may be difficult to finance projects, such as intermodal projects,

that do not have a source of dedicated funding. In addition, federally funded 

transportation projects, including intermodal projects, face a number of 

planning challenges. These challenges include limits on the uses of federal 

funds, ensuring that widespread public participation is reflected in decisions, 

physical and geographic land constraints, and the difficulty coordinating 

among multiple jurisdictions in transportation corridors. Finally, intermodal 

capabilities, while offering benefits to mobility, may need to develop a 

demand over time. 

Two general strategies developed from GAO’s prior work would help public 

decision makers improve intermodal capabilities. Both strategies are based 

on a systematic framework that includes identifying national goals, defining 

the federal role, determining funding approaches, and evaluating 

performance. The first strategy would increase the flexibility of current 

federal transportation programs to encourage a more systemwide approach 

to transportation planning and development, but would leave project 

selection with state and local decision makers. The second strategy is a 

fundamental shift in federal transportation policy’s focus on local decision 

making by increasing the role of the federal government in order to develop 

more integrated transportation networks. While the first strategy would 

most likely lead to a continued focus on locally determined and developed 

transportation projects, the second strategy could develop more integrated 

transportation networks, either nationwide or along particularly congested 

corridors. The second strategy could be costly, and high benefits, which 

may be difficult to achieve, would be needed to justify this investment. 

Two Examples of Intermodal Connections for an Airline Passenger 

Shuttle Airport

1-800-GoAirport

Local scenario

Nationwide scenario

Source: GAO.

Home Airport shuttle Airport Flight Airport Light rail Destination

Home Car Nationwide rail Airport Flight Nationwide rail Airport Destination

Mover

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-855T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Mobility—that is, the movement of passengers and goods through the 

transportation system—is critical to the nation’s economic vitality and the 

quality of life of its citizens. Mobility provides people with access to goods, 

services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses with access to material, 

markets, and people; and promotes the movement of personnel and 

material to meet national defense needs. However, increasing passenger 

and freight travel has led to growing congestion in the nation’s

transportation system, and projections of future passenger travel and 

freight movement suggest that this trend is likely to continue. For 

example, the number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports is 

expected to grow from over 746 million in 2005 to almost 1 billion by 2015 

and, since most travelers use cars, whether privately owned or taxis, to get 

to the airport, local cities and communities will face increased congestion 

on their airport access roads and highways. In addition, freight traffic on 

roadways has increased fourfold over the last two decades, and both rail 

and highway congestion are particularly severe in urban areas where ports 

for international trade are located. For example, in the Los Angeles area, 

freight traffic is projected to more than double along the two mainline 

freight railroads from 2003 to 2025. Increased congestion can have a 

number of negative economic and social effects, including wasting 

travelers’ time and money, impeding efficient movement of freight, and 

degrading air quality. These effects are especially problematic in areas and

transportation corridors that are already heavily congested. Such 

congestion may be relieved by intermodal transportation options—that is 

a system that connects the separate transportation modes and allows a 

passenger or freight to complete a journey using more than one mode, 

such as bus, air, rail, and waterways. 

Our past work has shown that the development of intermodal capabilities 

can provide a range of benefits. Those benefits include potentially reduced 

travel times and costs for travelers and freight by providing alternative 

transportation options and eliminating freight “chokepoints” or 

bottlenecks at entrances to freight facilities, and reduced road congestion 

with the potential for an associated reduction in vehicle emissions and 

improved air quality. Intermodal transportation capabilities are typically 

initiated by state and local transportation agencies, including some 

combination of state departments of transportation, local transportation 

planning bodies (i.e., metropolitan planning organizations), airports, 

seaports, and local transit agencies. The federal government’s role is 

primarily one of funding and oversight through separate transportation 

programs within the Department of Transportation (DOT). My testimony 

Page 1 GAO-06-855T 
today is based on our prior work on intermodal transportation, and 

addresses (1) the challenges associated with developing and using 

intermodal capabilities and (2) potential strategies that could help public 

decision makers improve intermodal capabilities. In particular, I will be 

drawing a number of examples from our July 2005 report on ground 

access and intermodal connections at airports.1

 (See Related GAO 

Products.) 

In summary: 

• Financing, planning, and other challenges play important roles in shaping 

transportation investment decisions and the development and use of 

intermodal capabilities. Significant challenges are the lack of specific 

national goals and funding programs to develop intermodal capabilities. 

