Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts
Published: 2014-09-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Projected increases in the transport of freight by rail and truck may produce economic benefits but also increase traffic congestion in communities. MAP-21, which contains a number of provisions designed to enhance freight mobility, is currently before Congress for reauthorization. GAO was asked to review trends in freight flows and any related traffic-congestion impacts.
This report addresses among other things: (1) recent changes in U.S. rail and truck freight flows and the extent to which related traffic congestion is reported to impact communities, and (2) the extent to which DOT's efforts to implement MAP-21 address freight-related traffic congestion in communities. GAO analyzed rail data from 2007 through 2012 and highway data from 2010 and 2012 and reviewed 24 freight-related traffic congestion mitigation projects at 12 locations selected on the basis of different geographical locations and sizes. The results are not generalizable. GAO also reviewed federal laws and interviewed freight stakeholders.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Recent trends in freight flows, if they continue as expected, may exacerbate congestion issues in communities, particularly along certain corridors. As of 2012, the latest year for which data were available, national freight rail and truck traffic had approached levels of 2007 prior to the economic recession. Certain trends related to specific commodities have affected rail flows, including increases in domestic crude oil production. A key negative impact of increasing freight flows is congestion at highway-rail grade crossings, where road traffic must wait to cross the tracks when trains are passing. For example, a Miami-area study found that rail crossings in the area caused delays of roughly 235,000 person-hours per year at a cost of $2.4 million. Although several communities we visited had documented long-standing concerns over freight-related traffic congestion, state and local stakeholders we met with had varying levels of quantified information regarding the extent of the impacts or costs to the community. For example, in contrast to the Miami study, another study we reviewed included some information on train counts, but did not document hours of delay or any costs associated with such delays.
The Department of Transportation's (DOT) efforts to implement the freight-related provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) are still underway but so far do not fully consider freight-related traffic congestion. MAP-21's freight policy goals do not explicitly include addressing freight-related traffic congestion, but MAP-21 requires DOT to identify best practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement on communities in a national freight strategic plan, which is due in October 2015. MAP-21's requirements and DOT's efforts so far do not fully establish the federal role or identify goals, objectives, or performance measures in this area, which may limit the usefulness of the National Freight Strategic Plan . For example:
DOT issued for comment a required draft primary freight network, but according to DOT and other stakeholders, MAP-21's lack of defined purpose for the primary freight network and mileage limit of 27,000 miles hampered DOT's ability to include in this draft network some types of roads where local traffic congestion impacts of national freight movements are often experienced, such as roads connecting ports to freeways. The significance of the 27,000 mileage limitation is not clear. DOT released a surface transportation reauthorization proposal in April 2014 that proposed establishing a multimodal national freight network with a defined purpose and with no mileage limit.
DOT is currently developing the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance Report , which is to support the National Freight Strategic Plan . For this and other documents, DOT established a broad goal to reduce freight-related community impacts. However, DOT did not identify clear goals, objectives, or measures related to freight-related traffic congestion in local communities due to a lack of reliable national data. Thus, a clear federal role has not been established. High-quality data are essential to supporting sound planning and decision-making. Without reliable national data, it will be difficult for DOT to establish goals and objectives and to define the extent of freight-related traffic congestion and measure performance.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: Congress should consider clarifying the purpose of the primary freight network and, as relevant to this purpose, revising the mileage limit requirement.
DOT should clarify the federal role for mitigating local freight-related congestion in the National Freight Strategic Plan , including a strategy for improving needed data. DOT concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The nation’s freight transportation network is vital to the functioning of the  national economy. In 2012, the United States’ transportation system  moved 19.7 billion tons of goods, valued at more than $17 trillion,  according to the Department of Transportation (DOT). Freight travels over  an extensive network that consists of approximately 4 million miles of  highways and roads and 140,000 miles of rail lines, as well as inland  waterways, pipelines, and airways. Based on tonnage, trucks transport  most freight in the United States (about 70 percent), but railroads also  carry significant volumes over long distances. Freight trucks and trains  both carry a variety of commodities. These include bulk goods—such as  gravel, coal, and cereal grains—and consumer goods packed in  containers as intermodal shipments that can be transferred among trains,  trucks, and ships. DOT projects that the total tonnage of freight moved in  the U.S. annually will increase 51 percent from 2007 to 2040 (from 18,879  million tons to 28,520 million tons).
While increased freight activity is closely associated with economic  growth, this activity comes with a cost. Higher levels of freight movement  can result in higher levels of congestion—both in the freight network  itself and in local communities where traffic on local highways and roads  can be affected by truck or rail flows. Freight-related traffic congestion  may be due to highway-rail grade crossings, heavy freight traffic exiting  and entering ports or other freight centers from local roads, or heavy truck  traffic in rural communities related to energy production.some cities and community organizations in the upper Northwest have  expressed concern that commodity trends—specifically, recent and  potential increases in the transportation of crude oil from the Bakken  region in North Dakota to the West Coast and the transportation of coal to  proposed export terminals in Washington State—could dramatically  increase these negative impacts.
In 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in  the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which authorized most surface  transportation programs for 2 years—the first surface transportation  authorization since 2005. MAP-21, which expires on September 30, 2014,  contains provisions designed to enhance freight movement in support of  national goals. In deliberations in advance of reauthorizing this legislation,  Congress may consider additional provisions related to freight  transportation.
You asked us to review how trends in particular commodity flows are  affecting local freight-related traffic congestion and how communities may   Specifically, this report addresses: (1) how U.S.  mitigate such impacts.rail and truck freight flows are changing, and the extent to which freight- related traffic congestion is reported to impact local communities; (2) how  communities have funded efforts to mitigate freight-related traffic  congestion, and what funding challenges, if any, communities report  facing; and (3) the extent to which DOT’s efforts to implement freight- related provisions of MAP-21 have addressed local freight-related traffic  congestion.
To address these objectives, we analyzed Surface Transportation Board  (STB) data on rail carloads from 2007 to 2012. We chose to analyze STB  data beginning in 2007 after being advised by STB officials that to  examine recent trends, 2007 was more indicative than 2008 of rail traffic  before the recent U.S. economic recession. We also analyzed DOT data  on 2012 annual average daily traffic of vehicles and on 2010 highway  freight flows, and the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) National  Grade Crossing Inventory and FRA’s flows over the rail network of STB’s  rail data from 2010 and 2012. We used the most recent data available for  the purposes of our analyses and concluded the data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes used in our report. We reviewed the reliability of  these data by reviewing related documentation and interviewing agency  officials about their data collection procedures, among other things. We  also obtained information from the Association of American Railroads  (AAR) on rail carload levels in 2013.
After learning that there was not a federal source of data that could  reliably be used to analyze freight truck trends from 2007 to 2012,  because, among other things, the data do not sufficiently distinguish  among classes of trucks, we reported information available in studies by  the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the American  Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), the research arm of ATA, which  performs some of its studies in partnership with the Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA). We reviewed DOT’s evaluation of the ATA truck  tonnage data and the methodologies used in ATRI studies and  determined that they were sufficiently reliable to use to provide contextual  information. We also obtained some information on freight truck levels in  2013 from ATA and ATRI.
We reviewed freight-related traffic congestion issues and mitigation  projects at 12 selected communities to understand the types of local  impacts communities are experiencing from freight movements and  efforts they are making to mitigate such impacts. We selected  communities representing a variety of different geographical locations and  sizes, that had either successfully developed projects to mitigate freight- related congestion impacts (such as railroad-highway grade separations  or truck bypass routes), were on record as having studied and attempted  to mitigate such impacts, or were identified by DOT officials as having  recently had an increase in freight-related traffic congestion. Selected  communities included Seattle, Edmonds, and Spokane, Washington;  Billings and Glendive, Montana; Williston (and surrounding communities  in the Bakken oil field region), North Dakota; Chicago, Illinois; Gulfport  and Pascagoula, Mississippi; Miami, Florida; Paulsboro, New Jersey, and  the New York City metropolitan region, including projects for New Jersey  and New York. Within these communities, we reviewed 24 ongoing or  recently completed congestion mitigation projects, such as grade  separations, port rail improvements and access roads, and truck bypass  routes. Findings from our selected communities and projects are not  generalizable.
We also reviewed and analyzed policy documents, proposed legislation,  and federal laws, including MAP-21, DOT’s documentation of efforts to  implement MAP-21’s freight provisions, such as its published draft  primary freight network, and public comments on the draft primary freight  network, as well as DOT’s April 2014 surface transportation  reauthorization proposal. Finally, to inform all objectives, we reviewed  prior GAO work on surface transportation and interviewed DOT, state,  local, and private industry officials involved in freight issues. These  included officials from DOT’s FRA, Federal Highway Administration  (FHWA), and Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and STB; state and  local transportation agencies in the communities we visited, U.S. railroad  companies including the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Union  Pacific (UP), CSX, and Norfolk Southern Corporation; and industry  associations such as AAR, ATA, ATRI, the Owner Operator Independent  Drivers’ Association, and the American Association of State Highway and  Transportation Officials.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to  September 2014 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. For more  information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Our nation’s freight is moved by different transportation modes—including  rail, truck, ships, pipelines, and airplanes—with the majority of freight by  weight reaching its final destination by either truck or by rail. In addition,  some freight movements are intermodal, such as containers that arrive in  the U.S. by ship and are subsequently transferred to rail or truck. A map  of 2010 freight flow volumes across the U.S. shows that many states had  at least 100 million tons of freight annually flowing over some highways,  railways, or inland waterways (see fig. 1).
Recent commodity trends, such as the increase in domestic crude oil  production from shale formations, have affected freight movements.
According to the Energy Information Administration, oil production from  shale formations, such as North Dakota’s Bakken region, has increased 6  fold between 2007 and 2012, and is expected to continue to increase—by  48 percent from 2012 to 2019—and remain above 2012 levels through  2040.
