Progress has been made in California toward improving intermodalism, but a lot more can be done across the country through the next surface transportation bill. We're still being driven by a car culture and the now-aging infrastructure that was built around it.

In these hard economic times, people want to take mass transit to cut down on the price of gas. Also, concern about climate change has driven people to mass transit. Nonetheless, funding for mass transit hasn't kept pace with need. Take, for example, the situation recently reported in my hometown by Sacramento Regional Transit (RT). While it experienced record numbers of people taking busses and light rail in 2008, RT saw a $22.2 million cut in transit funding from the state, which is struggling with a huge budget deficit. RT has been forced to cut back services and increase fees. This story is all too common around the country. I am hoping that the next surface transportation bill provides more funding for mass transit, as well as even greater measurable environmental improvements by implementing benchmarks to revise emission standards and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The vision that we had for intermodalism in 1991 was far ahead of its time. Today, the technology that will enable this vision to become reality is finally coming to fruition. For example, GPS-equipped cell phones are now being utilized both to collect real-time traffic data from vehicle probes and to deliver accurate, timely, and reliable multi-modal traveler information. Other technologies are being used to enhance key system components, such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). In addition, though we still face institutional challenges to implementing intermodalism, we've made critical progress in helping agencies to work cooperatively to provide seamless mobility for our citizens. As we consider the next authorization bill, the time is now ripe for moving intermodalism into the mainstream of transportation.

We’ve made great strides in developing an intermodal transportation network, with more and more trucking companies taking advantage of rail for the long haul. But we still have a long way to go in developing a network that leverages the inherent advantages of each mode of transportation. We need to support public policy approaches that recognize those modal advantages and break down the walls between modes to achieve a truly integrated intermodal transportation system with funding that reflects that integration. The stimulus package has provided a start in that direction by giving states some flexibility in the use of funds that traditionally had been available only for highway projects. The next surface transportation bill provides an opportunity to continue down that path toward an integrated intermodal transportation system that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, overall transportation energy consumption and traffic congestion on our highways.

Are we intermodal enough yet? The short answer is no. But the bigger question is - intermodal enough for what? What are we hoping intermodalism will help us achieve? And how will we know when we’ve gotten there?

Let’s assume we’re hoping intermodalism is going to move us a little closer to sustainability, energy independence, economic vitality, and quality of life, for starters. In that case, whether we’re talking about moving people or moving goods, or even moving less, the big challenge as the world urbanizes goes beyond providing a range of different yet unconnected options. Having a great rapid transit system AND Zipcar AND free bikes AND parking AND walkability AND congestion pricing (and so on) is a wonderful start but not enough to move the motorized majority out of their single occupancy vehicles. If we’re really going to take transportation to the next exciting level, policy, investment, and action need to embrace and incorporate (at least) three essential INTERmodality-related elements:

1. Connectivity: We can’t innovate or implement in isolation. We need to connect and combine the range of new and existing modes, services, technologies and design if we plan to offer safe, affordable, sustainable, and seamless door-to-door trips for the growing number of people who live in city regions (50% of the world as of summer 2007, and up to 66 % before 2025). We also need to connect the various dots that support a seamless flow of goods and services and labour. This dot connecting needs to be not only physical and spatial (community and transport planning, land use, and design); but also technological (IT based mode to mode to service connections, integrated multi-modal fare payment and wayfinding, tele-work, tele-shopping, tele-education etc., IT enhanced border crossing, mesh networking and other IT elements (see Robin Chase’s posting)); and institutional (across industry sectors as well as government levels and departments, including Public Private innovation).

2. Accessibility: We need to get ends and means straight. Transportation is a derived demand. We transport ourselves in order to meet needs. Transportation is not the need. Yet so far we’ve measured the success of our transportation systems based on how far and how fast they move us, not on how well they help us meet our various needs with the resources we have (accessibility). Having accessibility, not mobility as the goal opens up a whole range of innovations and options for meeting needs that go beyond simple mobility. These innovations include, but are not limited to intermodality (see Levine study background).

3. Whole Systems Implementation: Bringing it all together to make the whole better, more sustainable, more economically vital, more pleasant (etc), than the sum of the parts.

Fortunately there are some good existing and emerging examples of the kinds of systems that intermodality helps to realize. Imagine a day, when steps from your door, or even from inside your home or office, you could enter a vital network or grid of New Mobility Hubs, places near you that connect a whole range of transport amenities including buses, trains, streetcars, clean fuel taxis, auto rickshaws and car share or bike share vehicles, and in some cases, day care, satellite offices, cafes, shops and entertainment. In more connected communities this is all brought together by a cell phone or pda that offers real-time information on arrival and departure times and availability, as well as access to other information. The pda also allows you to quickly and easily pay for these affordable modes and services with a single wave past the reader. You can physically transfer seamlessly from one mode of transportation to the other, informed of schedules and options all the way, using the best mode for the purpose, gaining access to car share at one hub, and dropping it off at another to pick up a waiting bus or train. It’s easy, it’s convenient, it’s affordable, and it’s 21st century.