Federal funding is often tied to a single transportation mode; as a result it

may be difficult to finance projects, such as intermodal projects, that do 

not have a source of dedicated funding. This may also make it difficult to 

use federal funds to finance the best transportation investment, regardless 

of mode, to improve mobility. In addition, federal transportation projects, 

including intermodal projects, face a number of planning challenges that 

include limits on the uses of federal funds, ensuring that widespread 

public participation is reflected in decisions, physical and geographic land 

constraints, and the difficulty in coordinating among multiple jurisdictions 

in transportation corridors. Finally, intermodal capabilities, while offering 

benefits to mobility, may need to develop a demand over time. For 

example, in the case of ground access to airports, most passengers may 

prefer to use private vehicles to access airport over transit options. 

• Two general strategies could help public decision makers improve 

intermodal options. Both of these strategies are based on a systematic 

framework that includes identifying the federal interest in and national 

goals for transportation, defining the federal role, determining funding 

approaches, and evaluating performance. In the first strategy, Congress 

would increase flexibility within current federal transportation programs 

to encourage the development of intermodal capabilities and 

transportation investments that offer the best mobility improvements by 

shifting federal transportation funding, which is generally focused on 

individual transportation modes, to a more systemwide approach across 

all modes and types of travel. This strategy would include having the 

 1

GAO, Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in

Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities, GAO-05-727 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 

2005). 

Page 2 GAO-06-855T 
federal government develop approaches to target funding on 

transportation investments that better focus on outcomes related to 

national goals and promote better coordination between jurisdictions. The 

second strategy is a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy’s 

long-time focus on state and local decisionmaking by increasing the role of

the federal government in planning and funding intermodal projects in 

order to develop more integrated transportation networks, either 

nationwide or along particularly congested corridors. To develop a 

nationwide intermodal system, the federal government could take on a 

role similar to its efforts to develop the interstate highway system. A more

active federal government role might also require additional federal 

funding responsibilities. For example, if the federal government were to 

take a more active role in developing airport intermodal capabilities that

included enhancing or expanding rail service or developing high-speed rail 

corridors, it might also need to increase its funding role, and the role of 

other beneficiaries of the service, due to its high cost. 

Historically, federal transportation policy has generally focused on 

individual modes rather than intermodal connections between different 

modes. Federal transportation funding programs are overseen by different

modal offices within DOT—the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Railroad Administration, 

and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). No specific federal funding

programs have been established that target intermodal projects for either

passengers or freight although a few federal programs offer flexibilities 

that would allow these types of projects. 

Intermodal transportation refers to a system that connects the separate 

transportation modes—such as mass transit systems, roads, aviation, 

maritime, and railroads—and allows a passenger or freight to complete a 

journey using more than one mode. For example, an efficient intermodal 

capability at an airport would provide a passenger with convenient, 

seamless transfer between modes; the ability to connect to an extended 

transportation network; and high frequency of service among the different

modes. As shown in figure 1, an intermodal connection at an airport might 

involve a passenger arriving at the airport by private shuttle service, flying

to another airport, and then transferring to local rail service2

 or a

nationwide system, such as Amtrak, to reach a final destination. Similar to 

airline passengers, an intermodal freight transportation system relies on 

Background 

 2

Local transit rail includes commuter rail, light rail, subway systems, and trolleys. 

Page 3 GAO-06-855T 
ready transport of cargo between ships and other transportation modes, 

particularly highway and rail. 

Figure 1: Two Examples of Intermodal Connections for an Airline Passenger 

Shuttle Airport

1-800-GoAirport

Local scenario

Nationwide scenario

Source: GAO.

Home Airport shuttle Airport Flight Airport Light rail Destination

Home Car Nationwide rail Airport Flight Nationwide rail Airport Destination

Mover

The scope and nature of intermodal passenger connections is further 

illustrated by ground access to airports. In 2005, we reported that most 

major U.S. airports have direct intermodal ground connections to either 

local transportation systems or nationwide bus or rail networks.3

 Sixtyfour of the 72 airports4

 that we surveyed reported having direct

connections5

 to one or more local transportation systems in their area, 

such as local bus or rail service, with 26 airports reporting having both. 

