U.S. Border Communities: Ongoing DOT Efforts Could Help Address Impacts of International Freight Rail
Published: 2016-01-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: About 93 trains a day on average crossed into the continental United States from Canada and Mexico in 2014, according to DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). Trains enter and leave the United States through 30 POEs—23 on the northern border and 7 on the southern border. Although international freight rail plays an important role in U.S. economic and trade interests, the movement of rail through U.S. communities at the border can result in blocked highway-rail grade crossings and vehicle traffic congestion. House Report 113-464 accompanying the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act included a provision for GAO to review the impact of international rail crossings on U.S. border communities.
This report (1) describes the factors that affect the movement of freight rail and the actions taken by federal agencies and others to expedite freight rail in selected POEs and (2) examines what is known about the impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail grade crossings in POE communities. GAO visited four POE communities that were selected in part based on BTS's 2010–2014 data on average incoming train volume. In each POE, GAO interviewed officials from local and state governments, the railroad, CBP, and FRA. GAO also interviewed officials from DOT, CBP, the Border Trade Alliance, and the Association of American Railroads.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Factors such as inspections and crew changes affect freight rail movements in the four U.S. border port of entry (POE) communities GAO visited, which can result in blocked highway-rail grade crossings. Federal agencies and others have taken actions to expedite rail in these communities. As part of its mission to safeguard the border, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) scans inbound rail cars on both borders using the Rail Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (R-VACIS), a machine used to detect anomalies and threats to national security. CBP generally requires trains to slow in order to pass through R-VACIS. To expedite freight rail and reduce blocked highway-rail grade crossings, CBP, for example, adjusted its procedures to allow certain trains to go through R-VACIS faster at two POEs on the northern border. Similarly, crew changes can result in stopped trains and blocked U.S. highway-rail grade crossings, particularly on the southern border. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials stated that crew changes are required due to differences in safety regulations between the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Mexico. Railroads have expressed interest in eliminating such crew changes but face challenges such as FRA and labor union safety concerns.
The impacts of international freight rail on highway-rail grade crossings in communities GAO visited vary based on border-specific factors and community characteristics, and DOT improvement efforts including the issuance of a final rule could provide better data for help determining these impacts in the future. Inspections and crew changes, as well as rail traffic levels, can vary across POEs. For example, some factors play a role at southern, but not northern POEs. In addition, freight rail impacts vary based on community characteristics such as the availability of overpasses. State and local officials face data limitations, which reduce their ability to quantify rail-related community impacts. For example, local officials often do not have data on the number and length of trains passing through the community. In September 2014, GAO recommended that DOT improve the availability of national data to assess freight impacts on traffic congestion. DOT agreed and has actions under way. In January 2015, the FRA issued a final rule requiring railroads to update FRA's highway-rail crossing inventory once every 3 years. Prior to this rule, railroads voluntarily submitted data that were not always updated. DOT data efforts could better equip state and local governments to define the extent of blocked highway-rail grade crossings in communities nationwide, including at rail border communities.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOT and CBP provided technical comments, which were incorporated.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Approximately 34,000 trains—about 93 trains a day on average—crossed  into the continental United States from Canada and Mexico through 30  ports of entry (POE) in 2014, according to the U.S. Department of  Transportation’s (DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). The  vast majority of these trains carry freight such as chemicals, lumber, and  manufactured goods. According to BTS, freight rail carried about 15  percent of the total value of all U.S. freight flows between the United  States and Canada and Mexico in 2014. In that year, trucks carried the  majority (about 60) percent of these freight flows, which amounted to $1.2  trillion worth of freight, in total.
Although international freight rail plays an important role in U.S. economic  and trade interests, the movement of rail through U.S. border  communities where POEs are located can temporarily block highway-rail  grade crossings and contribute to traffic congestion. We have previously  reported that overall freight rail traffic has increased since 2009 and may  exacerbate traffic congestion concerns in many communities nationwide.  In addition, due to customs inspections and other processes at rail POEs,  communities in these areas may face additional time that highway-rail  grade crossings are blocked. In particular, as trains enter the United  States, they are subject to inspections by the Department of Homeland  Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Trains entering  from Mexico are also subject to equipment safety inspections required by  the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Similarly, freight trains leaving  the United States may be subject to inspections by Canadian or Mexican  customs agencies. In addition, crew changes may occur, when the train is  handed off between foreign and U.S. crews. As a result, trains may travel  at slow speeds through or temporarily stop in rail POE communities.  When this occurs as trains travel through highway-rail grade crossings,  vehicle traffic must wait for the train to clear, potentially resulting in  queues of vehicles, wait times, and increased congestion.
The House Report accompanying the Departments of Transportation, and  Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations  Act of 2015 included a provision for us to review international rail border  crossing times and the blockage of highway-rail grade crossings on the  U.S. side. This report (1) describes the factors that affect the movement  of freight rail through selected ports of entry and the actions taken by  federal agencies and others to expedite freight rail in these locations, and  (2) examines what is known about the impacts of freight rail operations on  highway-rail grade crossings in U.S. port of entry communities.