For the user, hub networks connect an integrated set of services, products, and technologies door-to-door, addressing the “last mile” challenge. For the developer and operator, hub networks are scalable, starting by linking what already exists and then adding and enhancing as budget and will materialize. Since the key is connecting rather than competing interests, the process and the product includes rich and poor, a range of backgrounds and needs, and urban and suburban. For government leaders, this achieves social, environmental, and economic goals. For businesses in the emerging New Mobility Industry, this offers innovation opportunities that generate Open Source Transportation, spur Public Private Innovation, and supply the emerging market for sustainable urban transportation globally.

New Mobility Hub Networks, just one example of intermodality, exist or are being developed in Bremen, Toronto, Chennai, Cape Town, D.C., Atlanta, Ann Arbor and more. (See more here [PDF].)

The responses to this week’s question unanimously conclude that we are not intermodal enough.

But what does that mean?

It surely can’t mean that our institutions aren’t intermodal enough. Intermodalism was the animating idea behind the launching of the Department of Transportation way back in 1966. We already had lots of mode-specific transportation agencies; it’s just that they were scattered all over the Executive Branch. So Congress created DOT to “ensure the coordinated . . . administration” of federal transportation programs and to “make easier the development and improvement of coordinated transportation service….” Those words are still enshrined in the U. S. Code (Title 49, section 101). Most of the states have now followed suit by creating their own DOTs.

Nor can we mean that our transportation policy isn’t intermodal enough. Again, intermodalism was a major goal of the DOT Act of 1966. A quarter-century later, ISTEA more explicitly instructed the Secretary of Transportation to “coordinate Federal policy on intermodal transportation and initiate policies to promote efficient intermodal transportation in the United States.” The 1991 act also called for the development of “a National Intermodal Transportation System,” created a new Office of Intermodalism at DOT, pulled DOT’s modal administrators together as a new “Intermodal Transportation Advisory Board,” and created a new “National Intermodal Transportation Commission.” (You can still find the Commission’s 1994 report at http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/325TAN.html.) It’s hard to imagine a more focused and explicit emphasis on the intermodal imperative.

And surely we don’t mean that our transportation system itself isn’t intermodal enough. From containerization to trailers-on-flatcars to double-stack trains, the system is hugely intermodal, although government had absolutely nothing to do with any of those innovations – other than removing anachronistic regulations in order to facilitate them.

So what’s not intermodal enough?

The answer, of course, is that, despite all of the legislative ink spilled in the interest of intermodal institutions and intermodal policies, the programs that actually finance transportation remain utterly stovepiped. The sad truth is that when you pull DOT’s modal administrators together under the rubric of an “intermodal policy council” (as I did for a time during the Bush Administration), you discover that there’s precious little for them to talk about. They trade notes on managing their agencies, on sharing research (e.g., into circadian rhythm), and on looking for ways to promote the “One DOT” spirit. But they know there’s no point in wasting time on trying to blend their programs, vesting greater choice in the states and communities, or even finding ways to expand the surprisingly limited program discretion of the Secretary of Transportation. The law leaves little scope for any of that.

Yes, there are occasional successes – like the complex, multi-jurisdictional projects facilitated by Steve Van Beek and Mike Huerta during their respective DOT tours as Associate Deputy Secretary (dual-hatted as Directors of Intermodalism) during the Clinton years. Although we rightly celebrate those successes, we need to ask ourselves why they were so difficult to achieve. Why aren’t success stories of that kind the norm rather than the exception? The answer, of course, lies in the mode-specific way in which federal transportation funds are distributed

My own view is that we probably will never alter in a meaningful way the current mode-centric structure of federal transportation programs. The bookshelves are groaning under the weight of reform proposals – some almost as old as DOT itself – that have never come close to being seriously debated in Congress. Moreover, although our commitment to user fees as a principal means of financing transportation infrastructure is wholly sensible, each mode’s users insist that their money be reserved for that mode. What we get is an “anti-diversion” law – wholly predictable and entirely understandable, but arguably the very antithesis of an intermodal approach to transportation.

I learned how hard it is to get Congress to put intermodal money where its mouth is during the run-up to SAFETEA-LU. The Bush Administration famously hated “set-asides,” but in 2003 it actually proposed one in an effort to improve the quality of intermodal connectors -- the “last mile” link between a port or rail yard and the nearest Interstate. The Administration’s surface authorization bill reserved 2 percent of a state’s formula money for improving connectors. The money would be released for other purposes only after the governor certified that the intermodal connectors in the state were in good repair.