The most common type of public transportation system available to and 

from the airport is local bus service. Sixty-four airports reported having a 

direct connection to a local bus service. However, the level of bus service 

varies depending on the airport. For example, Seattle-Tacoma

International Airport has five public bus routes that serve the surrounding 

 3

GAO-05-727. 

4

We surveyed all 68 large and medium hub U.S. airports, and those small hub airports (4 in 

total) that are located in the same metropolitan statistical area as one or more large or 

medium hub airports.

5

We considered a transfer point (such as a bus stop or rail station) to be a direct 

connection to the airport if (1) it was convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk 

to the transfer point from any of the airport’s terminals; (2) the airport had an automated 

people mover that transports passengers from the transfer point to any of the airport’s

terminals; or (3) there was regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to

any of the airport’s terminals. 

Page 4 GAO-06-855T 
communities, while General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee 

has only one route that serves the airport. Twenty-seven airports reported 

having a direct connection to a local rail system, such as light rail, 

commuter rail, or subway. (See fig. 2.) 

Figure 2: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Local Rail Systems 

Baltimore-Washington

Glen Burnie, MD

Reagan National Washington Dulles Arlington, VA Chantilly, VA

Newark Liberty

Newark, NJ

MacArthur

Long Island, NY

Logan International

Boston, MA

La Guardia

New York, NY

Hartsfield

Atlanta, GA Dallas Love

Dallas, TX

Dallas/Ft. Worth

Ft. Worth, TX

Chicago Midway

Chicago, IL

Lambert-St. Louis

St. Louis, MO

Chicago O'Hare

Chicago, IL

Minneapolis/St. Paul

Minneapolis, MN

Philadelphia

Philadelphia, PA

Kennedy International

New York, NY

Theodore Francis Green

Warwick, RI

Portland International

Portland, OR

Source: GAO summary of data from 72 airports.

Local rail access by shuttle

Local rail access by automated people mover

Local rail access by walking

Bob Hope

Burbank, CA

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Miami International

Miami, FL

Palm Beach

Palm Beach, FL

Los Angeles International

Los Angeles, CA

Oakland International

Oakland, CA

San Francisco International

San Francisco, CA

Norman Mineta International

San Jose, CA Cleveland-Hopkins

Cleveland, OH

While most major U.S. airports are located in metropolitan areas that have 

stations for nationwide transportation systems, such as Greyhound or 

Amtrak, 20 airports reported having direct connections to nationwide bus 

service or nationwide passenger rail service. Twelve of the 20 airports 

reported having direct connections to nationwide bus service, and 14 

airports reported having a direct connection to Amtrak rail service. (See

fig. 3.) All 14 airports provide shuttle service to transport passengers to 

Amtrak stations that serve the metropolitan area. One of the 14 airports—

Newark’s Liberty International Airport—reported that passengers could 

also access the Amtrak station by an automated people mover. In addition,

the accessibility of Amtrak to Newark airport has allowed Continental 

Page 5 GAO-06-855T 
Airlines to establish a code share agreement with Amtrak, whereby 

passengers can purchase one ticket for a journey that includes travel by 

both air and rail.6

 This agreement has allowed Continental Airlines to 

eliminate some short-haul flights from Newark.7

Figure 3: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Amtrak’s Nationwide Rail Systems 

 

Bob Hope

Burbank, CA

Baltimore-Washington

Glen Burnie, MD

Newark Liberty

Newark, NJ

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood

Fort Lauderdale, FL

La Guardia

Chicago Midway New York, NY

Chicago, IL

Miami International

Miami, FL

General Mitchell

Milwaukee, WI

Palm Beach

Palm Beach, FL

Theodore Francis Green

Warwick, RI

Seattle-Tacoma

Seattle, WA

Source: GAO.

Sacramento

Sacramento, CA

Oakland

Oakland, CA

National rail access by shuttle

National rail access by automated people mover

Amtrak

Philadelphia

Philadelphia, PA

6

Code sharing refers to the practice of airlines applying their own names and selling tickets 

to flights or rail service operation by other carriers. 

7

Continental officials stated that in April 2003, they reinstated limited air service between 

Newark and Philadelphia because of market demand. 

Page 6 GAO-06-855T 
While there is no single federal funding source for rail to airport projects, 

we found that local governments, airports, and transit systems were able 

to tap and package a variety of federal funds to pay for recent rail 

connections to airports. These included direct appropriations, the New 

Starts program for fixed guideway transit systems, two federal aid 

highway categories—the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program and the Surface Transportation Program—and 

passenger facility charges at airports. Appendix I describes these 

programs. 