While vital to our nation’s economy, freight movements can contribute to  two types of congestion impacts, which can be temporary or more  permanent in nature. The first is congestion on the freight network itself,  such as when congested rail corridors and highways result in delays for  freight shippers. The second, which is the focus of this report, is freight- related traffic congestion in communities. Unlike congestion on the freight  network, freight-related traffic congestion may not delay or affect freight  shippers but results in delays and congested road conditions for  passenger and emergency response vehicles. For example, such  vehicles may experience delays at highway-rail grade crossings or near  rail yards and transfer facilities. In addition, delays and congested road  conditions can occur when freight trucks must traverse local streets to  access major freight centers, such as ports or distribution warehouses.
Depending on the specific circumstances in a community, various types  of projects can be undertaken to help alleviate freight-related traffic  congestion (see fig. 2). For instance, grade separation projects—such as  overpasses and underpasses—can eliminate congestion issues  associated with heavily traveled highway-rail grade crossings. In addition,  signalization projects, including the use of intelligent transportation  systems (ITS), can help reduce delays at highway-rail grade crossings by  providing drivers with advanced warning of approaching trains or  extending green lights after a train has cleared an intersection. To  reduce truck traffic on local roads, communities may build direct freeway  connections between freight centers and nearby highways (connector  roads or tunnels), redirect freight trucks around towns (bypass routes), or  improve the ability of local roads to manage truck traffic—for example, by  widening lanes and adding passing lanes and traffic lights.
Multiple stakeholders play a role in mitigating the impacts of freight- related traffic congestion in communities. At the federal level, DOT and its  component agencies develop and enforce regulations, advance national  strategic goals by providing technical assistance and leadership through  collaboration with various transportation stakeholders, and oversee  federal-funding programs that can be used to mitigate freight-related  traffic congestion (see table 1 below for brief descriptions of selected  programs). Many of these funding programs had been available for  freight-related congestion-mitigation and traffic-flow improvement projects  prior to MAP-21.
FHWA distributes about $40 billion a year to states to build, preserve,  and improve the nation’s road and highway infrastructure through  multiple formula and discretionary grant programs, collectively known  as the federal-aid highway program.
FRA enforces safety regulations, makes selective investments in the  country’s rail network, and maintains the National Grade Crossing  Inventory, a uniform, national database meant to assist in the planning  and implementation of rail-highway crossing safety improvement  programs.
STB—an independent economic regulatory agency administratively  affiliated with DOT—issues licenses to railroads for construction and  acquisition projects and adjudicates railroad rate and service disputes.
State and local transportation agencies have primary responsibility for  building, maintaining, and operating roads and planning and prioritizing  funding for transportation projects, including freight-related projects. In  addition, public port authorities—which may be local, regional, or state  authorities—oversee port operations, manage port revenue streams, and  work with state and local transportation agencies to plan freight  infrastructure projects, including projects to mitigate traffic congestion  impacts of freight.
Private sector entities are largely responsible for moving the nation’s  freight. These entities—including trucking companies, railroads, airlines,  pipeline companies, and terminal and distribution-center operators—often  compete with each other for freight-shipping business and make key  routing, operating, and equipment investment decisions. Some private  entities, such as railroad and pipeline companies, own the freight  infrastructure they are dependent upon to facilitate freight movements;  other private entities, such as trucking firms and terminal operators, rely  on what is primarily publicly-owned freight infrastructure, including the  National Highway System.
To mitigate freight-related traffic congestion and meet other transportation  infrastructure needs, public and private transportation stakeholders may  enter into what are referred to as public-private partnerships. As we have  previously reported, these partnerships can offer benefits to the public  sector, such as the sharing or transferring of projects’ financial risk to the  private sector and increased operational and management efficiency of  publicly-owned infrastructure, depending on the specific partnership  agreement.partnerships, private sector entities may provide direct funding to publicly- sponsored infrastructure projects, or enter into contracts with public  agencies to design and construct these projects. Other partnerships can  be more complex. For example, a private entity may assume control over  the operations and maintenance of an existing public asset, such as a toll  road, for a fixed period of time as part of a revenue-sharing agreement  with the public sector. Alternatively, a private entity may take  responsibility for all aspects of a new, publicly-sponsored infrastructure  project—including design, finance, construction, and operations and  maintenance—in exchange for periodic, performance-based payments  from the public sector, from which the private sector expects to profit. In   In more straightforward examples of public-private  prior work, we have noted that there is no “free” money in public-private  partnerships—for example, while highway public-private partnerships can  be used to obtain financing for highway infrastructure without the use of  public sector funding, this funding is a form of privately issued debt that  must be repaid to private investors seeking a return on their investment  by collecting toll revenues.
In recent years, the federal government has placed an increasing  emphasis on the nation’s freight transportation system in its surface  transportation authorizing legislation. In 2012, the President signed into  law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) .  MAP-21 established seven goals for a national freight policy. None of  these goals explicitly encompasses addressing community impacts of  freight, such as local traffic-congestion impacts. One of the goals is to  invest in infrastructure improvements and implement operational  improvements that reduce congestion—which could potentially  incorporate local traffic congestion caused by freight flows. However,  according to DOT officials, DOT has generally treated congestion as a  source of delay in the delivery of freight shipments and hence as a factor  that reduces economic productivity, not as a factor that produces adverse  community impacts. In addition, another goal, to reduce the  environmental impacts of freight movement on the national freight  network, refers to a type of community impact that can be caused by  , MAP-21 also  freight congestion. Unlike its predecessor legislationrequires DOT to establish a national freight strategic plan in consultation  with state departments of transportation and other transportation  stakeholders. MAP-21 includes as a required element of the freight  strategic plan the identification of best practices to mitigate the impacts of  freight movement on communities.
Also unlike its predecessor legislation, MAP-21 requires DOT to establish  a national freight network. The national freight network is to include a  primary freight network and critical rural freight corridors to assist states in  strategically directing resources toward improved system performance for  efficient movement of freight on highways. The act established a deadline  of October 1, 2013 for DOT to designate the highway primary freight  network. In November 2013, DOT released for comment a draft primary  freight network. MAP-21 also requires DOT to develop a freight  transportation conditions and performance report by October 1, 2014,  which is to feed into the development of a national freight strategic plan  by October 1, 2015. Moreover, MAP-21 requires DOT to encourage each  state to develop a freight advisory committee and a state freight plan.  MAP-21 directly addresses our prior suggestion that to maximize the  efficient movement of freight, Congress should consider defining the  federal role in surface transportation.
In March 2014, we found that DOT had partially addressed our 2008  recommendation to develop a comprehensive national strategy related to  freight, citing DOT’s progress in (1) developing planning tools,  transportation investment data, and performance measures for planning  and evaluating freight projects; (2) completing a draft of the highway  primary freight network; and (3) establishing a National Freight Advisory  Committee. The National Freight Advisory Committee—comprised of public and private-sector freight stakeholders appointed by the Secretary  of Transportation—provides advice and recommendations to DOT on  matters relating to freight transportation in the United States and the  implementation of the freight provisions of MAP-21. In June 2014, the  National Freight Advisory Committee issued its final recommendations to  DOT for consideration in development of a national freight strategic plan.
In April 2014, DOT sent to Congress a multi-year surface transportation  proposal, called Generating Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with  Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency, and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and  Communities throughout America (GROW America). This proposal was  introduced in the House of Representatives on June 11, 2014, and  referred to appropriate committees. According to DOT officials, this  proposal demonstrates further progress in addressing our 2008  recommendation that DOT develop a comprehensive national strategy  related to freight, by proposing, among other things, $10 billion in funding  for a dedicated freight program, a multimodal approach to freight funding,  requirements for states to develop state freight plans and to create state  freight advisory committees, incentives for states to engage in multi-state  collaborative freight planning, use of benefit-cost analysis in the  evaluation of freight projects, and use of retrospective analysis to  evaluate the effects of freight projects after they have been completed.  The proposal would also establish a National Freight Infrastructure  Program that would have, among other goals, an explicit goal to reduce  adverse community impacts of freight transportation.
section_title: Increasing Freight Flows May Exacerbate Long- standing Community Congestion Issues
paragraphs: Freight rail traffic has increased since 2009, and as of 2013, the total  number of rail carloads approached levels prior to the 2008 recession.  State and local officials in the upper Northwest have raised concerns  regarding rapid increases in carloads of crude oil transported by rail,  largely from North Dakota, and the increase in carloads of coal being  transported by rail to ports. Traffic congestion at highway-rail crossings— a long-standing concern in many local communities—may be  exacerbated by increased rail freight flows; however, the extent of the  impacts and costs are often not well documented. Truck volumes have  also increased in recent years and are approaching levels prior to the  2008 recession, causing community impacts when trucks must travel on  local roads, such as roads connecting ports to freeways. Moreover, in  recent years, certain areas, such as the Bakken region of North Dakota,  have had large increases in truck traffic on local roads due to increasing  oil extraction.
subsections: section_title: Freight Rail Traffic Has Risen Recently and Increased Carloads of Certain Commodities Have Raised Concerns
subsections: section_title: Rail Traffic Increased since 2008 Downturn, with Commodity Trends Affecting Rail Traffic in Certain States
paragraphs: According to STB data, nationally, since 2000, freight rail traffic reached a  high in 2006, dropped slightly in 2007, and then fell sharply with the  economic recession of 2008 and 2009 before rising again starting in  2010. Our analysis of STB rail data from 2007 through 2012 showed  that the total number of carloads in 2012 (about 34 million) remained 8  percent below the total number of carloads in 2007 (about 37 million),  although it represented a significant increase compared to the low of  2009 (about 30 million). Although 2013 STB data were not available for  this report, according to AAR officials, AAR data show that the total  number of carloads in 2013 continued to climb toward 2007 levels. While  according to AAR officials, the recession and subsequent recovery were  the major factors affecting total carload trends during this period, several  trends related to shipment type or specific commodities have also  affected rail flows since 2007. These trends include an increase in  intermodal traffic, a decrease in overall coal traffic but an increase in coal  traffic related to export, and a sharp increase in crude oil transported by  rail. Although crude oil represented about 1 percent of all rail carloads in  2012, the percentage increase in crude oil carloads from 2007 to  2012—of over 3,000 percent, from about 7,000 carloads to about 236,000  carloads—was far higher than the percentage change in carloads of any  other commodity.and for intermodal, coal, and crude oil carloads.
section_title: Traffic Congestion at Highway-Rail Crossings is a Longstanding Concern but Impacts and Costs Are Not Always Documented
paragraphs: DOT, state, and local officials identified a key negative impact of  increasing freight flows as freight-related traffic congestion occurring at  highway-rail grade crossings, where road traffic must wait to cross the  tracks when trains are passing. Highway-rail grade crossings exist in  every state in the U.S. In 2012, there were 210,621 public and private rail  crossings in the U.S. Figure 7 shows rail crossings that in 2012 included  the passage of at least 200,000 rail cars annually and at least 10,000  daily vehicles (see fig. 7).