The Bush Administration also hated legislation that micro-managed state governments, but it included in that same bill a requirement that each state establish a new “freight coordinator” position within its transportation department. The idea was to raise the profile of goods movement within the state planning process.

When the Congress finally gave us SAFETEA-LU two years after its statutory due date, neither provision was in the law.

If Congress can’t be persuaded to help the states address intermodal connectors and goods movement through modest provisions like the ones sent up six years ago, what are the prospects for more far-reaching reforms in the interest of an intermodal approach to funding? Negligible, I’d say.

But that’s no reason to despair. DOT’s most important contribution to a more intermodal system, I believe, will continue to be project-specific. DOT must identify major, multimodal projects of regional or national significance and work to break down the programmatic impediments to their financing and delivery. There are undoubtedly ways to enhance the Department’s effectivenessin this regard through the next authorizing legislation. And between authorizations, where the statutory impediments to accomplishing something important in the national interest are insuperable, DOT should seek project-specific legislation – transparent, thoroughly vetted earmarks. Facilitating major intermodal projects in the interest of system efficiency and driving economic recovery should simply be at the top of the agenda for DOT, in keeping with its 43-year-old statutory mandate.

As others have more eloquently stated, we’re not there yet. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t opportunities for progress…

As I was in DC last week, I was struck by the willingness on the part of Hill staffers to put forward that performance measures were going to be a part of the next authorization. I believe that this is a prime opportunity to move further down the road (pardon the pun) towards the level of intermodalism many of us here have recognized as being necessary. The key, of course, lies in which performance measures are selected.

ACT members are continuing to discuss how we might put forward a balanced slate of measures that adequately describe the end goal of transportation: to move people and goods where they need to be in the time frame that they need to be there. To that end, performance measures that focus on vehicle trips, miles driven, passenger revenue miles, or other measures focusing on the act of transportation don’t quite hit the mark. Then what can we measure that we can then track achievement? It needs to be a mix of those measures that we already have, coupled with delay measures, measures of online commerce and telework, and the direct engagement of employers through such instruments like Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduction Program’s requirement of employee surveys that will allow us to determine whether or not we are meeting our goals.

From that standpoint, we can then apply a rational basis to funding adjustments to meet those goals. While ACT encourages a reduction in the number of federal transportation funding programs, the likelihood of Congress changing the modal administrations in this authorization is low. Therefore, let’s use the performance measures that we all can understand and work with to help shape how those modal administrations are required to work with one another as opposed to maintaining their silos of command and control. And then, let’s have the funding criteria match the performance measures within the bill (following the infamous adage of “follow the money”) in order to more closely meet intermodal (or multimodal) needs.

Will such a scenario be perfect? Not likely, but it certainly won’t be the enemy of the good…

My work has been focused on freight transportation, so I will answer this question from the perspective of goods movement, not people movement.

I suggest that we step back from the narrow focus on how best to integrate transport modes in the immediate term. Rather, we should be asking the longer-term question, what do we want and need our transportation systems to look like ten to fifty years from now? From this whole systems point of view, can we consciously and responsibly determine the optimal balance between rail and truck utilization? It is more critical than ever that we consider how these modes impact both our commercial systems and our environmental systems.

Responsible concern for our future viability as a society demands that we think beyond simply the fastest and least expensive movement of goods. The North American freight transportation system already moves high volumes of raw materials, industrial products, and consumer goods quickly, reliably, and rather economically. But space for all this movement is finite. Particularly the space that we use to build and operate the roads, rail lines, production facilities, warehouses, distribution centers, transload centers, and intermodal yards that together comprise our “goods movement system."

For the past 100 years we have allowed the interaction between truck and rail transport to be driven by the marketplace, with limited systemic planning. Unfortunately, the marketplace does not act holistically. While the marketplace reacted to the need to augment our highly developed early 20th-century rail network with a new network of roads, we missed the opportunity to integrate the two systems. The costs of that disconnect are felt to this day.

When we had the luxury of 3000 miles of unconsumed land and natural resources, we could afford a level of unconsciousness about land use. We have now filled much of that space with people and related economic development. Yet, we are still acting as if we have land to spare.

For instance, the current fashion in transportation logistics is toward larger distribution centers served by tractor trailers short-hauling between intermodal yards and retail distribution sites. Yes, we are increasing rail service for long-haul, high-volume traffic, to and from major shipping facilities. But we are rolling up rail lines where we can least afford to, in rural and urban America, where roads and communities were not designed with heavy truck traffic in mind. By further encouraging developers with tax incentives and a publicly-funded highway system, we are compounding an unfortunate deterioration in quality of life in the big towns and small cities where these facilities are being built.