To determine the factors that affect the movement of freight rail and the  impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail grade crossings in U.S.  border communities, we selected nine rail POE communities—Nogales,  Arizona; El Paso, Eagle Pass, Brownsville, and Laredo, Texas; Blaine,  Washington; Ranier, Minnesota; Port Huron, Michigan; and Rouses Point,  New York. We selected communities that had at least one incoming train  per day from 2010 through 2014 based on BTS border crossing data and  excluded certain rail POEs, such as those outside of the continental  United States or those with largely grade-separated infrastructure,  meaning the rail line rarely intersects with vehicular traffic. Of these, we  conducted visits to four rail POE communities—Brownsville and Laredo,  Texas; Ranier, Minnesota; and Blaine, Washington—that were selected  to include communities with heavy inbound train traffic and a mix of  northern and southern border locations. At each site visit, we interviewed  representatives from the city or county, the metropolitan planning  organization (MPO, if applicable), the state department of transportation,  CBP, FRA regional office, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers  and Trainmen (BLET)—a union representing train operators. We also  interviewed representatives from the five railroads that operate trains  passing through each of the four rail POE communities we visited. For the  remaining five of nine selected communities that we did not visit, we  interviewed local officials by phone. Furthermore, we interviewed officials  and reviewed documents from CBP, DOT, FRA, and Department of State  and interviewed representatives of the American Association of State  Highway and Transportation Officials, the Border Trade Alliance, and the  Association of American Railroads (AAR). To examine what is known  about the impacts of international freight rail operations on highway-rail  grade crossings, we reviewed relevant DOT documentation such as the  reporting requirements for the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory  and interviewed DOT officials on available data sources. To estimate the  total time highway-rail grade crossings are blocked in eight of the nine  selected rail POE communities; we calculated the average time that  freight trains would block key intersections in these communities based  on the average speed of trains, length of trains, and frequency of trains  that were reported by railroad representatives. We attempted to collect  data from five railroads, but we received incomplete information in  response and were able to analyze information from two of these  railroads. Finally, we observed the CBP inspection process and the  geography and relevant highway-rail crossings in each community we  visited to gain additional insights related to international freight rail and  the related POEs.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2015 to January  2016 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: Canada and Mexico are the United States’ first and third largest trading  partners, respectively, and most freight between the United States and  these countries is transported by truck and rail. Freight trains include bulk  freight and intermodal freight. Bulk freight—such as grain, automobiles  and component parts, coal, and chemicals—are transported in rail cars.  For example, railroads deliver automotive parts made in the United States  to assembly plants in Mexico by rail, and return finished automobiles from  Mexico by rail. In addition, according to AAR representatives, bulk freight  such as grain and lumber enters the United States along the northwestern  border with Canada. Further, “intermodal” freight consists of containers  carried by rail and transferred to or from other transportation modes, such  as ships or trucks. For example, intermodal freight containers arrive at  Prince Rupert in western Canada from Asia by ship and are transferred to  rail and exported to the United States, entering through Ranier,  Minnesota. Intermodal freight generally consists of consumer goods such  as furniture and computers and, according to FRA, has been the fastest  growing segment of the freight rail industry in the United States since  1980.
Inbound international rail traffic has grown over the past 5 years, but the  increase is not uniform across U.S. POEs and is projected to increase  further in certain POEs. According to BTS data, the number of inbound  trains increased 6 percent on the northern border and 29 percent along  the southern border from 2010 through 2014. All international rail traffic  enters and exits the continental United States through 30 different rail  POEs—23 along the Canadian border and 7 along the Mexican  border. The top 8 rail POEs on the northern and southern borders  carried 68 percent of inbound rail traffic while 14 rail POEs—mainly along  the northern border—received less than one inbound train a day on  average over the past five years according to BTS data (see fig. 1).  Ranier, Minnesota, and Laredo, Texas, have the highest number of  inbound trains on the northern and southern borders with an average of  10 and 9 trains per day from 2010 through 2014, or an average of 3,675  and 3,466 inbound trains per year, respectively. Some stakeholders  predict growth in international rail traffic in certain POEs. For example,  representatives from one railroad noted that intermodal traffic through  Ranier, Minnesota, will continue to grow since the port at Prince Rupert in  Canada has announced an expansion of its capacity. In addition,  carmakers announced that they have added additional plants and  increased capacity in Mexico, which is likely to result in additional  automotive traffic by rail over the southern border.
Train movements can result in blocked highway-rail grade crossings,  where vehicular traffic must wait to cross the tracks when trains are  slowed or stopped (see fig. 2). The amount of time that highway-rail grade  crossings are blocked depends on a number of factors, and is typically a  function of the number, speed, and length of trains. Blocked highway-rail  grade crossings can contribute to community vehicular congestion, and  communities face challenges prioritizing and funding projects to alleviate  these impacts. Negative community effects resulting from blocked  highway-rail grade crossings include delays to motorists, blocked  emergency vehicles, and quality of life impacts. State and local  departments of transportation, which have primary responsibility for  building, maintaining, and operating roads, can plan and fund projects to  alleviate freight-related traffic congestion. In addition, some MPOs assist  state and local governments in planning and prioritizing such projects,  including grade separation projects such as overpasses and underpasses  to allow vehicular traffic to bypass freight rail movements. The freight rail  system operates almost exclusively on infrastructure that is owned, built,  maintained, and funded by private railroads, particularly the seven largest  freight railroads. Generally, train movements within the United States  are dispatched, or controlled, by railroad personnel located in the United  States.
While DOT has a role in directing federal transportation policy, including  freight rail, FRA issues regulations as part of its role to oversee the safety  and reliability of the national freight network. In 2012, the Moving Ahead  for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) transportation  reauthorization established a framework for a national freight policy and,  among other things, directed DOT to develop a national freight strategic  plan. The plan was to be developed in consultation with state  departments of transportation and other transportation stakeholders and  was to include best practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movements  on communities. MAP-21 also required DOT to encourage states to  develop freight plans with a description of procedures to guide states’  investment decisions involving freight transportation. FRA issues  regulations that set requirements for train crews and equipment operating  in the United States. Additionally, FRA manages a National Highway-Rail  Crossing Inventory that provides a uniform national database of the  nation’s highway-rail grade crossings, which can be used for planning and  implementation of crossing safety improvements. According to the FRA,  train lengths in general have been increasing in recent years and agency  regulations do not place restrictions on the amount of time trains can  block highway-rail grade crossings or on train lengths. Representatives  from two railroads noted that current maximum train lengths are generally  10,000 feet—or about 2 miles. These representatives noted that these  maximum train lengths are largely determined based on the capacity of  the current rail system infrastructure.