Several communities we visited had documented longstanding concerns  over highway-rail grade crossings. For example, a 2004 study of  potential grade separation projects in Billings, Montana, described seven  previous studies of the same issues, with the earliest study from 1958. In  the Seattle area, a corridor effort to reduce community impacts of freight  through 20 grade separation projects, among other things, has been  ongoing since 1998. Another corridor project—the Bridging the Valley  Project—which is aimed at eliminating 75 highway-rail crossings along a  42 mile corridor between Spokane, Washington, and Athol, Idaho, was  officially started in 2000, but according to Spokane officials, was designed  to address at-grade crossing issues identified as problematic in the  1990s. And in Chicago, the Chicago Region Environmental and  Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE), which includes 25 grade  separation projects as part of a larger number of projects designed to  improve the fluidity of freight and passenger rail service throughout the   State and local officials described the  region, was announced in 2003.following types of negative community impacts of traffic being blocked at  highway-rail grade crossings:
Delays to motorists. Such delays can be significant, such as when a  large number of vehicles on the road results in a queue that can take  time to disperse even after a continuously moving train has departed,  or when a stopped train blocks the tracks for significant periods of  time.
Blocked emergency vehicles. According to local officials, in Baker,  Montana, a fire recently destroyed a house because train traffic had  blocked the only two crossings in the town and prevented fire crews  from responding in time. According to STB officials, stakeholders also  often worry that ambulances will be unable to reach them or transport  them quickly to hospitals because of trains blocking crossings.
Quality of life impacts. Such impacts can be exacerbated by the  specific location of the crossing in relationship to the community. For  example, in Edmonds, Washington, a main rail line crosses the only  access road to the town’s ferry, which carried over 22.5 million riders  in 2013. According to city officials, about 40 freight or commuter trains  pass this crossing each day and can cause vehicle queues that  extend 1.5 miles from the ferry terminal, which can be especially  problematic because people are trying to make their scheduled  ferries. In Billings, Montana, the community’s long-standing concerns  center on a highway-rail grade crossing in which a main rail line  bisects one of the city’s central downtown streets (see fig. 8). In  addition to concerns related to delay and blocked motorists, several  stakeholders described frustration that the community is divided when  the crossing is blocked.
In spite of often long-standing concerns with the negative effects of  highway-rail grade crossings, communities we visited had varying levels  of quantified information on impacts such as traffic delay times or costs.  For example, the 2004 Billings, Montana, study described above included  some general information on train counts but no information documenting  the number of vehicles delayed, the hours of delay, or any costs  associated with such delays. The CREATE program in Chicago has some  information in its studies on estimated hours of delay and, according to a  Illinois Department of Transportation official, used DOT’s guidance to  assign a value of time to provide an economic benefits calculation in its  TIGER applications. According to Illinois Department of Transportation  officials, the CREATE partners also use a model for various analyses that  provides information on train numbers, length, weight, and speed.
However, according to Illinois state officials, efforts to quantify impacts of  highway-rail grade crossings both for the CREATE program and for the  Chicago area generally have been limited by a lack of current information  on gate down time, as well as by a lack of specific information on the  types, timing, and occupancy levels of vehicle traffic at the crossings.  Moreover, according to an Illinois Commerce Commission official, efforts  to accurately quantify the impact of highway-rail grade crossings at a high  level—in Illinois or nationally—have been limited by a lack of data  available on the number of trains and train lengths assigned by date,  speed, and time. On the other hand, a study of delays caused by  highway-rail grade crossings in the Miami area did take some of these  factors into account. This study concluded that rail crossings in the area  caused delays of roughly 235,000 person-hours per year at a cost of $2.4  million. Similarly, some efforts to document impacts of highway-rail  grade crossings in Seattle do include detailed information on such things  as train numbers, timing, and speed, in some cases provided by railroad  companies, as well as detailed traffic information.
DOT’s Highway Performance Monitoring System is a national-level highway-information  system that includes data on the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating  characteristics of the nation’s highways. developing an order to require railroads to update information on rail  crossings, although the officials did not know when this order would be  finalized.
section_title: Truck Volumes Are Also Increasing, Causing Impacts in Some Communities
subsections: section_title: Truck Traffic Also Fell with Economic Downturn of 2008 but Has Rebounded
paragraphs: Similar to rail trends, according to an ATA study, the amount of freight  shipped by truck rose from about 10 billion tons in 2000 to a high of  almost 11 billion tons in 2006, dropped slightly to about 10.5 billion tons in  2007, and then dropped sharply with the economic recession in 2008,  reaching a low of about 8.5 billion tons in 2009 before rising again.  According to ATA, trucks transported over 9 billion tons of freight in 2012,  representing about 69 percent of all freight tonnage, and ATA officials told  us that truck tonnage in 2013 approached but did not yet reach 2007  levels. According to DOT and ATA officials, truck flows—and related  freight congestion—are highest in and around major U.S. cities, although  the congestion is caused by the combination of trucks, cars, and other   ATA’s  vehicles and cannot in most cases be isolated to truck traffic. research arm, ATRI, has documented that about 89 percent of truck  congestion costs can be attributed to about 12 percent of the Interstate  highway system mileage. In a 2013 study, ATRI identified significant  freight congestion as occurring in particular road segments in major cities  in Illinois, Texas, New Jersey, and Missouri. In a 2014 study, ATRI stated  that clusters of severe congestion were identifiable in the corridor from  Boston to Washington, D.C., as well as Chicago, Texas, and California.  According to ATA officials, the congestion in these areas is consistent  with where the highest levels of truck-related congestion have been for  the past 5 years or more.
ATA and FHWA stakeholders told us that the commodity trend with the  most significant effect on truck flow patterns was the increase in oil  production in the Bakken region, but that most of this change had  occurred on local roads in North Dakota close to the actual oil production.  ATRI found that North Dakota experienced the greatest increase in  congestion costs on a percentage basis from 2012 to 2013 (about 40  percent). DOT and North Dakota state officials also told us that freight  truck traffic in the area had increased tremendously on local roads that  are not always included in national traffic studies. North Dakota officials  expect high levels of truck traffic to continue in this area over the next 20  years or more. State transportation officials in Pennsylvania and West  Virginia, where there is also significant shale oil or gas development,  stated that this development has also resulted in increased truck freight  traffic in these states, primarily in rural areas.
section_title: Truck Traffic on Community Roads Causes Local Traffic Congestion Impacts
paragraphs: DOT, state, and local officials stated that a primary local impact of freight  trucks occurs when trucks must exit freeways and travel on roads that  pass through communities. Officials we spoke with and a report we  reviewed cited impacts including traffic delays and increased difficulty for  cars in navigating the streets, including turning and passing, due to the   Specifically, this  greater size and reduced maneuverability of trucks. report found that the greater size of trucks as compared to cars adds to  their congestion effect.
Cambridge Systematics: Transportation and Economic Impacts of the Freight Industry in  Miami-Dade County (December 2011). impacts of freight trucks on roads around East and Gulf Coast ports may  increase when the expansion of the Panama Canal is completed in 2015,  as both an increase in the number of containers on the larger ships that  will be able to pass through the Canal and a potential increase in the  number of ships that arrive and depart from ports in this area has been  predicted.
Some state and local officials also described traffic congestion impacts of  freight trucks in rural or small town areas with major energy extraction.  Such areas may not be directly connected to the national freight network  by a freeway, so that trucks used in extracting or transporting energy  commodities must travel on local roads that cut through small towns and  cities. For example, according to North Dakota Department of  Transportation officials, between 2007 and 2013, average daily traffic  along one main road in the Bakken region increased from under 2,000 to  almost 10,000 vehicles, while the percentage of truck traffic increased  from 29 to 45 percent (see fig. 9). As described previously, officials in the  Bakken region expect oil production and associated truck impacts to  continue over the next 20 to 50 years. State officials in Pennsylvania and  West Virginia also described negative impacts of increased freight truck  traffic on local roads due to shale oil or gas development, including  damage to roads and truck congestion impeding the flow of school buses,  among other things.
section_title: Selected Communities Primarily Used Public Funds to Address Freight-related Traffic Congestion and Some Have Faced Funding Challenges
paragraphs: Project sponsors in our selected communities primarily relied on public  funding—provided by federal, state, and local governments and public  port authorities—to address freight-related traffic congestion issues;  however, some projects we reviewed included private funding. Private  funders, in most cases railroads, contributed about 1 percent of the total  cost of these projects of $3.2 billion. Railroad companies’ contributions to  congestion mitigation projects generally amounted to less than 5 percent  of the project’s total cost and were based on the project’s potential  operational benefits to the railroad. Some communities we visited have  faced challenges funding projects to mitigate freight-related traffic  congestion. Among other things, federal programs that can be used to  address freight-related traffic congestion do not always align with local  congestion mitigation needs, and state and local transportation funds are  often limited and needed to operate and maintain existing infrastructure.
subsections: section_title: The Majority of Funding for Addressing Freight- Related Traffic Congestion in Selected Communities Is Public
paragraphs: Project sponsors in our selected communities, such as state DOTs and  public port authorities, primarily relied on public funding to address  freight-related traffic congestion issues. Of our 12 selected communities,  9 had ongoing or recently completed congestion mitigation projects.   The types of congestion mitigation projects as well as their purposes  varied. For instance, we reviewed on-dock rail systems at several ports,  which are designed to both enhance freight movements and mitigate  congestion due to trucks on local roads, and grade separation projects,  which are primarily focused on relieving vehicle delays and traffic  congestion. Taken together, these 24 projects cost about $3.2 billion, of  which the private sector has contributed about 1 percent. Table 2 below  displays the total project cost and the percentage of private funding for  each of the mitigation projects we reviewed.