The economics driving this development only make sense when we artificially exclude the impact on local, rural and urban roads, and the increasing costs of highway construction, maintenance, and congestion. Consider that if a mile-long, 100-car freight train were to have its cargo hauled entirely by truck, the convoy would stretch 15 miles end to end, and put as much wear and tear on the roadways as 2.8 million automobiles. Without an optimal transportation/land use/investment strategy that makes the best use of all modes, the current economic business plan is unsustainable and doomed to fail.

We can and we must do better for ourselves, our children, and our future. In 2007, we founded OnTrackAmerica, a nonprofit transportation consultancy, to champion the collaborative development of the most energy-, space-, and capital-efficient freight transportation system. Our work is progressing and far from complete.

An excellent post from Representative Mica pointing out that

“When building a new house, you don’t attempt to build one room at a time without knowing how all those component pieces of the project will fit together. Similarly, our transportation infrastructure needs a sound architecture, and Congress should not undertake this reauthorization process without an infrastructure blueprint.”

How then can he support the financing of High-Speed Rail, which seems to have been introduced with no “blueprint” at all?

The United States is far behind many developed nations in creating an intermodal transportation system. Developing a national strategic transportation plan must be one of the priorities of the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. In the past, these reauthorization bills have addressed highway, transit, and rail issues in stovepipes, but now we must develop intermodal systems that include all modes of transportation. It is time for vision and establishing a set of priorities. It is time to reject the status quo.

With the condition of our economy, the growing deterioration of our infrastructure, and the mounting challenges of financing projects, our past approach to building infrastructure is clearly inadequate. Making targeted decisions with our limited infrastructure investments is critical.

We must utilize the strengths of our various transportation modes in a way that makes the entire system stronger and more efficient. If we set policy and priorities for only one mode at a time, without consideration of how each mode connects, impacts, and enhances the others, we maintain our piecemeal and inadequate national transportation system.

When building a new house, you don’t attempt to build one room at a time without knowing how all those component pieces of the project will fit together. Similarly, our transportation infrastructure needs a sound architecture, and Congress should not undertake this reauthorization process without an infrastructure blueprint.

A national transportation strategy with an intermodal and multi-modal perspective will help us to prioritize our greatest needs and ensure that we use the taxpayers’ dollars to develop not just a better highway system, or a better aviation system, or a better rail system, or a better waterways system, but a better transportation system.

In the railroad industry, taking trucks off the roads and moving them on rail cars is a large part of our business. For our customers, rail intermodal is the most efficient way to move their goods. For the public, increased rail intermodal means less traffic congestion and a cleaner environment. But, despite these enormous economic and environmental benefits, rail intermodal is still underutilized in this country.

If we are looking to promote a more integrated and intermodal system in the next surface transportation bill, the flexibility provided in the recent stimulus bill is a great model to follow. The bill gave states the ability to spend their infrastructure investment dollars – not just on highways and bridges – but on rail projects and port projects where there is a public benefit. In Ohio they are spending $51 million on projects to improve the intermodal connections between rail and road and $35 million on five intermodal maritime projects. An additional $68.9 million will be spent on 22 separate railroad projects, many of them freight rail. This includes double-stack projects to increase rail intermodal capacity. Increased use of public-private partnerships and targeted tax incentives for investments in intermodal projects that expand capacity should also be considered as part of the mix.

Over the next two decades, our nation’s freight traffic is expected to double. Meeting the challenges of moving twice as much freight – while minimizing congestion and emissions and maximizing safety and energy efficiency – is a critical and difficult task. Enhanced intermodal freight transportation is a viable – and doable – solution.

No, We have not come far enough to say we have an national intermodal transportation network, especially when it comes to freight movements. The next transportation bill should include a national freight program that requires a national "capital" plan for investment. We are encouraged by the fact that a portion of the stimulus money (the discretionary fund) was retained for allocation at the federal level. Multi-jurisdictional freight projects of national significance do not compete effectively for funding at the local level. National Strategic investments need to be made based on a comprehensive national plan that examines freight flows. The Panama Canal new locks will open in 2014. But few east coast ports will have their channels dredged in time. Someone needs to keep their eye on the big picture. A National Plan should coordinate the navigation channel improvements with the landside infrastructure. Canadian freight interests have come together to promote a national strategy to serve America's heartland. Unless we can address freight flows on a national scale, we will be outcompeted in serving our own markets.

Technology – platforms, information, devices, and networks – is a key part of making intermodalism a reality. Users (people or freight) need to know the schedules, requirements, and opportunities, need to book capacity and to make payments seamlessly, not only between modes but between states and perhaps countries as well.

A requirement for this to happen is “openness.”