As part of its mission to safeguard U.S. borders while enabling legitimate  trade and travel, CBP has personnel, including CBP Agricultural  Specialists, located at rail POEs that scan inbound trains for security  threats. CBP procedures generally include the following, which CBP  officials said may vary slightly by POE:
Advanced targeting: About 2 hours before the train arrives at the  border, CBP electronically obtains the train’s manifest, which provides  information on the train’s contents, from the railroad. Using CBP’s  Automated Targeting System, CBP officials identify rail cars deemed  high-risk for additional inspection. For example, as part of efforts to  identify high-risk shipments, CBP Agricultural Specialists check the  manifest against U.S. quarantine regulations.
Rail Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (R-VACIS): Inbound trains  slow to pass through R-VACIS, a machine that produces an image of  the inside of railcars using gamma radiation technology (see fig. 3).  CBP officers review the scanned images for anomalies that may  indicate the presence of un-manifested goods and contraband,  including threats that could pose a risk to national security.
Secondary physical inspections: Depending on the outcome of the  advanced targeting and R-VACIS scan, CBP conducts secondary  physical inspections of rail cars.
Both DOT and CBP participate in working groups consisting of  representatives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico that seek to  improve processes related to the safety and fluidity of international trade,  including freight rail. Coordination between the United States and Mexico  and Canada is generally framed by larger government-to-government  partnerships. The U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border Initiative addresses  cross border policies and the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation  Council coordinates the joint development of regulatory standards  between the United States and Canada, and the High Level Economic  Dialogue between Mexican and U.S. officials is designed, in part, to  secure trade flows and cross-border cooperation between the two  countries. In addition, the Transportation Border Working Group between  the United States and Canada and the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working  Committee on Transportation Planning focus on transportation issues.  For example, the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on  Transportation Planning led efforts to create border master plans to  prioritize transportation needs along the southern border, including at rail  POEs. To develop these border master plans, local, regional, state, and  federal stakeholders on both sides of the border coordinated to prioritize  transportation projects.
section_title: Inspections and Crew Changes Affect Rail Movements in Selected POE Communities, and Some Actions Have Been Taken to Expedite Trains
subsections: section_title: Customs Inspections Affect Train Movements on Both Borders and CBP Has Modified Procedures in Certain Locations
paragraphs: In all four communities we visited, stakeholders such as railroads, local  officials, and BLET representatives identified R-VACIS inspection  procedures, which affect inbound trains, as a key source of reduced train  speeds. CBP has directed that inbound trains pull through the R-VACIS at  a predetermined rate of speed set by CBP in order to obtain and review  quality scans. The impacts of R-VACIS inspections on train movements  and highway-rail grade crossings can vary by the location of the R- VACIS. According to CBP officials, the machine is typically located right  at the international border, with the exception of three locations on the  northern border. The R-VACIS in Blaine is located approximately 3 miles  inland from the Canadian border. According to a railroad representative  in Blaine, the average maximum length of trains at this POE is 6,500 feet.
Based on our calculations, it would take a train of this length  approximately 15 minutes to pass through the R-VACIS at 5 miles per  hour and may affect one or two highway-rail grade crossings. In contrast,  CBP officials stated that the R-VACIS machines at the Port Huron and  Detroit, Michigan, POEs are located in Canada. Trains pass through the  R-VACIS in these locations at a predetermined speed and, once  scanned, can proceed to enter the United States at a higher speed. CBP  officials noted that these placements, which resulted from a Declaration of  Principles for the improved security of rail shipments from Canada to the  United States, were necessary because the tunnel infrastructure at these  POEs requires that trains exit at high speeds. CBP officials also noted  that they do not have the authority to physically inspect cargo in  Canada.
In addition, when secondary physical inspections occur, they may require  trains to slow and stop, and CBP officials stated that the location of the  inspections varies by POE and threat level CBP designated to the  shipment. CBP officials also said that higher-risk threats, such as  shipments containing suspected unauthorized persons (known as  stowaways) or weapons, are inspected immediately and that lower-risk  threats, such as paperwork discrepancies, are inspected later further  away from the border. For example, CBP officials stated that CBP does  not use R-VACIS to intentionally scan for people; however, CBP officials  in Laredo said that if CBP officers do detect a stowaway on the train, the  individual must immediately be secured and removed and could result in  the train being stopped for about 45 minutes, during which highway-rail  grade crossings on the U.S. side may be blocked. CBP officials in Laredo  stated that eight stowaways were inadvertently detected on these trains  last year, mostly at night. Meanwhile, more routine secondary physical  inspections may involve stopping the train, uncoupling cars, reversing,  stopping, and going forward again in order to set aside a rail car for CBP.  Depending on the rail infrastructure at the POE, this process may result in  trains blocking highway-rail grade crossings. For example, in Blaine, a  BLET representative noted that putting a rail car aside for CBP, which  generally occurs near the location of the R-VACIS, can take over an hour  while blocking highway-rail grade crossings.