Sixteen of the 24 projects we reviewed have been funded exclusively by  the public sector. Of these, five projects were entirely state-funded, three  were entirely locally-funded, and one was completed using only federal  funds.  About half of all projects (11 of 24) included a mix of federal,  state, and local funds. Project sponsors reported using various federal  funding sources to help pay for freight-related congestion mitigation  projects in their communities, including formula funding—such as funds  from the National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation  Program, and the CMAQ program—as well as discretionary funding, such  as federal congressionally-directed funding, Transportation Infrastructure  Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit assistance, and TIGER grants.  For example in 2013, almost half of the 52 projects that received a TIGER  award primarily addressed freight transportation needs, and among these  projects, nearly one-third were intended to mitigate freight-related traffic  congestion.
None of the projects we reviewed have been funded entirely by the  private sector. However, eight of the 24 projects included both public and  private funding contributions. Most of the projects that included private  funding were grade separations (5 of 8) and received contributions from   In addition, private sector contributions to  railroad companies (6 of 8). these mitigation projects typically amounted to less than 5 percent of the  project’s total cost, but some projects, such as the Port of Miami’s Rail  Access Project, included a larger share of private funds (19.6 percent).
See table 2 above for more information about private contributions to  specific projects.
Some federal programs encourage public-private partnerships in freight  and other transportation projects by giving priority to projects that include  innovative partnerships and funding mechanisms. For instance, among  DOT’s selection criteria for TIGER awards is “partnership”—or the extent  to which projects demonstrate strong collaboration among a broad range  of participants. Two of the four mitigation projects in our site visit  communities that received TIGER grants also included private-funding  contributions. For example, the Port Authority of Jackson County  Mississippi received a $14 million TIGER grant in 2013 for an upcoming  $44 million project at the Port of Pascagoula. This project includes  constructing a new marine terminal facility for renewable energy  resources, upgrading the port’s rail connections, and relocating the rail  line that services the port, steps that will allow for the closure of 16 rail  crossings in nearby communities. The private entity that is to operate the  new marine terminal facility has agreed to contribute approximately $5  million towards the project. In addition, as part of determining eligibility for  its TIFIA Credit Assistance Program, DOT pursuant to statutory  requirements assesses the extent to which TIFIA assistance would foster  innovative public-private partnerships, attract private debt or equity  investment, and reduce the contribution of federal grant assistance to the  project. One project we reviewed—the Port of Miami Tunnel—was  financed in part by a $341 million TIFIA loan. DOT awarded the loan to a  private entity to help finance the construction of the tunnel, which  provides direct access to the port from the nearby interstates and helps  reduce port-related traffic congestion on downtown streets. Under this  arrangement, the private partner financed, designed, and constructed the  tunnel and will operate and maintain it over the next 30 years. The public  sector (Florida DOT, Miami-Dade County, and the City of Miami) agreed  to repay all of the capital, operations, and maintenance expenses  associated with the tunnel by making periodic, performance-based  payments to the private partner.
section_title: Railroads’ Contributions for Mitigating Freight- Related Traffic Congestion Are Primarily Driven by the Potential Operational Benefits
paragraphs: As noted above, private contributions to projects we reviewed aimed at  mitigating freight-related traffic congestion typically came from railroad  companies. Railroad representatives we spoke with told us that their  companies rely on cost-benefit analyses to make decisions about whether  and how much to contribute toward public-private partnerships, and that  the contributions generally align with a project’s potential operational  benefits to the company. For example, CSX officials told us that, among  other factors, they consider the potential operational benefits to the  company when determining whether to participate in a public-private  partnership. They noted that if they find that a project has value to the  company and the overall partnership makes sense, CSX will provide  funding commensurate with its private benefit. In their view, contributions  beyond that amount would be paying for benefits to the environment or  the community, but not the railroad. Similarly, as part of its framework for  public-private partnerships, Union Pacific Railroad includes the following  principles: 1) the railroad pays for private benefits that will accrue to the  company and 2) public entities pay for the benefits that are enjoyed by  the public at large through public or general revenue sources.
Federal regulations pertaining to railroads’ contributions for grade  crossing elimination projects—such as grade separations or crossing  closures—also reflect the estimated operational benefit of these projects  to the railroads. Specifically, FHWA’s regulations require railroad  companies to contribute 5 percent toward grade-crossing elimination  projects that receive funding from FHWA’s Railway-Highway Crossings   According to DOT officials, the 5 percent railroad contribution  Program.to grade-crossing elimination projects is based on a cost-benefit analysis  and represents the estimated benefit to the railroad of no longer having to  operate and maintain the crossing.
Railroad companies we spoke with told us that FHWA’s 5 percent  requirement generally reflects an appropriate contribution toward grade  separation projects for railroads, since these projects typically do not  provide significant operational benefits to their companies. For instance,  according to Chicago Transportation Coordinating Office representatives,  although grade separation projects result in some benefit to the railroads,  the bulk of the benefits accrue to the community in the form of safety  improvements and congestion relief. In addition, BNSF representatives  told us that the company typically expects to contribute the required 5  percent to grade separation projects funded by the Railway-Highways  Crossings Program, since crossing closures generally do not produce  significant financial benefits to the company. However, according to  BNSF officials, if the results of the company’s cost-benefit analysis  indicate that a crossing closure would produce benefits greater than 5  percent, either through cost avoidance or increased revenues, BNSF  would be willing to negotiate a contribution greater than the minimum  amount required.
In certain circumstances, STB—which issues licenses to railroads for rail  construction and acquisition projects—can order a railroad to contribute  more than 5 percent towards a grade separation project as a condition of  its license approval. STB can impose this license condition on a railroad  only if:  the railroad is applying for a license from STB to construct a new line  that is extending into new territory, or is merging, consolidating, or  acquiring control of a rail carrier that is under the jurisdiction of STB;  and the transaction is consistent with the public interest. STB makes the  determination based on whether its environmental review of the  proposed construction or acquisition would result in environmental  impacts that justify a grade separation.
For example, STB used this authority to order Canadian National Railroad  to pay for most of the costs of two grade separation projects (67 percent  and 78.5 percent respectively) as part of its acquisition of the Elgin, Joliet,  and Eastern Railway rail line. According to STB officials, in this case,  their review determined that the railroad would receive substantial  economic benefits from STB’s approval of the acquisition and the  community would experience significant environmental impacts due to the  additional trains operating on the line. As a result, STB determined it was  appropriate to require the railroad to incur the majority of the grade  separations’ cost. STB officials informed us that during the environmental  review process, rail applicants often offer voluntary environmental  mitigation measures to respond to community concerns, including freight- related traffic congestion. In several cases, STB has not had to impose  grade separation conditions due to railroads’ voluntary mitigation.
STB officials emphasized that STB has no authority to require railroads to  pay for grade separations along existing lines unless they are part of a  construction or acquisition project that necessitates an environmental  review by STB. In addition, they told us that STB cannot mitigate freight- related traffic congestion issues in communities by regulating changes in  rail traffic levels because freight railroads generally have the discretion  and authority to determine how to route their trains.
section_title: Communities Face Several Challenges Funding Projects to Address Freight-Related Traffic Congestion
paragraphs: Although the public sector contributed the vast majority of funding for  projects aimed at mitigating freight-related traffic congestion in our  selected communities, securing funding for these projects can be  challenging for state and local transportation officials. For instance, local  officials in Glendive, Montana, and neighboring Baker, Montana, told us  that their communities have experienced significant increases in truck and  rail traffic due to the recent development of crude oil development in the  Bakken region, but the officials have not identified funding for mitigation  projects. Several of the communities we visited with ongoing or recently  completed projects also had additional planned projects that were not yet  funded. For example, Chicago’s CREATE Program lacks about $2.0  billion to complete 22 remaining projects, 13 of which are grade  separations.
At the federal level, funding programs that can be used to address freight- related traffic congestion have broader goals and objectives that do not  always align with communities’ congestion mitigation needs (see table 1  above for descriptions of these programs). For instance, DOT’s Railway- Highway Crossings Program—which provides funding to states for  highway-rail grade crossing improvements—is focused on addressing  safety issues, not congestion. According to DOT officials, Railway- Highway Crossings Program funds can be used to address freight-related  traffic congestion so long as the congestion also presents a safety  issue. However, stakeholders noted that communities’ congestion and  safety issues do not always intersect. For instance, Washington State  DOT (WSDOT) officials told us that while the Railway-Highway Crossings  Program’s focus on safety is important, some communities face major  congestion issues that cannot be easily incorporated into a safety-related  project. They also noted that the concerns about highway-rail grade  crossings that WSDOT hears from communities across the state primarily  involve congestion issues, not safety issues. In cases when there is  overlap between congestion and safety issues, it can be difficult for states  to fund qualifying grade separation projects using these funds. The  average cost of the seven grade-separation projects we reviewed was  $37 million, yet most states receive less than $10 million from this  program annually and 50 percent of states’ funds must be spent on  grade-crossing warning devices.
At the state and local level, several transportation agencies told us that  much of their funding is needed to operate and maintain existing  infrastructure. As a result, very little funding is available to complete new   For projects or to serve as a local match for federal-funding programs. instance, New Jersey DOT (NJ DOT) officials told us that maintaining the  state’s existing infrastructure— much of which is old and in need of  repair—is the state’s priority and takes up most of NJ DOT’s funding.  Consequently, the number of new projects NJ DOT can undertake to  address congestion is low. Similarly, an official in Billings, Montana, told  us that local transportation agencies are reluctant to undertake major new  projects, including those that are aimed at alleviating freight-related traffic  congestion, because funding is limited and one major project can tie up 5  or 6 years worth of available funds. In addition, local transportation  officials in Miami stated that it is almost impossible for many communities  to come up with a local match for freight-related projects because most  local revenues are used to operate and maintain existing infrastructure  and fund other priorities.