Openness means different things in different situations, but without it, becoming intermodal and interstate on a large scale, quickly and efficiently is very very difficult.

Open platforms mean that others can build on them and improve and extend them over time.

Open information implies portability. Are critical and common data elements being collected, passed on, and made available to enable or invite collaboration? Or is unnecessarily proprietary data being used to protect vendor relationships, stifling cooperation and competition?

Open devices can be multi-purposed by others when the owners of that device allow them access. Think about the thousands of applications on your computer or iPhone, as opposed to the single tolling application on your vehicle transponder.

Open networks would make unused excess capacity available to whoever might find it useful.

If we are using taxpayer dollars to build the networks, or buy the devices and applications, or create the data, it seems imperative that we build in openness so that these investments invite participation, minimize vendor lock-in (and lock-out!), facilitate collaboration, and enable evolution of the technology and its uses.

No, we are not intermodal enough. Unfortunately, we still have a long ways to go to achieve the ISTEA vision of a national surface transportation network that seamlessly integrates all modes, provides mobility for all users, is cost-beneficial; is environmentally sensitive, energy-efficient, and technologically up-to-the-minute; fosters economic growth; and spurs output and productivity growth.

With respect to the question of what Congress and the Obama Administration should do in the next transportation bill to make this vision a reality, I suggest that they move in the direction recommended by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which was created by Congress in SAFETEA-LU and completed its two-year study in 2008.

First, we need REFORM.

Congress and the Obama Administration should transform the Federal program into a program that is performance-driven, outcome-based, generally mode neutral, and refocused to pursue objectives of genuine national interest. By eliminating many of the current categorical, mode-specific programs and focusing instead on solving real transportation problems, the federal program would direct resources to the best transportation solution. All surface modes--intercity freight rail, intercity passenger rail, transit, intercity passenger bus, non-motorized, marine, and highway--would all have an important role to play in this integrated, seamless intermodal network.

They should also ensure that the program takes a system-wide, network-oriented approach through a national surface transportation strategic plan, which would be developed cooperatively by Federal, regional, state and local officials and the private sector stakeholders. The Federal program has evolved into what is now essentially a block grant model, with little accountability for specific outcomes. A system-wide, performance-driven regime will not only make better use of public monies to accomplish national objectives, but it would do much to restore public confidence in the transportation decision-making process.

They should streamline the delivery process without compromising environmental standards. Needed transportation projects should be designed, approved and completed quickly, and without unnecessary delays. The current drawn-out process is a nightmare and is unnecessarily driving up the cost of projects. They should fix this problem in an environmentally responsible way.

Second, we need INCREASED INVESTMENT.

Congress and the Obama Administration should significantly increase investment in our national intermodal transportation network. The Commission concluded that we need to invest at least $225 billion annually from all sources for the next 50 years to upgrade our existing system to a state of good repair and to create a more advanced surface transportation system to ensure strong economic growth in the 21st Century. We are spending less than 40 percent of that today. Make no mistake--reform by itself is not enough. We need reform, but we need increased investment as well. We have been underinvesting in our surface transportation network for decades, and it shows. If we are to have the pre-eminent national intermodal transportation network in the world, then we must pay for it. Current levels of investment will not get the job done.

Let me close by saying that moving in the direction of the Commission's recommendations would not only make ISTEA's vision of a national intermodal surface transportation system a reality, but it would produce enormous benefits for the Nation. In the short term, it would be an economic stimulus on steroids. In the longer term, it would help to build the firm foundation necessary for the robust and healthy economy that will make this country strong and competitive in the 21st Century. It would provide choice and greater mobility for our businesses and families. It would reduce fatalities and injuries. It would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And it would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Congress and the Obama Administration should act NOW!

Continued improvement of our transportation system starts by addressing the needs of shippers. We must focus on providing shippers with the best economic options for moving the goods we rely on and often this means taking an intermodal approach. Motor carriers have long used intermodal rail and truck combinations to best serve their customers. Trucking companies are now the railroads’ best customers, providing service on both ends of a rail haul by taking freight to the railroad, then delivering it from the rail to distribution centers, warehouses or a final destination. Cost, distance of haul and type of freight are all considered when deciding whether rail intermodal will be part of the move.

Railroads excel at carrying large, heavy freight. The overwhelming majority of shipments by rail are bulk freight or raw materials like grain, coal, stone or metallic ore. Trucks on the other hand deliver 100 percent of all consumer goods because they’re able to meet the demands of today’s high-tech, just-in-time logistics systems, providing fast delivery directly to stores and warehouses.

Utilizing both of these modes is encouraged whenever it makes sense for shippers, but 83 percent of all freight tonnage moves by either truck or rail in a single mode. On the passenger side, 87 percent of people rely solely on their personal vehicles to commute to work each day. Barring major shifts in lifestyles, land use or freight logistics, this will be the reality for the foreseeable future.

