Cascadia Border Operations, Issues, and Consequences for the Agrifood Market

Abstract

In this paper we present a profile of US/Canada border operations in the Western Cascadia Region, which lies between the Greater Vancouver and Puget Sound megacities. We show how this border is distinct from the more commonly discussed US/Canada border between New York, Michigan, and Ontario, in that commodities are typically less time sensitive, and a larger proportion of trips are made intra-regionally. Border procedures are described, as well as current programs for expedited crossings. Results from qualitative interviews with shippers are also presented and discussed, which show the supply chain's current responses both to mean border crossing delay and the variability of these crossing times. Finally, we consider the consequences of these responses for the agrifood industry in Cascadia, for whom the consequences of delay and variability of delay are more significant.

Full text

Cascadia Border Operations, Issues, and Consequences
for the Agrifood Market
Anne Goodchild and Li Leung
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Washington
Abstract
In this paper we present a profile of US/Canada border operations in the Western
Cascadia Region, which lies between the Greater Vancouver and Puget Sound
megacities. We show how this border is distinct from the more commonly discussed
US/Canada border between New York, Michigan, and Ontario, in that commodities are
typically less time sensitive, and a larger proportion of trips are made intra-regionally.
Border procedures are described, as well as current programs for expedited crossings.
Results from qualitative interviews with shippers are also presented and discussed, which
show the supply chain’s current responses both to mean border crossing delay and the
variability of these crossing times. Finally, we consider the consequences of these
responses for the agrifood industry in Cascadia, for whom the consequences of delay and
variability of delay are more significant.
Introduction
The U.S. and Canada are each others’ largest trading partners, with the value of trade
between the two the highest between any two countries worldwide. For the United States,
trade with Canada is larger than that of the European Union countries combined (FHWA,
2002). Canada’s international trade is strongly biased toward the U.S. which accounts for
nearly 75 percent of the former’s trade in goods (Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC),
2005). The long land border favors surface modes of transport. In terms of total trade
(north-bound and south-bound combined), trucking is the most important mode of
transport both in terms of tonnage and especially value, with modal shares of truck
transportation comprising almost 62 percent of value, with a just over 35 percent share of
weight (Bowen & Slack, 2007).
US-Canada trade agreements opened a new era in the way the two countries interact with
one another, with cross border regional linkages playing an instrumental role in the
process of North American integration. Settlement and development of the U.S. and
Canada largely occurred in an east-west direction. The national transportation
infrastructure of both countries remained heavily oriented for east to west and west to
east movement of goods and people involved in interregional trade and commerce.
However, first the FTA, and then, more importantly NAFTA, made a point of reducing
tariff barriers and had the effect of creating a set of logistical relationships around border
regions and new latitudinal corridors of freight distribution so that a North American
economy emerged that is north-south in orientation. The liberalization of cross border
trucking began in late 1980s (Woudsma, 1999), which in turn helped make the industry
on both sides of the border more efficient. Both trucking and rail freight have been

transformed by ‘continentalization’ of the North American market (Heaver, 1993). US
and Canadian transportation infrastructure was primarily developed for this East-West
pattern of trade, and the development of these North-South trade corridors has strained
the relatively weak North-South infrastructure corridors and connections.
Background
North American freight distribution systems are adapting to global trends in economics
and transport geography that work towards reducing costs and improving efficiency. At
the same time, increased growth in trade has placed greater pressure on international
gateways. The distribution of U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico and the movement of
this freight impact the U.S. transportation network, in particular major border entry points
and north-south highway corridors. In 2005, Texas, Michigan, and California were the
top three states accounting for nearly 40 percent of the total value of the origin and
destination in goods trade, the latter with $80 billion. Two of the four largest U.S. land
ports are in Michigan (Detroit and Port Huron). These two ports combined handled over
$198 billion of freight in 2005. This activity is larger than the $96 billion of land trade for
which Michigan is the origin or destination as these ports serve as trade gateways for all
states nationwide (BTS, 2006). Between 1994 and 2000, U.S. trade with Canada grew by
8.9 percent (BTS, 2001). For the U.S. transportation system, the volume of freight has
grown substantially in recent decades, and is projected to increase nearly 50 percent
between 2005 and 2020 ((FHWA, 2002; Jones, Murray, & Short, 2005)).
At the same time, the liberalization of trade policies, such as NAFTA,
internationalization of supply chains, and changes in transportation and information
technologies have contributed to this increase in freight movement. North-south traffic
between the United States and Canada, fostered by NAFTA, has placed increasing
demands on the domestic freight transportation system. U.S.-Canada trade has grown by
152 percent since 1989 (growth in commercial traffic of 122.5 percent) and trucks move
just over 70 percent of the value of exports from the U.S. to Canada (BTS, 2001). As a
result, the nation’s highway and rail networks, initially developed for the traditional east-
west trade, are now strained, especially at border crossings such as those between
Whatcom County and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia (see Figure 1) which
includes the Blaine, WA crossing, the focus area of research.

