MARITIME 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Opportunities Exist to 

Improve the 

Effectiveness of 

Federal Efforts to 

Support the Marine 

Transportation System

Report to Congressional Addressees

November 2012

GAO-13-80

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-80, a report to 

congressional addressees

November 2012

MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE 

Opportunities Exist to Improve the Effectiveness of 

Federal Efforts to Support the Marine 

Transportation System

Why GAO Did This Study

The MTS is integral to the efficient 

movement of the nation’s freight. The 

MTS includes navigable waterways, 

ports, and port connectors, such as 

roads and railways that provide access

to the Interstate highway system and 

the national rail network. According to 

DOT, approximately 90 percent of 

America’s overseas imports and 

exports by tonnage move by ship. 

Consequently, the continued 

maintenance and improvement of the 

MTS is essential to sustaining the 

nation’s competitive position in the 

global economy. This report examines 

(1) Corps and DOT programs that can 

be used to maintain or improve the 

MTS, (2) key challenges to maintaining 

and improving the MTS, and (3) 

opportunities to improve the 

effectiveness of the federal role in the 

MTS. GAO analyzed information from 

the Corps and DOT, interviewed 

relevant agency officials and industry

associations, and conducted site visits 

to six ports—selected based on 

tonnage, geographic representation,

and other factors—to discuss federal, 

state, and local investment in MTS 

infrastructure. 

What GAO Recommends

DOT should (1) inform the 

development of the National Freight 

Strategic Plan with the Corps’ planned 

investments in the nation’s navigable 

waterways and (2) ensure the review 

and update of the National Strategy for 

the MTS to include accountability 

mechanisms for the Strategy’s

recommended actions. DOT agreed to 

consider the report’s 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) use a variety of programs to maintain and improve Marine Transportation 

System (MTS) infrastructure. The Corps is the lead federal agency responsible 

for maintaining and improving navigable waterways. Corps data show that 

obligations for navigable waterways have decreased from over $3 billion in fiscal 

year 2009 to about $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2011. Most annual DOT funding is 

provided to states through formulas, and states determine which projects to fund. 

For example, in fiscal year 2011, the Surface Transportation Program provided 

$9.5 billion to states for a variety of transportation projects, which may have 

included port improvements. However, because DOT does not specifically track 

formula funding used to maintain or improve ports or port connectors, officials 

were unable to provide GAO the extent to which these funds were used for port 

improvements, although the officials stated that the number of port-specific 

projects was likely small. Several DOT grant and credit programs can also 

provide specific funding to ports, though ports are primarily responsible for 

maintaining and improving infrastructure on port property. 

Aging MTS infrastructure, a growing backlog of projects, and the lack of an MTS 

system-wide prioritization strategy represent key challenges for the Corps and 

DOT to maintain and improve MTS infrastructure. For example, some structures 

that support navigation, such as locks, are over 100 years old, and their condition 

has resulted in deteriorating performance and costly delays to shippers. The 

Corps and DOT have taken some steps to prioritize their individual funding 

decisions, but none of these efforts consider MTS infrastructure system-wide. 

While the Corps is prioritizing projects within its navigation program, DOT has a 

more limited ability to prioritize funding for port infrastructure projects because 

the majority of DOT’s funding goes to the states where decisions about

transportation priorities are made at the state and local level. 

Two efforts in particular provide opportunities to improve the effectiveness of 

federal support to MTS infrastructure. First, the recently enacted Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act requires DOT to develop a National Freight 

Strategic Plan and to consult with appropriate transportation stakeholders. 

However, DOT and the Corps have historically had limited coordination involving 

system-wide MTS investments. Involving the Corps in the development of the 

National Freight Strategic Plan is particularly important given the critical role 

navigable waterways play in freight movement. Second, the Committee on the 

Marine Transportation System (CMTS), a partnership of federal agencies chaired 

by DOT, has the opportunity to take further actions to help ensure that its 2008 

National Strategy for the Marine Transportation System is reviewed and updated 

to reflect new and emerging challenges, and that its 34 recommendations to 

improve the MTS are implemented. One recommendation included studying 

approaches to allocate federal dollars among competing transportation priorities. 

However, the Strategy has not been reviewed and updated since the CMTS

published it in 2008 and it does not incorporate accountability mechanisms, such 

as identifying desired results or performance measures, for the recommended 

actions. Such mechanisms would help ensure that the actions CMTS 

recommended to improve the MTS are indeed implemented.

View GAO-13-80. For more information, 

contact Lorelei St.James at (202) 512-2834 or 

stjamesl@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Letter 1 

Background 3

A Variety of Corps and DOT Programs Can Be Used to Maintain or 

Improve Some Segments of the MTS 13

Several Challenges Exist to Maintaining and Improving the MTS 21

Federal Government Has Taken Steps to Address MTS Challenges; 

However, Opportunities Exist to Improve the Effectiveness of 

Its Role in the MTS 33

Conclusions 41

Recommendations for Executive Action 42

Agency Comments 43

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 45

Appendix II DOT Programs We Reviewed That May Fund MTS 

Infrastructure 49

Appendix III DOT Programs We Reviewed That May Finance MTS 

Infrastructure 50

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Tables

Table 1: Corps Navigation Program Obligations by Appropriations 

Account, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 14

Table 2: Selected Corps Navigation Operation and Maintenance 

Activities Performance Indicators 26

Table 3: MTS Stakeholders with Whom GAO Met during Site Visits 47

Table 4: DOT Obligations for Programs We Reviewed That May 

Fund MTS Infrastructure 49

Table 5: DOT Obligations, Principal Amount and Net Lifetime 

Subsidy Reestimate for Programs We Reviewed That May 

Finance MTS Infrastructure 50

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Figures

Figure 1: Three MTS Segments: Navigable Waterways, Port, and 

Port Connector Infrastructure 6

Figure 2: Mississippi River at the Port of South Louisiana 22

Figure 3: Corps Navigation Lock Inventory, 2012 23

Figure 4: Construction at the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, 

New Orleans, Louisiana 25

Abbreviations

CMTS Committee on the Marine Transportation System 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GDP gross domestic product 

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

MARAD Maritime Administration 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

MTS Marine Transportation System 

MTSNAC Marine Transportation System National Advisory 

 Council 

RRIF Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

 Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

TEU twenty-foot equivalent unit 

TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

 Innovation Act 

TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

 Recovery

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

November 13, 2012

Congressional Addressees

The United States is one of the largest trading nations in the world, and 

approximately 90 percent of America’s overseas imports and exports by 

tonnage move by ship.1 Consequently, the continued maintenance and 

improvement of the nation’s Marine Transportation System (MTS) is 

essential to sustaining the nation’s competitive position in the global 

economy and the efficient movement of freight within the United States. 

The MTS includes navigable waterways, ports, and port connectors such 

as the roads and railways that provide access to and from ports.2 While a 

worldwide slowdown in economic activity has recently resulted in less 

freight moving through the MTS, forecasts estimate that U.S. freight 

tonnage will steadily increase through 2040.3

The MTS operates in a complex funding environment, with the federal 

government, state, local, and private entities all playing a role in helping 

maintain and develop MTS infrastructure. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) is the lead federal agency for maintaining and 

improving navigable waterways, and the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) is the primary federal agency supporting landside infrastructure 

projects that facilitate the movement of freight to, from, or within ports. In 

addition, port authorities, some of which are quasi state or local public 

entities, are primarily responsible for managing infrastructure such as 

terminals, wharfs, berths, and piers “inside the gate” of a port where 

cargo is loaded onto and unloaded off of ships.

Given the variety of stakeholders responsible for specific segments of the 

MTS, nationwide efforts such as adapting to a potential shift in U.S. trade 

 

1

U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, America’s Ports and 

Intermodal Transportation System, (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

2

According to DOT, the MTS also includes pipelines, vessels, and users. See U.S. 

Department of Transportation, An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: 

A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: September 1999). We did not include pipelines, 

vessels, or users (i.e., people who depend on the system for their livelihood and 

recreational access) in the scope of our review.

3

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight 

Management and Operations, Freight Analysis Framework, version 3.2, 2011.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

routes because of the expansion of the Panama Canal or developing 

infrastructure to support an increase in the nation’s exports can be 

challenging. This is particularly true in the current fiscally constrained 

environment where many MTS infrastructure needs outweigh the 

resources available. In light of these issues, we prepared this report 

under the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct evaluations at 

GAO’s initiative to assist Congress with its oversight responsibilities. This 

report examines:

1. Corps and DOT programs that can be used to maintain or improve the 

MTS.

2. Key challenges to maintaining and improving the MTS.

3. Opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the federal government’s

role in the MTS.

To address these objectives, we reviewed program documentation and 

related reports from the Corps, DOT, the Committee on the Marine 

Transportation System (CMTS), and the American Association of Port 

Authorities. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on several topics, 

including surface transportation programs, freight mobility issues, Corps 

budget formulation and project delivery processes, marine transportation 

financing, strategic planning, and interagency collaboration and 

coordination practices. We reviewed budget documentation and collected 

and analyzed funding and financing information for federal programs 

within the Corps and DOT. We reviewed relevant documentation and 

interviewed knowledgeable officials about these data and determined that 

they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We reviewed 

legislation related to surface and MTS infrastructure programs and 

funding, including the new surface transportation reauthorization—the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).4

 

4

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012).

We 

interviewed officials from a variety of federal transportation programs and 

representatives from industry associations representing various 

stakeholders in the MTS. We conducted site visits to the Port of New York 

and New Jersey, Port of New Orleans, Port of Portland, Port of 

Savannah, Port of South Louisiana, and the Port of Vancouver (USA). We 

chose these site visits based on a variety of criteria, including freight 

tonnage, ongoing and completed port-related infrastructure development 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

projects, a mix of coastal and river ports, and geographic representation. 

During these site visits, we collected relevant documentation and 

interviewed a range of port stakeholders, including officials from local port 

authorities, Corps division and district offices, state DOTs, and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO).5

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to November

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

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

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The results of these site 

visits are not generalizable, but do provide insights regarding state, local, 

and private-sector experiences maintaining and improving MTS 

infrastructure. For additional information on our scope and methodology, 

see appendix I.

As economic activities become more integrated and globalized, foreign 

trade has become increasingly important to the U.S. economy.6

 

5

MPOs, representing local governments, are responsible for carrying out the requirements 

of the transportation planning process in urbanized areas, in cooperation with state 

departments of transportation and other providers of transportation services. This may 

include coordination with ports, shippers, and terminal operators to plan needed system 

improvements to port infrastructure. An MPO must be designated for each urbanized area 

with a population of more than 50,000 individuals. 23 U.S.C. § 134(d); 49 U.S.C. § 

5303(d).

According to DOT, recent projections indicate foreign trade may reach 35 

percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 and potentially 

grow to 60 percent of GDP by 2030. As the types of goods exported from 

and imported to the United States vary greatly, the specific type of cargo 

can determine the mode of shipment. For example, cargo such as grains, 

coal, ore, and cement typically ship by dry bulk carrier, oil and gas by 

tanker, while other commodities such as apparel and appliances ship via 

6

The importance of U.S. exports to the economy was underscored by the President’s 

National Export Initiative with a goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015 (from $1.57 trillion 

to $3.14 trillion). This initiative is focused on increasing exports to create jobs.