As previously mentioned, CBP’s primary mission is to maintain national  security, and CBP officials report that they operate on risk-based  assessments. However, CBP has taken steps to expedite customs  inspections at some POEs. CBP officials note that at the POE level, CBP  often works together with local communities to develop protocols to  expedite rail and minimize the impact on vehicular traffic. In at least two  POEs on the northern border, CBP has adjusted the R-VACIS procedures  to expedite freight rail. In Blaine, CBP allows empty coal trains through at  an increased speed predetermined by CBP during daylight hours unless  information received indicates a security risk or there is an operational  need, thereby reducing the estimated average blocked highway-rail grade  crossing time. In Ranier, a CBP official noted that CBP held meetings to  review operations and, as a result, increased the maximum allowable R- VACIS speeds to a predetermined rate of speed set by CBP. One CBP  official stated that CBP will not sacrifice security for expediency. In  addition, at one POE, the railroad coordinated with CBP to expedite  secondary inspections. Specifically, in Ranier, railroad officials said that  the railroad invested approximately $10 million in equipment, staff, and  infrastructure to build a “live lift” system to allow the removal of only the  container of interest from intermodal trains for immediate inspection,  instead of uncoupling the entire car which could hold several containers  (see fig. 4). CBP officials and representatives from the railroad in Ranier  stated that this investment reduced the overall secondary physical  inspection process time and train delays, as well as the amount of time  trains blocked a nearby highway-rail grade crossing.
CBP officials in Laredo and DOT officials stated that trains going into  Mexico are also subject to customs inspections, including R-VACIS  scans, conducted by Mexican customs officials, which can result in  slowed and stopped outbound trains and blocked highway-rail grade  crossings in the United States. AAR representatives stated that Mexico  is becoming more aware of the need to streamline processes and  increase efficiency, particularly now that automobile manufacturing is  expanding in Mexico, and U.S. railroads have been working with Mexican  officials and other stakeholders to improve processes. For example, AAR  representatives said that they meet regularly with customs agencies in  the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and that they support a Trans- border Committee comprised of member railroads from all three countries  to promote simplification and the development of electronic reporting  systems to expedite freight rail traffic. At the POE level, CBP officials do  not have authority over train movements once trains have crossed the  border into Mexico or Canada.
section_title: Brake Inspections Affect Inbound Trains on the Southern Border, and FRA Has Waived Certain Requirements to Expedite Trains
paragraphs: Trains entering the United States from Mexico must stop at the border for  FRA-required brake inspections, and FRA has waived certain  requirements to expedite this process. FRA regulation requires crews to  perform full brake tests on trains at the origin location or at the  interchange point, which is generally at the border as the trains enter the  United States. An FRA region official stated that full brake tests were  previously conducted with the whole train on the U.S. side, which could  block highway-rail grade crossings for up to an hour. These brake tests  include performing an air leakage test to ensure air brake pressure is  maintained throughout the train, as well as a visual inspection of each  car’s air brakes. Since the early 2000s, FRA has granted waivers to  railroads to conduct abbreviated brake inspections at the border, provided  the railroad submits a waiver request that meets certain criteria and is  consistent with railroad safety. U.S. railroads on the southern border now  have FRA brake inspection waivers in all but one POE, and FRA officials  and railroad and BLET representatives said that such waivers to allow  abbreviated brake tests have resulted in expedited train movements.
The abbreviated brake tests allowed through the waiver can take 20 to 25  minutes according to BLET representatives in Laredo. An abbreviated  brake test requires a visual roll-by inspection and a set-and-release test  of the air brakes where the crew uses an end of train device to ensure air  pressure is reaching the end of the train. As a condition of the waiver,  crews are then required to conduct a full brake inspection at a U.S. rail  yard away from the border.
Despite FRA’s efforts to expedite brake inspections along the southern  border, inbound trains sometimes arrive from Mexico with missing or  damaged equipment which can cause delays. According to BLET and  railroad representatives in Laredo, trains from Mexico often arrive in the  United States with missing “end-of-train devices” that are required for the  abbreviated brake test, which can cause delays up to an hour as train  crews locate a replacement device. In addition, railroad and BLET  representatives in Laredo noted that it is common for other train  equipment to be tampered with, a situation that requires the train to be  stopped until repairs can be completed.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 prohibits FRA from accepting  mechanical and brake inspections of rail cars performed in Mexico before  entering the United States unless, among other criteria, FRA certifies that  the inspections are being performed under regulations and standards  equivalent to those applicable in the United States. Moreover, according  to DOT officials, FRA officials cannot verify brake inspections conducted  in Mexico, in part, because the FRA officials face challenges coordinating  with their counterparts due to security concerns. As a result, brake  inspections occur on the border between the United States and Mexico,  typically on a bridge. According to DOT officials, greater harmonization  between the pertinent U.S. and Mexican regulations could result in the  United States’ accepting brake inspections conducted in Mexico. DOT  officials noted that although they would like to discuss rail regulatory and  safety issues with Mexico and considers rail-related issues on occasion,  no rail regulation harmonization efforts are currently underway, in part  because Mexico is currently restructuring its rail regulatory body in an  effort to increase its rail investments and networks. Furthermore, the  U.S.-Mexico working group’s coordination efforts such as the U.S.-Mexico  Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning, have had limited  initiatives focused specifically on freight rail issues, having instead  focused on issues facing passenger vehicles and freight trucks. As we  have previously mentioned, 60 percent of the freight that moves between  the United States and Canada and Mexico is carried by truck.
