ISTEA made it U.S. policy to develop a national intermodal transportation system that “provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy, and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner.” In terms of freight transportation, an intermodal shipment is one that moves by two or more modes during a single trip. Although intermodalism is not defined in ISTEA, an example of an intermodal freight project would be a port improvement project that facilitates the transfer of cargo from ships to trucks or rail. However, DOT has not established an all-encompassing definition of what constitutes an intermodal freight project. While ISTEA required that DOT develop a data base that included investments in public and private intermodal transportation facilities, it contained no requirement for states to use a specific category of funds for intermodal projects. The majority of ISTEA funding for surface transportation improvements is provided to states through such categories as the Surface Transportation Program or the National Highway System, which have historically been directed to highway construction. However, ISTEA authorized specific “priority intermodal” projects, some of which were freight related. Title V of ISTEA established within DOT an Office of Intermodalism and required that the Director of this office, through the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), develop, maintain, and make publicly available a data base that includes “information on public and private investment in intermodal transportation facilities and services.” To date, the data base on investment in intermodal facilities and services has not been developed, and comprehensive data on investment in public and private investment in intermodal transportation facilities and services do not exist. Moreover, DOT does not track ISTEA expenditures on intermodal facilities. DOT officials gave us the following reasons why they have not developed the data base: (1) DOT has a limited role in managing how funds are allocated because states are given primary responsibility for allocating funds according to broad program categories; (2) the term “intermodal” is subject to interpretation, and projects may not be identified consistently among states; and (3) intermodal projects may be financed from multiple sources, including federal, state, and local funds, and it may be difficult to identify ISTEA funds used for this purpose. Nonetheless, DOT has not sought legislative relief from this ISTEA requirement. States have provided DOT with detailed information about the use of ISTEA funds on a project-by-project basis; this information has been entered into DOT’s computer information system. In an attempt to identify the extent to which states used ISTEA funds for projects that facilitated intermodal freight movement, we reviewed thousands of pages of DOT data and interviewed public sector officials. Our review was based on identifying the use of the term intermodal in project descriptors. We verified with DOT officials that each project we identified involved the movement of freight. We found that only 10 states used ISTEA funds for intermodal freight projects. A total of 23 projects obligated $35.6 million from two ISTEA funding categories. We also reviewed the status of ISTEA-designated “priority intermodal” projects (of the 51 projects designated in legislation, 20 were freight related, according to DOT). DOT officials said that $191.8 million was provided for these 20 freight-related projects in 9 states. As of December 31, 1995, $68.4 million, or 36 percent, had been obligated by the states for these projects. Our review of available information in the CMAQ, STP, and “priority intermodal” funding categories found that federal intermodal freight project funding obligated in roughly the first 4 of ISTEA’s 6 fiscal years totaled $104 million. Because most intermodal freight movement is done by private companies, it is likely that the private sector would be responsible for a large portion of investment in intermodal freight facilities. While some limited information on funding for intermodal projects can be discerned from available information within DOT, DOT has not collected in a data base public and private investment information on intermodal facilities and services, as required. Without such data on funding for intermodal freight projects, decisionmakers can not ascertain if progress is being made toward ISTEA’s goal of improving intermodal connections. In our review of how several local and regional areas are attempting to address intermodal freight transportation needs, we found that MPOs have been given considerable responsibility for a wide range of transportation concerns. ISTEA not only requires that MPOs increase public involvement in the planning process but also that MPO officials prioritize projects and determine their financial feasibility before submitting them to state transportation officials for inclusion in the statewide transportation improvement plan. In addition to these broader concerns about transportation planning, ISTEA specified 15 factors that MPOs were to consider in preparing local plans, two of which relate to intermodal freight: (1) “methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight” and (2) “access to ports, airports, intermodal transportation facilities, major freight distribution routes . . . .” A broader perspective on the extent to which MPOs consider freight issues in their planning activities is provided in a survey that the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) conducted in 1993 with the nation’s 342 MPOs. Of the 259 MPOs that responded to that survey, 78 (30 percent) reported conducting freight-related planning activities. MPOs reported that they took into account the following specific aspects of freight-related planning (which have implications for intermodal freight movement) in performing their activities: truck (65 MPOs); rail (56 MPOs); air (40 MPOs); maritime/port facilities (27 MPOs); and border crossings (17 MPOs). In 1995, a survey of how MPOs deal with freight issues was conducted by the Freight Stakeholders National Network (a group of industry associations). According to that survey, 90 percent of the nation’s largest MPOs responding to the survey reported that they lacked sufficient data to conduct adequate freight planning. While survey results indicate that intermodal freight-related planning is not widespread among MPOs responding to the NARC survey, it does show that freight issues are being considered. According to public and private officials we interviewed, the transition to an intermodal planning environment is a new way of thinking that is taking time to percolate through the public sector. One reason for this is that planning has traditionally been done by a single mode of transportation (e.g., highways), and planning has been structured in that manner. Another is that intermodal freight innovations have often originated in the private sector. Consequently, much of the intermodal expertise resides with private officials. Several public sector officials mentioned that ISTEA planning requirements spurred them to develop intermodal planning tools.These same officials found that developing these tools had required time and money. For example, California’s DOT officials stated that their intermodal management system took 2.5 years to complete and cost $1.9 million in outside contracts. Of the 259 MPOs responding to the National Association of Regional Councils survey, 39 percent reported having an ISTEA intermodal management system. In our visits to states that have local and regional areas that handle large volumes of freight—California, Illinois, New York, and Texas—public and private officials told us how intermodal freight bottlenecks near ports and rail yards can affect traffic and freight movement. In part, our discussions with these officials focused on the implications of such bottlenecks for goods movement at the local, regional, and national levels as well as specific projects proposed to address such problems. However, in these visits we did not evaluate intermodal freight projects. Besides handling large volumes of passenger and intermodal freight traffic, Chicago and Los Angeles are also crucial links in what has been termed the nation’s “land bridge” between Asia and the northeastern United States. The following examples outline the intermodal problems each city faces and the short- and longer-term solutions proposed to address them. Chicago is a major hub for national and international freight movement because it is where the nation’s eastern and western rail carriers meet. Nearly half of the nation’s intermodal rail shipments originate, terminate, or connect there. The Chicago Area Transportation Study, the local MPO, has identified 23 major intermodal (rail/truck) yards plus 2 lumber transfer points, 3 automobile transloaders, and 5 clusters of freight facilities that serve ships in the Chicago metropolitan region. The “typical” truck-rail intermodal freight facility generates considerable activity, with over 200,000 container transfers from rail to truck or vice versa per year; the largest facility has 670,000 transfers, which represents a reported average 1,000 to 1,400 trucks entering and leaving the facility a day. It is a year-round, around the clock industry. According to the MPO, the resulting traffic contributes substantially to local and regional traffic congestion and is concentrated on a small number of routes between the rail yards. Such congestion can impede national and international freight movement, according to industry officials. To address these problems in the short term, Chicago’s MPO officials are seeking funds to permit improved connections between intermodal facilities and nearby highways that are part of the recently designated National Highway System. The MPO has not yet developed intermodal freight projects with ISTEA funds with the exception of one CMAQ project approved in 1995 to make improvements at a major rail yard. However, according to a MPO official, a call for projects in February 1996 resulted 47 new project proposals. In 1992 we reported that the intermodal freight traffic problems facing Chicago may require a longer-term solution such as a multiuser intermodal terminal located near or in the city that would permit rail-to-rail connections, thus eliminating crosstown drayage.