Maritime Infrastructure: Opportunities Exist to Improve the Effectiveness of Federal Efforts to Support the Marine Transportation System
Published: 2012-11-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
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  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). 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  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). 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: As economic activities become more integrated and globalized, foreign  trade has become increasingly important to the U.S. economy.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  containership.billion tons of commodities in 2010.
According to Corps data, U.S. ports handled a total of 2.3  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). 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 post- Panamax containerships 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.
In 2009, U.S.
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).
subsections: section_title: MTS: Navigable Waterways, Ports, and Port Connectors
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
The 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. 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. 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.
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.
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  transportation mode to another (e.g., from a ship to a truck).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.
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. 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.
Federal funding for highways is provided to the states primarily through a series of  formula grants collectively known as the federal-aid highway program.
section_title: GAO’s Prior Work on Freight Mobility and a National Freight Policy
paragraphs: 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. We have highlighted challenges such as:  facilitating the efficient movement of freight and the growing demand  for freight transportation; 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. On July 6,  2012, MAP-21 was enacted into law and authorized funding for 2 years to  core federal-aid highway and transit programs. 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.
section_title: Committee on the Marine Transportation System and the MTS National Strategy
paragraphs: 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). The CMTS adopted a charter in 2005  creating a partnership of federal agencies with responsibility for the MTS  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. 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  improving federal MTS coordination and policies;  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. 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.
section_title: A Variety of Corps and DOT Programs Can Be Used to Maintain or Improve Some Segments of the MTS
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Navigable Waterways Segment
paragraphs: 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. 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. Increases in a navigation channel’s  authorized depth or width—referred to as construction or “new work”—are  also congressionally authorized.
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  percent in fiscal year 2008 to 34 percent in fiscal year 2012. 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.funds in each fiscal year are obligated for operation and maintenance  activities.
section_title: Several Challenges Exist to Maintaining and Improving the MTS
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Aging MTS Infrastructure
subsections: section_title: Navigable Waterways and Supporting Structures
paragraphs: 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. Figure 2 below  shows the Mississippi River at the Port of South Louisiana.
As a result of the channel’s shoaling, 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.
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. Figure 3 shows the age of the nation’s  navigation lock inventory.
As locks age, repair and rehabilitation become more extensive and  expensive, according to the CMTS. 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. 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.
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.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.
The planned replacement lock will  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  authorized purposes and evolving conditions. 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.
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.  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 under- maintained. For example, highway connectors to ports had twice the  percentage of pavement deficiencies as non-Interstate National Highway  System routes. 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. 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.
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. 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.
section_title: MTS Infrastructure Backlog
paragraphs: 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 non- federal share of the costs provided by project stakeholders.factors have been identified as contributing to the size of the current  navigation program backlog, including: authorizations that have outpaced appropriations in recent years;  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.
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 pre- applications 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.
According to DOT’s most recent estimate, $4.3 billion is needed to  improve the condition of the nation’s port connectors. 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.
section_title: Prioritization of MTS Investments
paragraphs: 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.
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. Under the current civil works budget formulation process, the Corps uses performance metrics and a benefit- to-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. 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.
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. In fiscal year 2011, FHWA provided states with 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.
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. 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. According to FHWA, a $1 billion TIFIA authorization of  budget authority will support about $10 billion in actual lending capacity.
According 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).
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.
section_title: Federal Government Has Taken Steps to Address MTS Challenges; However, Opportunities Exist to Improve the Effectiveness of Its Role in the MTS
paragraphs: 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 government- wide 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.
subsections: section_title: Federal Efforts to Address MTS Infrastructure Investments System-Wide
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  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.
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.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.
As  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. 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  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.
section_title: CMTS Efforts to Address MTS Challenges
paragraphs: 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.
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  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. 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.
section_title: Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of the CMTS
paragraphs: 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  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. 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. 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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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) and the new surface transportation  reauthorization, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act  (MAP-21). 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.
We obtained program budget data for programs that may be used to  support MTS infrastructure by reviewing budget documentation, including  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: existence of current or recently completed navigation, port, or port  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;  connector expansion projects; and geographic diversity.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: DOT Programs We Reviewed That May Fund MTS Infrastructure
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: DOT Programs We Reviewed That May Finance MTS Infrastructure
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.