section_title: Crew Changes Affect Inbound and Outbound Trains on the Southern Border due to Factors Such as Differing Safety Regulations
paragraphs: DOT officials told us that inbound and outbound trains on the southern  border are required to stop at the border to change crew due to lack of  comparable rail safety regulations between the United States and  Mexico. While a BLET representative stated that crew changes can take  3 to 5 minutes, this can vary greatly depending on crew availability. For  example, BLET and railroad representatives in Laredo noted that crews,  who deliver trains to the rail yard and then are driven by a rail crew van to  the border to pick up another train, can get delayed at the yard or on the  way back to the border by traffic congestion. Such delays, according to a  BLET representative in Laredo, can result in crew changes exceeding 2  or 3 hours. FRA regulations establish minimum federal safety standards  for the eligibility, training, testing, certification, and monitoring of all  locomotive engineers and conductors. According to DOT officials, the  lack of Mexican safety regulations for the qualification and certification of  locomotive engineers and conductors that are comparable to FRA  regulations prohibits the United States from allowing Mexican crews to  operate trains in the United States. In addition, as previously mentioned,  while greater regulatory harmonization could result in Mexican crews  being able to operate in the United States, DOT officials noted that  Mexico is currently focused on creating a rail transport regulatory agency.  According to DOT, FRA will invite Mexico to attend the annual North  American Rail Safety Working Group Meeting in 2016 in an effort to  encourage further harmonization.
Two railroads have expressed interest in developing an international pool  of crew to eliminate the need for crew changes on the southern border;  however, DOT and CBP officials, and BLET representatives cited barriers  to this initiative. Specifically, DOT officials stated that qualification and  certification regulations, varying operating rules and hours of service for  crews, and labor and union concerns would need to be addressed.  Additionally, CBP officials in Laredo stated that they do not currently have  the capability needed to facilitate processing an international crew.  BLET representatives also noted concerns such as liability for damages  and personal injury and security if U.S. crews were to operate in Mexico,  since federal workplace laws are not applicable to U.S. citizens injured on  the job while working abroad. BLET representatives also noted  concerns with personal security of crew members while on board the train  or when returning to the United States by vehicle after delivering the train  to its destination in Mexico. These representatives also noted that  exceeding the federal maximum allowable hours of service might become  an issue given delays re-entering the United States at the vehicle border  crossing.
CBP and FRA have limited information on the effects of the above factors  on rail movements. Although CBP has personnel located at the border, it  does not have visibility into all factors affecting train movements. For  example, trains are often operated at restricted speeds through POEs,  meaning speeds are dictated by factors such as the train’s stopping  distance and the train operator’s range of vision. According to BLET  representatives in Ranier, speeds can be anywhere from 0.5 to 10 miles  per hour through town due to the long stopping distances of heavy trains  combined with limited visibility as a result of factors such as inclement  weather or the track curvature, regardless of factors such as CBP  inspections. Meanwhile FRA, which is primarily focused on the safety of  trains operating within the United States, does not have staff located at  POEs. Instead, FRA officials stated that they rely on voluntary reporting  from railroads on any delays occurring and the reasons for these delays.  FRA officials noted that it is difficult to obtain data from railroads on the  cause and extent of train-related delays in POEs. CBP and FRA officials  stated that they rely on communication with stakeholders to inform  decisions such as modifying CBP procedures or brake test waiver  requirements. As discussed later in this report, FRA has undertaken  efforts to improve the availability of data on freight rail movements,  including those at POEs.
section_title: International Freight Rail Impacts Vary by Community GAO Visited, and DOT’s Data Improvement Efforts Could Help Determine the Extent of Blocked Highway- Rail Grade Crossings
subsections: section_title: Impacts of International Freight Rail on Communities GAO Visited Vary Based on Border- Specific Factors and Community Characteristics
paragraphs: The factors noted above—customs inspections, brake inspections, and  crew changes—can slow or stop trains travelling through U.S. POEs and  consequently block highway-rail grade crossings in those communities,  but different POEs are affected differently. As noted in Figure 5, the effect  of factors such as customs inspections can vary based on whether the  community is located on the southern or northern border. For example, an  outbound crew change can result in the train stopped in one or more  highway-rail grade crossings on the southern border, but is less likely to  occur on the northern border because of greater harmonization, among  other factors, between U.S. and Canadian safety regulations. In addition,  although U.S. customs inspections can block U.S. highway-rail grade  crossings for inbound trains on both borders, foreign customs inspections  primarily impact outbound trains on the southern border.
The extent to which the above factors may result in a train blocking a  highway-rail grade crossing and delaying vehicular traffic also vary due to  community characteristics, such as the number and location of highway- rail grade crossings and the availability of overpasses. For example, as  noted below, in Ranier, railroad representatives estimated that one key  highway-rail grade crossing is blocked for about 8 hours per day. In  contrast, MPO officials in Buffalo and Detroit reported that international  freight rail movements have minimal impact on traffic congestion in those  cities because the rail lines are largely grade-separated, meaning the rail  line rarely intersects with vehicular traffic.
Furthermore, we have previously found that although communities may  have long-standing concerns with the negative effects of highway-rail  grade crossings, they have varying levels of quantified information on  impacts such as traffic delay times or costs. Similarly, POE communities  we visited provided some estimates of the amount of time highway-rail  grade crossings are blocked, but were unable to provide data on the  actual extent of blockage. For example, local officials in Blaine note that  hour-long traffic disruptions can result from blocked highway-rail grade  crossings, with 30 minutes waiting for the train and another 30 minutes  waiting for the vehicle traffic queue to clear. However, local officials  reported they did not have information on how regularly such delays  occurred due to a lack of data.
The following discussion of the rail POE communities we visited illustrates  how their characteristics impacted highway-rail grade crossings.