Instead of wasting our limited resources on a vision, we need to invest in the transportation system that serves the vast majority of people and freight—our highway system, which trucks rely as they haul nearly 70 percent of all freight. And, part of this investment includes strengthening the intermodal relationships we already have in place. It would be prudent of Congress to dedicate funding in the next highway bill to the many roads connecting the National Highway System to intermodal freight facilities, such as seaports, rail terminals and airports, which are in dire need of reconstruction or expansion.

Quick answer, agreeing with Steve, Kurt, Rich, Leslie, et al--No, we aren't and we are probably not as close to that goal as we were a few years ago. Concern about intermodal issues was a constant theme in our outreach meetings during the transition.

Several things we might do about it. The symbolism of dropping the "I" from ISTEA was not lost on many. While returning it might create an upworkable acronym, the spirit needs to be there. Perhaps the next bill should update the ISTEA preamble and policy statement--and maybe we should even do what Senator Moynihan always wanted done, and post that policy statement in every DOT office. Short of that, the Department's leadership should refocus on the principle of One DOT and the primacy of looking at the needs of passengers and freight, not the shape of programs and funding.

Recognizing that there always will be some issues at the margins of programs and plans--and that those margins are what in fact become the dysfunctional elements of our transportation system--the Department needs a focal point for the intermodal effort if it is to offer real leadership to industry and government partners. Balancing priorities and processes to achieve solution requires craftsmanship, and the right people in such an office can bring about real progress, especially if they follow the rule that it matters what gets done, not who gets the credit for it.

Another area for leadership is the nature of the federal and state programs. Greater opportunities for flexibility are out there, as we are seeing in the Recovery Act. The Administration should be seeking those out and developing the consensus for legislative and regulatory changes where such are needed.

I'd like to make three comments about Rich's excellent post.

First, he is exactly right that someone must be in the Office of the Secretary to act as an intermodal and multimodal advocate. I'm sure Jeff Shane could provide examples from his own time as Undersecretary, but the ones that come to my mind are the Alameda Corridor, the Salt Lake City Olympics, the Miami Intermodal Center, Bart-SFO, the Chicago Bridges issue (opening and closings and their effect on traffic) and several other projects. In each of these, they were multimodal projects that required an advocate in the department to ensure that they were effectively coordinated and pushed through the various offices in the department (e.g., modes, budget, counsel, policy).

Second, this advocate also serves as a passenger and shipper advocate within the department. In effect this creates a counterweight to modal perspectives and helps ensure that the Secretary has been brought all views about an issue. Examples include airport access, a railroad merger, hazardous materials, emergency response, and others. This office can also act as a point-of-entry to interests that feel that the modal perspective is disproportionately influence by carrier interests.

Third, the job of the office can be to review policy priorities and make sure that laws, regulations and policies of the modes are not irrationally getting in the way of multimodal solutions. One rather technical example of this is the issue of ground access to airports. Current rules restrict airports from using their own revenue or passenger facility charge proceeds on a ground project that connects off-airport and on-airport locations. The rules generally allow only "incidental use" by non-airport interests that can have the effect of putting seams in airport connections. Instead, laws, regulations, and policies should allow airports to pro-rate the airport users enabling greater capital and operating assistance to ground projects (road, transit, heavy rail, etc.). Fortunately, Mr. Oberstar in the pending H.R. 915 has included Section 113 which would create a pilot program for airports that want to use PFCs on a ground access project exactly with that methodology. This would enable an airport, for example, to fund a high speed rail terminal and track on an airport in proportion to its airport ridership (thus incentivizing seamless airport connections and promoting single-ticketing between high speed rail and airlines). Another example could be the Silver Line to IAD where stage 2 of the project (which would have through passengers to Loudon County) would restrict airport PFC contributions (whereas if it terminated at the airport they would be permitted).

Strengthening intermodalism within our laws and within USDOT is the right policy.

Steve Van Beek

I believe the answer to "Are we intermodal enough yet?' is similar to what would be a reasonable response to the oft asked "Are we there yet?" refrain from the backseat on the way to Grandma's; we're getting closer, but we still have a ways to go. ISTEA, and the several reauthorization iterations since have made progress, but much needs to be addressed in the upcoming surface transportation bill, particularly in terms of goods movement.

Development of a national freight policy is critical, as are dedicated multi-modal freight offices at the federal, state and MPO levels. There should be special attention to and adequate funding for intermodal connectors, the necessary ingredients to an efficient intermodal network. Despite the "I" in ISTEA legislation, an FHWA federal study found that road connectors to ports and rail terminals were in significantly worse condition and received less funding than the other portions of the non-Interstate highway system. Sadly, the "last" in the term "last-mile connections" seems too often to refer to where these intermodal connectors rank in funding priorities.