We have previously found that freight projects may not compete well with  other types of transportation projects for limited available public funds  because their benefits are not always obvious to the public.  We have also found that public planners are wary of providing public support for  projects that directly benefit the private sector, a wariness that may make  it less likely that metropolitan planning organizations or state departments  of transportation will prioritize freight projects. Although projects to  mitigate freight-related traffic congestion in communities may have more  discernible public benefits than other freight projects, other factors can  affect their ability to compete or receive priority for funding. For example,  local transportation officials in Spokane, Washington, told us that  progress on the Bridging the Valley project has stalled because they have  been unable to secure funding for the project and operational  commitments from the two railroad companies involved. Local officials in  Billings stated that efforts to resolve long-standing traffic congestion  issues at highway-rail grade crossings in the city have been stalled both  by a lack of funding and by a lack of consensus on the best alternative for  addressing these issues. In addition, officials with the Port Authority of  New York and New Jersey told us that it is difficult for the Port Authority to  invest in roads that connect highways to ports because—unlike the  tunnels and bridges it operates—it doesn’t own or receive revenue from  these roads. To address challenges associated with funding connector  roads, the National Freight Advisory Committee recommended in June  2014 that DOT develop federal-funding programs that support and  prioritize connectors that are part of regionally or nationally significant  freight networks.
Data limitations may also make it challenging for project sponsors to fully  document the impacts of freight movements and compete for limited  available funding. As described previously, communities we visited had  varying levels of data on local impacts of freight-related traffic congestion,  with some communities lacking specific information on train or vehicular  movements to effectively measure these impacts. Moreover, national data  in this area also has limitations—specifically related to the timeliness and  completeness of the data at the local level. These limitations are  described in more detail later in this report.
section_title: DOT’s Efforts to Implement MAP-21 Freight Provisions Incorporate Some Consideration of Community Impacts but Do Not Establish a Clear Federal Role
paragraphs: Although communities have faced funding challenges in mitigating freight- related traffic congestion, officials from freight trucking, rail, intermodal,  and shipping associations or companies and from various state or local  transportation agencies we contacted and the American Association of  State Transportation Officials agreed that MAP-21 was a positive step in  defining a national focus on freight. As previously described, MAP-21  does not establish as an explicit goal that the national freight policy  address community impacts of freight, such as local traffic congestion  impacts. However, MAP-21 does include a goal to reduce congestion— which could incorporate local traffic congestion caused by freight flows— and a goal to reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement on  the national freight network, which relates to a type of community impact  that can be caused by freight congestion. MAP-21 also includes as a  required element of a national freight strategic plan the identification of  best practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement on  communities. Within this framework of limited direction related to  community impact issues, DOT has taken some steps to address local  impact issues in its efforts to implement MAP-21’s freight provisions, but  to date has not fully integrated local impact issues, including freight- related traffic congestion, or established a clear federal role in this area,  in part due to data limitations.
subsections: section_title: With Mileage Limitations and No Clear Purpose Established, DOT’s Draft Highway Primary Freight Network Omits Some Road Types with Local Freight Impacts
paragraphs: As a component of establishing a national freight network, MAP-21  requires DOT to establish a highway primary freight network consisting of  not more than 27,000 centerline miles of existing roadways that are most  critical to the movement of freight.mileage limitation is not clear. In November 2013, DOT issued for  comment its draft primary freight network. However, DOT and other  national and state freight stakeholders that commented on the draft  network raised concerns that the lack of a defined purpose for the  network in MAP-21 and the mileage limit requirement—that it be limited to  27,000 centerline miles—had resulted in a network that omits the types of   The significance of the 27,000  roads where local traffic congestion impacts of national freight  movements are often experienced. MAP-21 established a general vision  for the national freight network, stating that the national freight network  is to assist states in strategically directing resources toward improved  system performance for efficient movement of freight on highways,  including the National Highway System, freight intermodal connectors,  and aerotropolis transportation systems. MAP-21 also includes eight  factors that DOT is to consider in establishing the highway primary freight  network. While these factors do not specifically mention local traffic  congestion impacts of freight movement, they do incorporate several  areas where such impacts are typically experienced, such as land and  maritime ports of entry, access to energy exploration or production areas,  and population centers.
However, DOT stated in its comments that its ability to designate a  highway primary freight network that successfully takes into account all  eight factors was hampered by the lack of a clear purpose established for  the primary freight network and by the mileage limit requirement of 27,000  centerline miles, in which the mileage of each road included in the  network is counted against this mileage limit. In contrast to this centerline  approach, DOT has at times used a corridor approach in past  transportation work, in which the mileage of a transportation corridor  (such as the corridor between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore,  Maryland) would be counted towards the mileage of a network, while  allowing multiple roads—or even rail lines, if the corridor was  multimodal—along that corridor to also be included as part of a network.
In fact, when it issued the draft primary freight network of 27,000  centerline miles for comment, DOT also identified a broader draft network  of more than 41,000 centerline miles that, according to DOT’s analysis,  would be necessary to establish a primary freight network that consisted  of a comprehensive, connected set of roads for transporting goods  efficiently on highways throughout the nation. The comment period on the  draft primary freight network closed on February 15, 2014. According to  DOT officials, DOT is in the process of reviewing comments on the  highway primary freight network.
Several organizations representing public or private freight-related  officials also commented that the prescribed mileage limit and centerline  approach had contributed to the selection of a network in which the roads  connecting ports or other freight centers to the Interstate Highway System  were not included. For example, according to the National Freight  Advisory Committee, few ports are connected to the proposed network,  including some of the busiest ports. One analysis found that 82 percent of  the over 150 policy-related comments submitted stated that freight  intermodal connectors—such as roads connecting ports to freeways— should be included in the highway primary freight network. The National  Freight Advisory Committee commented that the draft primary freight  network fell short in part because it generally does not include these  connector roads, and the roads that trucks use to carry freight from and  into communities—the roads where community impacts are most directly  experienced. Similarly, the I-95 Corridor Coalition criticized the draft,  stating that it omitted roads connecting major metropolitan areas and  roads serving important resource areas, such as those connecting the  New York State and Pennsylvania gas and oil fields to the region’s  processing and population centers. These types of roads, which were  largely not included in the network in order to meet the mileage limit, are  all areas in which freight movement is likely to cause local traffic  congestion. In addition, the American Association of State Highway and  Transportation Officials stated that after seeing DOT’s draft highway  primary freight network, it became apparent that a 27,000 mile network  based on centerline miles is far too small—and it urged Congress to  adopt a corridor-based approach which incorporates multiple highway  facilities rather than highway centerline miles.
In addition, the highway-focused and centerline approach precludes  including those rail line corridors where high levels of rail traffic going  through communities are likely to lead to local traffic impacts at highway- rail grade crossings. Railroad and DOT officials we spoke to told us that  grade crossing separations are considered largely a highway, not a  railroad issue. If those roadways where highway-rail grade crossings  cause delays are not included in the highway primary freight network, it  may limit states’ flexibility to mitigate them if, for example, funding were to  be attached to the primary freight network.
DOT and the National Freight Advisory Committee expressed the concern  that without clear goals for the highway primary freight network—and in  the context of the mileage limitation—it was difficult to select or comment  on which roads should be included in the network. As stated above,  Congress provided a general overarching vision for the national freight  network—to assist states in strategically directing resources toward  improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on  highways. However, as the National Freight Advisory Committee stated in  its comments on the draft primary freight network, the intended purpose  of the primary freight network was not defined, including such questions  as how the primary freight network will be used and whether it will be  used to prioritize needs, justify future investment, or to develop rules or  regulations specific to the freight industry. DOT stated that without a  better understanding of the goals for the highway primary freight network,  it was challenging to gauge whether the resulting network would meet  future public planning and investment needs.
Leading practices in capital planning emphasize that vision is a critical  success factor—and that in establishing a vision, a defined purpose and  goals are critical for determining which areas should receive increased  emphasis and funding and which areas should remain stable or receive  reduced emphasis. In addition, our prior work has identified a framework  of principles that can help inform Congress in assessing federal surface  transportation programs. These principles include creating well-defined  goals based on identified areas of national interest and establishing and  clearly defining the federal role in achieving each goal in relation to the  roles of state and local governments and other stakeholders. In line with  this framework, in prior work, we found that clearly defining the federal  interest allows policymakers to clarify the goals for federal involvement  and can clearly define the roles of federal, state, and local government in  working toward each goal. The lack of a clearly defined purpose for the  highway primary freight network, combined with the mileage limit  imposed, resulted in a draft network that omits certain types of freight- related roads, such as roads connecting ports to freeways, while including  others, such as major Interstate freeways with heavy truck volumes,  without a clear understanding that this was the network Congress  intended or of the ramifications of these choices. According to DOT  officials, the omission of certain types of freight-related roads from the  national freight network—of which the primary freight network is one  part—was driven by several factors, including the requirement that all  interstate highways be included in the national freight network. DOT  stated that the non-inclusion of roads connecting ports to freeways was  due to the fact that MAP-21 allows rural freight connectors to be  designated by the states as part of the national freight network but did not  allow urban freight connectors to be designated by the states as part of  the national freight network. Moreover, DOT cited a lack of data on these  roads connecting ports to the Interstate Highway System that makes it  difficult to identify at the federal level which ones should be a part of the  national freight network.