Ranier, Minnesota: Ranier is a community of 145 according to the  2010 Census, and is located about 3 miles northeast from the larger  community of International Falls, Minnesota. Within Rainer, there is  one highway-rail grade crossing—Spruce Street (see fig. 6).
Spruce Street is blocked about 8 hours per day by the 20–22 trains  traveling through per day—about 11 in each direction—according to  representatives from the railroad. These representatives arrived at  this total by estimating that a southbound train takes about 25 minutes  to pass the highway-rail grade crossing, and a northbound train takes  about 15 minutes, which amounts to over 7 hours a day for 11 trains  to pass in each direction. These representatives report that the train  traffic is distributed across nighttime and daytime hours because of   the railroad’s aim to move traffic over its network evenly, which results  in about one train travelling through Spruce Street per hour, including  through the night. Speeds are slowed for inbound trains through  Spruce Street due to CBP’s R-VACIS, although, as mentioned  previously, CBP has taken efforts to expedite R-VACIS and the  railroad and CBP have worked together to implement the live lift  system to expedite secondary inspections. According to local officials,  the blockage of Spruce Street has had a debilitating effect on  businesses located north of Spruce Street. These officials report that  due to the proximity of the Spruce Street intersection to Rainy Lake, it  is impossible to build an overpass at that location. However, an  overpass located approximately a mile away helps vehicle traffic  reroute to get around the train. According to an FRA region official,  the situation in Ranier does not constitute a serious effect on vehicle  traffic, particularly compared with POE communities on the southern  border and given the presence of the overpass.
Blaine, Washington: Blaine, which is 35 miles south of Vancouver,  Canada, is bordered on the north by the U.S./Canada border. The  community—population 4,684 according to the 2010 Census— includes both Central Blaine to the east and West Blaine, where the  Semiahmoo resort and marina are located. The rail line is located  close to the waterfront through Central Blaine. Local officials report  that two key highway-rail grade crossings are affected by freight rail  movements— Hughes Avenue, a sole access point to a neighborhood  of approximately 300 residents; and Bell Road, a key route connecting  Central Blaine to West Blaine’s resort and marina (see fig. 7).
According to railroad representatives, 12 freight trains pass per day— 6 in each direction—through Blaine, at both day and nighttime  hours. Local officials attribute issues related to blocked highway-rail  grade crossings in Blaine to the R-VACIS; however, as mentioned  previously, CBP has adjusted its procedures to enable certain trains  to go through R-VACIS faster. Local officials were unable to provide  data on the amount of time Hughes Avenue and Bell Road are  blocked, and noted that it is difficult to fund traffic studies that take  train traffic into account, in part because the railroad does not  contribute funding. Within Blaine there are no overpasses to enable  traffic to reroute around trains. Furthermore, local officials reported it  is not feasible to construct overpasses over Hughes Avenue and Bell  Road due to geographic limitations such as the location of homes and  a creek.
Laredo, Texas: The 2010 census reported that Laredo is a city of  approximately 236,000, and every day about 22 trains travel through  Laredo—11 inbound and 11 outbound, according to CBP officials.  Information provided by one of the railroads indicates that this traffic is  fairly evenly split between daytime and nighttime hours. According to  a 2006 study prepared for the MPO and the city, Laredo has over 80  highway-rail grade crossings which are split fairly evenly between two  rail lines, which are operated by two different railroads and carry traffic  in different directions through the city. A railroad representative noted  that train traffic has recently been evenly split between these two rail  lines. One of these rail lines bisects the downtown area, with 13 at- grade highway-rail crossings located at about every block (see fig. 8).
According to an MPO official, the majority of complaints regarding  blocked highway-rail grade crossings are along this downtown portion  of the rail line. CBP officials in Laredo noted that a single stopped  train can stretch from the border to near Interstate 35, a distance of  approximately 2 miles, blocking all of the highway-rail grade crossings  in between, including the 13 located downtown. These officials noted  that this can affect traffic downtown, including lawyers who are cut off  from the federal courthouse located on the other side of the rail line  from their offices. In 2012, the Laredo region developed a Border  Master Plan, which convened local, regional, and federal officials on  both the U.S. and Mexico side of the border to prioritize border  transportation projects. According to Texas state DOT officials, the  Border Master Plan demonstrated the need for accurate data,  including on current and future vehicular traffic levels, for analyzing  costs and benefits and prioritizing projects. In addition, in 2015, a  Laredo MPO-commissioned study gathered data on the number of  trains passing through the community and speed from the Highway  Rail Crossing Inventory, as well as vehicular traffic counts. However,  since this study was primarily focused on actions to reduce train horn  noise, it did not calculate the total amount of time highway-rail grade  crossings are blocked.
Brownsville, Texas: A community of about 175,000 people according  to the 2010 Census, Brownsville currently has about 4 to 8 trains pass  through the community per day, according to a railroad  representative. On August 25, 2015, the first new international rail  crossing between the United States and Mexico in 105 years was  inaugurated in Brownsville. The new rail bridge relocates rail traffic  away from the downtown area to the outskirts of Brownsville, with only  one highway-rail grade crossing, and eliminates 14 highway-rail grade  crossings downtown. Although moving the rail line outside of town has  been discussed in other southern rail POE communities such as El  Paso and Laredo, only Brownsville has succeeded in moving the rail  POE out of the downtown area. A Cameron County official noted  that project planning began in the 1990s, that much of the data used  to prioritize the project was taken from a detailed feasibility study, and  that other communities should now have an easier time proposing  similar projects given that states are more involved with freight rail  planning. According to a county official, the U.S. portion of the project  cost over $40 million and most of the funding came from federal  sources, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009. According to a railroad representative, the railroad agreed to  transfer a portion of its existing right of way land to the county in  exchange for the new right of way and infrastructure constructed by  the county. Therefore, the railroad’s contribution to the project was the  value of the land exchange rather than directly contributing funding for  the new construction. In addition, a county official noted that  coordinating with officials from Mexico and CBP were key challenges.  Specifically, this official noted that monitoring the progress of the  project on the Mexican side and coordinating with CBP on its  requirements for the new bridge, such as the relocation of R-VACIS,  posed challenges. CBP officials in Brownsville noted that the project  did not begin with good coordination, and cited the need for strong  coordination as a “lesson learned.” CBP, FRA region, and Brownsville  MPO officials noted that the long-term success of the new rail bridge  will largely depend on development of the area. These officials  stated that increased development may result in new highway-rail  grade crossings, which could result in traffic issues over time. A  railroad representative noted that rail traffic through Brownsville is  expected to increase in the future.