According to transportation research, planning officials, and our prior 

work, a number of financing, planning, and other challenges play 

important roles in shaping transportation investment decisions and the 

development of intermodal capabilities. Significant challenges to the 

development of intermodal capabilities are the lack of specific national

goals and funding programs. Federal funding is often tied to a single 

transportation mode; as a result it may be difficult to finance projects, 

such as intermodal projects, that do not have a source of dedicated 

funding. Federal legislation8

 and federal planning guidance all emphasize 

the goal of establishing a systemwide, intermodal approach to addressing 

transportation needs. However, the reality of the federal funding 

structure—which directs most surface transportation spending to 

highways and transit and is more oriented to passengers than freight—

plays an important role in shaping local transportation investment 

choices.9

 In addition to the focus on highways and transit over other 

investment choices, we found limited instances in which investment 

decisions involved direct trade-offs in choices between modes or users—

such as railroad versus highway or passenger versus freight.10

Several Significant 

Challenges Affect the 

Development and Use 

of Intermodal 

Capabilities 

 8

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century, enacted in 1998; and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, enacted in 2005. 

9

While most federal funding sources and programs are linked to highway or transit uses, 

some funding flexibility between highway and transit is allowed under programs such as

the National Highway System, Surface Transportation Program, and Congestion Mitigation 

and Air Quality Improvement Program. Federal programs provide limited support for

investment in railroad infrastructure. 

10GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions, GAO-04-744 

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004). 

Page 7 GAO-06-855T 
A significant challenge to developing certain intermodal connections is the 

difficulty of securing funding within the mode-specific federal funding 

structure. The cost of intermodal projects can vary widely, depending on

the complexity and scope of the project. In addition, measuring and 

forecasting the benefits from individual projects can be hard to quantify,

and we found only anecdotal evidence of benefits for the 16 intermodal 

projects we examined.11 The costs of rail projects are typically substantial 

and can include costs to construct a station, as well as track and other 

infrastructure to support the rail network. Table 1 provides examples of 

the costs of intermodal projects at airports and funding sources. We found 

that many intermodal projects at airports fit the funding criteria for one or 

more federal programs focused on surface transportation or aviation. For 

example, FTA’s New Starts program is a significant source of funding for 

intermodal capabilities at airports that are part of a rail transit system. 

However, the rigorous rating process and increasing demands for its 

limited funds make the New Starts program time-intensive and 

competitive in nature and has made it difficult for local transportation 

agencies to secure this funding, according to local officials that we spoke 

with. Federal funding programs, like the New Starts program, will 

contribute only a portion of the total project costs, subject to local 

matching funds, which can be derived from local agencies such as 

metropolitan transportation authorities, transit agencies, and airport 

authorities.12 However, local transportation officials said it can be difficult

to secure local funds for intermodal projects at airports because these 

agencies could potentially have different funding priorities, making it 

difficult to build the unified local support necessary to secure funding. 

 11Our case study airport locations were Baltimore-Washington International, General 

Mitchell International, John F. Kennedy International, La Guardia, Los Angeles

International, Metropolitan Oakland International, Miami International, Minneapolis/St. 

Paul International, Newark Liberty International, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International, 

Ontario International, Portland International, Ronald Reagan Washington National, San 

Francisco International, Seattle-Tacoma International, and Washington Dulles 

International. The airports were selected to provide a range of airport sizes (medium and 

large), planned or existing types of intermodal service, and geographic locations. 

12For selected New Starts projects, a maximum of 80 percent federal contribution to total 

project costs can be funded, but projects that request a maximum federal share of 60 

percent of the project’s total cost receive higher priority. 