DOT’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal, GROW America,  which was introduced in the House of Representatives in June 2014,  could address concerns about establishing a clear purpose for the  primary freight network and the mileage limit requirement of 27,000  centerline miles. GROW America would replace MAP-21’s highway  primary freight network with a multimodal national freight network—with  no mileage limit—that has a defined purpose to inform public and private  planning, prioritize for federal investment, aid the public and private sector  in strategically directing resources, and support federal decisionmaking to  achieve national freight policy goals. DOT stated that this proposal  would also eliminate the causes described above that led to a lack of  inclusion in the primary freight network of roads connecting ports to  highways.  Whether Congress adopts DOT’s legislative proposal or  otherwise, without establishing a clear purpose for the national freight  network and revising the mileage limit requirement of the primary freight  network so that more freight-significant road segments could be included  in it—including those where community impacts of freight are often  experienced—the federal role in freight-related traffic congestion will  remain unclear.
section_title: With Limited Guidance from MAP-21, DOT Has Not Yet Defined the Federal Role in Addressing Local Freight Impacts and Lack of Data Hampers Effort
paragraphs: In the context of limited direction in MAP-21 related to community impact  issues, to date, DOT’s efforts to implement certain freight requirements in  MAP 21 do not clearly establish a federal role related to local impacts  such as freight-related traffic congestion by identifying goals, objectives,  or measures in this area. As previously described, MAP-21 does not  establish as an explicit goal that the national freight policy address  community impacts of freight, such as local traffic congestion impacts,  although it does include a goal to reduce congestion—which could  incorporate local traffic congestion caused by freight flows—and a goal to  reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement on the national  freight network, which relates to a type of community impact that can be  caused by freight congestion. MAP-21 does include as a required  element of the freight strategic plan the identification of best practices to  mitigate the impacts of freight movement on communities.
In spite of this limited direction from MAP-21, DOT has taken some steps  to address local impact issues in implementing MAP-21’s freight  provisions. In 2012, DOT issued interim guidance to states on developing  state freight plans. MAP-21 states that the state freight plans are to  provide a comprehensive plan for the immediate and long-range planning  activities and investments of the state with respect to freight.  Furthermore, DOT outlines in its interim guidance to states that it plans to  rely significantly on state freight plans in preparing the National Freight  Strategic Plan. Several state, local, and private-sector freight- transportation officials we spoke with said state freight plans were a good  step to encourage states to specifically plan for freight within the state  and to facilitate their work with corridor-focused groups. Moreover, the  National Freight Advisory Committee recommended that DOT should  require and fund the development of state freight plans and set up  mechanisms to ensure that state departments of transportation interact  with all transportation modes, users, regional and multi-state agencies,  and metropolitan planning organizations.
State freight plans may provide an opportunity to better define roles and  prioritize freight- planning efforts. As described above, our prior work has  identified a framework of principles that can help inform Congress in  assessing federal surface transportation programs. These principles  include creating well-defined goals based on identified areas of national  interest through an examination of the relative priority of existing  programs and establishing and clearly defining the federal role in  achieving each goal in relation to the roles of state governments and  other entities.“reducing adverse environmental and community impacts of the freight  transportation system” as one of six national goals and generally  discusses in the guidance that states should develop measures of  conditions and performance for all six goals. According to DOT officials,  while reducing the adverse community impacts of freight transportation  was not included as one of the goals of the national freight policy in MAP- 21, DOT included reducing adverse community impacts as one of the  goals in its interim state freight plan guidance in part because of the  requirement that the National Freight Strategic Plan discuss best  practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement on communities and  in part because of DOT’s commitment to enhancing livability and quality  of life. DOT stated that by including such impacts as a goal, it went further  than required by MAP-21. DOT also stated that as required by MAP-21, it  plans to incorporate a discussion of best practices to mitigate the impacts  of freight movement on communities in the National Freight Strategic  Plan, which is due in 2015.
DOT’s interim guidance on state freight plans lists  DOT’s inclusion of community impacts as one of six goals in the interim  guidance on state freight plans is a positive step that could help further  the understanding of the federal role in considering such impacts as well  as encourage states to incorporate information in state freight plans that  could be helpful to DOT’s efforts to include best practices in this area in  the National Freight Strategic Plan, as required by MAP-21. However,  DOT’s interim guidance to states on state freight plans did not identify  specific goals, objectives, or performance measures for addressing  freight-related congestion in local communities, and does not provide  details on how states could consider documenting or addressing  community impacts such as freight-related traffic congestion.
According to DOT officials, DOT did not include details in its state freight  plan guidance on how states could consider documenting or addressing  community impacts because MAP-21 does not require state freight plans  to consider community impacts, and because states are not required to  adopt federal goals and are not required to prepare a state freight plan.  Moreover, DOT officials stated that it should be up to the states to identify  goals, objectives, and performance measures in their state freight plans.  However, without specific guidance related to how to consider community  impacts amongst other freight priorities, it may be difficult for those states  with concerns related to the local traffic congestion impacts of freight to  fully incorporate these concerns and issues in their state freight plans.  This difficulty, in turn, could reduce the usefulness of state freight plans to  DOT in considering these issues for the National Freight Strategic Plan in  order to more clearly articulate the federal and state roles in this area.
In addition, DOT has begun work on the required Freight Transportation  Conditions and Performance Report, which is due in October 2014, and  which will also eventually feed into the National Freight Strategic Plan.  According to DOT officials, for the Freight Transportation Conditions and  Performance Report, DOT is developing performance measures in six  areas, one of which—reducing adverse environmental and community  impacts—relates to the impacts of freight on local communities.  However, DOT officials stated that they have not established a clear  vision of the federal role in this area because of a lack of national data on  these issues. For example, DOT officials stated that while they have  been working to develop quantitative measures in each of the six areas  established for the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance  Report, they do not have national data on adverse environmental and  community impacts and will probably discuss these issues anecdotally.
As a result, in the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance  Report, DOT is not planning to identify specific goals, objectives, or  measures for addressing freight-related congestion in local communities.
DOT also expressed concerns about the availability of national freight  data in its comments on the draft primary freight network. Specifically,  DOT expressed concern that data limitations could reduce the likelihood  that certain types of roads where freight-related congestion impacts are  likely to be felt would be included in the highway primary freight network.  DOT stated that the data utilized for the development of the draft primary  freight network comprises the best information available on freight  behavior at a national level. However, DOT commented that urban and  rural areas that are the site of significant freight facilities where highway  freight intersects with other modes, such as ports, do not always show up  well in the available national data sets it used for developing the highway  primary freight network.
In June 2014, the National Freight Advisory Committee cited the lack of  data for monitoring and analyzing the freight system as a barrier to  improved system performance and made several recommendations  related to improving data. These recommendations included, among  other things, that data collection efforts should be tailored to performance  measures that are in line with specific outcomes that DOT and Congress  want to obtain, with increased emphasis on the multimodal national  freight system, and that DOT should partner with objective third party  organizations to facilitate data collection agreements with private  industry.
Leading practices in capital planning emphasize that another important  success factor in effective decisionmaking is the availability of good  information. Good data and information systems are essential to  supporting sound capital planning and decision-making. The data and  information provided by well-planned information systems give  organizations the ability to build comprehensive measures, collect  relevant data, and perform analyses that can be used to support strategic   As previously described, we  as well as operational budgeting decisions.also found that data limitations reduced our ability to analyze highway  freight trends—information that could be key to helping states and the  federal government establish relevant goals and prioritize mitigation  efforts in these areas. We found the following causes of these data  limitations:
While states are required to annually submit information on highway  traffic counts for DOT’s Highway Performance Monitoring system (a  national level highway information system that includes data on the  extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of  the nation’s highways), some DOT officials cautioned against using  this information as a measure of freight flows because of concerns  that information on truck traffic percentages is not consistently  recorded. Moreover, the truck volume information submitted by states  is not separated out by freight truck versus other types of trucks, but  rather by vehicle class, such as light truck, single unit, or combination  unit. DOT does present data on national freight truck flows through its  freight analysis framework, which, according to DOT, integrates data  from a variety of sources to create a comprehensive picture of freight  movement among states and major metropolitan areas by all modes  of transportation. DOT considers this data to be reliable, but this  framework depends, in part, on Census data and additional analysis  by DOT, and is updated only every 5 years, with over a 2-year  reporting lag. In other words, the currently available freight analysis  framework data is from 2007, and the updated freight analysis  framework data, which will be based on 2012 data, is not expected to  be released until 2015.
While DOT officials stated that they consider the Highway  Performance Monitoring System data on vehicle counts for general  vehicular (not specifically truck) traffic to be reliable for roads that  receive federal aid, very limited data on roads off the national highway  system is collected; thus, DOT officials do not consider Highway  Performance Monitoring System data a good tool with which to  understand specific local impacts of freight traffic.
According to some DOT, state, and local officials, private railroads are  often unwilling to provide detailed information on train counts, lengths,  speed, and times to local communities to help them quantify traffic  impacts at highway-grade rail crossings. Some state officials had  received much of this specific information for certain highway-rail  grade crossings, while others we spoke to said they had been unable  to get this information. As previously described, BNSF officials stated  they plan to work with communities to provide relevant information,  and that they refer communities to FRA’s Grade Crossing Inventory,  but this inventory includes only average daily train numbers and the  timetable (not actual) speed, and, as previously described, may not be  current.