Figure 1: Border crossings between Whatcom County, Washington and the Lower
Mainland of British Columbia (maps.google.com)
Figure 2 shows truck volumes at the 5 US/Canadian crossings with largest annual truck
volumes in 2006. Notice the order of magnitude difference between Blaine, the largest
western crossing, and the largest crossing overall. Notice also the typical end of the year
depression in volumes.
Top 5 US/Canada Border Crossing (2006)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Number of Crossings
WA:Blaine
NY:Champlain-Rouses Pt.
NY:Buffalo-Niagara Falls
MI:Port Huron
MI:Detroit
Figure 2: Truck volumes at the Top 5 US/Canadian crossings
(BTS & U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006)

These volumes are surprisingly similar to the volumes at the top 5 US/Mexican crossings
(shown in Figure 3) for the same year. With Laredo and Detroit having similar volume,
and Blaine and Calexico East.
Top 5 US/Mexico Border Crossings (2006)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Number of Crossings
TX:Laredo
TX:Hidalgo
TX:El Paso
CA:Otay Mesa/San Ysidro
CA:Calexico East
Figure 3: Truck volumes at the Top 5 US/Mexican crossings
(BTS & U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006)
Again, these volumes dip in December but also show a stronger late summer/fall peak.
Commodity and Origin/Destination Data
During the week of June 4 through June 10, 2006, all southbound manifests were
collected for commercial vehicles crossing the border at Blaine, Washington by the
Whatcom Council of Governments (IMTC, 2006). Table 1 and Figure 6: Southbound
vehicle commodity data, June 2006 summarize the commodity and origin destination data
for this sample of vehicles. This data shows the predominant pattern for southbound
vehicles is an origin in the West Lower Mainland (93.2% of vehicles), and a destination
in the Western United States (78.2%). Essentially all vehicles originate in the greater
Vancouver area. The destination of vehicles is somewhat more dispersed, but
approximately 50% of the vehicles are destined for Western Washington, primarily the
Puget Sound. The approximate distance between the greater Vancouver region and the
Puget Sound is 150 miles, and 300 miles round trip. With current travel speeds,
congestion, a drop-off and pick-up, and the border crossing, this trip can be completed by
a trucker in full day of work. Most of these regional truckers live regionally and spend
the night at their home base.

