Intermodal Transportation in the US - Case Study Example

Intermodal Transportation in the US Intermodal Transportation in the US I agree with the that the United s government should be the catalyst for innovations in intermodal transportation. The government should be quicker to agree to the significance of intermodal keys to the United States’ transportation needs (Konings, Priemus, and Nijkamp, 2008). If the United States government discontinued the continued planning of separate modes of transport and instead recommended the development of multimodal systems, then the country would have seen a growth in the transportation sector.

Instead, the federal government began encouraging and organizing intermodal transportation regulations between the various modes of transportation that are prominent in the country during the 1980s (Holguin-Veras, Paaswell, and Perl, 2008). This realization led to the enactment of ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991). This legislation served as a landmark for the country since it gave states and local administrations incentives to encourage intermodal solutions to commuter and cargo transportation challenges.

State and local administrations were adaptable particularly in the way they applied national funds towards finding commuter transport solutions. Government involvement in the country’s intermodal transportation system, particularly in the cargo sector, would allow for continuous movement of products by a number of modes of transport. Congress approved the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) as a successor of ISTEA. This policy was not as far-reaching as ISTEA even though it continued the campaign for intermodalism and center on the ISTEA chassis (Konings et al., 2008). This regulation guaranteed the consideration of cargo mobility in the course of the planning procedure and offered more profound flexibility to fund intermodal stations that entail key and minor freeways, railway stations, sea terminals, and airports.

Until this law was passed, the challenge of connectivity between and amongst intermodal stations was not a primary concern. If the federal government had prioritized efforts to solve this challenge, connectors to the country’s freeway system would have improved intermodal services and lowered freeway congestion. I also agree with the author that in a free market economy, the industry had been limited in their ability to deliver innovations in intermodal transportation. In the past 2 ½ decades, the movement of goods has been seamless only because of intermodalism in the cargo industry (Holguin-Veras et al., 2008). The most visible manifestation of intermodalism in a free market such as the United States is the increase in container traffic.

This rise has been triggered by technological developments and the pursuit of quicker and economic methods of moving cargo internationally (Konings et al., 2008). The intermodal transport industry cannot assure a suitable timeframe without the required innovations. Government efforts affect the growth of the intermodal transportation system more than a free market would. Technological advancements in the road, rail, air, marine, and pipeline transportation sectors have made the movement of goods and commuters economic, productive, and quicker.

In addition, the same advancements have made transportation more secure. Mortality rates have decreased on the country’s freeways, amongst leisure boaters and marine workers, on railways, in planes, during pipeline accidents, and from hazardous leakages (Holguin-Veras et al., 2008). A great deal of these innovations has not been the product of the intermodal transportation industry, but the government’s effort. References Holguin-Veras, J., Paaswell, R., and Perl, A. (2008). The Role of Government in Fostering Intermodal Transport Innovations: Perceived Lessons and Obstacles in the United States.

New York, NY: Edward Elgar Publishing. Konings, R., Priemus, H., and Nijkamp, P., eds. (2008). Future of Intermodal Freight Transport: Operations, Design and Policy. Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 19 March 2015.