Officials in the large gateway ports  we visited cited numerous examples of how congestion affects the  movement of freight in and around the ports and surrounding urban areas. Access in and out of ports  represents perhaps the highest potential for conflict between these two  goals. Second, the planning process  often lacks a comprehensive evaluation approach, such as a cost-benefit  framework, that might result in the selection and implementation of freight  improvements and to better ensure that systemwide, multimodal  solutions—as opposed to a focus on a single transportation mode—are  considered and adopted where appropriate. More focused federal direction  and support for states and MPOs could better ensure that sound evaluation  approaches are incorporated into the local investment decision-making  process for freight projects and that meaningful data are collected and  used. For example, an intermodal  connector linking a port to an intermodal rail yard has no clear sponsor. The first strategy addresses planning limitations,  and the second strategy addresses financing limitations. These include promoting  efficiency by embracing “user pay” principle, maximizing a performance- based program, and aligning the incentives for planning agencies and other  decision makers to focus on efficiency and results. Using Financing Mechanisms or Developing New Revenue Sources to Ensure a Blending of Public and Private Funds to Match Public and Private Costs and Benefits

Many stakeholders have argued that the level of transportation funding is  insufficient to adequately address the challenges to freight mobility  described earlier in this report. The U.S. Treasury has drawn similar  conclusions. Our work has also led us to identify sound principles that, if integrated into  the transportation planning and financing strategies and provisions of the  new legislation, would better assure that the freight infrastructure system  provides the level of capacity and performance that makes the greatest  contribution to the nation’s economic well-being. Establish performance measures and expectations and build in  accountability. Align incentives for planning agencies to adopt best practices and to  achieve expectations. Taken together, these strategies offer  a balanced approach to enhancing freight mobility. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to identify (1) the national challenges to  freight mobility and how these challenges were evident at selected  container ports and surrounding areas, (2) the existing limitations to  effectively addressing these challenges, and (3) strategies that may help  public decision makers improve freight mobility, including a discussion of  relevant provisions of selected proposals related to reauthorization of  federal surface transportation programs. Proposals to Address the Limitations with Existing  Funding/Financing Programs American Association of State Highway and Transportation  Officials proposed (1) the use of existing innovative finance tools and  new financing mechanisms for investments in freight transportation  infrastructure such as lowering the Transportation Infrastructure  Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) project dollar threshold, expanding  the eligibility of freight projects and relaxing repayment requirements,  allowing pooling of modal funds, expanding the state infrastructure bank  (SIB) program to all states, creating tax incentives for freight rail and  intermodal infrastructure investment, and exploring the utility of a  Transportation Finance Corporation as a financing mechanism for freight  projects; (2) tailoring existing and proposed innovative financing  techniques to make increased investment in intermodal connectors  possible in combination with increases in core Transportation Equity Act  for the 21st Century (TEA-21) programs; (3) focusing the National Corridor  Planning and Development Program and the Coordinated Border  Infrastructure Program more tightly on freight corridors and augmenting  funding from the Highway Trust Fund with innovative financing; (4)  clarifying the eligibility of freight projects for Congestion Mitigation and Air  Quality (CMAQ) funding; (5) increasing the funding for the highway rail  grade crossing program (section 130) proportionate to the increase in the  overall highway program; and (6) expanding and reforming the Rail  Revitalization and Improvement Funding Program (RRIF).
Why GAO Did This Study

The strong productivity gains in the U.S. economy have hinged in part on transportation networks working more efficiently. The nation's ports, which handle 95 percent of overseas freight tonnage, are a key link in this network, and efficient intermodal links between ship, rail, and highways are vital to continued productivity gains. GAO was asked to address (1) the challenges to freight mobility, (2) the limitations key stakeholders have encountered in addressing these challenges, and (3) strategies that may aid decision makers in enhancing freight mobility. GAO's work was based on a synthesis of previous studies and a review of conditions at 10 ports and surrounding areas that handle almost two-thirds of all containers moving in and out of the country.

What GAO Found

The major challenges to freight mobility share a common theme--congestion. National studies point to such problems as overcrowded highways and freight-specific "chokepoints" that stifle effective intermodal transfer of cargoes. All 10 ports GAO studied faced similar congestionrelated problems. For example, many of the ports are in dense urban areas, limiting the ability to expand rail yards, roadways, and other infrastructure. Increased port security measures may exacerbate congestion if new controls drastically slow the movement of goods. Stakeholders encounter two main limitations in addressing freight mobility challenges. The first relates to the limited visibility that freight projects receive in the process for planning and prioritizing how transportation dollars should be spent. The planning process often lacks a comprehensive evaluation approach, such as a cost-benefit framework that might result in the implementation of freight improvements to better ensure that systemwide, multimodal solutions are considered and adopted where appropriate. The second relates to limitations of federal funding programs, which tend to dedicate funds to a single mode of transportation or a nonfreight purpose. Two strategies may help address these limitations. One is to ensure that transportation planning cuts across modes and individual jurisdictions, includes coordination with freight stakeholders representing an intermodal perspective, and includes sound analytical approaches and meaningful data needed to compare the benefits of freight and passenger projects. The second is to develop a multifaceted funding approach that includes improved access of freight projects to existing funding sources and support for programs that emphasize better use of existing infrastructure. If integrated in these strategies, three principles could better assure that the freight infrastructure system provides the level of capacity and performance that makes the greatest contribution to the nation's economic well-being. These principles include promoting efficiency by embracing a "user pay" approach, establishing performance measures, and aligning incentives for planning agencies to adopt best practices.