Page 8 GAO-06-855T 
Table 1: Examples of Intermodal Project Costs and Funding Sources 

Dollars in millions

Project description

Capital 

costsa

Funding sources 

Construction of a new Amtrak rail station 

adjacent to and serving Milwaukee’s General 

Mitchell International Airport, and 

improvements to the existing rail line, which 

already provided service between Milwaukee 

and Chicago 

$6.8b • Two separate annual federal appropriations

• Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

5.5-mile light rail line (Metropolitan Area

Express) extension to existing rail line to 

provide service between city center and

Portland (Oregon) International Airport 

$154c • Tri-Met (local transit agency) 

• Airport passenger facility charges

• City of Portland

• Cascades Development Corporation (a private land development

corportation) 

New light rail system (Hiawatha Light Rail) 

providing service between downtown 

Minneapolis and the Mall of America, with two 

stations located at Minneapolis/St. Paul 

airport 

$715.3d • New Starts

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant 

• Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority 

• Metropolitan Airports Commission 

Source: GAO analysis of interviews conducted with, and documents provided by, airport and transportation officials. 

a

Capital costs are approximations as reported by airport or local transportation officials. 

b

Amount is expressed in 2005 dollars and includes the construction of a new building, boarding 

platform, canopy, parking facility, and several miles of rail improvements, including upgraded rail 

technology. 

c

Amount is expressed in 2001 dollars and includes engineering, design, vehicle acquisition, and 

construction and system installation. 

d

Amount is expressed in nominal dollars (1999-2004) and includes costs for the engineering, design, 

acquisition of 24 vehicles, construction and 12-mile system installation, 17 stations, and tunnel 

construction to access the two airport stations. 

Additionally, intermodal capabilities at airports can be funded with 

passenger facility fees, commonly referred to as PFCs.13 Local

transportation officials also described difficulties in securing the use of 

PFCs. In particular, requirements that PFC funds be used for projects on 

airport property, among other criteria, are seen as limiting their use for 

intermodal projects. Moreover, airlines support these restrictions on the 

use of PFC funds, believing that these funds are for airport development 

and capacity improvements, and not ground-access projects. However, 

even with this restriction, we reported in July 2005 that four airport 

 13PFCs are fees up to $4.50 paid by airport passengers, which are used to finance airport 

capital improvements. 

Page 9 GAO-06-855T 
authorities were using PFC funds to develop or contribute to intermodal 

projects at airports, as shown in table 2. 

Table 2: Selected Examples of Intermodal Rail Projects Funded by Passenger 

Facility Charges (PFC) 

Dollars in millionsa

Location Project description

Funding amounts

from PFCs

Portland, Ore. Light rail extension and new station at Portland 

International Airport 

$43

Newark, N.J. People mover system 1-mile connection from

Newark Liberty International Airport to new 

Northeast Corridor rail station 

$357

New York, N.Y. People mover system 3-mile connection from

John F. Kennedy International Airport to two 

transit rail stations

$1,326

St. Louis, Mo. On-airport transit station at St. Louis Lambert 

Field International Airport 

$4

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. 

Note: These projects have been approved by FAA and airports have begun collecting PFC funds. 

FAA has approved the use of PFC funds for additional projects for which airports have not yet started

collection PFC funds. 

a

Funding amounts are rounded to the nearest million. 

In addition to the limits on the use of federal funds, federal transportation 

projects, including intermodal projects, face a number of planning 

challenges including the following: 

• Decision makers must ensure that wide-ranging public participation is 

reflected in their deliberations and that their choices take into account

numerous views. During the planning of an intermodal project, the lead 

local agency’s responsibilities include soliciting public comment regarding

the most appropriate project to select for the area. This public 

participation can introduce considerations such as quality of life and other 

issues that are difficult to quantify in making transportation choices. It 

also puts decision makers in the position of balancing different public 

agendas about funding and values. 

• The physical constraints of an area may present a challenge to building 

intermodal facilities. The development of intermodal capabilities at 

airports provides an example of this challenge. On the one hand, our work 

has found that densely populated urban areas offer few alternatives for 

expansion or new project development. On the other hand, it is these same 

densely populated urban areas where rail connections to airports are more 

Page 10 GAO-06-855T 
likely to generate benefits that will justify the costs, as these areas may 

have high levels of congestion and larger numbers of people willing to use 

public transportation to access airports as a result. For example, since the 

proposed light rail line into the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

crossed land owned by various federal agencies, the process to gain the 

needed right-of-way was a multiagency effort that required significant 

coordination, adding somewhat to the project planning time and costs. 

• Multijurisdictional transportation corridors present special challenges in

coordinating investment decisions. Getting the cooperation of and 

coordination between these different officials can make the planning and 

implementation of multistate and multiregional projects difficult. For 

example, during the planning of the Seattle light rail, Sound Transit 

officials noted that the alignment from downtown Seattle to the SeattleTacoma International Airport ran through a number of surrounding cities 

and required three local cities to approve permits for the construction of 

the project.