The effect that freight rail may have on communities also varies based on  the time of day that trains pass through the rail POE communities, as well  as efforts made by railroads to prevent trains from blocking certain  highway-rail grade crossings. For example, as noted above, trains pass  through Ranier, Minnesota, around the clock, at an average of one per  hour according to railroad representatives. Therefore, about half of the  trains run through at night, when vehicle traffic is less and traffic  congestion not an issue. In addition, according to railroad representatives  and MPO officials in El Paso, trains cross the border during night time  and early morning hours due to a Juarez, Mexico, city ordinance that  restricts train movements to those times. In some situations, railroads  have worked to avoid blocking certain highway-rail grade crossings. For  example, in Laredo, a railroad representative noted that crews make best  efforts to avoid blocking a trucking route and street with a school nearby  during school hours. In addition, in Blaine, a CBP official reported that the  railroad tries to limit the number of trains going through the community  during the morning rush hour to avoid delaying school buses.
section_title: DOT’s Data Improvement Efforts May Help Determine Extent of Blocked Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in Rail POE Communities
paragraphs: We have previously found that a lack of publicly available data on freight  rail movements and estimates of their impacts on vehicular traffic in  communities across the United States creates difficulties in defining the  extent of the problem and prioritizing potential solutions. Specifically, we  found that limitations in both national and state and local data on freight  rail movements reduce the ability of state or local officials to quantify  freight rail community impacts nationwide and that these limitations create  challenges to appropriately prioritizing efforts to address freight rail  impacts against other types of funding priorities. At the national level, data  on freight-related traffic congestion for local communities have limitations  in terms of timeliness and completeness. At the local level, communities  have limited data such as the number of trains and length of trains  assigned by date, speed, and time. As we have previously found,  communities often find it difficult to communicate with the railroad industry  to obtain information on the number, timing, and speed of trains.
We requested data directly from the railroads in order to quantify the  extent that freight rail movements blocked highway-rail grade crossings in  a selection of rail POE communities. Specifically, we requested data on  the number of trains, the length of trains, and the speed of trains from  railroads that operate in these POEs. This information would allow us to  estimate train blockage time at highway-rail grade crossings in these  communities. However, although we requested data directly from the five  railroads that operate in eight selected rail POE communities, we  received complete information from two of the railroads. Based on this  data, we calculated the time selected highway-rail grade crossings are  blocked and found highway-rail grade crossings in two communities— Ranier and one of the two rail lines in Laredo—to be blocked on average  16-19 minutes per train.
Recent DOT efforts could help improve the availability of freight rail data  needed to assess community impacts such as blocked highway-rail grade  crossings for communities across the country, including POE  communities. FRA maintains the National Highway-Rail Crossing  Inventory that includes information such as the estimated number of daily  trains in communities and the typical range of speed of trains that pass  through a highway- rail grade crossing. However until recently this  information was voluntarily submitted by railroads and states and  according to FRA officials was not always current. On January 6, 2015,  FRA issued a final rule requiring railroads to update the inventory once  every 3 years. FRA officials said that the rule should improve the quality  of the data, but that these improvements will not be fully evident for  several years. Improved information on the average number of daily trains  could better equip state and local governments to identify community  congestion impacts from freight rail—including blocked highway-rail grade  crossings located in POE communities along the border. Furthermore, in  a November 2015 letter to congressional committees regarding a surface  transportation bill, DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx noted that given the  concerns regarding blocked crossings in many communities, FRA would  benefit from authorization and funding to study blocked crossings to  collect information as to the severity, frequency, and other characteristics  of railroad operations that block highway-rail grade crossings. Secretary  Foxx also noted that neither the House or Senate versions of the bill  propose such authorization and funding. On December 4, 2015, President  Obama signed into law the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act,  which did not contain such provisions regarding blocked crossings.