While to some degree beyond the parameters of the reauthorization legislation, It is also important not to forget the intermodal connections on the other side of port terminals, our federal navigation channels. These channels, like their landside cousins, have been woefully underfunded for years, to the degree that authorized depths are only available about a third of the time.

It is encouraging to see the recent increased attention on the state and needs of our transportation infrastructure. The upcoming reauthorization provides a timely vehicle to further invest in that infrastructure and define specific areas of focus, including advancing closer toward an efficient intermodal freight transportation network.

The short answer is no.

A simple example of how we have fallen short -- a debate exists today over whether highway and road signing should universally reflect multimodal choices that travelers can take.

Steve Van Beek outlined what intermodalism entails -- moving people and goods in the most efficient manner regardless of mode. If implemented correctly, intermodalism, as the core of our surface transportation policy, could be the most significant catalyst for reducing greenhouse gas production and reducing congestion by moving people and goods more efficiently.

The preamble to ISTEA (authored in large part by then Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bob Roe) impressed transportation professionals around the world for its broad intermodal focus. Those same professionals were then surprised that the means of funding projects did not embody that broad focus. From the very beginning, it was extremely challenging for multimodal/intermodal projects to find a home in any of the specific funding categories within the modal administrations of USDOT. For instance, goods movement and passenger movement that crossed between vehicular and transit projects were close to impossible to advance. The inability to address these funding issues was most likely related to the House committee structure -- if certain sectors of the transportation system were included in ISTEA as a fundable category, other House Committees would have claimed jurisdiction. Thus, the lofty goals of the ISTEA preamble would have been left to other committees who would have had vastly different ideas regarding the purpose and value of a national multimodal transportation system.

Congressional leadership and the Obama Administration would be wise to place intermodalism/multimodalism at the top of the policy and planning pyramid -- instead of the current top policy goal of reducing congestion. For many years, the dominating planning focus has been addressing congestion, which is a symptom of a transportation system in stress, rather than on policies and logical planning steps to avoid these symptoms or manage the largest impacts of congestion. We would be wise to choose a different starting point and get at the problem earlier by asking what multimodal strategies and actions are possible so we can avoid these mobility issues.

As an example -- each modal administration, FHWA, FTA, FAA, MARAD, and FRA has different funding categories it administers following different regulations and guidelines. So, if there is a need to fund a multimodal project that is part related to public transit and part related to a highway improvement, then more than one agency needs to determine which category of funding to use and which set of regulations. Efforts by a succession of USDOT Secretaries have eased this issue somewhat with the establishment of someone in the Office of the Secretary to champion intermodal projects. Unfortunately limits still exist on how far these individuals can can go when statute deliberately does not emphasize intermodal projects or provide a sufficient policy and planning framework to encourage non Federal agencies to pursue intermodal projects.

I would advocate for two specific actions. (1) Make it more evident throughout any new surface transportation legislation that multimodal projects are welcomed as candidates for funding under the different funding categories and that regulations be amended to accommodate multimodal projects -- making it easier for them to receive proper consideration. (2) A new funding category should be considered for those projects that are multimodal and do not fit the standard mold. This category should be focused on incentivizing multimodal thinking to achieve a more efficient, responsive transportation system.

ISTEA and Intermodalism

The answer is decidedly "no" we have not come far enough since the passage of ISTEA. I'm delighted that House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Jim Oberstar has discussed returning the "I" back to the surface transportation program in part by creating an Assistant Secretary of Intermodalism at USDOT. We can also look to the language of ISTEA and our experience over the last 18 years to make improvements in our surface transportation program as well as our aviation program.

The preamble to ISTEA said that our goal should be "to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner."

Its language is still refreshing 18 years later. What is striking about it is that it doesn't mention individual modes but focuses policymakers' and the public's attentions on moving people and goods--the reason transportation exists in the first place. The "ISTEA era" was successful in many ways with record funding, better planning and incorporation of NEPA into project delivery, and greater flexibility at the local level for transit and other alternatives (among other benefits).

ISTEA's promises, however, have not been fulfilled in progressing to a sustainable energy policy (an appalling failure), on specifying and funding national transportation priorities (the kind Leslie identifies) especially when they span multiple jurisdictions and involve both public and private benefits), and on avoiding environmental impacts (instead focusing more on mitigating the impacts).

With the President's and Congress's focus on climate change, energy policy, and transportation movements, it is clear we need to start with the best ways to move passengers and goods considering all relevant costs and benefits. The best way to accomplish that goal is by using an intermodal perspective.