The effective use of passenger rail as an intermodal option along heavily 

traveled air and highway corridors also poses challenges due to limitations 

of the existing nationwide rail network. For example, Amtrak’s passenger 

rail network does not support air-rail service requirements because rail 

lines do not go near some airports, passenger train schedules in some 

parts of the country are not frequent enough to effectively link to airline 

flight schedules, and transferring from air to rail poses inconveniences 

that limit consumer demand. As we discussed previously, although 14 

airports reported having a direct connection to Amtrak’s passenger rail 

service, 1 reported that passengers could access the station by automated

people movers—others required boarding a shuttle. In addition, although

Amtrak track lines are adjacent to the Cleveland Hopkins International 

Airport, Amtrak officials stated that Amtrak trains run only twice a day 

along this line, which is not frequent enough to establish a code share 

agreement with an airline. 

Furthermore, transportation industry experts and European transportation 

officials have pointed out that high-speed passenger rail, including 

connections to congested airports, has provided an alternative for air 

travel in short-haul markets in Europe. There has been a reduction of air 

service between Paris, France, and Brussels, Belgium—a popular short 

distance city pair for travelers—due, in part, to the high-speed train 

service linking Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport and downtown Paris with 

Brussels. In the United States, few efforts have been made to use rail 

service to complement air service in this manner because, in part, the cost

Page 11 GAO-06-855T 
of establishing service is not likely to justify its benefits given that some 

distances are too great for rail to provide an attractive alternative 

transportation mode. 

Finally, intermodal capabilities, while offering benefits to mobility, may 

need to develop a demand over time. For example, the development and 

use of intermodal connections at airports can be limited by the inability of 

the ground connections to meet the preferences of airline passengers, 

therefore, the majority of passengers still use private vehicles to access 

airports even when transit service is available. Passenger preferences can

include seamless transitions from one mode to another; a simplified 

process to handle baggage; transit schedules that meet consumer 

demands; and clear, easy-to-follow information on accessing 

transportation options—including signs at airports and information at 

hotels on accessing transit to airports. In addition, passengers, particularly

those traveling with children and large amounts of luggage, may not 

consider using transit or rail systems to complete their travel plans due to

inconvenience. 

Two general strategies could help public decision makers improve 

intermodal options. These strategies are based on a systematic framework 

that has the following three components: 

• Set national goals for the system. These goals, which would establish what 

federal participation in the system is designed to accomplish, should be 

specific and measurable. 

Two General 

Strategies Could Help 

Address Intermodal 

Financing and 

Planning Challenges 

• Clearly define the federal role relative to the roles of state and local 

transportation agencies and the private sector. The federal government is 

one of many stakeholders involved in the development of intermodal 

capabilities. This component is important to help ensure that the federal 

role supplements and enhances the participation of other stakeholders and 

appropriately balances public investment when the benefits flow in part to 

the private sector. 

• Determine which funding approaches—such as alternatives to investment 

in new infrastructure and those approaches that reward projects that 

advance national/federal goals—will maximize the impact of any federal 

investment. This component can help expand the ability to leverage 

funding resources and promote shared responsibilities. Given the current 

budgetary environment, and the long-range fiscal challenges confronting 

Page 12 GAO-06-855T 
the country, substantial increases in funding for transportation projects 

will require a high level of justification. 

In addition, either strategy would be enhanced by a process for evaluating

performance periodically to determine if the anticipated benefits from 

federally-funded projects are accruing as expected. 

In the first strategy, Congress could encourage the development of 

intermodal capabilities by increasing the flexibility with current federal 

transportation programs, which are largely focused on individual 

transportation modes, to a more systemwide approach across all modes 

and types of travel. To promote intermodal development, the federal 

government could consider several alternatives for transportation 

planning and funding that might better focus on these outcomes and 

promote better coordination between jurisdictions. These alternatives 

include the following: 

• Increasing the flexibility of federal transportation funding programs to 

help break down the current funding stovepipes.

• Applying different federal matching criteria for different types of 

expenditures in order to provide a higher level of federal matching for 

projects that reflect federal priorities. 

• Establishing performance-oriented funding or a reward-based system that 

would favor those entities that address the national interest and meet 

established intermodal goals. 