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

containership.7

Most types of cargo (including agricultural goods such as grains) are 

increasingly being moved by containership—ships that carry cargo in 

containers measured in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).

According to Corps data, U.S. ports handled a total of 2.3 

billion tons of commodities in 2010.

8 In 2009, U.S. 

ports handled $474 billion in containerized imports and $177 billion in 

containerized exports. In addition, shippers are increasingly using larger 

ships to gain transportation efficiencies and cost savings in a competitive 

market. For example, in 2000, the average containership carried 2,900

TEUs; in 2012, the average containership carried 6,100 TEUs. According 

to DOT, the number of port calls to the United States by very large postPanamax containerships9

 

7

Bulk means cargo that is transported on a ship or barge, but is not unitized and has to be 

weighed to be measured. Breakbulk cargo is unitized in packages, bundles, or pallets, but 

is not shipped within a container. Containers are large steel boxes that contain freight that 

can be transferred from the ship to various transportation modes such as railcar or truck. 

carrying 5,200 TEUs or greater increased 156 

percent (from 1,700 to 4,400 port calls) from 2004 to 2009. These vessels 

are expected to represent 62 percent of total containership capacity in the 

world by 2030. Consequently, continued trade growth in coming years, as 

well as the increasing size of containerships calling on U.S. ports, will 

place even greater demands on the nation’s MTS and necessitate some 

changes to MTS infrastructure, such as deepening channels to 

accommodate these larger vessels.

8

TEU or twenty-foot equivalent unit can be used to measure a ship’s cargo carrying 

capacity. The dimensions of one TEU are equal to that of a standard 20 foot shipping 

container (20 feet long, 8 feet tall).

9

These are ships that are currently too large to transit the Panama Canal. 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

The MTS is integral to the efficient movement of the nation’s freight. It 

provides a cost effective means of moving bulk, breakbulk, and 

containerized cargo to U.S. consumers and to foreign markets through a 

variety of transportation modes. The MTS includes three primary 

segments: navigable waterways, ports, and port connectors. There are 

25,000 miles of commercially navigable harbors, channels and 

waterways, 4 million miles of public highways and roads, and over 

140,000 miles of national, regional, and local railroad networks in the 

United States over which trillions of dollars worth of freight move annually. 

Figure 1 below illustrates these three MTS segments.

MTS: Navigable 

Waterways, Ports, and Port 

Connectors 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 1: Three MTS Segments: Navigable Waterways, Port, and Port Connector Infrastructure
 

Page 7 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Navigable Waterways: Navigable waterways include harbors, shipping 

channels (including both deep and shallow draft), rivers, lakes, and inland 

waterways, as well as locks, dams, and other navigation structures such 

as jetties.10

The federal government pays for all operation and maintenance activities 

for inland waterways and one-half of the inland waterways construction 

costs for rehabilitating, modernizing, or replacing locks and dams. The 

other half comes from commercial waterway users that pay fuel taxes that 

flow into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

They provide safe passage for a wide range of shipping 

vessels including containerships, tankers, bulk carriers, and other vessel 

types such as inland and oceangoing barges. Inland waterways carry 

approximately one-sixth of the national volume of intercity cargo on 

12,000 miles of commercially active inland and intra-coastal waterways. 

There are also 13,000 miles of coastal deep and shallow draft harbors 

and channels that are operated and maintained for commerce. These 

deep draft harbors and channels provide access to 70 ports, including 

about 40 ports that have channel depths of 40 feet or more and handle 10 

million or more tons of cargo per year.

11 In contrast, for coastal 

harbors and channels, the federal government pays from 40 to 90 

percent, and the non-federal sponsors pay from 10 to 60 percent of new 

construction costs depending on the channel depth and sponsor’s 

contribution for land, easement, and rights-of-way.12

 

10Inland and intra-coastal waterways have a depth of between 9 and 14 feet and are 

considered shallow draft waterways. Channels and harbors with a depth of greater than 

14 feet are considered deep draft waterways. Today’s super-post-Panamax container 

ships (with at least 8,000 TEU capacity) generally require berth and channel drafts of at 

least 50 feet deep when fully loaded, but many partially loaded post-Panamax vessels can 

call at ports with 40 to 45-foot drafts or less. 

The federal 

government pays for most operation and maintenance costs for coastal 

11The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-662, § 102, 100 Stat. 

4082, 4084 (1986) codified at 33 U.S.C. § 2212) established the cost-sharing ratios. Fifty 

percent of the cost of construction is to be paid from amounts appropriated from the 

General Fund of the Treasury, and the other fifty percent is from a fuel tax paid by 

commercial inland waterway users that is made available through appropriations from the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Some waterborne vessels are exempt from the fuel tax, 

including certain oceangoing ships, passenger boats, recreational craft, or government 

vessels. 

12Costs of water resource studies and projects are shared between the federal 

government and the non-federal sponsor, which can be, for example, a port authority or a 

state. Cost sharing is a requirement for federal budgetary participation in harbor and 

inland waterway improvements. 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

harbors and channels, which are then reimbursed from revenues from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which comes largely from an excise tax 

on imports imposed on commercial users at certain ports.13

Ports: All ports serve as gateways for the movement of goods between 

navigable waterways and landside transportation systems, such as the 

Interstate highway system or the national rail network. For the purposes 

of this report, we refer to ports as the area “inside the gate” and under the 

control of the local port authority or private terminal operator, where cargo 

is loaded and unloaded to and from ships. Ports may be publicly or 

privately owned and operated, and consist of thousands of large, 

medium, and small terminals and intermodal facilities in approximately 

360 commercial sea and river ports. However, most of the United States’ 

containerized cargo is handled by a few major ports. For example, in 

2009 U.S. ports handled over 206 billion tons of containerized imports 

and exports, and the top 10 U.S. container ports accounted for 85 percent 

of the total trade, according to DOT.

The tax 

applies a second time to cargo that has already arrived at a U.S. port, but 

is transferred by barge to another U.S. port. Importers or shippers pay an 

amount equal to 0.125 percent of the value of the commercial cargo 

involved at the time of unloading. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

balance totaled $6.42 billion at the end of fiscal year 2011. Non-federal 

sponsors are responsible for a small percentage of operation and 

maintenance costs for harbors and channels that are deeper than 45 feet.

14

Port Connectors: Efficient freight movement depends upon the condition 

of intermodal connections. Port connectors include transportation 

infrastructure such as roads, railways, and marine highways that connect 

the port to major trade corridors and allow freight to transfer from one 

 

13The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 created the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund. Pub. L. No. 99-662, § 1403, 100 Stat. 4082, 4269 (1986) (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 

9505).

14Top 10 container ports include: Los Angeles, CA; New York/New Jersey, NY/NJ; Long 

Beach, CA; Savannah, GA; Houston, TX; Oakland, CA; Norfolk, VA; Seattle, WA; 

Charleston, SC; and Tacoma, WA. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, America’s Container Ports: Linking Markets at Home and Abroad

(Washington, D.C.: January 2011). 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

transportation mode to another (e.g., from a ship to a truck).15

The federal government’s expenditures for surface transportation 

infrastructure, including port connectors, are based, in part, on the user 

pay principle. The government collects taxes and fees, which flow into the 

Highway Trust Fund—historically the principle mechanism for funding 

federal highway programs. The Highway Trust Fund generally provides 

for the construction, reconstruction, restoration, and rehabilitation of roads 

that serve both freight and non-freight users. State and local governments 

also invest in public highways and roads. Within the federal-aid highway 

program, the federal government generally is responsible for funding 80 

to 100 percent of highway project costs, while state and local 

governments are responsible for the remainder.

The 

Alameda Corridor, a 20-mile, $2.4 billion railroad express line linking the 

ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the transcontinental rail network 

east of downtown Los Angeles, provides one example of a major port 

connector that facilitates the movement of containerized freight to the 

East Coast as well as the Midwest.

16

 

15The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to establish a short sea transportation (Marine Highway) program and 

designate short sea transportation projects to mitigate landside congestion. Pub. L. No. 

110-140, §§ 1121-1123, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007). America’s Marine Highway system 

accommodates the waterborne movement of passengers and containerized freight 

between origins and destinations otherwise served solely by roads and railways. 

Typically, state and 

local governments collect revenue from a combination of fuel taxes, 

vehicle taxes and fees, and tolls. State and local governments 

supplement user fees with general revenues to support highway and road 

activities.

16Federal funding for highways is provided to the states primarily through a series of 

formula grants collectively known as the federal-aid highway program. 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Freight mobility is dependent on MTS infrastructure, and we have 

published a number of reports addressing surface transportation issues 

identifying a variety of challenges to freight mobility in the United 

States.17

• facilitating the efficient movement of freight and the growing demand 

for freight transportation;

We have highlighted challenges such as:

• adding capacity to accommodate that increased demand;

• limited investment from federal, state, and local government in freight 

projects; and

• including freight projects in the state and local transportation planning 

process.

We have also reported on the numerous federal goals for surface 

transportation and the lack of clarity in federal stakeholder roles. For 

example, DOT operating administrations with roles in freight 

transportation include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, and Maritime Administration (MARAD). An office of freight 

management and operations within FHWA administers programs, 

develops policies, and undertakes research that promotes freight 

movement across the nation and its borders, but the office does not 

coordinate federal actions such as federal funding related to freight 

mobility.

We have previously reported that although there is a clear federal interest 

in freight transportation, there has not been a strategy that clearly defines 

the federal role or a mechanism to implement a national freight strategy. 

In the past, we have recommended or proposed for congressional 

consideration a number of actions to address this issue.18

 

17GAO, Intermodal Transportation: DOT Could Take Further Actions to Address 

Intermodal Barriers, 

On July 6, 

GAO-07-718 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2007); Freight 

Transportation: National Policy and Strategies Can Help Improve Freight Mobility, 

GAO-08-287 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 7, 2008); Statewide Transportation Planning: 

Opportunities Exist to Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight, 

GAO-11-77 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2010); and Surface Freight Transportation: A 

Comparison of the Costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not 

Passed on to Consumers, GAO-11-134 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26, 2011).

18GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

GAO’s Prior Work on 

Freight Mobility and a 

National Freight Policy
 

Page 11 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

2012, MAP-21 was enacted into law and authorized funding for 2 years to 

core federal-aid highway and transit programs.19 This legislation 

establishes a framework for a national freight policy and directs DOT to 

develop a national freight network and a National Freight Strategic Plan. It 

encourages states to develop freight plans with a description of 

procedures states will use to make investment decisions involving freight 

transportation. It also authorized the increase of the federal cost share of 

freight-related projects on Interstate highways to 95 percent and to 90 

percent on other roads if the Secretary of Transportation certifies that the 

projects meet specified requirements. On July 19, 2012, the President 

announced the establishment of a White House-led task force to develop 

a federal strategy to inform future investment decisions and identify 

opportunities for improved coordination and streamlined review of 

investments in coastal port infrastructure. The task force is comprised of 

senior officials from five departments and five White House offices and 

plans to build on steps already taken to coordinate across agencies with 

port-related responsibilities.20

A Presidential Directive in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, issued in 2004, 

elevated the existing Interagency Committee on the Marine 

Transportation to a Cabinet-level body, and created the Committee on the 

Marine Transportation (CMTS).21

 

19Pub. L. No. 112-141, §§ 115-118, 126 Stat. 405 (2012). The law also expresses the 

sense of Congress that the administration should request, and the Congress should fully 

expend each year, all of the revenues collected in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for 

the operation and maintenance of the nation’s federally maintained harbors and channels. 

Id. at § 1536. It also directs the administration to provide an annual estimate of national 

harbor maintenance needs, including an estimate of the percentage of waterways that 

would be available for use based on the annual budget request, as well as how much 

funding would be needed to achieve 95 percent availability of the nation’s ports and 

waterways within 3 years. Id. at § 1537. 

The CMTS adopted a charter in 2005 

creating a partnership of federal agencies with responsibility for the MTS 

20The White House Task Force on Ports is comprised of senior officials from the National 

Economic Council, Office of Management and Budget, Department of the Army, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, Department of 

Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Council of Economic Advisors, Council on 

Environmental Quality, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 

21In the Oceans Act of 2000, Congress established the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 

(Commission). Pub. L. No. 106-256, 114. Stat. 644 (2000). The Commission issued a 

report, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century,” in 2004. The U.S. Ocean Action Plan 

was the Administration’s response to the Commission’s report. 

Committee on the Marine 

Transportation System and 

the MTS National Strategy
 

Page 12 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

to ensure the development and implementation of national MTS policies 

consistent with national needs and report to the President its views and 

recommendations for improving the MTS.22

• improving federal MTS coordination and policies;

The CMTS is a federal 

cabinet-level, interagency organization chaired by DOT and supported by 

a sub-cabinet policy advisory body, the Coordinating Board, a dedicated 

staff body, the Executive Secretariat, and Integrated Action Teams. 

According to the committee’s charter, the CMTS is responsible for:

• promoting the environmentally sound integration of marine 

transportation with other modes of transportation and with other 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses;

• developing outcome-based goals and strategic objectives for the 

safety, security, efficiency, economic vitality, environmental health, 

and reliability of the MTS for commercial and national defense 

requirements as well as a method for monitoring progress towards 

those goals;

• coordinating budget and regulatory activities that impact the MTS; and

• recommending strategies and implementing plans to maintain and 

improve the MTS.

In July 2008, the CMTS published a National Strategy for the Marine 

Transportation System (Strategy) to address challenges to improving the 

MTS and ensuring that policies and actions of CMTS agencies are 

synchronized and coordinated.23 The Strategy provided a policy 

framework for the MTS for 2008 through 2013 and recommended 34 

actions in 5 priority areas including capacity, safety and security, 

environmental stewardship, resilience and reliability, and finance.

 

22Members of the CMTS include the Secretary of Transportation; Secretary of Commerce; 

Secretary of Defense; Secretary of Homeland Security; Secretary of the Treasury; 

Secretary of State; Secretary of the Interior; Secretary of Agriculture; Secretary of Justice; 

Secretary of Labor; Secretary of Energy; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; Chairman of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. In addition, there are five Ex-Officio members of the Committee: Director, 

Office of Management and Budget; Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality; 

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security; Assistant to the President for Domestic 

Policy; and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.

23Committee on the Marine Transportation System, National Strategy for the Marine 

Transportation System: A Framework for Action (Washington, D.C.: July 2008).
 

Page 13 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

The Corps and DOT have programs that can be used to address three 

key infrastructure segments of the MTS. Specifically, the Corps is 

responsible for navigable waterways’ infrastructure and provides funding 

through its navigation program. Projects that improve or maintain ports 

and port connectors can receive federal funding or financing through a 

variety of programs administered by the DOT.

The Corps’ navigation program is responsible for maintaining navigable 

harbors, channels, and waterways and supporting structures—such as 

locks, dams, and jetties—for the MTS.24 Primary responsibilities of the 

navigation program include dredging to maintain channel depths at U.S. 

harbors and on inland waterways as well as planning, constructing, 

rehabilitating, operating, and maintaining navigation channels, locks, 

dams, and other structures. The Corps maintains only the federally 

designated channels in inland and coastal harbors, the depth and width of 

which are authorized by Congress.25

The Corps’ navigation program activities are generally funded from the 

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts. Funding requests in 

the President’s Budget for the navigation program that primarily supports 

Corps activities to maintain and improve navigable waterways have 

decreased from $2 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $1.58 billion in fiscal year 

2012. More specifically, the navigation program has decreased as a 

percentage of the President’s budget for the civil works program from 41 

Increases in a navigation channel’s 

authorized depth or width—referred to as construction or “new work”—are 

also congressionally authorized.

 

24Jetties are shore-connected structures generally built on either one or both sides of a 

navigation channel perpendicular to the shore and extending into the ocean. They are 

used to stabilize navigation channels and decrease dredging requirements.

25See, for example, Section 3028 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Pub. 

L. No. 110-114,110 Stat. 1041, 1141 (2007)) providing that the Secretary may dredge the 

Redwood City Navigation Channel, California, on an annual basis, to maintain the 

authorized depth of -30 feet below mean low water. Ports are responsible for dredging 

non-federal channels and berths, which is the area next to the pier where a ship docks.

A Variety of Corps 

and DOT Programs 

Can Be Used to 

Maintain or Improve 

Some Segments of the 

MTS

Navigable Waterways 

Segment
 

Page 14 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

percent in fiscal year 2008 to 34 percent in fiscal year 2012.26 Similar 

decreases occurred in obligations from three of the four separate 

appropriations accounts that support the Corps’ maintenance and 

improvement activities for navigable waterways: the (1) Investigations, (2) 

Construction, and (3) Operation and Maintenance accounts. According to 

a senior Corps official, a separate Mississippi River and Tributaries 

appropriations account—which is used primarily for flood control—can 

provide additional funds for investigations, construction, and operation 

and maintenance. As shown in Table 1 below, our analysis of Corps data 

found that the Corps’ total obligations for these accounts have decreased 

from over $3 billion in fiscal year 2009 to about $1.8 billion in fiscal year 

2011, a reduction of approximately 41 percent.27

Table 1: Corps Navigation Program Obligations by Appropriations Account, Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011

The vast majority of the 

funds in each fiscal year are obligated for operation and maintenance 

activities.

Appropriations Account FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

Investigations $15,503,342 $11,528,453 $7,785,470 

Construction 473,193,927 334,385,585 233,420,154 

Operation and Maintenance 2,478,036,016 1,866,911,203 1,526,723,174 

Mississippi River and Tributaries

Construction 9,328,116 11,888,462 837,855 

Operation and Maintenance 37,240,186 54,176,060 20,145,861 

Total $3,013,301,587 $2,278,889,764 $1,788,912,515 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data.

Notes: These data represent obligations using all funding sources, including funds from the Inland 

Waterway Trust Fund and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 

123 Stat. 115 (2009).

Totals may not add due to rounding.

 

26The navigation program is one of nine major functional areas, or business lines, in the 

civil works program. Other business lines within the Corps’ civil works program include 

flood risk management, a regulatory program, water supply, hydropower, recreation, 

environment, emergency management, and support for others, which covers the Corps’ 

activities related to interagency and international support.

27An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for 

the payment of appropriated funds for goods and services ordered or received, or a legal 

duty on the part of the United States that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of 

actions on the part of the other party beyond the control of the United States. An agency 

incurs an obligation, for example, when it signs a contract or awards a grant. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

• Investigations: Prior to beginning any new navigation project, the 

Corps studies the proposed project’s necessity, feasibility, costs, and 

benefits. According to data provided by the Corps, the Corps 

obligated approximately $7.8 million for such investigations in fiscal 

year 2011, with work on most investigations projects conducted over 

multiple years. For example, according to the Corps’ fiscal year 2012 

Budget Justification, the federal share to fund preconstruction 

engineering and design activities for a navigation channel-deepening 

project at the Port of Savannah will cost an estimated $31 million.

According to the Corps’ final report for the project, it will deepen the 

harbor from its current authorized depth of 42 feet to 47 feet as well 

as widen areas where the navigation channel bends or where vessels 

pass or turn. The final report states that the increased depth will result 

in annual benefits because of the increased transportation cost 

efficiencies, reduced tidal delays, and reduced channel-congestion 

delays.28 Specifically, the report concluded that although deepening 

the harbor would cost $39 million each year to maintain, it would 

generate average annual benefits to the nation of $213 million, 

thereby resulting in $174 million in net annual benefits to the nation.29

• Construction: The Corps obligates funds for construction and major 

rehabilitation projects related to navigation through its Construction 

account—totaling over $234 million in fiscal year 2011, according to 

data provided by the Corps. Similar to its Investigations account, work 

on most construction projects is conducted over multiple years. For 

example, according to the Corps’ fiscal year 2012 Budget 

Justification, the federal share of the New York and New Jersey 

Harbor-deepening construction project will cost an estimated $1.17 

billion. The project will deepen 35 miles of navigation channels at the 

Port of New York and New Jersey to enhance access to the port’s 

major container terminals, according to the Corps. In addition, as part 

of its Olmsted Locks and Dam Project, the Corps is replacing two 

existing locks and dams on the Ohio River that can no longer meet 

current traffic demands without significant delays. According to a 

March 2012 Corps fact sheet, the project’s current cost estimate 

 

28U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Final General Re-Evaluation Report: 

Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (January 2012). 

29We did not independently verify the Corps’ estimates for the Savannah Harbor 

Expansion Project. 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

without inflation at the October 2011 price level is approximately $2.9 

billion.

• Operation and Maintenance: According to data provided by the Corps, 

in fiscal year 2011 the Corps obligated over $1.5 billion from its 

Operation and Maintenance account, which funds activities that 

maintain existing infrastructure. This generally includes dredging 

navigable harbors, channels, and waterways up to their 

congressionally authorized depth and width; however, these funds are 

also used for other purposes, such as to conduct routine maintenance 

on existing locks and dams. For example, Corps officials from the 

New Orleans District told us that dredging needs can vary significantly 

throughout the year, with some river sections receiving sediment 

deposits of up to 5 feet in one day. As a result, according to Corps 

officials, daily dredging of navigation channel sections at the mouth of 

the Mississippi River during certain times of the year is needed to 

ensure that ships can safely and efficiently access ports. According to 

the Corps’ Navigation Data Center, New Orleans dredged more 

material than any other district in fiscal year 2010, removing over 65 

million cubic yards of material.

The federal government provides some funding or financing for projects 

that improve the port segment of the MTS. However, local taxes, private 

investment, and port authorities have typically financed infrastructure 

maintenance and improvements “inside the gate.” According to the 

American Association of Port Authorities, ports and their private-sector 

partners plan to invest $46 billion through 2017 in port operations and 

infrastructure. Ports that we visited also plan to make such investments. 

For example, according to Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 

officials, the port plans to invest an estimated $1.7 billion over the next 

decade to sustain port growth and improve transportation infrastructure 

by, among other things, improving capacity of the port marine terminal 

roadway and rail systems, and local connections to major freight 

corridors. They noted that the figure does not include an estimated $1 

billion Port Authority of New York and New Jersey project to raise the 

roadway deck of the Bayonne Bridge, which will allow larger ships to pass 

underneath.

The federal government may also provide some funding or financing for 

projects on port property. For example, DOT’s Transportation Investment 

Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program has provided 

funds for infrastructure improvement projects on port property that are 

expected to have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, 

Port Segment
 

Page 17 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

or a region. We have previously reported that while there was no 

requirement to distribute grant awards across different modes of 

transportation, TIGER funding has supported merit-based highway, 

transit, rail, port, and other projects.30

Ports that we visited viewed the TIGER program as an opportunity to 

improve their existing infrastructure. Each of the ports we visited applied 

for a TIGER grant since funds were first appropriated for this grant 

program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

The American Association of Port 

Authorities has strongly supported the TIGER program as a way to fund 

projects that will sustain and improve the nation’s critical gateways for 

global trade.

31

Other DOT programs may also provide funds for port infrastructure 

development “inside the gate.” For example, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 established the Port Infrastructure 

Development Program to improve port facilities.

Overall, we found that DOT’s TIGER program awarded approximately 

$357 million for at least 26 port or port-connector projects between fiscal 

year 2009 and fiscal year 2012. For example, in 2010 the Port of 

Vancouver (USA) received a $10 million TIGER grant to help complete its 

West Vancouver Freight Access project, which will create a direct freight 

rail entry and exit from the port and alleviate rail traffic congestion. The 

project is divided into 20 elements, with completion anticipated in 2017.

Similarly, in 2011 the Port of New Orleans received a $16.7 million TIGER 

grant to construct a new 12-acre freight rail intermodal terminal and 

improve a 4-acre storage yard that is used for ultra-heavy project 

cargoes. The project’s objective is to reduce congestion, facilitate the 

movement of marine and rail cargo, stimulate international commerce, 

and maintain an essential port asset in a state of good repair.

32

 

30GAO, Surface Transportation: Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit from 

Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions, 

Specifically, the act 

GAO-11-234

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2011).

31Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

32Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 3512, 123 Stat. 2190 (2009). MARAD has existing authorities to 

conduct port infrastructure programs in Hawaii (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. No 109-59, § 9008, 

119 Stat. 1144, 1926 (2005); Alaska (SAFETEA-LU at § 10205 ); and Guam (Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417 § 

3512, 122 Stat. 4356, 4770 (2008)). 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

authorized the MARAD Administrator to, among other things, provide 

technical assistance to port authorities for project planning, design, and 

construction as well as to administer and carry out projects. According to 

MARAD officials, Congress has not appropriated any funds to the Port 

Infrastructure Development Program. Similarly, MARAD administers the 

America’s Marine Highway Program, intended to, among other things:

• expand domestic water transportation services as an alternative 

means of moving freight cargo and passengers; 

• mitigate the economic, environmental, and energy costs of landside 

congestion; and

• integrate marine highways into the transportation planning process.

Under the program, ports that are sponsors of designated Marine 

Highway Projects are eligible to compete for grants, and in September 

2010, DOT awarded three projects and three research studies, totaling $7 

million in funds. For example, the Virginia Port Authority was awarded 

$1.1 million to help purchase two barges to expand container 

transportation services both between the ports of Richmond and Norfolk 

and between the terminals within the port of Norfolk. This action is 

intended to relieve congestion along I-64 and within the City of Norfolk. 

A variety of DOT formula, grant, and credit programs may be used to 

maintain and improve port connector infrastructure, such as road and rail 

connections to the Interstate system or national rail network. MAP-21 

restructured highway programs by eliminating or consolidating the 

number of programs by two-thirds into new core formula programs: the 

National Highway Performance Program, the Surface Transportation 

Program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the Railway-Highway 

Crossings program, and the Metropolitan Planning program. We did not 

assess how MAP-21 may affect the programs that DOT uses to fund or

finance MTS projects; however, at the time of our review, we identified 

various surface transportation formula programs that could be used by 

state and local governments to develop or improve port connectors, all of 

which were administered by FHWA. These programs included, among 

others, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, 

the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and the National Highway 

System. FHWA distributes this funding to the states through annual 

apportionments established by statutory formulas, and state and local 

governments are ultimately responsible for, among other things, 

selecting, planning, and supervising their infrastructure projects, including 

Port Connector Segment
 

Page 19 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

determining which, if any, port connections should be maintained or 

improved.

FHWA obligations for formula programs in fiscal year 2011 ranged from 

approximately $232.6 million from the Metropolitan Planning Funds 

program to $9.5 billion from the Surface Transportation Program. (See 

app. II for a table of DOT programs we reviewed that may fund MTS

infrastructure.) Although FHWA can determine overall obligations for 

these programs, according to FHWA officials, it does not track the extent 

to which formula programs fund port connector projects specifically. As a 

result, we were not able to determine the total funds that were used to 

benefit ports. FHWA officials noted that FHWA’s role is to ensure that 

state projects meet federal program eligibility requirements and identified 

several challenges to identifying port-specific projects: 

• The number of port-specific projects for which formula funds are 

obligated is likely small. One FHWA official told us, for example, that 

less than 1 percent of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program funds are likely obligated to port-specific 

projects.

• Although some FHWA division offices may be able to identify portspecific projects because they use distinct accounting codes for these 

investments, such coding is not required and is inconsistently applied 

across division offices.

• Some larger highway projects may include components that could 

benefit a port; however, according to one FHWA official, it can be 

challenging to make that distinction.

By contrast, several DOT programs allow the department to grant or 

direct funds to port-connector infrastructure projects. According to data 

provided by DOT officials, the department obligated the following 

approximate amounts in fiscal year 2011:

• FHWA’s Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant Program ($14 

million), National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program ($77 

million), and Projects of National and Regional Significance program 

($237 million); and

• FRA’s Program for Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation and 

Improvement Projects ($32 million).

Of these programs we identified, the majority of funds were obligated 

from the Projects of National and Regional Significance program, under 

which funds are distributed by congressional directive. For example, 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

under the program Congress directed $100 million from fiscal year 2005 

to fiscal year 2009 to the Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project in New 

York.33

Some DOT credit programs can also target and finance port connector 

projects. For example, under these programs, DOT may obligate funds 

for direct loans to project sponsors. Generally, for credit programs, federal 

agencies obligate the credit program’s subsidy costs and administrative 

expenses.

According to FHWA, the goal of the project is the near-term 

rehabilitation and the long-term improvement of the underutilized rail 

freight network connecting the New York and New England markets to 

national markets west of the Hudson River.

34 This amount differs from the credit instrument’s principle 

amount, which represents the total credit provided by the federal 

government to the project’s sponsor. (See app. III for a table of 

obligations, principal amount, and subsidy cost information related to 

these programs.) One such credit program is FHWA’s Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which 

provides federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan 

guarantees, and lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects 

of national and regional significance.35

 

33SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1203 (2005). 

The TIFIA program supported at 

least one port connector project to date—providing a $341 million direct 

loan to a public-private partnership project intended to construct a 

dedicated roadway connector between the Interstate system and the Port 

of Miami. FRA’s Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

(RRIF) Program is another credit program that may be used to upgrade 

port connectors to the nationwide rail network. Under the RRIF program, 

FRA provides direct loans and loan guarantees to (1) acquire, improve, or 

rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities; (2) refinance 

outstanding debt, or (3) develop or establish new intermodal or railroad 

facilities. According to data provided by FRA officials, FRA obligated 

34Budgeting for the cost of credit programs, including the TIFIA and RRIF program, is 

governed by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, 

1388-610, title V, codified as amended at 2 U.S.C. § 661-661f), which requires federal 

agencies to receive budget authority to cover the estimated long-term cost to the 

government (which includes defaults, delinquencies, and interest subsidies) of providing 

credit assistance, calculated on a net present value basis, and excluding administrative 

costs. 

35For additional discussion of the TIFIA program, see GAO, Surface Transportation: 

Financing Program Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better 

Communication, GAO-12-641 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2012). 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

approximately $842 million for direct loans under the program between 

fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2011.

We identified three key challenges to maintaining and improving MTS 

infrastructure. First, aging infrastructure on the nation’s waterways, ports, 

and port connectors may hinder the efficient movement of freight.

Second, the Corps and DOT are faced with more demands for 

maintaining and improving MTS infrastructure than available federal 

funding allows. Third, while the Corps and DOT have taken some steps to 

prioritize funding within their purview for all three segments of the MTS 

that we reviewed, there is no system-wide strategy for prioritizing MTS 

investments.

The Corps is facing challenges maintaining and improving navigation 

infrastructure, such as dredging channels and repairing locks. For 

example, according to navigation program officials responsible for 

managing the deep draft Mississippi River channel between Baton Rouge 

and the Gulf of Mexico, increased dredging costs have precluded the 

Corps from being able, as of fiscal year 2011, to maintain the Mississippi 

River channel at its fully authorized width and depth.36

 

36Historically, the Corps has maintained the Mississippi River navigation channel to full 

dimensions as much as possible at all times using annual and supplemental 

appropriations, and reprogramming funds from other projects. 

Figure 2 below 

shows the Mississippi River at the Port of South Louisiana.

Several Challenges 

Exist to Maintaining 

and Improving the 

MTS

Aging MTS Infrastructure

Navigable Waterways and 

Supporting Structures
 

Page 22 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 2: Mississippi River at the Port of South Louisiana

As a result of the channel’s shoaling,37

 

37Shoaling is the natural shallowing of a river channel due to sediment build-up.

the New Orleans-Baton Rouge 

Steamship Pilot’s Association, which is responsible for operating vessels 

on the lower Mississippi River, began placing restrictions on certain 

sections of the river when conditions warrant. According to Corps officials, 

these restrictions can increase the time and cost of shipping services and 

the channel shoaling may have a negative impact on safety. Structures 

that support navigation channels, such as jetties, are also aging and in 

need of rehabilitation. For example, the jetties at the mouth of the 

Columbia River, which help to maintain the depth and orientation of the 

shipping channel and provide protection for ships from waves entering 

and exiting the river, are about 100 years old. The Corps’ Portland District 

recently completed a major rehabilitation report for the jetties, with 

prescribed near-term repairs, as well as more significant rehabilitation to 

be pursued between 2014 and 2020. The Pacific Northwest Waterways 

Association has indicated that these jetties are of critical importance to 

shippers in the region.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

The locks and dams that support navigation on the nation’s inland 

waterway system are also aging, resulting in decreased performance and 

costly delays. Over one-half of the Corps’ 241 locks at 196 sites have 

exceeded their 50-year service life, requiring increased maintenance to 

keep them functioning.38

Figure 3: Corps Navigation Lock Inventory, 2012

Figure 3 shows the age of the nation’s 

navigation lock inventory.

Note: Includes all operational deep and shallow draft Corps and Tennessee Valley Authority 

navigation locks.

 

38When properly maintained, navigation projects, such as locks, traditionally have a 50-

year design life, which is the minimal time the project is expected to provide reliable 

performance without major infrastructure investments to keep it safe and efficient. 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

As locks age, repair and rehabilitation become more extensive and 

expensive, according to the CMTS.39 Corps officials told us that, at 

current funding levels, replacement of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal 

lock (Industrial Canal), a vital link that connects the Mississippi River to 

the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway system in New Orleans, may not occur 

until 2030.40 Moreover, according to the Corps, the current lock, which 

was completed in 1921, is too small to accommodate modern day 

vessels. See figure 4 below.

 

39The problem of aging navigation infrastructure is not unique to the Corps. In 2010, GAO 

examined the U.S. St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation’s 10-year Asset 

Renewal Program to address long-term needs of two locks and navigation channels in the 

U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway and found that the total project estimates had 

increased in cost. See GAO, St. Lawrence Seaway: Estimates for the Asset Renewal 

Program Will Change, and Implementing Best Practices May Improve the Estimates’ 

Reliability, GAO-10-541R (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2010).

40The Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock Replacement Project was originally authorized 

by Congress in 1956 (Pub. L. No 84-455, 70 Stat. 65 (1956)) and amended by the Water 

Resources Development Acts of 1986 (Pub. L. No 99-662, 100 Stat. 4082 (1986)) and 

1996 (Pub. L. No 104-3, 110 Stat. 3658 (1996)). According to industry, the average delay 

is 11 hours, but can be as much as 24 to 36 hours on many occasions. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 4: Construction at the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock, New Orleans, 

Louisiana

Corps officials attributed this delay to the years of planning and 

community involvement needed to reach consensus on the lock design, 

as well as insufficient resources to address the lock replacement because 

of other construction projects.41

The Corps uses performance indicators to measure the performance of 

its locks. Each year the Corps measures its performance in meeting a 

number of high priority goals, and as part of this effort, the Corps 

assesses the extent to which the navigation projects are meeting 

The planned replacement lock will 

provide a nearly three-fold increase in lock chamber capacity; however, 

Corps officials told us that project costs have also increased considerably 

over time, with current construction costs estimated at $1.5 billion.

 

41The Olmsted Lock and Dam replacement is affecting the Corps’ ability to rehabilitate 

other navigation projects across the country as costs for the replacement have escalated 

from $775 million to the current project estimate cost to complete of $2.9 billion. 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

authorized purposes and evolving conditions.42 The Corps has developed 

performance metrics for navigation operation and maintenance activities 

to provide an indicator of the extent to which the Corps is meeting those 

goals. Recent data illustrate the effect that aging infrastructure is having 

on MTS performance (see table 2). These metrics show that the hours of 

scheduled and unscheduled lock closures because of mechanical failures 

have increased since fiscal year 2009. Moreover, according to a senior 

Corps navigation program official, there has been a consistent trend of 

deteriorating lock performance since 2000. For some indicators, such as 

the number of preventable lock closures over 24 hours, performance in 

2011 was better than in 2010; however, the performance of the locks still 

failed to meet Corps’ targets for 2011. Also, in fiscal year 2011, the Corps 

did not meet performance targets for locks at both inland waterways and 

coastal ports and harbors.

43

Table 2: Selected Corps Navigation Operation and Maintenance Activities Performance Indicators

2009 2010 2011

Actual Actual Target Actual

Inland waterways Segment availability – closures over 24 hours in 

thousands of hrs.

11.1 19.6 19 23.1

Preventable lock closures over 24 hours 37 61 38 50

Preventable lock closures over 7 days 19 37 21 26

Coastal ports and 

harbors

Channel availability 50% 38% 35% Not 

availablea

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Civil Works, Annual Financial Report, fiscal year 2011.

a

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics data was not available for 

publication at the time of this report.

 

42In 2009 the Corps developed four high-priority performance goals, including to: (1) 

provide sustainable development and integrated management of the nation’s water 

resources; (2) repair past environmental degradation and prevent future environmental 

losses; (3) ensure that projects perform to meet authorized purposes and evolving 

conditions; and (4) reduce vulnerabilities and losses to the nation and the Army from 

natural and man-made disasters, including terrorism. The selected navigation operation 

and maintenance activities performance metrics listed in table 2 address the third goal. 

43The Corps measures segment availability by assessing the number of hours that 

mechanical-driven failure or shoaling results in the closure of a high or moderate use river 

segment. Channel availability is the percentage of time that high-commercial traffic 

navigation channels are available to commercial users. There are a total of 59 high-use 

channels, defined as those that pass 10 million or more tons of cargo per year. 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

The nation’s road connectors at ports are used by trucks with heavy loads 

and are often in poor condition. DOT has reported that much of the 

nation’s freight transportation infrastructure was developed before 1960 to 

serve industrial and population centers in the Northeast and Midwest.44

Since 1960, however, there have been fundamental changes in the 

American economy as the population and manufacturing have grown in 

the South and West Coast. According to DOT, the growth in freight 

transportation is a major contributor to congestion in urban areas and 

congestion in turn affects the timeliness and reliability of freight 

transportation. In its December 2000 report to Congress, DOT found that 

many of the nation’s intermodal road connectors to ports were undermaintained. For example, highway connectors to ports had twice the 

percentage of pavement deficiencies as non-Interstate National Highway 

System routes.45 In that study, DOT found that 15 percent of the port 

connector mileage, which it defined as the roadway used by trucks to 

travel between major highways and ports, was in poor or very poor 

condition. More recently in 2004, DOT reported that about one-third of the 

port connector system was in need of additional capacity because of 

current congestion and that over 40 percent of the port connector mileage 

needs some type of pavement or lane-width improvement.46 Prior surface 

transportation legislation did not specifically address the condition of port 

connectors on a systematic basis, but the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

established a Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant Program to, 

among other things, facilitate and support intermodal freight 

transportation activities at the state and local levels to relieve congestion. 

This program included $30 million for six designated projects aimed at 

relieving congestion at intermodal facilities, including several ports.47

 

44U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and 

Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, (Washington, D.C.: January 

2010).

45U.S. Department of Transportation, NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report to 

Congress, (Washington, D.C.: December 2000).

46U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and 

Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, (Washington, D.C.: February 

2006). 

47Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 1306, 119 Stat. 1144, 1215-1217 (2005).

Port Connectors
 

Page 28 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Efficient freight movement at ports may also be hindered by aging rail 

infrastructure, especially key bridges. According to officials from the MPO 

serving the New Orleans metropolitan area, one of the most pressing rail 

infrastructure needs at the Port of New Orleans is replacement of the 

Almonaster Avenue Bridge, which is a central link in the east-west rail 

traffic across the southern United States handling numerous trains per 

day. The existing bridge was completed in 1920 and is structurally 

deficient—in its closed position the bridge provides only one to two feet of 

vertical clearance above the average water level and must open to 

virtually all marine traffic.48 Although the bridge is part of the national 

highway system, making it eligible for federal funding, it is not a part of 

the state highway system, and therefore ineligible for state funding, 

according to state officials. At issue is whether the Port of New Orleans, 

which owns the bridge, should pay for its share of the $65 million bridge 

replacement, because the transportation benefits that would come from 

the bridge’s replacement would accrue to the nation.

Today, the Corps is faced with more demands for maintaining and 

improving aging navigation infrastructure than available federal funding 

allows. According to Corps navigation program data, current authorization 

of appropriation amounts for navigation construction projects exceeds the 

amount appropriated by $13.5 billion, and the current estimated operation 

and maintenance backlog is $3.4 billion, assuming current funding levels. 

The data only include the federal shares and do not include the nonfederal share of the costs provided by project stakeholders.49

• authorizations that have outpaced appropriations in recent years;

Several 

factors have been identified as contributing to the size of the current 

navigation program backlog, including:

 

48For additional discussion on the condition of the nation’s bridges and the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Highway Bridge Program, see GAO, Highway Bridge Program: 

Condition of Nation’s Bridges Shows Limited Improvement, but Further Actions Could 

Enhance the Impact of Federal Investment, GAO-10-930T (Washington, D.C.: July 21, 

2010). 

49The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-662, § 102, 100 Stat. 

4082 (1986)) imposed new requirements on the financing of Corps navigation projects and 

established a cost-share requirement for harbor and inland waterways projects. For 

additional discussion see GAO, Federal User Fees: Substantive Reviews Needed to Align 

Port-Related Fees with the Programs They Support, GAO-08-321 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 

22, 2008). 

MTS Infrastructure 

Backlog 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

• the aging of existing infrastructure, which requires more funds for 

operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation; and

• rapidly increasing costs to construct water infrastructure projects, in 

part because of price increases for construction materials and fuels.50

Other reasons for the increase include the cost associated with 

environmental mitigation and disposal of dredged material. For instance, 

according to the Corps, features to mitigate the environmental impact 

account for 45 percent of the total $652 million cost of the Savannah 

Harbor Expansion Project. In addition, Corps officials told us that the lack 

of proximate dredged-material disposal areas and the mitigation costs for 

feasible alternative sites dramatically increases project costs. 

Keeping up with the investment requirements of modern port operations 

has become a major challenge for many ports, especially at the nation’s 

small and medium-sized commercial ports. According to a senior MARAD 

official, the majority of the nation’s port infrastructure was built in the 

1960s, and this infrastructure is now at the end of its useful life and in 

need of rehabilitation and modernization. As the TIGER program has 

demonstrated and as MARAD officials concur, port infrastructure 

development and modernization needs outweigh current funding. 

According to DOT, in fiscal year 2012 over 80 ports submitted TIGER preapplications for port development projects representing a variety of port 

types, including large sophisticated container ports as well as smaller 

commercial fishing ports, and DOT provided TIGER grant funding to 8 

port infrastructure projects. 

One of the challenges facing ports is installing adequate infrastructure to 

handle new larger post-Panamax vessels, which are expected to begin 

calling at U.S. Gulf and East Coast ports after the expansion of the 

Panama Canal is completed in 2014. Post-Panamax vessels, for 

example, require bigger cranes, which can cost over $25 million each, 

and more staging areas to accommodate peak cargo flow. Some ports, 

like Georgia Port Authority’s Garden City Terminal at the Port of 

Savannah, have invested heavily to ensure that the port is ready to 

accommodate the new larger vessels.

 

50Congressional Research Service, Army Corps Fiscal Challenges: Frequently Asked 

Questions, R41961 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 18, 2011). 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

According to DOT’s most recent estimate, $4.3 billion is needed to 

improve the condition of the nation’s port connectors.51 We have

previously reported that the nation’s surface transportation system, 

including port connectors, is under growing strain, and the cost to repair 

and upgrade the system to safely and reliably meet current and future 

demands may exceed what the nation can afford.52

Both the Corps and DOT are taking some steps to prioritize funding within 

their purview for all three segments of the MTS that we reviewed. We 

have previously reported that a systematic approach to help guide 

decisions on federal investment in the MTS is needed because of the 

growing awareness of, and agreement about, the need to view the 

various transportation modes that comprise the MTS from an integrated 

standpoint, particularly for the purposes of developing and implementing 

a federal investment strategy.53

The Corps has taken steps to prioritize limited funding within its 

navigation program and civil works budget process. Within the navigation 

program specifically, the Corps has developed the Operational Condition 

Assessment tool for all inland navigation structures, such as locks and 

dams, to ensure that structures are consistently assessed and to provide 

relative risk ratings and project ratings. The Corps is developing a similar 

tool for rating coastal navigation structures, such as jetties, and Corps 

officials expect this tool to inform the Corps’ fiscal year 2014 budget. For 

navigation channels, the Corps is developing a uniform framework tool, 

anticipated to be available for fiscal year 2015 to assess the condition of 

all navigation channels. With respect to its civil works program, the Corps 

began using performance-based budgeting beginning in fiscal year 2006 

as a way to focus funding requests on those projects with the highest 

anticipated return on investment.54

 

51U.S. Department of Transportation, 2002 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and 

Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, (Washington, D.C.: January 

2003). 

Under the current civil works budget 

52GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011).

53GAO, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure 

Investments, GAO-02-1033 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2002).

54GAO, Army Corps of Engineers, Budget Formulation Process Emphasizes Agencywide 

Priorities, but Transparency of Budget Presentation Could be Improved, GAO-10-453

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2010). 

Prioritization of MTS 

Investments 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

formulation process, the Corps uses performance metrics and a benefitto-cost ratio to evaluate projects’ estimated future outcomes and gives 

priority to those with the highest expected returns for the national 

economy and the environment. In part, the Corps focuses on anticipated 

outcomes because most of the construction and investigation projects 

being considered in its civil works budget requests are new or have not 

yet been completed, and thus have not generally begun to achieve 

benefits. Because the Operation and Maintenance account includes 

projects that have already been constructed, the Corps incorporates 

ongoing performance information, such as assessments of whether 

infrastructure meets current engineering and industry standards. 

Nevertheless, the number of investigations and construction projects 

receiving appropriations is typically greater than the number requested, 

and as we have previously reported, the Corps’ budget presentation does 

not include an explanation of the relative priority given to projects or how 

they are evaluated against each other.

In addition to these efforts, the Corps recently issued a report to provide 

advice on how Congress should address the need for additional port and 

inland waterway modernization to accommodate post-Panamax 

vessels.55

DOT has a more limited ability to prioritize funding for port infrastructure 

projects given the structure of federal surface transportation funding. The 

vast majority of DOT funding goes directly to state DOTs through 

formulas where decisions about transportation priorities are made at the

state and local level.

The Corps reported that it is critical that the U.S. develop and 

move forward with a strategic vision for ensuring adequate investment in 

maintaining navigation infrastructure and for facilitating the strategic 

targeting of investments to ensure that the United States is ready for 

these larger vessels when the expanded Panama Canal opens in 2014. 

The Corps also presented a variety of financing options to initiate a 

national discussion of possible paths to meet the challenge of 

modernizing MTS infrastructure.

56

 

55U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resource, U.S. Port and Inland 

Waterways Modernization: Preparing for Post-Panamax Vessels (Washington, D.C.: June 

20, 2012). 

In fiscal year 2011, FHWA provided states with 

56While the federal government provides most funding from the Highway Trust Fund 

directly to the states and the states oversee the use of these funds, by statute, states must 

provide some trust fund revenues to other organizations, such as MPOs, for planning 

purposes. 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

over $39 billion in federal-aid highway funding. The statewide 

transportation planning process is the forum through which states decide 

how to spend significant amounts of federal transportation funds. This 

process is informed by MPOs that lead transportation planning in 

urbanized areas—geographic areas with populations of 50,000 or more. 

Although states must comply with federal planning requirements 

administered jointly by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration, 

states have considerable discretion to allocate federal funds and select 

projects. According to a senior DOT official, states and MPOs make the 

decisions about how best to prioritize their formula funding and how to 

integrate port infrastructure projects into their transportation plans. 

However, as we have previously reported, data limitations and the lack of 

performance measures for these projects can make it difficult to quantify 

the benefits of these projects and to achieve state-wide or community 

support.57

DOT’s competitive grant and credit programs provide one opportunity for 

the agency to prioritize funding for port infrastructure, yet funding for 

these projects is relatively limited compared to formula funding. For 

example, in fiscal year 2012, DOT had $500 million in TIGER funds to 

obligate across all modes for a variety of transportation projects and $122 

million in budget authority for the TIFIA program.58 The new surface 

transportation legislation, MAP-21, significantly expands the TIFIA 

program by authorizing $750 million in budget authority in fiscal year 2013 

and $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 to pay the subsidy cost of supporting 

federal credit.59

 

57We have identified some challenges facing states and MPOs in developing freight—and 

by extension—port projects. See GAO, Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities 

Exist to Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight, 

According to FHWA, a $1 billion TIFIA authorization of 

budget authority will support about $10 billion in actual lending capacity. 

GAO-11-77

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2010), and Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options 

Exist to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight, GAO 09-868 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009).

58According to DOT, actual TIFIA lending capacity is subject to the calculation of the 

estimated subsidy cost for each credit assistance transaction. The amount varies based 

on the risk profile of the project and the repayment stream. According to DOT, actual 

original subsidy rates have ranged from less than 1 percent to over 15 percent of the 

TIFIA credit assistance received. See GAO, Surface Transportation: Financing Program 

Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Communication, 

GAO-12-641 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2012).

59Pub. L. No.112-141, § 1101(a)(2), 126 Stat. 405 (2012).
 

Page 33 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

MAP-21 also calls for a number of significant program reforms including a 

10 percent set-aside for rural projects and an increase in the share of 

eligible project costs from 33 percent to 49 percent. Projects that received 

credit assistance through TIFIA tend to be large, high-cost highway 

projects. Even with the additional budget authority authorized for the 

TIFIA program, DOT officials told us that the funding process is driven by 

applicants as opposed to a national assessment of priority.

Moreover, port projects may not always compete well against other 

transportation-funding projects. According to DOT officials, ports may be 

less accustomed to the processes and procedures involved in applying

for federal funds, making it harder for them to compete for competitive 

grants and loans. Given the short program timelines for the TIGER 

program, some ports may have difficulty meeting timelines given the 

complexity of their proposals. Additionally, port applicants may not be as 

familiar with developing and completing federal environmental review 

requirements making it difficult to remain eligible for funding. According to 

one senior MARAD official, many ports lack sufficient expertise to conduct 

early planning or are not well positioned to leverage existing relationships 

with state DOTs. As a result, some ports may be less prepared to 

participate in DOT’s competitive funding processes and compete against 

applicants with more experience participating in the federal funding 

process.

A number of efforts are under way to address MTS challenges through 

better coordination of federal investments. Specifically, the Corps and 

DOT are taking steps to better coordinate MTS infrastructure investments 

between the two agencies. Other federal efforts such as a governmentwide task force, advisory groups, and an interagency coordination 

committee also have been established to address MTS issues. While 

these federal efforts to align and better coordinate MTS infrastructure 

investments are good steps, some are limited in their scope and, for 

others, it is not clear how effective they will be in addressing the complex 

and wide-ranging challenges to maintaining and developing MTS 

infrastructure.

Federal Government 

Has Taken Steps to 

Address MTS 

Challenges; However, 

Opportunities Exist to 

Improve the 

Effectiveness of Its 

Role in the MTS
 

Page 34 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

In March 2012, DOT and the U.S. Department of the Army signed a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) to identify and capitalize on 

opportunities to improve the nation’s transportation infrastructure 

investments.60

MARAD, the one federal entity charged with an MTS-wide mission, has 

few programs to address system-wide challenges and a limited field 

presence. MARAD is developing the Port Infrastructure Development 

Program to improve the state of repair of all U.S. ports and enhance the 

competitiveness of ports for public and private funds through 

comprehensive planning. According to a senior MARAD official, the 

program is being designed to create a level playing field for all ports, 

including small- and medium-sized ports, to attract private-sector 

financing, and it is being developed together with MTS stakeholders. 

However, despite MARAD’s efforts to obtain consensus on the program 

from MTS stakeholders, the program has not been funded, and MARAD 

officials acknowledge that the agency has more work to do to ensure that 

its staff have the right skill set and expertise needed to manage the 

program. Moreover, several MTS stakeholders whom we met with during 

our site visits told us that MARAD does not currently have a major role to 

play in MTS infrastructure development. For example, local 

transportation-planning officials we spoke to in one major coastal city said 

that MARAD representatives are not at the table during the MPO’s 

Specifically, DOT and the U.S. Department of Army 

agreed to (1) develop project prioritization criteria consistent to the 

greatest degree possible, (2) look for opportunities to reflect national 

priorities for waterside and landside infrastructure investment alignment, 

and (3) coordinate project evaluation and selection processes as it relates 

to DOT grant programs and the Corps’ project prioritization. Although it is 

too early to assess progress made in achieving these objectives, senior 

DOT and Corps officials told us that the MOU played an important role in 

ensuring interagency coordination on MTS infrastructure investments for 

the last round of the TIGER program. However, as noted above, the bulk 

of DOT’s transportation funding is directed through state and local 

transportation agencies.

 

60We have reported that agencies can strengthen their commitment to work collaboratively 

by articulating their agreements in formal documents, such as a MOU signed by senior 

officials in respective agencies. GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can 

Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

Federal Efforts to Address 

MTS Infrastructure 

Investments System-Wide
 

Page 35 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

planning process, and therefore, DOT is missing an opportunity to 

coordinate investments in the various MTS segments.

The recently enacted MAP-21 also provides an opportunity to better 

coordinate investments in the MTS. First, MAP-21 directly addresses the 

fragmented nature of DOT programs, including those that address ports 

and port connectors, by consolidating the number of federal-aid highway 

programs to focus resources on key national goals. While MTS 

stakeholders we met with generally told us they appreciated having 

access to a variety of federal transportation programs that can be used 

for surface transportation projects, we have previously reported on 

coordination challenges within DOT that result from a modal approach to 

administering and funding programs.61

Second, MAP-21 establishes a national freight policy and mandates that 

DOT develop a National Freight Strategic Plan and a national freight 

network. Specifically, in the development of the National Freight Strategic 

Plan MAP-21 requires DOT to consult with state departments of 

transportation and other appropriate public and private transportation 

stakeholders. As we have previously reported, to develop an effective 

strategic plan, agencies should involve their stakeholders, assess their 

internal and external environments, and align their activities, core 

processes, and resources to support mission-related outcomes.62

 

61GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 

As 

noted above, both the Corps and DOT have taken some steps to invest in 

their respective segments of the MTS. However, there has been limited 

coordination of MTS investments system-wide. The National Freight 

Strategic Plan is an opportunity to address the MTS system-wide by 

considering the Corps’ future investments in navigable waterways. 

Involving the Corps in the development of that plan is particularly 

important given the nexus between freight and the entire MTS, since the 

vast majority of the nation’s freight is imported and exported via navigable 

waterways through our nation’s ports.

GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

62GAO, Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate 

Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May 1997). 
 

Page 36 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

In addition to these Corps and DOT-specific efforts, there are a number of 

other federal efforts that have been recently created to address MTS 

infrastructure investment system-wide. On July 19, 2012, the White 

House established a Task Force on Ports to develop federal strategies to 

address coastal port infrastructure investments. This high-level effort is 

designed to address specific issues and provide immediate benefits to,

among other things, help ensure that the nation’s navigable waterways 

and ports are prepared to handle any increase in trade expected from the 

expansion of the Panama Canal in 2014. In particular, the task force 

plans to examine challenges to coastal ports including increased 

competition from ports in Canada and the Caribbean and is tasked with 

developing a strategy to inform future investment decisions and identify 

opportunities for improved coordination and streamlined environmental 

review of investments in port-related infrastructure. According to the 

White House, the establishment of the task force responds to calls from 

state and local governments, as well as ports and other maritime 

stakeholders, for a more strategic framework for allocating federal 

investments. While this particular effort targeting coastal ports provides 

an immediate focus on some of the most pertinent MTS infrastructure 

challenges, it is too soon to know how the task force’s efforts will be 

realized and whether it will provide the long-term commitment and 

management needed to address MTS challenges.

We also identified two federal advisory groups established to advise the 

federal government agencies on system-wide MTS issues. Federal 

advisory groups can play an important role in the development of policy 

and government regulations by providing advice to federal agency 

policymakers.63

 

63GAO, Federal Advisory Groups: DOT and DOE Can Take Steps to Better Assess 

Duplication Risk and Enhance Usefulness, 

For example, the Marine Transportation System National 

Advisory Council (MTSNAC) was established to, among other items, 

provide advice to the Secretary of Transportation via the MARAD 

Administrator on marine highways and ports and their road, rail, and 

marine highway connections. Members of MTSNAC reflect a cross 

section of maritime industries and port and water resources stakeholders 

from the private sector, academia, labor, and federal, state and local 

entities. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain 

Competitiveness was recently established to advise the Secretary of 

Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive national 

GAO-12-472 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 

2012).
 

Page 37 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

freight policy designed to support U.S. export growth and 

competitiveness, among other items. The committee consists of 40 

private-sector members, including representatives from supply chain firms 

and their associations, stakeholders, academia, community organizations, 

and others directly affected by the supply chain. These two federal 

advisory groups provide an opportunity for federal agencies involved in 

the MTS to obtain input from internal and external stakeholders such as 

academics, industry associations, or other agencies to address MTS 

challenges.

The Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS), created to 

address a broad range of MTS challenges, provides another opportunity 

to coordinate MTS infrastructure investment system-wide. Established in 

2004 by a directive from the President in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, the 

CMTS is a long-standing committee designed to foster a partnership of 

federal agencies with responsibility for the MTS and to provide a forum 

through which agencies coordinate and take action to address a wide 

range of MTS challenges. For example, the CMTS reported in 2010 that 

multi-agency efforts to address navigation technology issues could lead to 

significant improvements to navigation safety information, especially in 

and around ports. Specifically, the Corps, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey have 

developed, published and adopted common data standards. According to 

the CMTS, these efforts provide improved delivery of navigation 

information and enable agencies to better share information of 

navigational value. Similarly, to build on the MOU signed between the 

DOT and the U.S. Department of the Army to coordinate and improve 

infrastructure investment between the two agencies, the CMTS 

Coordinating Board agreed in June 2012 to establish a CMTS 

Infrastructure Investment Integrated Action Team to provide a forum for 

participation by other agencies that are stakeholders in MTS 

infrastructure.64

In July 2008, the CMTS published the National Strategy on the Marine 

Transportation System (Strategy) to provide a framework and 5-year 

action plan to address MTS challenges. The Strategy is intended to 

 

64According to the CMTS Charter, Integrated Action Teams are created as needed, can 

be either temporary or permanent in nature, and consist of representatives from relevant 

agencies depending on the topic. 

CMTS Efforts to Address 

MTS Challenges
 

Page 38 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

present the most pressing challenges facing the MTS and provide a 

framework for addressing MTS needs through 2013. It recommends 34 

actions to address these issues, some of which touch upon key 

challenges we identified. For example, to address challenges related to 

the prioritization of federal investments in the MTS, it recommends 

studying approaches to prioritizing how federal dollars should be 

allocated among competing priorities as well as studying how best to 

coordinate allocation of federal funds for projects across agencies. 

Similarly, to address infrastructure capacity issues the CMTS 

recommended that agencies publish valid, reliable, and timely data on the 

MTS including cargo movements, capacity, and productivity as well as 

develop performance measures to assess the productivity of the MTS and 

the risk of potential infrastructure failures.

The CMTS has taken steps to address some of the recommended actions 

included in the Strategy. According to a 2010 implementation plan, the 

CMTS developed a list of six priority actions taken from the Strategy’s 34 

recommended actions and identified 3 other priorities that address 

emerging issues. According to CMTS officials, when at least three CMTS 

members agree to address a long-term MTS issue, they may form an 

Integrated Action Team or subcommittee. CMTS guidance states that, 

once formed, these teams operate on a consensus basis and are 

responsible for preparing an action plan that, among other things, 

includes (1) a list of deliverables, (2) a schedule for completing them, (3) 

identification of the parties responsible for completing them, and (4) 

funding sources available. For example, the CMTS Coordinating Board 

established the Research and Development Integrated Action Team in 

March 2009 to respond to several recommended actions included in the 

Strategy, including the need for valid data and for the development of 

performance measures. CMTS members may also establish task teams 

to address short-term issues; however, these teams are not responsible 

for developing an action plan. For example, in December 2011 the 

National Export Initiative task team was established in support of the 

President’s National Export Initiative to, among other things, monitor the 

availability of export containers.65

 

65According to the White House, the March 2010 National Export Initiative is intended to 

improve conditions that directly affect the private sector’s ability to export and to help meet 

the administration’s goal of doubling exports over the next 5 years.

CMTS officials noted that, although the 

National Export Initiative is not addressed in the Strategy, the CMTS must 

be flexible to adapt to and address new MTS issues as they emerge.
 

Page 39 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

While the CMTS has taken steps to address a number of recommended 

actions identified in the Strategy and has made progress facilitating 

interagency cooperation, it is unclear if those steps have achieved their 

intended results. Moreover, we found some limitations to the 

implementation of the Strategy, including:

• The CMTS has not kept the Strategy up to date and has no plan to 

replace the Strategy’s 5-year action plan. Although the CMTS website 

states that the Strategy is a “living document” to be enhanced and 

updated, CMTS officials told us that agencies had not updated the 

Strategy since it was published in 2008 and have no current plans to 

do so. As a result, the Strategy does not specifically address new and 

emerging challenges, such as the President’s National Export 

Initiative. CMTS officials told us that updating the Strategy would be 

useful and that—should sufficient resources be available—the CMTS 

would review the recommendations of the Strategy and update them 

with respect to current and projected needs of the MTS. An up-to-date 

Strategy that reflects the most important challenges can help ensure 

agencies remain focused on key priorities and help stakeholders, 

including the Congress, target limited resources to those priorities.

• The CMTS did not incorporate clear desired results, specific 

milestones, and outcome-related performance measures throughout 

the Strategy to help ensure steps taken achieve the intended results. 

While CMTS member agencies have taken steps to introduce 

accountability mechanisms through action plans developed by 

individual Integrated Action Teams, action plans were only developed 

for those areas or activities where consensus existed among agencies 

to establish them. For other areas, the Strategy’s recommended

actions remain—as a CMTS response to Congress describes—broad 

in scope, rather than finite, individually defined tasks. While identifying 

broad objectives is a good first step, without a clearly defined and 

articulated “end-state” for each recommended action, it is difficult to 

evaluate the extent to which progress has been made or determine 

whether the CMTS is achieving its intended results. Furthermore, 

CMTS officials told us that identifying broad actions was the only way 

to gain consensus among all CMTS member agencies when the 

Strategy was developed. However, without incorporating 

accountability mechanisms throughout the Strategy, agency and 

Congressional decision-makers may lack information needed to 

evaluate progress and determine the extent to which agency activities 

are achieving their intended results to address MTS challenges. We 

have previously identified desirable characteristics that we believe 

would provide additional guidance to responsible parties for 

Opportunities to Improve 

the Effectiveness of the 

CMTS
 

Page 40 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

developing and implementing national strategies. Those 

characteristics include incorporating accountability mechanisms, such 

as the clear identification of priorities, specific milestones, and 

outcome-related performance measures.66 National strategies are 

intended to provide broad direction and guidance—rather than be 

prescriptive, detailed mandates—to the relevant implementing parties. 

Nonetheless, a more detailed strategy can facilitate implementation 

and help agencies achieve strategic goals.

• The CMTS does not have a process for reporting the extent to which 

the Strategy’s recommended actions have been addressed. Such a 

process could enable more effective oversight and accountability. 

Although the CMTS created reports in 2009 and 2010, these reports 

describe its annual accomplishments and do not address all of the 

Strategy’s recommended actions. For example, the CMTS annual 

report for 2010 states that it summarizes “the high points and 

accomplishments achieved” by the CMTS. We have previously 

reported that including a process for reporting on progress could help 

agencies implement national strategies more effectively.67 According 

to CMTS officials, with no budget and limited member resources, the 

Strategy’s recommended actions were prioritized resulting in a set of 

six top priority actions, with the work done on these priority actions 

reflected in the 2009 and 2010 annual reports. However, without a 

schedule for regular reporting on the extent to which all recommended 

actions included in the Strategy have been addressed, agency and 

congressional decision-makers lack key information needed to hold 

agencies accountable and enable effective oversight.

Finally, according to the CMTS, activities undertaken by the CMTS are 

dependent on member agencies’ ability to dedicate resources and staff 

support. CMTS officials told us that commitment of necessary staff time 

and resources to CMTS activities is driven by CMTS member interest in 

the work to be done and the availability of resources. Specifically, CMTS 

members that participate in Integrated Action Teams or task teams 

provide time and resources to carry out their responsibilities, which range 

from full staff support to providing comments on documents. In addition, 

MARAD, the Corps, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

 

66See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).

67GAO-04-408T. 
 

Page 41 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Administration dedicate one full time senior staff to the CMTS’s Executive 

Secretariat. Managing competing priorities and coordinating interagency 

actions are key challenges given the complex nature of the MTS and the 

variety of task forces, advisory groups, and other MTS stakeholders 

involved in supporting the MTS. However, these challenges also highlight 

the benefits and opportunities of ensuring that the Strategy remains up to

date, reflects current conditions, and is focused on the areas of greatest 

need.

Given aging MTS infrastructure, the uncertainty around the Panama 

Canal expansion and its potentially significant impact on the MTS, and 

the renewed focus on ports and their importance to the U.S. economy, 

improving the effectiveness of federal MTS efforts is critical. There are a 

variety of efforts under way—recent and long standing—to help the wide 

range of MTS stakeholders coordinate to address system-wide 

prioritization of MTS investments. For example, efforts such as the 

recently announced White House Task Force on Ports directly address 

some of the challenges facing the nation’s MTS infrastructure. While the 

task force plans to build on some of the more recent steps taken to 

improve coordination of port-related responsibilities, it is too soon to know 

how the task force will proceed and the extent to which it will leverage 

more established long-standing efforts in this area. Moreover, the recent 

proliferation of efforts to address system-wide investment in the MTS runs 

the risk of being less effective unless properly coordinated.

The recently passed MAP-21 will focus efforts on improving freight 

mobility and the surface infrastructure that supports it, but it also provides 

an opportunity to better coordinate MTS investments system-wide. 

Besides establishing a framework for a national freight policy, MAP-21 

requires DOT to develop a National Freight Strategic Plan in consultation 

with appropriate state DOTs and other appropriate private and public 

stakeholders. While the National Freight Strategic Plan requirements do 

not specifically mention consultation with the Corps and its plans to 

maintain and develop the nation’s navigable waterways, consideration of 

these waterside infrastructure investments is important to strategically 

investing in the MTS system-wide. Considering all MTS segments—

navigable waterways, ports, and port connectors—and coordinating the 

prioritization of infrastructure investments between the Corps and DOT 

will help to ensure that limited resources are efficiently targeted and 

invested.

Conclusions 
 

Page 42 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

The CMTS, a long-standing interagency coordinating committee, is 

tasked with addressing a wide array of MTS challenges. The committee 

has made some progress facilitating information sharing, coordinating 

member agencies and taking some actions to address a variety of MTS 

issues. However, it is unclear if the committee’s actions have improved 

the MTS. Given the breadth and complexity of the MTS challenges and 

the numerous stakeholders and on-going efforts, an up-to-date Strategy

with mechanisms to measure progress and hold member agencies 

accountable for these actions is critical. Interagency coordinating bodies 

such as the CMTS face a variety of obstacles and gaining consensus on 

priorities, measuring progress and holding member agencies accountable 

can be challenging. However, without developing a sound Strategy that 

considers the changing landscape of MTS efforts, the CMTS will not be 

able to capitalize on its established coordinating body or to effectively 

contribute to the growing number of federal efforts to support the nation’s 

Marine Transportation System.

To help ensure coordination of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

Department of Transportation infrastructure investments in the Marine 

Transportation System, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation take the following two actions:

1) Direct the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration to 

inform the development of the National Freight Strategic Plan with 

information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ planned investments 

in the nation’s navigable waterways.

2) As the Chair of the Committee on the Marine Transportation System, 

ensure the review and update, as needed, of the National Strategy for the 

Marine Transportation System. In ensuring the review and update of the 

National Strategy for the Marine Transportation System, the Secretary 

should:

• establish accountability mechanisms—such as developing clear and 

desired results, specific milestones, and outcome-related performance 

measures—for the recommended actions of the National Strategy for 

the Marine Transportation System, and

• establish and implement a schedule for regular reporting of progress 

made in addressing the recommended actions of the National 

Strategy for the Marine Transportation System. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 43 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

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

comment. DOT agreed to consider the report’s recommendations. The 

Corps and DOT also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Transportation, and 

the Chief of Engineers and the Commanding General of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. In addition, this report is available at no charge on 

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

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributes to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Lorelei St. James

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
 

Page 44 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

List of Addressees

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Chairman

The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Maria Cantwell

United States Senate
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

The objectives of this report are to (1) identify programs the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

administer to maintain or improve the Marine Transportation System 

(MTS); (2) determine the key challenges to maintaining and improving the 

MTS; and (3) discuss opportunities that may exist for the federal 

government to improve the effectiveness of its role in the MTS.

To identify programs the Corps and DOT administer to maintain or 

improve the MTS we reviewed and analyzed federal program 

documentation, including authorizing legislation, federal program 

guidance, and other federal program reports describing federal roles and 

responsibilities for MTS infrastructure. We reviewed legislation related to 

surface and MTS infrastructure programs and funding, including the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU)1 and the new surface transportation 

reauthorization, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP-21).2

We obtained program budget data for programs that may be used to 

support MTS infrastructure by reviewing budget documentation, including 

We interviewed officials from the Corps’ civil works navigation 

program at the headquarters, division, and district level to determine how 

the Corps maintains and improves navigation infrastructure on inland and 

coastal waterways. We also interviewed officials from DOT including 

officials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), Maritime Administration (MARAD), and 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation to confirm the federal 

transportation programs and discuss how these programs are used to 

support ports and port connectors. In addition, we interviewed officials 

from the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center to determine data 

efforts to support the Corps’ navigation program, and we reviewed 

transportation statistics—including freight commodity and port statistics—

from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. We also conducted 

interviews with a variety of industry associations including the American 

Association of Port Authorities, American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, American Trucking Association, the 

American Association of Railroads, and the Waterways Council, Inc., to 

obtain their perspectives on federal Corps and DOT programs.

 

1

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).

2

Pub. L. No. 112-141, §§ 115-118, 126 Stat. 405 (2012).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

annual budget justifications, from the Corps and DOT. We used 

navigation project obligations data provided by the Corps to determine 

program obligations for the Investigations, Construction, and Operation 

and Maintenance accounts. To determine obligations for DOT programs, 

we developed a short data collection instrument to collect and analyze 

financial obligations data. We administered the data collection instrument 

to obtain data from a total of 16 DOT programs, including 11 FHWA 

programs, 2 FRA programs, 2 MARAD programs and 1 Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation program. We conducted one pretest with 

FHWA to test the use of our instrument for grant and formula funding 

programs. We also conducted one pretest with FRA to test the use of our 

instrument for credit programs. Based on agency input, we revised the 

data collection instrument and submitted it to the relevant agency for the 

programs that we identified. We received a 100 percent response rate. 

We used Corps navigation program data to determine the current backlog 

for navigation construction and operations and maintenance projects, and 

reviewed published DOT reports to identify the backlog of projects 

affecting ports, including port connectors. In determining the reliability of 

the financial data, we reviewed relevant documentation about the 

agencies’ data collection and quality assurance processes, talked with 

knowledgeable officials about these data, and compared these data 

against other sources of published information to determine data 

consistency and reasonableness. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To determine key challenges to maintaining and improving the MTS, we 

reviewed GAO work on surface transportation programs and issues 

related to freight transportation. Our work is informed by prior GAO 

reports on freight mobility, intermodalism, and marine transportation 

finance. We also reviewed prior GAO reports assessing the Corps’ 

organization, budget formulation process, project delivery process, and 

programs. To obtain current examples of challenges facing port 

stakeholders at the state and local level, we conducted site visits to the 

Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of New Orleans, Port of Portland, 

Port of Savannah, the Port of South Louisiana, and the Port of Vancouver 

(USA). We identified these ports using the following criteria:

• ranking by total tonnage (domestic and foreign), 2010;

• ranking by container traffic (domestic and foreign), 2010;

• ranking by total value of foreign trade shipments, 2010;

• existence of current or recently completed navigation, port, or port 

connector expansion projects; and

• geographic diversity.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

For our final selection, we chose larger ports (both in tonnage and 

container traffic) in order to get representation from (1) both container and 

bulk ports, and (2) river and coastal ports. We also selected ports that 

had ongoing or completed expansion projects funded or financed by the 

federal government and for which the site visits would provide some 

geographic diversity in experiences. We also included the Port of 

Vancouver (USA), a small port based on tonnage and container traffic, to 

provide some context and comparison to larger ports. The results of these 

site visits are not generalizable, but do provide insights regarding state, 

local, and private-sector experiences maintaining and improving MTS 

infrastructure.

During the site visits, we collected and reviewed relevant documentation 

on port operations, projects, and trade statistics. We also interviewed a 

range of MTS stakeholders during each site visit, including officials from 

the port, Corps division and district offices, state DOTs, and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPO). Table 3 below provides a table of 

stakeholders that we met with during each site visit.

Table 3: MTS Stakeholders with Whom GAO Met during Site Visits

Site visit location MTS stakeholders 

Port of New York and New Jersey • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

• Corps’ North Atlantic Division and New York District Office

• New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

• North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 

Port of New Orleans and

Port of South Louisiana

• Port of New Orleans

• Port of South Louisiana

• Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

• Corps’ Mississippi Valley Division and New Orleans District Office

• New Orleans Regional Planning Commission

Port of Portland and Port of Vancouver (USA) • Port of Portland

• Port of Vancouver (USA)

• Corps’ Northwestern Division and Portland District Office

• Pacific Northwest Waterways Association

• Tidewater Barge Lines

Port of Savannah • Georgia Ports Authority

• Georgia Department of Transportation

• Corps’ South Atlantic Division and Savannah District Office

• Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Commission

Source: GAO.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

To identify and assess opportunities for the federal government to 

improve the effectiveness of its role in the MTS, we reviewed 

documentation from the Committee on the Marine Transportation System 

(CMTS), including the CMTS Charter and the National Strategy for the 

Marine Transportation System (Strategy). We interviewed staff from the 

CMTS Executive Secretariat and observed a session of the Coordinating 

Board to determine actions taken by the CMTS to implement the 

Strategy, as well as any opportunities for improvement. During interviews 

with Corps and DOT officials, and industry associations, we also asked 

about their perspectives on the federal government role in maintaining 

and improving the MTS. In assessing the implementation of the Strategy, 

we reviewed prior GAO reports on enhancing and sustaining federal 

agency collaborative efforts and evaluated progress in implementing the 

Strategy. 

We conducted our review from November 2011 to November 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: DOT Programs We Reviewed That 

May Fund MTS Infrastructure

Page 49 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

This appendix includes DOT programs at the time of our review that may 

fund MTS infrastructure and their obligations data for fiscal years 2009 to 

2011. The data reflect overall obligations for each program, and do not 

represent support for MTS infrastructure projects specifically. The list of 

programs is not exhaustive; thus, other DOT programs may exist that 

could fund MTS infrastructure projects.

Table 4: DOT Obligations for Programs We Reviewed That May Fund MTS Infrastructure

Agency Program

Total Program Obligations

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway 

Administration

Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot 

Grant Program $ 6,655,000a $ 1,500,000a $ 13,688,000a

National Corridor Infrastructure 

Improvement Program 275,658,000a 83,782,000a 77,043,000a

Projects of National and Regional 

Significance 231,072,000a 292,753,000a 237,408,000a

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

Improvement Program 1,252,177,262 1,245,927,532 1,346,991,087

Highway Safety Improvement Program 1,592,099,302 1,481,157,556 1,688,660,663

Metropolitan Planning Funds 229,705,770 230,727,013 232,596,851

National Highway System 6,824,320,360 8,459,646,662 8,200,767,635

State Planning and Research 681,605,402 731,939,243 765,019,201

Surface Transportation Program 9,443,235,250 9,603,097,643 9,500,370,566

Surface Transportation Research, 

Development, and Deployment 128,928,721 115,089,182 149,093,533

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Program for Capital Grants for Rail Line 

Relocation and Improvement Projects 392,000a 6,657,000a 31,766,000a

Maritime Administration America’s Marine Highway Program 0a 7,060,000a 0a

Port Infrastructure Development 

Program 0 0 0 

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation

Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery Program 0 421,772,616 1,551,564,686

Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.

a

DOT officials provided total program obligations rounded to the nearest thousand.

Appendix II: DOT Programs We Reviewed 

That May Fund MTS Infrastructure
Appendix III: DOT Programs We Reviewed That 

May Finance MTS Infrastructure

Page 50 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

This appendix includes DOT programs at the time of our review that may 

finance MTS infrastructure and their total direct loan obligations data, total 

principal amount of loan disbursements through September 30, 2012, and 

net lifetime subsidy re-estimate amount including interest. The data reflect 

overall amounts for each program and do not represent support for MTS

infrastructure projects specifically. The list of programs is not exhaustive; 

thus, other DOT programs may exist that could finance MTS

infrastructure projects

Table 5: DOT Obligations, Principal Amount and Net Lifetime Subsidy Reestimate for Programs We Reviewed That May 

Finance MTS Infrastructure 

Agency Program

Cohort fiscal yeara

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway 

Administration

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act

Total direct loan obligation $990,104,000 $2,157,638,000 $472,405,000

Total principal amount of loan disbursements 

through 9/30/12 686,206,000 457,433,000 0 

Net lifetime subsidy re-estimate amount 

(including interest) -11,719,000 0 0 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing 

Total direct loan obligation 103,500 ,000 172,000 ,000 566,136 ,000

Total principal amount of loan disbursements 

through 9/30/12 98,147 ,000 46,392 ,000 65,279 ,000

Net lifetime subsidy re-estimate amount 

(including interest) -429 ,000 -2,092 ,000 2 ,000

Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.

a

The cohort represents all direct loans or loan guarantees of a program for which a subsidy 

appropriation is provided for a given fiscal year, even when disbursements occur in subsequent fiscal 

years.

Appendix III: DOT Programs We Reviewed 

That May Finance MTS Infrastructure
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 51 GAO-13-80 Maritime Infrastructure

Lorelei St. James, (202) 512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant Director); 

Jonathan Carver; William Colwell; Bradley Dubbs; Geoff Hamilton; Carol 

Henn; Vondalee Hunt; Delwen Jones; Joshua Ormond; and Elizabeth 

Wood made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(544172)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.