The integrators--UPS and FedEx--have understood perhaps better than any other organizations (public or private) what intermodalism entails--moving goods in the most efficient manner regardless of mode. it is time we apply this perspective to the way we make public investments in moving people and in designing a national freight policy.

Steve Van Beek

“Intermodalism” is currently a word used by those seeking funds, often from road users, to subsidize other transport activities. For example, money from taxes paid by members of Peter Pantuso’s American Bus Association is applied to weaken them by supporting competing Amtrak services. Or tolls on the Dulles Toll Road are raised to support an unviable rail service in the same corridor.

One way “to promote a more integrated and intermodal system” would be to apply the same pricing and investment rules to different modes. We use the criteria of cost covering (for pricing) and profitability (for investment) in most commercial activities, and in most transport modes, with the big exception of roads.

Advantages? Applying the same criteria uniformly across all modes would help to achieve real “Intermodalism”, by giving planners the same yardsticks with which to grade the desirability of alternative projects in different modes.

Which yardsticks should Congress choose? Market criteria would have the further advantage of enabling transport services, including roads, to be privately provided and the US Congress to devote itself to more important and appropriate activities.

The question is a complicated one, particularly since the starting point is entirely different depending on whether passenger or freight needs are the focus. For various reasons, we have not done a good job integrating modes for passenger movement and there is enormous room for improvement. For example, high speed rail between heavily traveled airport destinations less than 300 miles apart could achieve multiple benefits for travelers and the broader public, while freeing up airspace and runways for long haul flights. Although this kind of intermodalism has been embraced in other parts of the world, it is a very long way off in this country, even with new investment in HSR.

For freight, the picture is very different. Our combined public and private transportation networks are highly evolved to move goods efficiently across multiple modes and as long as the capacity is there, the freight will flow without much need for government intervention. The key word, of course, is capacity and the continuing growth in goods movement (current downturn aside) has stretched the system to the point that logistics managers are losing many of the efficiency gains of recent years. And, even when capacity isn't the issue, freight doesn't necessarily flow without major spillover effects that disadvantage, even endanger, communities in regions with heavy freight use.

By ignoring these problems until they are near crisis proportions, we have undervalued our freight system across all the modes. There is a clear need for government action to address known chokepoints, many related to intermodal connectivity, and to help mitigate the negative impacts on communities that bear the heaviest burden of freight destined for other states and consumers across the nation. We'll also help our industries and products compete for markets here and abroad in the future with better planning and a national transportation policy focused on the multimodal needs of the circulatory system that carries our country's commerce. The next surface transportation authorization offers an opportunity to create a freight program with dedicated funding to address these needs. Our economy has benefited enormously from freight intermodal efficiency and now it's time to step up and invest in the system that keeps it all moving.

The 2009 Highway Reauthorization Bill will include many components critical to improving our national transportation system. Given the budget constraints created by shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund, the next surface transportation bill potentially will have the most impact in areas where the greatest mobility gains can be achieved for the lowest cost. The best opportunity for creating a more interconnected, intermodal transportation system given such factors is by boosting intercity buses (or motorcoaches).

Intercity buses complete the transportation network, fill in gaps among air, sea, rail and transit modes, and connect people efficiently and affordably. Buses are here today, requiring no new tracks to be laid, no new runways to be paved, and no new tunnels to be dug. And with bus ridership surging to 751 million passenger trips annually – moving more people than the airlines do in some years, and offering amenities such as customizable seating options, laptop plug-ins and WiFi – buses are back in vogue.

Buses can serve as that intermodal connector better than any other travel option. They can go anywhere roads exist. That’s why they are ideal pieces of any potential network of intermodal passenger facilities that will provide seamless passenger travel. Intercity bus projects need to be included in public intermodal facilities to integrate intercity bus service into the intermodal chain.

The nation’s surface public transportation system comprises a variety of modes: intercity and commuter bus, intercity and light rail, transit, rural and medical services. To be truly effective alternatives to the private automobile, these modes must be linked to each other and to airports. The linkage at intermodal transfer facilities and through travel information portals needs to deliver seamless transportation to the traveling public.

With increasing pressure on existing road capacity, and urban workers living as much as one or two hours outside the city center, it is critical that intercity buses are given access to the entire transportation system. Customer expectations and taxpayer accountability require broad access to publicly funded facilities. The return on the public investment is increased when the roadway and passenger services maximize their capacity utilization through coordinated service and access to facilities. This is true whether it is buses picking up charter or tour groups arriving by plane or rail, suburban commuters or rural connectors meeting local transit or van services. A network of facilities that provides access to a spectrum of services increases the value of each of those investments. Suburban areas need park and ride facilities for convenient access to public transportation including commuter bus and rail. Urban areas need central facilities that can co-locate service for local, regional and national travel.

Successful intermodalism requires a complete network of services. Buses are a big part of that model.