• Expanding support for alternative financing mechanisms—such as 

providing credit assistance to state and local governments for capital 

projects and using tax policy to provide incentives to the private sector for 

investing in intermodal capabilities—to access new sources of capital and 

stimulate additional investment in intermodal capabilities. 

• Aligning incentives for planning agencies to adopt best practices and to 

achieve expectations. 

While this strategy would involve changes in federal transportation policy, 

it would most likely not involve a major shift in the federal role, which 

would continue to be focused on funding and oversight of locally 

determined and developed transportation projects. However, since this 

strategy would include the goal of establishing a more systemwide 

approach to transportation planning, the federal government would need 

Page 13 GAO-06-855T 
to determine the scope of its involvement in encouraging such an 

approach. 

The second strategy is a fundamental shift in federal transportation 

policy’s long-time encouragement of state and local decision making by 

increasing the role of the federal government in planning and funding 

intermodal projects in order to develop more integrated intermodal 

networks, either nationwide or along particularly congested corridors. 

This strategy could be similar to the strategy the federal government used 

in the 1950s to develop the interstate highway system. Under this strategy, 

Congress could establish national goals for the development of intermodal 

capacities that could include not only the development of facilities and 

connections, but also the development of a supporting transportation 

network to improve the ability of either passengers or freight companies 

to reach their final destination. The role of the federal government would 

change, with the federal government taking a more active role in setting 

priorities and planning of intermodal connections between the individual 

transportation modes. Similar to the development of the interstate 

highway system, the federal government’s role could include providing 

project specific oversight, laying out routes, overseeing construction, and 

ensuring that the system is adequately maintained. 

For the federal government to take a more active role in developing

intermodal capabilities, it might also need to take on additional funding 

responsibilities. An example would be if a federal policy were established 

to develop a transportation system that promoted connections between 

airports and high-speed rail networks, as in Europe.14 To accomplish 

improved air-rail connections, the federal government would have to 

increase its funding role due to the high costs of enhancing or expanding 

rail service or developing high-speed rail corridors or tap others that 

would benefit from such service, including the region, its airport, and 

businesses associated with the airport as possible funding sources. The 

full costs of this policy would be dependent on how integrated and 

expansive such an intermodal network would be and whether it would 

include additional high-speed rail or be focused on conventional passenger 

rail service. We have shown in the past that both of these choices are 

 14In several cases, European national governments have established policies to reduce the 

number of short-haul flights at their major airports and have supported these policies by 

funding high-speed rail infrastructure. 

Page 14 GAO-06-855T 
costly and increased federal involvement could require the 

implementation of a dedicated funding source. 

However, even if a revenue source is established, this new funding would 

face many of the same revenue challenges that other transportation 

systems, such as highways, are facing now as revenues sources are 

eroded. Additionally, given the high costs of this strategy, benefits high 

enough to justify investment in intermodal facilities would likely be 

anticipated in a limited number of places. 

Increasing passenger travel and freight movement have led to growing 

congestion, and decision makers face the challenge of maintaining the 

nation’s mobility while preventing congestion from overwhelming the 

transportation system. Successfully addressing mobility needs in the face 

of growing congestion requires both strategic and intermodal approaches. 

However, the current system for planning and financing transportation is 

not well-suited to advancing intermodal transportation projects—

including both passenger and freight transportation—calling for 

fundamental changes that use a broader, systemwide approach to 

transportation investment decisions. A federal strategy of encouraging a 

more systemwide approach to transportation planning, including 

alternative funding mechanisms, could encourage transportation officials 

to consider the development of additional intermodal connections in the 

context of other transportation investment decisions. At the same time, it 

is clear that more quantitative evaluations of the costs and benefits of 

intermodal capabilities could help to better inform state and local, as well

as federal decision makers, as they attempt to determine which projects to 

develop with their limited resources. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 

prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or 

other members of the Subcommittee might have.

For information on this testimony, please contact Katherine Siggerud at

(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony are Teresa Spisak and Tim Schindler. 

Concluding 

Observations 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 15 GAO-06-855T 
Page 16 GAO-06-855T 

Program Description Example of use at airports 

New Starts (FTA) Selects worthy fixed guideway transit projects for 

funding by congressional appropriations. Projects

can include heavy, light, and commuter rail and 

certain bus transit projects (such as bus rapid 

transit). To be eligible for funding, projects must, 

among other things, be justified based on a

comprehensive review of mobility improvements, 

environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, and 

operating efficiencies, as well as being supported by 

an acceptable degree of local financial commitment. 