DOT officials stated that in the absence of reliable national data related to  potential adverse environmental and community impacts of freight, DOT  will likely discuss this anecdotally in the Freight Transportation Conditions  and Performance Report being developed. They stated that they planned  to outline categories of community impacts that might be significant,  including noise, heavy freight traffic on community streets, and railroads  blocking highway-rail grade crossings and interfering with operations of  emergency vehicles. DOT’s efforts may represent the beginning of  defining a national role related to the traffic-related congestion impacts of  freight on communities. For example, the categories DOT told us they  were considering align well with some of the areas that stakeholders told  us were most problematic in terms of impacts on the community and with  the areas where communities’ mitigation efforts have been focused.  According to DOT officials, DOT plans to attempt to define national data  limitations in the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance  Report and to describe what actions DOT is taking to reduce these  limitations. However, DOT stated that it was not planning to put forward a  strategy to improve the availability of national data to quantify and assess  freight trends and impacts on local traffic congestion because of the  difficulty of doing so. DOT stated that national data are, by definition,  national, and cannot quantify impacts on local traffic congestion. DOT  also stated that the question of how to aggregate local data to produce  national measures is a difficult one, and it is not yet clear how this can be  accomplished. We understand that improving the availability of national  data to quantify and assess freight trends and impacts on local  congestion is a difficult and complex task.  Moreover, we understand that  such an effort could involve some combination of improving the level of  detail of national data or aggregating local data to produce national  measures, and that efforts in each of these areas are likely to involve  resolving many underlying issues.  At the same time, DOT has developed  guidance to help improve the granularity of national data in ways that  could help improve the national understanding of local traffic congestion  impacts.  For example, in its current guidance to states on the Highway  Performance Monitoring System (under frequently asked questions), DOT  includes information on how states can work to improve the information  they provide for this national data set on the percentage of trucks on road  sample sections.  In our Executive Guide on the Government  Performance and Results Act (GPRA), we found that a key step for  agencies to take to become more results-oriented was to define clear  missions and desired outcomes—corresponding to the requirement in  GPRA for federal agencies to develop strategic plans. Without a  strategy defining clear missions and desired outcomes related to  improving data that would help quantify freight-related traffic congestion,  DOT may miss the opportunity to build on its current data-improvement  efforts and identify future data-improvement efforts that could help  establish and clarify the national role in this area.
In addition, as previously described in this report, we found data  limitations at the state or local level that reduced state or local officials’  ability to quantify rail-related freight impacts on local communities. As a  result, we found that communities we visited had varying levels of  quantified information on impacts such as traffic delay times or costs. The  inconsistency and incompleteness of such information at the state or local  level is likely to reduce the ability of states to appropriately prioritize  efforts to mitigate such impacts against other types of funding priorities  and measure progress towards goals—and could also hamper DOT’s  efforts to consider these issues from a national perspective. Without  reliable national and state data on the community impacts of freight,  measuring the extent of freight-related traffic congestion and tracking the  progress of efforts to mitigate the impacts will be difficult to do. However,  DOT’s interim guidance on state freight plans did not provide specific  suggestions as to what data states could collect, report, or analyze in  order to improve their ability to prioritize impacts of freight on local traffic  congestion or other freight-related issues.
DOT’s efforts as previously described do not yet fully establish the federal  role in this area, which could limit the usefulness of the eventual National  Freight Strategic Plan in laying out a strategy related to these issues. In  our Executive Guide on the Government Performance and Results Act  (GPRA), we found that a key step for agencies to take to become more  results-oriented was to define clear missions and desired outcomes— corresponding to the requirement in GPRA for federal agencies to  develop strategic plans. The National Freight Strategic Plan is therefore  an appropriate document for DOT to incorporate the key principles  previously described for assessing surface transportation programs,  including creating well-defined goals based on identified areas of national  interest, which involves examining the relevance and relative priority of  existing programs in light of 21st century challenges and identifying  emerging areas of national importance. The extent to which local traffic- congestion impacts of freight are of national importance has not been  clearly established. However, it is clear that these impacts are caused by  national freight movement that has national benefits—but, especially in  the case of pass-through traffic—does not necessarily have benefits for  the communities experiencing the congestion or other negative impacts.  Moreover, as described earlier, it appears that freight traffic may increase  in coming years, particularly in certain states and along certain corridors,  and these increases, if they occur, are likely to increase certain national  benefits while also increasing negative local impacts in affected  communities. The development of the National Freight Strategic Plan  provides an opportunity to more clearly focus the federal role in this area.  As we have concluded in prior work, without a clearly defined federal role,  policymakers lack clarity on how to allocate scarce federal resources  according to the level of national interest.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Freight-related traffic congestion affects communities of all sizes in the  U.S. In some locations, communities have struggled for decades to  address long-standing freight-related traffic congestion issues due to  funding and other challenges; elsewhere, such as in North Dakota’s  Bakken Region, these impacts have emerged relatively recently. Given  that freight volumes are expected to continue to increase over the next 25  years and beyond, a growing number of communities will likely be  seeking to devise and fund solutions to mitigate the impacts of freight- related traffic congestion.
The implementation of MAP-21’s requirements provides an opportunity to  consider the extent to which there should be a national role in addressing  freight-related traffic congestion. Although it is known that national freight  movements contribute to local freight-related traffic congestion, neither  MAP-21 nor DOT has yet established a clear federal role in mitigating or  helping communities address these impacts. Defining this role is likely to  be more important in coming years if freight traffic, in particular related to  the movement of oil and coal for export by train and the intermodal  movement of goods in and out of ports by truck or train, increases as  expected. However, DOT’s efforts related to the development the  National Freight Strategic Plan—including its interim guidance to states  on state freight plans—so far have not established a clear federal role by  identifying specific goals, objectives, and measures for addressing freight- related congestion in local communities. These limitations could limit the  usefulness of the eventual National Freight Strategic Plan in laying out a  strategy related to these issues. Moreover, underlying any efforts to  address freight-related traffic congestion are a number of data limitations  both national and local, which if resolved, may assist in better defining the  extent of freight-related congestion and its impacts and also assist in  prioritizing projects to mitigate such impacts at both the state and national  level. Finally, in its draft primary freight network, DOT was hampered in  attempting to take into consideration all eight factors Congress provided  as guidance by the lack of a clear purpose established for the highway  primary freight network and by the mileage limit imposed. Consequently,  it is unclear how the primary freight network will eventually be used or  what Congress intended to be included or excluded from the primary  freight network. Clarifying the purpose and goals of the network and  determining the extent to which local roads and connectors should be  included—and the extent to which the mileage requirements prohibit the  inclusion of freight-important roads, including those where communities  often experience freight related traffic congestion—would help to  establish the federal role in freight-related traffic congestion.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: In reauthorizing the federal highway program, Congress should consider  establishing a clear purpose for the national freight network and primary  freight network that incorporates inclusion of the types of roads where  communities are likely to experience significant freight-related traffic  congestion, and, as relevant to this purpose, consider revising certain  requirements such as the mileage limit of 27,000 miles or changing the  requirement from a centerline to a corridor approach.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to clarify the federal role related to freight-related local traffic  congestion, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the  following two actions in implementing MAP-21 and any subsequent  reauthorization:  in its final guidance on state freight plans, 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;  include in the National Freight Strategic Plan a written statement  articulating the federal role in freight-related local congestion impacts,  by clearly identifying potential objectives and goals (under the general  area DOT has established for the Freight Transportation Conditions  and Performance Report of reducing adverse environmental and  community impacts) for mitigating local congestion caused by national  freight movements and the type of role federal and state stakeholders  could play in achieving each objective and goal, and including a  written strategy for improving the availability of national data needed  to quantify, assess, and establish measures on freight trends and  impacts on local traffic congestion.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOT.  We  received written comments from DOT’s Assistant Secretary for  Administration, which are reproduced in appendix II. This letter stated that  upon preliminary review, DOT concurred with our recommendations and  that DOT would provide a detailed response to each recommendation  within 60 days of the report’s issuance.
In its letter, DOT stated that it is making significant progress in addressing  community congestion impacts and the development of a national freight  strategy. DOT stated that its proposed GROW AMERICA Act continues to  build on the freight provisions in MAP-21 by identifying and mitigating  congestion and other community impacts resulting from the transportation  of freight. DOT also stated that in developing the National Freight  Strategic Plan, DOT has heard from the National Freight Advisory  Committee and other stakeholders recommending that DOT articulate a  clear federal role in the movement of freight, including addressing first  and last mile connectors in both urban and rural areas where community  impacts are often most acutely felt.  DOT also stated that it is  incorporating these and other comments in the National Freight Strategic  Plan, undertaking research, and developing data and tools to support an  outcome-oriented, performance-based approach to freight projects and  planning.
In a draft version of this report provided to DOT, we recommended that  DOT issue a legislative proposal that would address concerns raised in  our report about the highway primary freight network, including the lack of  a clear purpose for the primary freight network and the primary freight  network’s mileage limit requirement of 27,000 centerline miles. In  technical comments DOT provided to us after reviewing the draft, DOT  stated that its surface transportation reauthorization proposal, GROW  America, which was introduced in the House of Representatives in June  2014, would address these concerns through the establishment of a  multimodal national freight network that would replace the primary freight  network—and that had a defined purpose and no mileage requirement.   We reviewed the GROW America proposal and agreed that the  multimodal national freight network proposed to replace the primary  freight network would address the concerns raised in our report about the  primary freight network.  We therefore revised our draft accordingly,  including removing the recommendation and adding a Matter for  Congressional Consideration related to the national freight network and  the primary freight network.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 6 days from the  report date.  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees and to the Secretary of Transportation. 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 addresses the following objectives: (1) how U.S. rail and truck  freight flows are changing, and the extent to which freight-related traffic  congestion is reported to impact local communities; (2) how communities  have funded efforts to mitigate freight-related traffic congestion, and what  funding challenges, if any, communities report facing; and (3) the extent  to which DOT’s efforts to implement freight-related provisions of MAP-21  have addressed local freight-related traffic congestion.