Origin
West
Lower
Mainland Rest
BC Alberta
East
Lower
Mainland Whatcom
County West
Canada East
Canada Total
Alaska 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%
East
Canada 0.1% 0.1%
Whatcom 10.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 11.6%
Puget
Sound 34.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.2% 0.4% 37.1%
West WA 4.4% 0.2% 0.1% 4.8%
East WA 3.2% 3.2%
West
USA 28.4% 1.7% 0.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 31.0%
Rest
USA 11.6% 0.4% 12.1%
Destination
TOTAL 93.2% 3.7% 1.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2%
Table 1 Southbound vehicle origin and destination data, June 2006
(International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project, 2007)
Figure 6 shows the commodity profile of the southbound vehicles from the same manifest
sample. The largest type is empty vehicles. The largest commodity is wood products,
then agricultural products and paper products. This is a very different profile from
Eastern US/Canada border crossings, due to Pacific Northwest resources, manufacturing
base and economy. Although Canada and the U.S. share a long border, trade and trade
flows are concentrated at a small number of crossings. Over 60 percent of Canada-US
trade occurs at the top three crossings: Windsor, ON-Detroit, Sarnia, ON-Port Huron, and
Fort Erie, ON-Buffalo, NY (Transport Canada, 2003). At these largest crossings, the
trade is largely described by the collaborative relationship of the complex, cross border
production systems. Goods flow across the border, not as finished goods, but part of a
continental network of supply chains that cross national borders. For example, a quarter
of the more than a billion and a quarter dollars of goods cross the US-Canada-Mexico
borders daily is automotive: “we don’t sell cars to each other, we build them together”
(Blank, 2008). These economies are deeply integrated, and supply chains are bilateral and
trilateral in scope and integration:
“The supply chains that span the U.S.-Canada border are unique in the global
context. They are heavily reliant on land transportation that travels primarily
through just a handful of key border crossings. Major shipments are routinely
timed for delivery within hours, and sometimes to the minute” (Webber, 2005).
The Western Cascadia border, however, presents a different picture, with food, wood,
and paper products being the primary commodities. The majority of these are not
particularly time sensitive, nor are they moved across the border as unfinished goods,
rather the border is crossed with finished goods being delivered to market.

Non-metallic products
3%
Plastics and rubber
2%
Prepared foodstuffs
3%
Base metals
2%
Meat, fish, and seafood
2%
Misc. manufactured products
2%
Allied paper products
4%
Agricultural products
4%
Other
18%
Wood products
7%
Empty/Empty containers
47%
Articles in base metal
2%
Waste and scrap
2%
Figure 6: Southbound vehicle commodity data, June 2006
(International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project, 2007)
Tanning & Dye Ext Etc; Dye,
Paint, Putty Etc; Inks, 44,377,
35%
Plastics And Articles
Thereof, 242, 0%
Rubber And Articles Thereof,
22,397, 17%
Spec Wov Fabrics; Tufted
Fab; Lace; Tapestries Etc,
1,281, 1%
Arti cles Of Iron Or Stee l,
43,876, 34%
60, 60, 0%
Electric Machinery Etc;
Sound Equip; Tv Equip; Pts,
1,207, 1%
Furniture; Bedding Etc;
Lamps Nesoi Etc; Prefab Bd,
15,071, 12% Special Classification
Provisions, Nesoi, 107, 0%
Figure 7: Champlain-Rouses Point, NY Southbound vehicle commodity data
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008)

For comparison, Figure 7 shows the commodity profile for the Champlain-Rouses, NY
border crossing. This data excludes empty vehicles. Clearly, the commodity profiles are
different, with this crossing primarily moving unfinished manufactured goods.
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation loop detector data is used to understand the
rate of truck arrivals at the southbound border crossing at Blaine, Washington (IMTC,
BCMoT, & WSDOT, 2008). Figures 8,9,10 show the typical daily arrival pattern
southbound at the US/Canada border. This summarizes weekdays between 8:00 and
20:00 for the period of year 2007 and loop detector BC-MoT 15-907 (approximately
6,000 feet north of the border). The number of arrivals is the average number of arrivals
observed in each 5 minute interval. Volume typically peaks early in the day with a quiet
period after that and a smaller peak in the early afternoon, and a slow decline in volume
starting in the late afternoon.
Figure 8: Typical Daily Arrival Pattern during FAST hours
The observed daily variation in arrivals for the same period is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Variation of Hourly Arrival Pattern during FAST hours
Figure 10 shows the observed average and variation by month, again for southbound
traffic at the Blaine, WA crossing. We can observe the lower than average volume in
January and the spring months, and higher volumes in the summer and fall period due to
agricultural productivity and retail shopping season.
Figure 10: Variation of Monthly Arrival Pattern during FAST hours