The program funding match is at most 80 percent 

federal and 20 percent local.a

 In fiscal year 2006, this

program was funded at $1.2 billion. 

Bay Area Rapid Transit extension south of the San 

Francisco International Airport into San Mateo County 

New light rail system (Hiawatha Light Rail) providing 

service between downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of 

America, with two stations located at Minneapolis/St. 

Paul International Airport 

Congestion 

Mitigation and Air 

Quality Improvement 

Program (joint 

FHWA and FTA) 

Funds transportation projects and programs in order 

to reduce transportation-related emissions in 

localities with poor air quality. To be eligible for 

funding, projects must be transportation related, in 

nonattainment or maintenance areas,

b

and reduce

transportation-related emissions. The program 

funding match is 80 percent federal and 20 percent 

local. In fiscal year 2006, this program was funded at 

$1.7 billion. 

Hiawatha Light Rail service between downtown 

Minneapolis and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International 

Airport 

Surface 

Transportation 

Program (FHWA) 

Provides funding to states and localities for projects

on any federal-aid highway—including transit capital 

projects and local and nationwide bus terminals and 

facilities. The program funding match is 80 percent 

federal and 20 percent local. In fiscal year 2006, this

program was funded at $6.3 billion. 

Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami International 

Airport 

Transportation 

Infrastructure 

Finance and 

Innovation Act of 

1998 (joint 

FHWA/FTA) 

Provides federal credit assistance for surface

transportation projects. Project sponsors may 

include public, private, state, or local entities. 

Projects eligible for federal assistance through

existing surface transportation programs, including 

passenger bus and rail facilities, are eligible for 

credit assistance under this program. The amount of 

federal credit assistance may not exceed 33 percent 

of the reasonably anticipated project cost. In fiscal 

year 2006, this program was funded at $130 million. 

Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami International 

Airport 

Airport Improvement 

Program (FAA) 

Provides grants to airports for planning and

development projects. The program is funded, in

part, by aviation user excise taxes, which are

deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In 

terms of promoting intermodal capabilities, these 

funds may be used for access roads that are on 

airport property, airport owned, and exclusively 

serve airport traffic. The program funding match is

75 to 90 percent federal based on the number of 

enplanementsc

at the airport and the remainder is

from local sources. In fiscal year 2006, this program 

was funded at $3.5 billion. 

We found no example of its use for intermodal projects. 

Appendix I: Federal Programs That Can Fund 

Intermodal Projects at Airports 
Program Description Example of use at airports 

Passenger facility 

charges (FAA) 

Authorizes commercial service airports to charge 

passengers a boarding fee—commonly called a

passenger facility charge—of up to $4.50, after 

obtaining FAA approval. The fees are used by the 

airports to fund FAA-approved projects that enhance 

safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or

increase air carrier competition. In calendar year 

2005, $2.4 billion in fees were collected under this

program. 

AirTrain automated people mover at New York’s John 

F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark’s Liberty 

International Airport 

Light rail extension and new station at Portland 

International Airport 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information. 

a

When evaluating New Starts proposals, FTA places greater priority on projects that have a greater 

local matching share. Competitive New Starts proposals often have a 40-50 percent local match. 

b

Federal air quality standards exist for certain common air pollutants (known as criteria pollutants). 

Geographic areas that have levels of a criteria pollutant above those allowed by the standards are 

called nonattainment areas. Areas that did not meet the standards for a criteria pollutant in the past 

but have reached attainment are known as maintenance areas. 

C

An enplanement is defined as a passenger boarding a flight. Enplanements include passengers

boarding the first flight of their trip, as well as passengers who board after connecting from another

flight. 

Page 17 GAO-06-855T 
Page 18 GAO-06-855T 

Related GAO Products 

Freight Transportation: Short Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance of 

Systematic Approach to Public Investment Decisions. GAO-05-768. 

Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005. 

Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal 

Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities. GAO-05-727. 

Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005. 

Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information 

on Projects’ Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for 

Results. GAO-05-172. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005. 

Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions. 

GAO-04-744. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004. 

Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and 

Financing Limitations. GAO-04-165. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 

2003. 

Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for 

Infrastructure Investments. GAO-02-1033. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 

2002. 

(540131) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER