Chapter 15

Multi modal 

Issues
497

Chapter 15: Multimodal Issues 

The productivity and economic viability of U.S. agriculture relies on a vast national 

transportation system with its networks of highways, railroads, waterways, and ocean ports—a 

multimodal* transportation system that delivers agricultural products and food to domestic and 

international markets. The previous chapters of this study analyzed the importance of each 

freight mode and its sufficiency of competition, capacity, services, rates, facility investment, 

and its impact on rural economic development. This chapter synthesizes some of the 

crosscutting transportation issues that affect all modes and discusses the interrelationship of 

transportation modes. It examines these multimodal issues: 

• Freight rates, fuel costs, and transportation choices 

• Capacity and service 

• Investment and funding 

The final part of this chapter identifies some transportation issues affecting the agricultural 

sector and rural America. This analysis focuses on issues that may require coordinated efforts 

to support the competitive advantage of U.S. agriculture. 

Freight Transportation Modes and Multimodal Issues 

Each transportation mode has advantages and disadvantages for agricultural shippers. The 

truck industry takes pride in its flexibility of service, its competitive nature, and its status of 

being the primary mode for agricultural products in terms of tons moved (see Table 2-2, 

Chapter 2). On the other hand, long-distance trucking is not as efficient or environmentally 

friendly as other transportation modes and truck traffic is less welcome in congested metro 

areas. Rail and barge are more environmentally friendly than trucks, and are frequently more 

cost-effective methods of long-distance shipping when those services are available, but they 

rely on expensive terminals and fixed rail and river routes. 

Ocean transportation depends on interior transportation. Many U.S. and world ports are 

working at or near capacity, and expanding them is problematic because of their urban 

locations. Improvements to port capacity and productivity must come not only through 

physical port expansion, but also through technological upgrades, on-dock rail service, and fluid 

highway access. 

 

 

*

 In this study, the term multimodal refers to the total transportation system. Intermodal refers to containers 

carried by truck, rail, and ocean vessels. 
498

Figure 15-1: Trucks, trains, and ships all work together to move America's goods. 

Source: Federal Highway Administration 

The U.S. transportation system is a “system of systems” made up of different transportation 

networks that need to work together. The system’s statutory and regulatory framework is 

largely modal-based, providing our Nation with rules and regulations focused on singular modal 

solutions even though many of our challenges are associated with a multi-modal transportation 

system.393 
499

Congress and the transportation industry have recognized the need for a multimodal or 

systems approach to freight transportation. Pending legislation—The Surface Transportation 

Authorization Act of 2009—calls for establishment of a new Office of Intermodalism at DOT, 

with an accompanying Under Secretary. This new mission area would be charged with 

developing and implementing a strategic plan to address the long-term needs of the surface 

transportation network. Shippers and carriers welcome this collaborative approach to find 

solutions at a system level. Both depend on multiple modes to serve their customers. 

Freight Rates and Fuel Costs Help Determine Transportation 

Choices

Transportation costs, as expressed in freight rates, are a primary influence on shippers’ choice 

of mode. Additional influencing factors include: 

• The quality and frequency of transportation service 

• The ability and willingness of the carrier to meet the shippers’ needs 

• The reliability of transit time 

• The size and distance of the shipment 

• The availability of capacity and intermodal connections 

• The ability to serve both the origin and destination businesses 

The supply chain for agricultural products often depends on multiple modes of transportation, 

each with its own price dynamics. Figure 15-2 illustrates the relative cost structure of each 

mode compared to the distance shipped, and the efficiencies of each mode. For example, on 

shorter hauls, trucks are less expensive than rail or barges. Where available, barge is the most 

fuel-efficient and cost-efficient mode for long-distance hauls; it moves 576 ton-miles per gallon 

of fuel. Rail is next most efficient, at 413 ton-miles, and truck is least, at 155 ton-miles.394 Not 

all agricultural shippers, however, are located near the inland waterways or able to take 

advantage of the efficiency of barge transportation, and even grain shippers who use barge or 

rail transportation for most of the movement depend on trucks to get the grain to the elevator, 

barge or rail terminal. 

 
500

Figure 15-2: Modal costs related to distance and relative fuel efficiency 

Total Cost 

 Truck 

 Rail 

 Barge 

 

 Truck Rail Barge 

 (155) (413) (576) =>Ton-Miles/Gallon

 Distance 

Source: USDA, Agricultural Transportation Challenges for the 21st Century, and Modal Fuel Efficiency: Texas 

Transportation Institute 

Rail is the best transportation choice for grain shippers unable to access barge transportation 

for long distance movements, both from the economic and environmental impact perspectives. 

However, the recent escalating rail rates and declining service for some shippers has pushed 

more grain transportation onto trucks in recent years (see figure 15-3). Many high-value 

agricultural products depend on refrigerated trucking because of their service and rapid 

delivery. 

Figure 15-3: Grain modal shares, 1978-2007 

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 
501

Fuel Costs Affect Freight Rates 

Increases in fuel costs affect rates in all freight modes, although to varying extents. Diesel fuel 

prices increased significantly from the third quarter of 2003, peaked in the second quarter of 

2008 and then fell rapidly during the last quarter of 2008. By the first quarter of 2009, 

however, fuel prices remained 49 percent above prices seen at the end of 2003 (Figure 15-4). A 

variety of factors has pushed up the freight rates of all transportation modes since the end of 

2003—the earliest year for which freight rate data are available (see Table 15-1). Although fuel 

costs affect all freight rates, the extent of the correlation varies. Agricultural shippers need 

stability in transportation costs because it helps fiscal planning and improves transportation 

and marketing decisions. 

Figure 15-4: Average quarterly diesel fuel prices 

Source: EIA 
502

Truck Rates Correlate with Fuel Prices

Fuel costs are a large part of the total costs in trucking, more so than in any other mode; 

operating expenses in the trucking industry are 95 percent of gross revenue. Consequently, 

truck freight rates correlate strongly with fuel prices. Between the third quarter of 2003 and 

the first quarter of 2009, truck rates evidenced a strong correlation with fuel prices with a 

coefficient of 0.93 (see Table 15-1).* 

Truck rates are more volatile than rail or ocean rates. They tend to fluctuate more frequently 

because the railroads are required to provide a 20-day advance notice of tariff rate and fuel 

surcharge changes, and the contractual nature of the ocean container market dampens its 

volatility. When fuel prices were increasing rapidly, truck rates also increased, remaining 68 

percent higher during the first quarter of 2009 than during the first quarter of 2003. However, 

truck rates did not rise as much as fuel costs during the rapid fuel price rise in 2008. Truck rates 

increased 91 percent by the second quarter of 2008, while fuel prices almost tripled during the 

same time. Because of the competitive nature of the trucking sector, some trucking 

companies’ profit margins were squeezed and others went out of business or declared 

bankruptcy (see Table 15-1, Figure 15-5, and Chapter 13). 

 

Table 15-1: Fuel price and freight rate changes by mode395

 Freight Rates Correlation 

to the Fuel 

Price 

Rank 

1 = most 

5 = least 

Standard 

Deviation†

or 

Variability 

Rank 

1 = most 

5 = least Q3 2003 Q1 2009 Change 

Diesel Fuel ($/gal) 1.46 2.19 49% 13.2 

Truck ($/mile) 2.03 3.41 68% 0.93 1 9.0 3 

Rail (tariff + fuel 

surcharge) 2,489 3,722 50% 0.86 2 2.5 5 

Bulk Ocean ($/mt) 33.35 45.34 36% 0.67 3 27.8 2 

Barge (St. Louis Index) 163 289 77% 0.64 4 54.0 1 

Container ($/TEU) 839 1,200 43% 0.37 5 6.5 4 

 

 

*

 Correlation indicates the strength of a relationship between two variables. A perfect correlation would be 1.0. 

A coefficient of .93 shows the relationship is very close. 

†

 Standard deviation is a measure of the spread of data around the mean. A high standard deviation shows the 

data spread widely from the mean; a low standard deviation shows they are grouped close to it. The higher the 

number, the more variable the correlation between freight rates and fuel price. 
503

Figure 15-5: Percent change in fuel prices and grain rates for container, rail, and truck 396

Figure 15-6: Percent change in fuel prices and grain rates for bulk ocean and barge397

Sources for both figures: Rail, barge, and bulk ocean rates: AMS Grain Transportation Report 

 Container ocean rates: Containerization International 

 Truck rates: AMS Grain Transportation Quarterly Updates Truck Advisory 

 Fuel Prices: EIA 
504

Rail Rates Remain Above Average

Grain rail freight rates have increased rapidly since 2003, reacting to increased fuel and other 

costs, and to a shortage of capacity. Although the recession has produced excess rail capacity, 

grain rail rates are still 50 percent higher in the first quarter of 2009 than they were in third 

quarter of 2003. Total rail freight rates (tariff rates plus fuel surcharge) have shown a high level 

of correlation with fuel prices, as shown by a coefficient of 0.86 since the third quarter of 

2003—second only to trucks (see Table 15-1). In fact, rail fuel surcharge rates peaked in 

September 2008 and have decreased with the price of fuel (see Figure 7-10 in Chapter 7). 

Grain Barge Rates Exhibit Highest Volatility 

By the first quarter of 2009 grain barge rates in St. Louis had increased 77 percent from the 

third quarter of 2003 (see Table 15-1). Grain barge rates have also experienced the greatest 

volatility during this period, ranking first among the four major modes, as a result of higher 

demand, network disruptions, and higher fuel and labor costs. Barge rates are not as closely 

correlated with fuel prices as rail and truck, but still exhibit a correlation coefficient of 0.64. 

The age and size of the barge fleet help determine rates. New barges are built each year in 

response to demand. When tax advantages brought many new barges into the fleet in the 

early 1980s, the surplus depressed rates. Because barges are designed to last 25 to 30 years, 

the surplus has lasted a long time. However, as barges reached their life expectancy and were 

retired, they have not been replaced, contributing to increasing rates in recent years. 

Since 2003, barge rates have experienced the greatest volatility due to a variety of factors, 

including water levels, weather-related disruptions to the network, and demand from non-grain 

shippers (see Figure 15-6). Interestingly, the variability of barge rates was more than 6 times 

that of truck, and bulk ocean was nearly three times that of truck—indicating the high volatility 

in barge and bulk ocean freight rates. Barge rates are volatile because they react quickly to 

sudden changes in export demand, weather constraints on the rivers, or larger-than-expected 

crops. Some shippers react to high rates by postponing shipments until rates go down or by 

choosing an alternate transportation mode. 

Bulk and Container Ocean Rates Face Different Market Dynamics 

Bulk ocean freight rates increased in the summer of 2007 because an increase in global trade 

pushed demand for ocean service and to a smaller degree, because fuel prices increased. As 

fuel prices rose, so did rates, resulting in a correlation coefficient of 0.67, slightly higher than 

the barge correlation (see Table 15-1). As bulk rates increased, grain exporters increased their 

use of containers (either at inland points or transloading from railcars to containers at the 

ports), which is usually a more expensive method of exporting grain. Even when bulk rates 

began to decline at the end of 2007 in comparison to container rates, the convenience and 

higher quality grain delivered at destination encouraged many exporters to continue using 

containers. 

In 2008, both bulk and container ocean rates increased, peaking in the summer of 2008 

because of record demand for bulk shipping by China. Containerized grain rates were also 

pulled up by demand for U.S. agricultural products; surprisingly, they had a low correlation with 
505

fuel price changes and low volatility (see Table 15-1). By the end of that year, however, bulk 

ocean rates had fallen much below container rates, and most traditional bulk grain exporters 

switched back to bulk shipments. Grain exporters that can use either bulk or container ocean 

service will continue to compare container to bulk ocean rates to discover the least expensive 

of the two shipping options. 

Multimodal Rate Analysis Conclusions 

When it comes to transportation, agricultural producers are almost always price takers—their 

transportation options for moving their products to market are limited, but their buyers often 

have many sources from which to select. This market structure results in producers paying 

most of the transportation costs, which directly affects their incomes. 

Increases in fuel costs raise transportation costs for all modes: trucking, rail and, to a lesser 

degree, barge and ocean. As expected, movement in grain truck and rail rates has the greatest 

correlation to movement in fuel prices, but the relationship sometimes weakens due to 

variations in supply, demand, and capacity. Changes in ocean rates—both bulk and container—

and barge rates do not correlate as closely with changes in fuel prices. In addition to higher 

fuel efficiency, these sectors are more heavily influenced by global shipping market dynamics. 

Agricultural shippers have become sensitive to fuel price fluctuations and their impact on 

overall transportation costs. Their transportation and marketing decisions are made more 

difficult in situations where fuel surcharges are higher and last longer than the actual fuel price 

swing. 

Transportation Capacity and Service 

Transportation capacity and the quality of service are influenced by the regulatory and market 

structures of the transportation sector, the seasonality of the agricultural production cycles, 

unpredictable weather, and economic cycles. Transportation needs peak during and 

immediately after the grain harvest, from mid-September through October. 

Disruptions and challenges to transportation service since 2002 have included port congestion, 

tight capacity along rail and barge networks, equipment and driver shortages in the trucking 

industry, and consolidation among ocean common carriers. 

From 2002 to 2006, for the first time in recent history, all transportation modes serving 

agriculture were strained. This was a period of strong economic growth, mushrooming global 

trade, and record grain harvests, all of which increased the demand for transportation. 

Capacity was reduced in 2002 when labor contract disputes shut down West Coast ports. In 

2003, early retirement of train crews caused a shortage of trains; almost immediately, rail rates 

increased rapidly as railroads began to ration available crew. At the same time, fuel prices 

skyrocketed. 

Over the same 5-year period, barge capacity was increasingly constrained as the demand for 

barge service from imported cement and steel grew to feed the growing construction and 

manufacturing industries. The increased upriver barge traffic and slower turnaround of barges 
506

strained grain movements to export points. Agricultural shippers in many regions had trouble 

finding trucks and drivers. Larger ocean carriers acquired smaller ones, reducing the number of 

ships. Many agricultural shippers struggled to find vessel capacity because ships called less 

frequently. And the U.S. transportation system was tested by two major hurricanes in 2005. 

Regulatory Structures Impact Service and Rates 

Railroads and ocean carriers have specific antitrust exemptions. When an industry is 

economically regulated, competition is not an important control on rates because the 

government acts to provide a stable market for carriers and reasonable rates for shippers. 

When an industry is deregulated, however, competition and antitrust enforcement are the 

major forces protecting the consumer from unfair business practices. Decreased competition 

combined with antitrust immunity can lead to the unrestrained use of market power, especially 

in highly concentrated industries such as railroads and, increasingly, ocean carriers. This 

situation can cause some agricultural shippers to lose service and pay higher rates. 

The use of market power by carriers can result in unnecessarily high freight rates and a 

limitation on the number of markets available for shippers. Most farmers receive a price net of 

transportation, so higher rail and ocean rates and reduced market selection cuts their income. 

The preservation and protection of competition in transportation is vital for the economic 

prosperity of agricultural producers and shippers, the rural communities they support, and the 

markets they serve. 

Seasonality 

Agriculture especially needs transportation during planting and harvest, when capacity depends 

not only on having enough railcars, barges, trucks, and containers, but on their location and 

turnaround cycles. Capacity is sometimes a local problem because agricultural production is 

concentrated in several high-producing States (see Chapter 2 surplus-deficit maps). In addition, 

some products need specialized forms of transport—refrigerated railcars, specialty grain 

railcars, containers, and refrigerated trucking. Consistent and dependable transportation, 

especially seasonally, is critical for agriculture. 

Performance During Network Disruptions 

The U.S. transportation system has been tested in a variety of natural and man-made disasters 

since 2002. The West Coast port shutdown in 2002 due to a labor dispute led to a prolonged 

disruption in rail and truck service throughout the country. Major hurricanes, which struck the 

Gulf Coast in 2005, disrupted barge and rail transportation. Upper Midwest floods in 2008 

caused logistical problems for rail and barge transportation for several months. Economic 

cycles could also be classified as a test of the transportation system’s resiliency—its ability to 

respond to disruptions and keep traffic flowing. 

Disruptions Caused by Natural Disasters

The transportation system is fluid—when one mode is disrupted, freight shifts to other modes, 

pushing up their cost with the additional demand. For example, when river traffic in New 

Orleans was halted by Hurricane Katrina, freight rates along the river system and other modes 

reacted immediately—barge, rail, and truck rates surged. Barge rates spiked to more than 900 
507

percent of tariff on the St. Louis index and 

averaged more than 500 for the remainder 

of 2005. They decreased as the Gulf 

recovered, but remained higher than the 

pre-Katrina levels throughout most of 2006 

because of higher fuel and labor costs and 

reductions in the size of the barge fleet. 

Ocean port facilities are most often directly 

impacted by major weather events such as 

hurricanes. Depending on the severity of 

the storm, ports can be operational within 

hours after the storm or, as in the case of 

the ports hit by Hurricane Katrina, some are 

still recovering 4 years later. Ocean port 

disruptions typically require ships and cargo 

to be redirected to other ports resulting in a

significant logistical burden and 

transportation expense. 

Extreme weather events such as hurricanes 

can be especially damaging to transportation 

infrastructure. The Chicago and New 

Orleans rail interchanges are particularly 

important; they have recently shown how 

quickly local weather events can increase 

freight rates, decrease railcar availability, 

and reduce train speeds to the entire 

country as choke points—locations prone to 

delays because of congestion and lack of 

capacity—build up. Approximately 60 

percent of rail traffic passes through 

Chicago, creating periods of congestion 

during network disruptions. Hurricane 

Katrina, a devastating hurricane that hit New 

Orleans in August 2005, severely disrupted 

all modes of transportation. Recovery 

included railroad and highway 

reconstruction, refloating barges and 

recovering submerged infrastructure, 

rebuilding terminal warehouses and dock 

facilities, and significant clean up 

operations. All of these efforts cost the 

shippers and carriers time and money to 

Katrina and the Price of Grain 

A clear example of how delays and closures in the 

river system can cost farmers revenue can be seen 

in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The 

Mississippi Gulf port area depends on barges for 

grain delivery. When the river became 

impassable, traffic switched to truck and rail and 

the cost of shipping grain increased. 

High transportation costs translated into lower 

farm-level prices as evidenced by the drop or 

widening in basis in the major production areas of 

the interior Midwest and a surge in the basis at 

the Gulf.*

 Prior to the hurricanes, the weekly corn 

basis in Illinois averaged 20 cents per bushel below 

the futures. It dropped another 20 cents per 

bushel after the hurricanes, effectively reducing 

the local price by the same amount. At the same 

time, the export basis surged to almost 70 cents 

per bushel above the futures, indicating a strong 

export demand, and reflecting the higher 

transportation costs. The drop in cash prices 

triggered the mechanism of counter-cyclical 

payments, in which farmers received subsidies in 

the form of price support. By the end of 2005, 

transportation disruptions were resolved and 

prices in both markets gradually returned to 

normal patterns. † 

*

 For agriculture, and especially for grain, basis is the 

difference between the futures price for a commodity and 

the local cash price offered by grain buyers—typically below 

the futures price. The futures price used for determining 

basis depends on the commodity. For some types of wheat, 

the futures price is from the Kansas City Board of Trade or 

the Minneapolis Grain Exchange. For corn, soybeans, and 

other types of wheat, the Chicago Board of Trade is used. 

Basis is quoted in cents per bushel as the difference between 

prices in the two locations—the futures exchange and the 

local market. 

†

AMS, Grain Transportation Report, Basis and Transportation 

Cost Primer, July 2, 2009. 
508

redirect cargo and facilitate the logistics to ensure the 

flow of commerce continued. In addition, there was a 

spike in demand for rail transportation of bulk 

commodities because navigation on the lower 

Mississippi River was impaired for a month following 

Hurricane Katrina. 

On the positive side, the major weather events that 

have tested the U.S. transportation system have also 

created opportunities to improve logistical operations 

of shippers and carriers. Subsequent events have 

shown a quicker recovery due to better planning and 

coordination. 

Disruptions Due to Cyclical Economic 

Conditions

Unexpected changes in the growth rates of global or 

domestic economies due to macroeconomic conditions 

can disrupt the transportation system. When the global 

economy experienced a period of unprecedented 

economic growth from 2000 to 2007, transportation 

capacity was constrained and freight costs increased 

rapidly. In December 2007, the United States entered 

into recession and by the end of 2008 railroad traffic in 

intermodal, construction, and new automobiles 

decreased sharply. Truck, barge, and ocean freight 

volumes also plummeted. On the positive side, 

transportation capacity constraints began to ease. Rail 

and barge traffic congestion subsided, truck freight 

capacity constraints decreased, and ocean carriers had 

unused vessel capacity. 

Agricultural products are not as sensitive to economic cycles as consumer products, and the 

soft demand elsewhere in the economy for transportation services benefited agriculture. 

Carriers responded to the economic slump by parking equipment and cutting labor expenses. 

However, transportation capacity has quickly become strained again as the economy has 

returned to normal, creating conditions similar to the tight capacity years between 2004 and 

2006. 

Intermodal Shipping 

Export containers can be loaded from 

railcars or trucks near the port or at 

inland locations. Commodities that are 

moved this way include grain, meat, 

poultry, and frozen food. 

Import container shipments destined 

for local delivery, multiple stops, or to 

parts of the country where rail service 

is not practical are off-loaded or 

transloaded into larger trucks or larger 

domestic containers at distribution 

centers, consolidated with other cargo, 

and shipped out to inland distribution 

centers and retail outlets. 

Some carriers do not want their 

containers to go to inland destinations, 

and require that they be off-loaded in 

proximity and returned to the port. 

With the decline in U.S. imports and 

downward pressure on freight rates 

since 2007, exporters have had 

difficulty obtaining containers. 
509

Intermodal Services 

Many U.S. agricultural exporters of specialty grains and high-value products rely on intermodal 

transportation service—containers that are moved by truck, rail, and ocean vessels. The 

reliability of this transportation service has a direct impact on the balance of agricultural trade. 

High-value agricultural products accounted for 37 percent of the $115 billion in U.S. agricultural 

exports in calendar year 2008. 

Container Availability 

Because demand for U.S. agricultural exports remains strong, the need for available containers 

to move these products is essential. The use of near-port distribution centers by large 

importers has reduced the number of containers available to agricultural exporters at interior 

locations. Exporters rely on import containers to supply an available container pool. When 

imports are down, exporters at inland locations are unable to find a sufficient number of 

containers. 

During these difficult economic times, carriers have decreased vessel calls, reducing the 

container pool for exporters. Containerized agricultural exporters continually report container 

availability as their most difficult challenge. In the United States, container availability is 

determined by the ocean carrier that owns or leases the containers because ocean carrier 

transport of third-party or shipper-owned containers is uncommon. Ocean carriers contend 

that rail costs are too high relative to the revenue earned to send many containers to inland 

destinations to serve the agricultural community. Containers are plentiful at ocean ports, 

particularly in California. Apart from the coastal port areas, agricultural exporters must rely on 

the major inland transportation hubs such as Chicago, Kansas City, Dallas, and Memphis as 

sources of empty containers. 

Investment and Funding 

Investment in transportation infrastructure has been specific to each mode, with sources of 

funding varying by mode. A January 2005 CRS report said “Analyzing transportation investment 

from a supply chain perspective can lead to a more coordinated or integrated approach. 

However, an integrated strategy is difficult to develop because transportation is still operated, 

administered, and funded along modal lines.”398 Although current economic conditions have 

eased supply chain issues, transportation constraints are expected to reappear as the economy 

recovers. 

The supply chain is only as effective as its weakest link. A system-wide viewpoint could focus 

attention on the weakest links such as rail access, locks and dams, dredging, port capacity, or 

highway congestion and strengthen them, freeing the entire system to handle the growing 

transportation demand. 

 
510

Such a perspective could take into account the interdependent role of public and private 

sectors, drawing on all available resources to maintain and improve the transportation part of 

the supply chain. Public and private sectors could usefully work together to identify and 

prioritize the needs. 

The supply-chain perspective might logically begin at a national level, with funding focused on 

critical regions, where transportation infrastructure improvements would benefit the rest of 

the nation. For example, a national overview of the rail network could identify critical 

chokepoints, and funding to free them would be based on the interrelationship of that region’s 

rail needs with the nation’s highways, waterways, and ports. 

The U.S. agricultural supply chain is a major user of the nation’s transportation system, so its 

needs, especially in rural areas, could be taken into account in this planning process. A systemwide perspective could improve the efficiency of the entire transportation system and ensure 

that the United States maintains its competitive advantage in the global marketplace. 

Better Data, Better Decisions 

Policy and business decision-making can benefit from more and better data on transportation activity, 

rates, and infrastructure needs. In the United States, the Federal government is responsible for 

gathering economic data that can answer transportation sector questions, and then setting an 

appropriate course of action for national infrastructure planning and funding.* DOT provides a vast 

array of transportation statistics and USDA provides select reports on agricultural transportation. 

However, there are still gaps. More data, quantitative research, and analysis can improve 

decision-making for the transportation sector. 

The biggest gaps in transportation data, research, and analysis are in the areas of rates, commodity 

flows, and real-time information on container availability. Access to additional data that could improve 

transportation analysis includes: 

• More timely data on commodity flows by transportation mode 

• Closer to real-time information on container, railcar, and other equipment availability 

• Better information on transportation rates in the trucking and ocean sectors 

USDA reports provide some primary source data for transportation costs and volumes important to the 

agricultural sector, but more timely information on more commodities could be gathered by increased 

data collection through collaboration with shippers, carriers, and the government. Collecting individual 

pieces of information to reveal a bigger market picture could help policy makers and industry 

representatives develop better long-term infrastructure plans. 

* Abraham, Katharine G. “What We Don’t Know Could Hurt Us: Some Reflections on the Measurement of Economic 

Activity.” Journal of Economic Perspective, Volume 19, Number 3, Summer 2005. 
511

Growth in Transportation Demand 

Recent research predicts substantial growth in freight transportation demand, although 

estimates of the rate of growth differ. For example, the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) 

Version 2.2 projects total freight volumes to increase 93 percent from 2007 to 2035.399 A 

similar study performed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials predicts that total freight will grow 67 percent from 2000 to 2020, domestic tonnage 

will increase 57 percent and import-export tonnage 99 percent.400 These projections may be 

overestimated because they were made before the recent recession, but transportation activity 

is considered to be the leading indicator of economic recovery, so it will rise as the economy 

lifts. As the economy begins to recover, demand pressure on the U.S. transportation system 

will resurface. 

Agricultural production and trade is projected to continue to increase as world economic 

recovery, population growth, and higher incomes increase demand for high-quality U.S. 

agricultural commodities and food products. In addition, the rapid expansion of biofuels that 

currently move along a few key corridors, will require a corresponding expansion in 

transportation and distribution infrastructure. Investment in the transportation system will 

benefit U.S. agriculture, and additional biofuel distribution infrastructure will help achieve the 

energy policy objectives of our country. 

Investment Needs 

The National Chamber Foundation released a study in April 2008 called The Transportation 

Challenge: Moving the U.S. Economy that concluded more investment in the transportation 

system is needed to support the growth of trade and population in the United States.401 

According to the report, underinvestment contributes to congestion and is costing U.S. 

businesses and consumers time and money. 

Funding sources usually address the needs of individual transportation modes. Highways and 

waterways are supported by federal funding. Railways are privately owned, with 18 percent of 

their revenue being spent on capital expenditures. The railroad industry contends that public 

funding of infrastructure for barge and truck transportation puts rail at a competitive 

disadvantage and provides a precedent for governmental funding of rail capacity. Funding for 

transportation infrastructure would benefit from a systems-based approach. 

Railroads 

Any increase in demand will require substantial investment in rail system capacity. Using FAF 

projections of freight demand, Cambridge Systematics estimated that U.S. railroads would need 

to invest $148 billion by 2035 to handle projected freight demand.402 Of this amount, Class I 

railroads would need to invest $135 billion and smaller railroads $13 billion. Despite investing 

record amounts in infrastructure the last several years, Class I railroads estimate that they 

would be able to invest only $96 billion of the required $135 billion, leaving a shortfall of $39 

billion. 
512

Christensen Associates, in their Supplemental 

Report, noted that the Cambridge study 

probably overestimated railroad demand and 

investment needs because its projections of 

grain and coal movements exceeded those of 

USDA and the Energy Information 

Administration.403 In addition, the Cambridge 

study did not take into account the current 

economic downturn. According to Christensen, 

using a lower projection of grain and coal 

movements could lead to a lower estimate of 

projected investment needs and the resulting 

investment shortfall. Whatever the shortfall in 

railroad funding, the railroad industry suggests 

that it be covered from railroad investment tax 

incentives, public-private partnerships, or other 

sources. 

Those arguing against governmental funding of 

rail infrastructure say that access to the rail 

system is controlled by the owner of the track, 

with the owner being able to limit access, 

restrict competition, and charge excessive 

rates, especially in areas where competition 

from other modes is sparse. In contrast, access 

to highways and inland waterway systems is 

open to all, so the benefits from governmental 

support of highways and waterways flows 

directly to the public, whereas private parties 

benefit from rail infrastructure improvements. 

Public-private funding of rail infrastructure 

projects, to the degree the public benefits, has 

been an accepted practice. For example, the 

Alameda Corridor has eliminated several 

highway crossings and benefitted both the 

public (by eliminating waiting time and 

increasing safety) and railways (by speeding the 

movement of freight). Another example is 

public investment to preserve railroad branch 

lines, which prevents the additional cost of 

highway maintenance and the increased 

accidents that would occur if the lines are 

abandoned.

Public Benefits of Rail Transportation 

Here are some arguments put forth for public 

support of railroads:*

Less Demand for Foreign Fossil Fuels 

On average, railroads are three times as fuel 

efficient as trucks. In 2007, U.S. railroads 

moved a ton of freight an average of 436 

miles per gallon of fuel. If 10 percent of the 

freight that currently moves by truck moved 

by rail instead, more than one billion gallons 

of fuel would be saved each year, reducing 

our nation’s demand for foreign fossil fuels. 

Less Highway Congestion 

Highway congestion costs the U.S. more than 

$87.2 billion a year in wasted fuel and time. A 

single train can carry the freight of 280 or 

more trucks. Moving freight by rail reduces 

highway congestion, the costs of maintaining 

existing highways, and the pressure to build 

more highway capacity.

Fewer Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Moving freight by rail instead of truck reduces 

greenhouse gas emissions by at least 

two-thirds. 

 

Less Pollution 

According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, a typical truck emits three times 

more nitrous oxides and particulates per 

ton-mile of freight than a locomotive.

Increased Safety 

Rail freight experiences about 12 percent of 

the fatalities and 6 percent of the injuries that 

trucks do per ton-mile. In addition, 99.99 

percent of fertilizer and hazardous materials 

shipments arrive without accident—by far the 

highest rate of any transportation mode. 

* Association of American Railroads, Tax Incentives for 

Investments to Revitalize Freight Railroad 

Infrastructure, January 2009. 
513

Inland Waterways 

The inland waterways provide the most fuel-efficient mode, point to point, for transporting 

commodities such as grain, grain products, oilseeds, fertilizer and coal. Our Nation has 191 

active locks with 237 lock chambers.* As facilities grow older, the need for repairs and 

preventative maintenance increases, and eventually some facilities need to be replaced or 

undergo major rehabilitation. 

Agricultural shippers rely heavily on the Upper Mississippi River system. Without this shipping 

alternative, more grain would need to be shipped by rail or truck to the section of the river 

below the locks, because most of the grain exported through the Gulf travels there by barge. 

The grain barge industry and agricultural shippers would benefit by investments to increase the 

capacity and efficiency of this system. 

Funding mechanisms for new construction and major rehabilitation of inland waterway 

navigation structures are specified by law, which directs the cost of navigation improvements to 

be paid from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury with a matching amount from the Inland 

Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). The funding source for the IWTF is the tax imposed on fuel for 

commercial vessels using the system. The current tax is 20 cents per gallon. Expenditures from 

the IWTF have increased from 2002 to present, causing the 2008 end-of-year balance to fall to 

$44.6 million from an average of $352.8 from 1995 to 2004. Unless an additional funding is 

found, the IWTF could face a deficit in the immediate future. 

Highways 

Food and agricultural producers rely heavily on trucking to move products from the farm or 

processing facility to market. Improvements in the Nation’s highways increase the efficiency of 

agricultural transportation and reduce costs to producers and consumers. 

Over half of the Federal-aid highways are in less-than-good condition and more than onequarter of the Nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.404 The 

National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission stated in February 2009 

that the average annual Federal, State, and local revenue needed for maintenance of highway 

and transit systems was $172 billion per year, and another $42 billion per year was needed for 

improvements.405 Based on these revenue needs, the commission estimated the average 

annual gaps in funding are $96 billion for maintenance and $42 billion for improvements. The 

commission recommended increasing fuel taxes and alternative ways of raising revenue to 

address the backlog of road, bridge, and transit system maintenance and improvement needs. 

 

 

*

 Some locks are equipped with more than one chamber, adding capacity. Many of the aging locks are in a 

constant state of maintenance. The extra chamber allows traffic to continue if the other chamber is out of 

operation for repairs, instead of stopping all barge traffic. Of the 37 locks on the UMR-IW, only 3 have more than 

one chamber, but all of the 20 locks on the Ohio River have two chambers. 
514

Figure 15-7: Highway construction. Improvements to the highway system makes 

transportation faster and less expensive. 

Source: Caltrans 

In the short term, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 authorized up to $41.44 billion in 

spending from the Highway Trust Fund. Longer term, the funding for maintenance and 

improvements to the Nation’s highways and bridges will likely be addressed by Congress when 

it considers the next highway authorization bill. The House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee proposed $337.4 billion for highway construction investment over six years, 

including at least $100 billion for the National Highway System, $50 billion to reduce 

congestion, and $25 billion for projects that focus on goods movement and freight mobility.406 

The Administration requested that Congress focus on an 18-month reauthorization that will 

replenish the Highway Trust Fund.407 On August 7, the President signed H.R. 3357 to restore 

$7 billion to the Highway Trust Fund. 

Ports 

U.S. ports are the doorway to the world, the forefront of world trade, affecting the efficiency 

and competitiveness of the U.S. economy, including agriculture. A recent report by the 

American Society of Civil Engineers stated that “Although U.S. ports are currently comparable 

to foreign ports in terms of overall port infrastructure, more effort needs to take place in terms 

of dockside infrastructure, i.e., larger and more substantial berths, newer and larger cranes, 

and improved intermodal access to inland transfer areas.”408 Although the Federal government 
515

has paid for much of the transportation infrastructure of the U.S. highways and airports, ocean 

ports and marine terminals have mostly been financed by local taxes or the private sector. 

Many container ports in the U.S. continue to develop new terminals and implement projects to 

reduce port congestion and accommodate bigger ships. However, some ports and terminals 

are not able to enlarge because they are in urban areas without space to expand. 

The maintenance of ship channels is the responsibility of the Army Corp of Engineers through 

the Harbor Maintenance Tax assessed on import cargo and some domestic shipments and 

deposited in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF). The American Association of Port 

Authorities states that, “As a result of federal under-investment, the 59 most utilized federal 

channels only have authorized widths and depths available for the center half of the channel 

30–40 percent of the time. This limits efficient use of our waterways and increases 

transportation costs.” Inadequate depths can lead to higher transportation costs because 

vessels cannot be loaded to capacity. When harbor channels are at less than authorized 

depths, S-Class container vessels lose 320 tons of cargo capacity per inch, Panamax bulk grain 

carriers lose 179 tons per inch, and Great Lakes ocean-bound vessels lose 115 tons per inch. 

Because of the multimodal and interdependent nature of the U.S. transportation system, 

efficiency in one mode has an impact on other modes. The extent to which ports are able to 

utilize their capacity most effectively has a direct impact on the efficiency of inland 

transportation; imports and exports move through the Nation’s ports to be carried by interior 

railroads, highways, and waterways. 

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation’s busiest port complex, have proposed 

per-container fees to pay for improvements to their port facilities. They worked with the 

California Air Resources Board to adopt the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) in 

November 2006. This Plan includes components for truck, rail, and vessel traffic. Proposed 

financing would be with per-container fees. 

 
516

Figure 15-8: Truck gate at the Port of Los Angeles 

Source: ©Port of Los Angeles 

Environment stewardship is important, although the associated requirements and percontainer fees increase costs and create logistical challenges for agricultural shippers. These 

fees, charged to importers and exporters, range from $15 to $100 per container (see Chapter 

14 for more details). This type of fee distributes the cost evenly throughout the trade, but 

imposes a greater burden on low-valued cargo such as agricultural shipments. When the value 

of the import or export and revenue derived from it are taken into consideration, the lowervalued cargo absorbs a greater burden from a flat per-container fee than from a value-based 

cargo fee. 

Transportation Issues Affecting Agricultural Shippers 

Agriculture—the largest U.S. industry that relies on the transportation system—could benefit 

from more holistic multimodal transportation policies. This study has brought to light several 

transportation system issues affecting agriculture and rural America: 

• The modal focus of transportation planning and funding 

• Carrier antitrust exemptions 

• Railroad practices that reduce competition 

• Availability of containers and transport equipment 

• Compliance-driven cost increases 

• Trucking hours of service exemptions for agriculture 
517

Changing the Focus of Transportation Planning and Funding 

Because the overall transportation system consists of connected networks, choke points on one 

network caused by inefficiencies in logistics or infrastructure reverberate throughout the 

system. The agricultural supply chain starts at a farm and may end as far away as the other side 

of the globe. It relies on a transportation system that starts with a rural road, continues along 

highways, railways, and waterways to a port and, after an ocean voyage, ends at a consumer’s 

table overseas. Choke points and other impediments to the smooth and efficient working of 

this interlocked transportation system hamper access to the global market for U.S. food and 

agricultural products. 

Federal transportation policy and funding could benefit from a supply-chain perspective that 

includes all modes. The benefits of each mode could be taken into account, as could their 

linked relationship to other modes in servicing production supply chains, and the infrastructure 

of each network funded with consistent, long-term funding sources. 

Reevaluating Carrier Antitrust Exemptions 

Railroads and ocean carriers arguably benefit from exemptions from antitrust laws. Antitrust 

exemptions permit ocean carriers to coordinate service and discuss market conditions and 

rates. If not for the exemptions, collective actions among competing companies that, on 

balance, harm competition could be in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws. Improving 

competition by reevaluating these exemptions could help agricultural shippers by reducing 

transportation costs. 

Ocean Container Carrier Antitrust Exemptions 

Under the Shipping Act, ocean container carriers are given an antitrust exemption that allows 

them to discuss market conditions, share vessels, and establish rate guidelines. This exemption 

weakens the industry’s competitive environment, decreasing the power of competition to 

moderate rates. Container unavailability and some recent volatility in rates have caused 

agricultural shippers to question these exemptions. Further analysis of the effects of antitrust 

exemptions would help determine whether this exemption decreases competitive options for 

agricultural importers and exporters and whether its benefits in preserving service levels 

compensate for any adverse effects on competition. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) 

is currently studying the effect of Europe’s 2008 repeal of its block antitrust exemption for 

ocean carrier conferences. 

Railroad Antitrust Exemptions 

Antitrust regulations in the United States require that mergers and acquisitions be reviewed to 

determine if the resulting larger company would increase its market power and that of its 

competitors to a level that could harm consumers. Railroad mergers and acquisitions are 

reviewed and allowed by the Surface Transportation Board (see Chapter 6). 

U.S. antitrust laws prohibit collusive behavior. In a market with as few as two sellers, there may 

be inadequate competition to produce effective rail-to-rail competition. Even with multiple 

carriers competing in a single market, if they collude or tacitly cooperate, prices could be 
518

expected to be higher than when competition is open.409 It is increasingly being argued that 

today’s environment of reduced competition is giving cause for a reexamination of the antitrust 

exemptions for railroads. 

Railroad Practices Reduce Competition 

Some railroad practices impede the efficiency and effectiveness of the U.S. agricultural sector, 

domestically and in global trade. Prior to deregulation, the railroad industry was characterized 

by open interchange and cooperation among railroads in the interests of serving the shipper. 

The rapid consolidation of the industry through mergers has resulted in a decrease in the 

uninhibited interchange of traffic, routing choices, and cooperation among railroads. Some of 

these changes that decrease the competition and efficiency of the rail industry are discussed 

below. 

Railroads Restrict Interchange 

Since railroad consolidation, railroads have closed many gateways, terminated interchange 

agreements with other railroads, and closed lanes. The net result has been decreased rail-torail competition and the elimination of shipper’s rail access to some markets. Railroad policies 

often limit the routes and destinations shippers can select when only one railroad serves their 

origin, even when other lines are connected to the originating railroad. Such limits on 

competition increases rates and reduces the efficiency of the transportation system. 

Rate Challenge Processes are not Cost-Effective 

Agricultural shippers are affected by the less-than-cost-effective means for challenging rail rates 

that are currently provided. In 1996, Congress mandated that cost-effective small-rate-case 

procedures be available to small shippers. Current small-rate appeal procedures, although 

improved, still exclude a great many small agricultural shippers, which could be the reason no 

agricultural shipper has used them to appeal rail rates. When factoring in the probability of 

winning a rate-appeal case, the expected returns for these agricultural shippers would not 

cover their costs in most cases. In addition, most agricultural shippers serve multiple markets, 

making it less cost-effective to appeal rates to individual origin-destination pairs. The inability 

of agricultural shippers to appeal excessive rail rates is borne by farmers, who are paid prices 

for their grain that are net of shipping costs. Excessive rail rates, in turn, reduce the economic 

vitality of nearby rural communities. 

Paper Barriers 

Paper barriers* restrict the markets and rates available to agricultural shippers and producers, 

interfering with their ability to obtain the best price and increasing their transportation costs. 

They restrict the flow of interstate commerce and reduce the benefits arising from the rail 

network as a whole. 

 

*

 Paper barriers are agreements between two railroads that restrict the ability of one party, usually a short line or 

regional railroad, to exchange freight traffic with railroads that compete with the larger railroad. 
519

Antitrust law generally prohibits businesses from selling assets with conditions that restrict the 

buyer as to whom they can do business with, how they conduct business, or how they price 

their services. When exceptions to antitrust law are allowed by the courts, they require 

barriers to be reasonable and as limited as possible, and the public benefits must outweigh the 

anticompetitive effects. Paper barriers lasting into perpetuity are difficult to defend, and the 

penalties for interchanging with competing railroads are often punitive, serving only to restrict 

competition. Many paper barriers are not transparent to shippers, who bear the increased 

costs of this practice. 

Reciprocal Switching 

Many railroads have cancelled reciprocal switching agreements with competing railroads prior 

to railroad mergers, and have cancelled reciprocal switching agreements with shippers. This 

has restricted shipper options and rail-to-rail competition. Switching rates have increased 

dramatically in recent years and now often exceed $500 per carload. Class I railroads 

frequently refuse to provide competitive rates and service to captive short line railroads, which 

provide essential rail service to rural communities that otherwise would have none. Canada 

sets mandatory reciprocal switching rates based upon costs for specific distances, preventing 

railroads from setting rates so high they restrict rail-to-rail competition. 

Consistent Service and Rates to Captive Shippers 

Lack of service at rural intermodal facilities forces agricultural shippers to truck empty 

containers long distances from urban intermodal yards and then haul the loaded containers 

back to those urban yards. In 2006, this practice added nearly $1,100 per 40 foot container to 

the cost of cotton shippers located near Lubbock, Texas. The higher trucking cost due to the 

lack of rail service hinders the ability of farmers to compete in domestic and international 

markets. Agricultural shippers need consistent rail service to rural intermodal facilities. 

Bottleneck Decision 

Bottleneck rates occur because of an STB ruling that restricts the ability of a shipper or receiver 

served by only one railroad to use that rail line serving its plant or facility to reach competitive 

services offered by other railroads. Under the ruling, railroads are not required to quote rates 

on the bottleneck portion of the movement unless the shipper first obtains a contract over the 

alternative route from the non-bottleneck railroad. Because most of the Nation is served by 

railroad duopolies that do not vigorously compete with each other, non-bottleneck railroads 

rarely agree to a contract over the alternative route. 

The effect of the bottleneck ruling has been a loss of competition, an increase in rates, and a 

decrease in service. Economic efficiency also may be decreased; longer routes are used and 

more fuel consumed. One study has estimated the loss in annual efficiency caused by the 

bottleneck ruling at $1.3 billion with an increased consumption of more than 103 million gallons 

of fuel.410 
520

Excessive Fuel Surcharges 

Fuel surcharges are designed to allow railroad firms to recover the costs caused by abnormally 

high fuel prices; normal fuel costs have always been included in the rail rate determination. 

Fuel surcharges, however, have become profit centers for railroads. During September 2008, 

when fuel surcharges peaked, they varied from 46.58 cents per car mile to 87 cents, a 

difference of 87 percent. USDA has shown (in Chapter 7: Rail Rates) that the fuel surcharges 

railroads have collected exceed the additional cost of the fuel by 55 percent. 

Figure 15-9: A locomotive refueling 

Source: ©R. Franz 

Increasing Awareness of Regulatory Costs 

Regulations dealing with homeland security, environmental mitigation, and safety help the 

agricultural sector’s long-term sustainability, but increase operating costs for carriers, adding to 

the transportation costs ultimately borne by agricultural producers. Increased awareness of 

the added costs these programs bring could help with the coordination of regulatory policymaking and raise awareness of the impacts on transportation options for rural America. 

 
521

Port expansion plans face competing residential development issues and environmental 

concerns that limit expansion activities.411 Because of the urban setting of many ports, space to 

expand is limited. Ports on the outskirts of town frequently find that available land is wetlands 

or other protected environment, so environmental concerns make expansion difficult, 

expensive, and time-consuming. 

Recent security regulations such as the Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC) 

and the new Foreign Trade Regulations have added to the cost of doing business for agricultural 

exporters. The TWIC program was formed to be sure persons needing unescorted access to 

maritime facilities were not a threat to those facilities, but has increased the cost for truck 

drivers and port employees. 

The Foreign Trade Regulations that went into effect in 2008 also have added logistical burdens 

to agricultural exporters. The new regulations require carriers to have proof of export 

documentation filing in advance of the vessel sailing. Ocean carriers have interpreted this 

differently, sometimes imposing deadlines that are impossible for agricultural exporters to 

meet because their products are high perishable and the volatility of the international market. 

Hours-of-Service Exemptions for Agriculture 

During the busy planting and harvest seasons, farmers and retail farm suppliers spend 

substantial time on activities other than driving, necessitating the agricultural hours-of-service 

exemption. By law, as determined by each State, the agricultural exemption is limited to an 

area within a 100 air-mile radius from the source of the agricultural commodity or the 

distribution point for the farm supplies during the planting and harvest seasons. Without the 

exemption, farmers and suppliers would be required to go off duty, disrupting critical planting 

and harvest activities, especially for crops subject to volatile weather, crop maturity, and 

market conditions. 

In 2005, Congress clarified the 100 air-mile radius agricultural exemption from the hours of 

service rules, first granted in 1995. It means that drivers transporting an agricultural 

commodity or farm supplies for agricultural purposes are exempt from the maximum driving 

and on-duty time provisions required of long-haul drivers. Because of agriculture’s unique 

needs, exemptions from the hours-of-service rules are highly important. 

Funding the Inland Waterways 

The Nation’s locks and dams are generally reliable, but many of them were built in the 1930s. 

As they have aged, repairs and maintenance have become more frequently necessary and more 

expensive. Repairs and improvements have been authorized by Congress, but funding for new 

construction projects is nearly depleted and there is a growing gap to fund ongoing projects. 

 
522

Barges offer the most economical and environmentally-friendly mode of transportation, 

keeping U.S. agricultural products competitive in the global economy. They carry 12 percent of 

agriculture’s ton-miles. They offer competition to other long-haul modes, keeping rail rates 

competitive. Moving more bulk commodities on barges could free capacity of other 

transportation modes, reducing congestion. A consensus on the best way to tackle inland 

waterway funding issues is needed. 

Conclusions 

The supply chain for agricultural products often depends on multiple modes of transportation, 

each with its own price dynamics and relative fuel efficiencies. In grain transportation, fuel 

costs have the greatest impact on truck and rail rates, followed by ocean and barge. 

Agricultural shippers pay most of the transportation costs and frequently have limited 

transportation options, because they are generally price takers in the transportation market. 

Transportation costs directly affect their incomes and access to destination markets. 

Long-term economic trends indicate growing demand for freight transportation services, the 

largest user of which is the U.S. food and agriculture sector. To keep the U.S. economy 

competitive in the global economy and ensure that the transportation share of domestic food 

prices remains reasonable, transportation planning and investing needs to shift from its modecentric approach to a supply-chain, multimodal, systems approach. Although each mode has its 

own characteristics, they interrelate to form an integrated system. 

Some policies need to address mode-specific issues, such as antitrust exemption status and 

carrier practices related to rates and service; others can be directed at improving cargo flow by 

identifying remedies to network choke points.