Border Operations and Programs
The border crossing process from Canada to the United States at Blaine, Washington is
described in the schematic figure below. The northbound crossing, into Canada, is
similar, but does not include a radiation and VACIS inspection for all vehicles. In both
the northbound and southbound cases there are primary and secondary inspections. All
vehicles arrive at the border and first travel through a radiation portal monitor. Prior to
this, they may experience some delay. The average and standard deviation are shown for
FAST approved and not FAST approved vehicles. The FAST program is described in the
box below. Following the RPM vehicles move to primary inspection, where they are
reviewed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and an Agricultural Specialist. All vehicles then travel through
the Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS). Some vehicles are required to go
through a secondary inspection before being released. There are various reasons for
secondary inspection, vehicle selection for secondary inspection is at the discretion of
any of the regulatory agencies.
Figure 11: Land Port Border Booth Inspection Procedure1,2
While the USDA does not have operations at the Blaine border; the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection has an agriculture specialists available 24 hours and seven days a
week.
Due to the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002, FDA requires prior notice of arrival information to import food into the United
States. This advance information will assist FDA to differentiate the types of imported
food for evaluation of whether there will need further investigation. Imported food
shipments can comply by using CBP's Automated Broker Interface of the Automated
Commercial System (ABI/ACS) and prior notice can be submitted either through
1 (Battelle Memorial Institute, April 2002)
2 ("U.S. Customs and Border Protection “Assessing the Impact of the ACE Truck e-Manifest System n
Trucking Operations.”", ; "U.S. Customs and Border Protection “Customs-Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism Cost/Benefit Survey,"; "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Advance Electronic Presentation of
Cargo Information,"; "U.S. Customs and Border Protection Free and Secure Trade Program,")

ABI/ACS or FDA's Prior Notice (PN) System Interface. For arrival by land, prior notice
must be submitted electronically and confirmed by the FDA no more than 5 days and no
fewer than 2 hours upon arrival. Information submitted must consist of the identification
of the submitter, transmitter, manufacturer, grower, shipper, importer, carrier; entry type
and CBP identifier, the country form which the article of food is shipped, anticipated
arrival information, and the FDA country of production. There is available technical
assistance between 7:00am – 11:00Ppm U.S. Eastern Time.
There are several programs to provide expedited border processing from Canada into the
United States such as the Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information (ACE),
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and Free and Secure Trade
(FAST). Each program has specific requirements and expected benefits. These are
described in the boxes below, as well as any available information regarding program
evaluation.
Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo Information (ACE)
ACE certification requires one to submit an application. The application must include the
principal (who is any high ranking officer within the account, i.e. the sole proprietor, a
corporate officer, etc.) and the account owner (the person responsible for the daily
administration of the account’s activities), and list primary business activity as well as
other business activities (also known as “account types”). Importers who are self-filers
should apply for both their importer and their filer views on one ACE application. ACE
filing is now required for all carriers. The benefits of using ACE reduce processing
times, there are reduced errors, it is an all in one system for in-bound filings that needs
manifest and mandatory advance cargo information. One can electronically store trip
information of the shipment, trip, conveyance, crew, and equipment including in-bound
cargo movements.
In 2006, case studies and follow-up interviews about ACE revealed that the number of
trips in which a tuck is required to have a secondary inspection has decreased by
approximately 50%.
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)
C-TPAT is a voluntary program. To achieve C-TPAT certification, companies must
comply with a variety of security measures, which increase the level of trust between
CBP and the carrier. To verify a membership one must be processed through the Status
Verification Interface (SVI) for a background check. C-TPAT benefits include a reduced
number of CBP inspections (reduced border delay times), and priority processing for
CBP inspections (front of the Line processing for inspections when possible.),
assignment of a C-TPAT Supply Chain Security Specialist (SCSS) who will work with
the company to validate and enhance security throughout the company’s international
supply chain, potential eligibility for CBP Importer Self-Assessment program (ISA) with
an emphasis on self-policing, not CBP audits and eligibility to attend C-TPAT supply
chain security training seminars.