In addition, in September 2014, we issued a report on freight-related  community impacts and recommended, among other things, that DOT  incorporate additional information to help states define and prioritize local  community impacts of national freight movements, including traffic- congestion impacts, and to establish what data could be consistently  collected and analyzed in order to prioritize impacts of freight on local  traffic congestion in its final guidance to states in the development of their  state freight plans. We also recommended that DOT include a strategy  for improving the availability of national data needed to quantify, assess,  and establish measures of freight trends and impacts on local traffic  congestion for inclusion in its National Freight Strategic Plan. DOT agreed  with our recommendations. On October 18, 2015, DOT issued a draft  National Freight Strategic Plan for public comment. The draft noted that  DOT should work closely with state and local governments and  international partners, as well as private stakeholders, to coordinate  strategies and investments and noted that new freight traffic data sources  and improved public-private cooperation on state freight plans will assist  in this effort. The draft also noted that DOT should continue to engage in  strong border infrastructure planning with border states through working  groups with Canada and Mexico. We will continue to monitor the status of  DOT’s response to our recommendations and DOT’s efforts related to the  National Freight Strategic Plan. A DOT strategy on data to prioritize the  impacts of freight related traffic congestion in the National Freight  Strategic Plan, along with improvements to the National Highway-Rail  Crossing Inventory, could help address data limitations at both the  national and local levels and help communities—including POE  communities—better define impacts from blocked highway-rail grade  crossings and prioritize projects to mitigate such impacts.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT and CBP for review and  comment. In a response (reproduced in app. II), DOT highlighted efforts  to minimize community impacts of international freight rail movement.  DOT and CBP provided technical comments, which we incorporated.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and the  Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report (1) describes factors that affect the movement of freight rail  through selected ports of entry and the actions taken by federal agencies  and others to expedite freight rail in these locations, and (2) examines  what is known about the impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail  grade crossings in U.S. port of entry communities.
To determine the factors that affect the movement of freight rail through  selected ports of entry and the actions taken to expedite freight rail in  these locations, we interviewed officials and reviewed documents from  Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Department of  Transportation (DOT), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and  Department of State. We also interviewed representatives from the  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the  Border Trade Alliance, the Association of American Railroads, and the  Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)—a union  which represents train operators that we identified from prior GAO work.  We interviewed FRA officials and reviewed FRA documentation regarding  crew changes and brake inspections, including applicable regulations and  FRA waiver decisions regarding brake inspections. We also interviewed  DOT, FRA, and CBP officials and reviewed documentation on  international working groups involving transportation issues on both the  northern border (i.e., the U.S.- Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council  and the Transportation Border Working Group) and the southern border  (i.e., the U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue and the U.S.-Mexico  Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning). To determine what  is known about the impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail grade  crossings in U.S. POE communities, we also reviewed previous GAO  reports and recommendations and interviewed DOT officials on available  data sources and reviewed relevant documentation, such as the reporting  requirements for the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.
To determine the factors that affect the movement of freight rail and the  impacts of freight rail operations on highway-rail grade crossings, we  selected nine rail POE communities— Nogales, Arizona; El Paso, Eagle  Pass, Brownsville, and Laredo, Texas; Blaine, Washington; Ranier,  Minnesota; Port Huron, Michigan; and Rouses Point, New York. These  communities were selected because they had at least one inbound train  on average per day from 2010 through 2014, according to DOT’s Bureau  of Transportation Statistics’ (BTS) Border Crossing data. As part of this  selection, we excluded 11 communities where the rail POEs were in  transit (where trains pass through but are not subject to full CBP  procedures), outside of the continental United States, did not cross  incorporated communities, or have largely grade-separated infrastructure.
We conducted visits to four of these selected communities—Brownsville  and Laredo, Texas; Ranier, Minnesota; and Blaine, Washington—that  were selected based on factors such as those with heavy inbound train  volume from 2010 through 2014 according to BTS data, complaints  received by CBP about blocked crossings, and a mix of northern and  southern border locations. We also selected locations where actions had  been taken to mitigate congestion or expedite rail, such as Brownsville,  Texas, for its construction of a new international rail bridge. At each of the  four site visits, we interviewed representatives from the city or county, the  Metropolitan Planning Organization (if applicable), the state department of  transportation, the FRA regional office, and BLET. We also interviewed  representatives from the 5 railroads that operate trains through each  selected POE. In each site visit we also interviewed officials from CBP  and observed their inspection process as well as the geography and  relevant highway-rail crossings of the community. We calculated the  average time that freight trains would block key highway-rail grade  crossings in selected communities based on the average speed of trains,  length of trains, and frequency of trains that were reported by railroad  representatives. To do so, we developed a data collection instrument and  attempted to collect information from five railroads on the number,  length, and speed of trains passing over the three highway-rail grade  crossings closest to the international border on a typical weekday in July  2015 in eight of the selected communities.  As we note in the report,  although we requested information from five railroads, we received  incomplete information in response and were able to analyze information  from two of these railroads. In order to better understand the impacts of  international rail in these communities, we spoke to local officials from the  city or MPO by phone in each of the five selected communities that we  did not visit (Nogales, Arizona; El Paso and Eagle Pass, Texas; Port  Huron, Michigan; and Rouses Point, New York). We also interviewed  officials from the MPOs in Detroit, Michigan and Buffalo, New York, to  understand the impacts of international freight rail in these communities.
We developed maps to provide context regarding the level of international  freight rail traffic and impacts on communities. Specifically, we used BTS  data to calculate the average number of inbound trains per day from 2010  through 2014 by POE and displayed this information on a map. To  determine the reliability of BTS data, we reviewed related documentation  and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. We determined these  data were sufficiently reliable for our purpose of providing contextual  information. We also developed maps including the location of at-grade  and grade separated highway-rail crossings for three of the four  communities we visited—Ranier, Minnesota; Laredo, Texas; and Blaine,  Washington. We did not include a map of Brownsville, Texas, since its rail  traffic patterns are currently changing due to the construction of a new  international rail bridge. To develop these maps, we used data from the  National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, as well as maps and  observations obtained from our in-person visits to these communities. By  reviewing related documentation, interviewing knowledgeable DOT  officials, and comparing the data to our site visits, we determined the data  were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of developing maps.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the U.S. Department of Transportation
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant  Director), Mark Braza, Delwen Jones, Rick Jorgenson, Emily Larson,  John Mingus, Ian P. Moloney, Cheryl Peterson, Nada Raoof, and Malika  Rice made key contributions to this report.