To determine how U.S. rail flows are changing, we analyzed Surface  Transportation Board (STB) data on rail carloads from 2007 to 2012, the  most recent year available, including information on all carloads and on  intermodal carloads, and on carloads of selected commodities, including  coal and crude oil. We selected carloads as a measure because of its  relevance to traffic congestion at highway-rail grade crossings. We chose  to analyze STB data beginning in 2007 after being advised by STB  officials that to examine recent trends, 2007 was more indicative than  2008 of rail traffic before the recent U.S. economic recession. We focused  on trends related to intermodal, coal, and crude oil transportation by rail  because they were emphasized by STB and AAR officials as having a  significant impact on changes in rail traffic in recent years. In addition,  intermodal and coal carloads are the only two product types to make up  at least 20 percent of all rail carloads in 2012, and, while crude oil  represented only about 1 percent of all rail carloads in 2012, the  percentage increase in crude oil carloads from 2007 to 2012—of  approximately 3,188 percent—was far higher than the percentage change  of any other commodity. We also looked at trends in carloads at the  national and state level, using the STB data’s state-through indicator as  the measure of whether a carload was in a state. We reviewed the  reliability of STB’s data by reviewing related documentation, examining  the data for irregularities, and interviewing agency officials about their  data collection procedures and controls for maintaining the data. Carload  figures are considered estimates because they are based on data  sampling rather than complete reporting. We estimated that for 2007- 2012, the margin of error for carloads of all commodities we examined  was less than 5 percent except crude oil, which had a higher margin of  error until 2012. Crude oil carloads, which existed in small numbers in  2007-2011, had for those years a declining margin of error that started at  26 percent in 2007 and went down to about 8 percent in 2011. For 2012,  the margin of error for crude oil carloads was less than 5 percent. We  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  our review. We also received information from the Association of  American Railroads (AAR) on rail carload levels in 2013, according to  AAR data.
To provide context on freight flow volumes in the U.S., we reviewed the  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) methodology for a map it had  published showing freight flow tonnage on highways, rail, and inland  waterways for 2010. This map used a combination of DOT’s 2007 Freight  Analysis Framework data, updated through additional analysis involving  DOT’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) truck flow data  and economic information in order to present information on highway  freight flows; STB data on rail volumes in 2010 as flowed over the rail  network by DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); and Army  Corps of Engineers’ 2010 data on freight tonnage on inland waterways.  We investigated whether we could update this map to 2012 but learned  that we could not because 2010 was the most recent year available for  sufficiently reliable information on highway freight flows. We therefore  analyzed these data to present a map of 2010 freight flows. We reviewed  the reliability of these data by examining documentation from the agency,  interviewing knowledgeable agency officials about the data collection  procedures, and discussing with FRA officials their procedure for flowing  STB rail data on rail lines. We concluded that these data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes used in our report.
To determine how truck freight flows are changing, we investigated  whether we could use a federal data source on truck flows, but on  reviewing the options with DOT officials, learned that the main federal  source of data, HPMS, could not reliably be used to analyze freight truck  trends from 2007 to 2012 because, among other things, the data do not  sufficiently distinguish among classes of trucks. As a result, to provide  general information on trends in truck flows from 2007 to 2012, we  reported information available in studies by the ATA and the American  Transportation Research Institute, the research arm of ATA, which  performs some of its studies in partnership with the Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA). We reviewed DOT’s evaluation of the ATA truck  tonnage data and the methodologies used in the American Transportation  Research Institute studies and determined that they were sufficiently  reliable to use to provide contextual information. We also obtained some  information on freight truck levels in 2013 from ATA and ATRI and  interviewed ATRI, ATA, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers  Association, and DOT officials.
To present a map of public highway-rail grade crossings that had over  certain thresholds of both rail and vehicular traffic, we analyzed data from  three sources: FRA’s National Grade Crossing Inventory for the location  of highway-rail grade crossings, DOT’s 2012 HPMS data on average  annual daily traffic (AADT) for vehicular traffic, and STB’s 2012 data on  rail carloads annually, as flowed over the rail lines by FRA. We used  DOT’s 2012 HPMS data and STB’s 2012 rail data after determining that it  was the most recent, reliable national data available for each type of  traffic. Through discussions with DOT officials, we determined that  HPMS’s vehicular count data as measured by AADT (as opposed to its  truck count data discussed above) are sufficiently reliable for purposes of  our review. Our analysis showed that 44,982 grade crossings identified in  FRA’s National Grade Crossing Inventory were on roads for which 2012  HPMS data included AADT information (all federal-aid highways and  highways designated on the National Highway System, covering about 25  percent of all public roads) and on rail lines that were included in FRA’s  flow of STB rail data for 2012 (rail lines used by rail carriers terminating  4,500 or more revenue carloads annually). Because of the lack of data on  congestion at rail crossings, we were unable to identify the thresholds for  levels of vehicular traffic or of train carload traffic above which a highway- rail grade crossing becomes problematic to a community due to local  traffic congestion impacts. Moreover, from our interviews and case  studies, we had determined that there are a number of factors that feed  into how problematic a community considers a highway-rail grade  crossing, such as the centrality of the crossing to a community and the  extent to which emergency vehicles are located on one side of the  crossing. Furthermore, our data selection, as described, only includes  certain highways and railways, and there may be other roads and  railways where communities experience local traffic congestion impacts of  rail traffic. Nonetheless, we determined that it would be useful to display  the geographic distribution of crossings that exceed these thresholds of  vehicular and rail carload traffic.
After considering the thresholds used to by FRA to identify ranges of  carload numbers presented in national maps of rail flows, and after  considering AADT volume group ranges as identified by DOT in its HPMS  field guide, we selected the threshold of 200,000 or more rail carloads  annually and 10,000 or more AADT. We selected these thresholds  because they represented crossings with higher vehicular and train  carload traffic levels and because higher traffic levels are related to  congestion. Because we lacked data that would directly link these  thresholds to congestion, however, it is possible that some crossings  above these thresholds do not experience congestion while other  crossings below these thresholds do experience congestion. Selecting  lower thresholds would produce more crossings and selecting higher  thresholds would produce fewer crossings and would result in different  spatial patterns. We identified that 3,762 crossings met both of these  thresholds. These crossings represent about 8 percent of all crossings in  our population. We reviewed the reliability of these data by reviewing  documentation from the agency on the collection of this data and  interviewing agency officials about their data collection procedures. We  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes they  were used for in this report.
To determine how freight-related traffic congestion impacts communities,  how communities have funded mitigation efforts for freight-related traffic  congestion, and what challenges, if any, exist, we selected twelve  locations in seven states: Chicago, Illinois; Seattle, Spokane, and  Edmonds, Washington; Billings and Glendive, Montana; Williston (and  surrounding communities in the Bakken oil field region), North Dakota;  Gulfport and Pascagoula, Mississippi; Miami, Florida; Paulsboro, New  Jersey and the New York City metropolitan region, including projects for  New Jersey and New York. We selected these locations to provide a  range of population sizes and geographic locations. Sizes include a mix  of three large cities (population greater than 500,000); three medium  cities (population between 100,000 and 500,000); and six small,  communities (population less than 100,000). The locations are in the  east/mid Atlantic, south, mid-west, west and northwest regions of the  country. We also selected locations with differing types of federal funding  obtained, such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation  Act (TIFIA) assistance or Transportation Investment Generating  Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, and locations with and without  marine ports.
Where feasible, at each location, we interviewed state and local officials,  railroads, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), port officials, and  private contractors, and toured congested areas with mitigation activities,  such as improved intermodal connections, the relocation of rail  interchanges, and grade separation projects. Where available we  obtained information on the costs of mitigation projects and studies  documenting and measuring freight congestion impacts. We reviewed the  methodology and assumptions of these studies. We also reviewed  information on transportation trends and conditions and state and local  impacts of transporting certain commodities such as coal and oil, as well  as the local impacts from rail and highway freight-transportation  operations including plans by localities for new truck routes to bypass  their downtown. Where available we obtained state level documents and  plans including state freight and rail plans. The results of the interviews at  these locations are not generalizable to all locations experiencing freight- related traffic congestion. However, they do provide the perspectives and  experiences of various types of communities on local congestion impacts  related to freight and on efforts to mitigate these impacts.
To understand the extent that MAP-21 addresses freight-related traffic  congestion in communities, we reviewed federal laws and programs,  including MAP-21 freight provisions, and documentation of DOT’s efforts  to implement MAP-21’s freight provisions, such as its draft primary freight  network, as well as DOT’s April 2014 surface transportation  reauthorization proposal. We also reviewed published draft  recommendations of the National Freight Advisory Committee and  attended two public meetings of this committee, and we interviewed DOT  officials about ongoing efforts to implement MAP-21’s freight provisions.
To inform our understanding of all of these issues, we also analyzed  documents related to these issues, including legislation and prior GAO  work on surface transportation and capital planning issues. In addition,  we interviewed numerous freight transportation stakeholders. This  included officials from federal agencies, including DOT and its modal  administrations FRA, FHWA—including officials in its national and  division offices—and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, as well as  STB. As part of our case study work, we interviewed or obtained prepared  responses from state and local organizations including the Washington  Department of Transportation; Seattle Department of Transportation and  local officials in Edmonds, Washington; the Illinois Department of  Transportation and Illinois Commerce Commission; Chicago Department  of Transportation officials as part of the CREATE Program, the North  Dakota Department of Transportation and local elected officials in  Williston, ND, and the Three-Affiliated Tribal government in New Town,  ND; and the City of Billings, MT. We also interviewed the transportation  departments in New Jersey, Florida, Mississippi, and Montana including  the Yellowstone County Commission and Planning Board in Billings, MT.  We also interviewed a non-profit agency and representatives of academia  and a specific rail terminal project in Bellingham, WA. We interviewed the  Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and MPOs located in  Spokane and Bellingham, Washington; The Delaware Valley Region of  Pennsylvania and New Jersey; Biloxi, Mississippi; and Miami-Dade,  Florida.
We also interviewed or received written responses from industry  stakeholders representing different freight transportation modes, including  select U.S. railroad companies—Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the Union  Pacific, CSX, and Norfolk Southern Corporation—and additional railroad  partners involved with the CREATE Program including Belt Railway  Company railroads in the Chicago Transportation and Coordination  Office. We interviewed officials from industry associations including the  American Association of Railroads; the American Trucking Association;  Intermodal Association of North America; Owner-Operator Independent  Drivers Association; the American Association of State Transportation  Officials; and the World Shipping Council.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to  September 2014 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: Comments from the U.S. Department of Transportation
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant  Director), Jeremy Auerbach, Melissa Bodeau, Mark Braza, Rick  Jorgenson, Terence Lam, Alex Lawrence, John Mingus, Jaclyn Nidoh,  Joshua Ormond, Cheryl Peterson, Maria Wallace, Alwynne Wilbur, and  Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.