In the Figure 12 all C-TPAP participants gave a rating on a four-point scale between 3-4
(4 being the highest) of the 10 potential benefits of joining the program. The highest rated
benefit is “reducing the time and cost of getting cargo released by CBP” with an average
of 3.78. More than 75% of C-TPAT participants felt it is important “to reduce the time in
CBP secondary cargo inspection lines.”
Figure 12: C-TPAT four-point scale of the 10 potential benefits
(DAMF Consultants Inc., 2005; Diop, Hartman, & Rexrode, August 2007)
Free and Secure Trade (FAST)
Requires citizenship or a permanent resident of the United States or Canada who is at
least 18 years old with a valid driver’s license. Clearance for the FAST lane requires all
passengers who hold a FAST permit, the vehicle, goods, and the carrier and importer
must all be FAST approved. To be approved, one must be already C-TPAT approved,
provide a full set of fingerprints, address history for the last five years, employment
history for the last five years, current employer, and a fee payment of CAN$80 or US$50.
The program participation will be valid for a five-year period.
If you are approved to participate in the FAST Commercial Driver Program, you will
receive a card to use at the border that will allow you to:
■ use FAST dedicated lanes in Canada and the United States (where available);
■ cross the border with accelerated customs and immigration processing; and,
■ transport eligible goods for FAST-approved carriers and importers.

Table 2 shows a summary of border crossing times, compiled from a variety of sources.
We show average and standard deviation, as well as the 90th percentile travel time. The
border crossing time is the sum of all time elements shown in Figure 11, and includes the
time spent waiting in queue, being process at primary, secondary, RPM, and VACIS
machines, or in transition between these elements. The nonFAST crossing times are
substantially longer than FAST crossing times, with about an hour difference for every
trip. The standard deviation, however, is consistent between FAST and nonFAST
vehicles.
TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Border Crossing Times
Dataset Observations Mean Standard
Deviation
90th
Percentile
Arrival
Rate
Average
Service
Time
WCOG FAST
(Halcrow, 2007)
579 22
minutes
21
minutes
21.5
vehicles
per hour
86
seconds
WCOG non-FAST
(Halcrow, 2007)
1480 1 hour 23
minutes
26
minutes
21.5
vehicles
per hour
119
seconds
and 121
seconds
Probe, southbound
(FAST)
(Goodchild, et al)
5658 23
minutes
24
minutes
50
minutes
Probe, northbound
(non-FAST)
(Goodchild et al)
5805 23
minutes
20
minutes
45
minutes
Probe (overall)
(Goodchild et al)
11,463 23
minutes
22
minutes
47
minutes
Consequences of Delay and Variability of Delay
Through qualitative interviews carried out with frequent border crossing freight carriers
we have identified the impact of these delays on border logistics practices. 20 1-1
interviews were conducted with commercial carriers to investigate the responses to
international border crossing challenges between 07/06 and 07/07. The interviewees
represented firms that engage in “regular cross-border shipments”. Interviewees were
company representatives responsible for making strategic transportation decisions, for
Hours at Blaine,WA Truck Border Crossing: 8am-8pm
According to a Halcrow 2006 study (Halcrow, 2007), the average FAST primary
inspection time is approximately 30 seconds per vehicle faster than nonFAST booths.
This study also shows a 1 hour reduction in crossing time per vehicle when comparing
FAST crossing times to nonFAST crossing times.
Unfortunately, a current practice at Blaine is to use the FAST lane for all traffic when
very significant delays to nonFAST vehicles are observed.

example, how frequently to make shipments, and how to route shipments. Of these
interviews 13 have been with US firms and 7 with Canadian firms.
Strategy Motivation Consequence
Increase buffer
times
Address crossing time
variability
• Reduces capacity of existing infrastructure or
requires additional hires and equipment
• Increases transportation and inventory cost
• Reduces late arrivals and stock-outs
Increase dwell
times at
intermediate
handling facilities
Address crossing time
variability
• Reduces impact of delay on outbound vehicles,
particularly relevant for LTL (less than
truckload) operations
• Increases total transit time and therefore
inventory cost
Routing Changes Address average
crossing time
• Reduces the impact of variability on operations
Schedule changes Address average
crossing time
• Reduces the impact of variability on operations
Reduce level of
activity in cross-
border trade
Address average
crossing time and
increased
documentation
requirements
• Reduce impact of variability on operations
• Stop providing courier or same day service
• Reduce revenue to carrier and level of cross
border economic activity
Change
transportation
mode
Address average
crossing time
• Change border procedures which, depending on
local circumstances, may improve travel time
reliability
Hire full time
border logistics
staff
Increased
documentation
requirements
• Primarily Canadian firms
• Necessary to meet regulatory requirements
Table 3: Carrier responses to border crossing challenges
Table 3 summarizes their responses, in particular, whether this strategy addresses average
delay, variability in delay, or increased documentation requirements, and the
consequences of these strategies for the carrier. Each of these strategies is described in
more detail in the sections following.
Increase Buffer Times
Although the average crossing time southbound for nonFAST vehicles is about 1 hour
and 23 minutes, most carriers leave 2 hours to cross the border. In doing so, they are
building in 37 minutes to accommodate longer than average crossing times. This is the
most common response to border crossing time variability. FAST approved vehicles
typically allow an hour for border crossing (significantly more than the average of
approximately 20 minutes). Increasing buffer times reduces the possibility that the driver
will arrive late for an appointment. We did not speak to a carrier that incurs specific fees
for late arrivals, but there are other significant consequences:
• Customer dissatisfaction with late deliveries leading to loss of business (in one
case a carrier operating within a Just-In-Time framework that is contractually
obligated to arrive on time at least 94% of the time).

• With LTL carriers the possibility that outbound trucks from a handling facility
will be delayed by incoming trucks. Delay to one vehicle can therefore impact
many outbound vehicles, and customers whose goods were not delayed in the
original shipment. These customers have little sympathy for the delay and will
not bear the financial consequences of delay (missed business opportunities, staff
overtime, perished goods, etc.).
• Missed appointments at the Port of Vancouver can lead to a loss of future
appointment times.
• If outbound rail cars are not filled at a trans-load facility the company is charged
demurrage for empty rail cars.
• If trips are particularly long and a driver cannot make the return trip due to hours
of service regulations a replacement driver may need to be hired or overnight
accommodation expenses may be incurred.
There are also consequences of arriving too early, which happens on the majority of
occasions. These are primarily underutilization of the driver and rolling-stock.
Increased Dwell Times at Intermediate Handling Facilities
For a less than truckload firm that uses an intermediate handling facility, longer than
expected inbound delays can disrupt outbound trucks. The firms we spoke to have
therefore increased the dwell time of goods at the handling facility to reduce the
possibility of delay to the outbound trucks. This increases the time between pick-up and
delivery, reducing the quality of service offered by the provider.
For carriers with handling facilities where goods are moved between vehicles, in order to
minimize the impact of very long delays, it is best to cross the border after handling
goods and loading trucks to their final destinations (Figure 14), as opposed to crossing
the border before handling goods (Figure 13). For south-bound supply chains this
benefits Canadian firms with handling facilities in the Lower Mainland. For north-bound
supply chains this benefits US firms with handling facilities in Washington State.

Figure 13: Logistics network where border crossing occurs before handling goods
and loading vehicles for their final destinations.
Figure 14: Logistics network where border crossing occurs after handling goods and
loading trucks to their final destinations.
Routing Changes
To avoid peak border delays some companies have decided to use border crossings that
offer both a more reliable and shorter crossing time. For example, some shippers who
primarily use the Blaine, WA crossing might shift to Sumas, WA (see Figure 1).
Presumably it was more expensive to use the latter crossing prior to the assumed change
in border crossing conditions; otherwise Sumas would have been used in the first place.
Average distances traveled between origins and destinations might be longer using
Sumas, nevertheless, given a sufficiently large difference between the two crossings it
might be economically worthwhile for some shippers to change their routing.

In many cases we observe that these decisions are made real time by companies located
very close to the border, creating flexibility within the organization to alter border
crossing locations.
To the extent that little to no switching among border crossing locations is observed to
take place among shippers, at least two inferences are plausible: 1) that there are few
differences in the delay across different border crossing locations, 2) that the
improvement in wait time is not of sufficient consequence to warrant incurring the
additional expenses associated with altering traditional transportation routes.
Schedule Changes
In addition to making locational changes, we observe some companies making schedule
changes, for example delaying or expediting shipments to take advantage of unexpectedly
favorable border crossing conditions, or avoiding particularly unfavorable ones. After
learning about favorable periods, schedules can be permanently adjusted to cross at
favorable times.
When shippers are hauling freight under long-term business arrangements, as opposed to
spot contracting, it might be difficult to accelerate shipments in terms of time of delivery,
since there may be other capacity constraints in the relevant logistics systems that make it
uneconomical to accelerate shipments in order to take advantage of border crossing
“windows of opportunity”. For example, customers taking delivery of shipments may
have warehouse capacity constraints which make it impractical to unload and store
expedited shipments on the customer’s premises. Nevertheless, regular schedule changes
can be made to exploit consistently reliable crossing times.
Customers (or intermediaries such as independent warehouses) could invest in “spare
capacity” such that there is always some additional slack to accommodate accelerated
shipments between suppliers and customers who do business on something other than a
spot contracting basis. Presumably these types of investments would be economical if the
risks associated with variable border crossing times were of a significant economic
magnitude. In effect, investments in redundant capacity in order to alleviate
“bottlenecks” to accelerated shipping enhance the viability of implementing more “real-
time” management of the border crossing production function, thereby mitigating the
impact of variability of crossing times on the elasticity of border crossings with respect to
time.
We observed companies shifting their regular schedules to take advantage of shorter and
more reliable crossing periods. For companies that do not shift their schedules, it
suggests that increased variability of crossing times had only modest impacts on the
elasticity of border crossings with respect to time or that the requisite investments to
allow substantially more real time expediting of shipments are prohibitively expensive.
Several of our survey participants indicated that they engaged in real time (Internet)
monitoring of border crossing conditions and were able (at relatively low cost) to alter
shipping times in order to take advantage of “favorable” crossing conditions. While the

ability to engage in real time management of border crossings will not be identical across
all shippers, many of our respondents are located relatively close to the British Columbia-
Washington State border. Furthermore, all have access to relatively low cost Internet
monitoring of border crossing conditions.
Reduce Levels of Activity in Cross Border Trade
We spoke with several Canadian carriers who have decided to exit the business of cross-
border trade partially or entirely. Several firms that, two years ago, offered same day
courier services between the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and the Puget Sound
region of Seattle have discontinued this service due to their inability to reliably deliver
and return to British Columbia on the same day. This was primarily due to the magnitude
of border delay, but we also got the sense that increased documentation requirements
meant higher administrative costs for the firm, and in the short term, lower profits for
cross-border trade. We did not sufficiently investigate this phenomenon, however, to
report in any detail on the magnitude of this effect. The two companies we spoke to
moving containers between the Ports and Rail Yards in Vancouver and destinations in
Washington State have moved from doing so within one day to two day operations. Only
two years ago it was possible to pick-up containers at the Rail Yards very early in the
morning, cross the border, drop-off a container, pick-up a container, and return to
Vancouver on the same day, now this trip requires two days, so the rates have increased
significantly.
Change Transportation Mode
In the Whatcom County/Lower Mainland region, it may be possible to substitute rail or
marine transportation for truck transportation. For example, one fuel company that
delivers fuel in trucks from a coastal refinery in Washington State to Vancouver
International Airport faces competition from a barge company that can serve the same
route but it subject to less average border delay and less variability in travel times.
Hiring Border Logistics Staff
Several of the Canadian firms we spoke to reported hiring an additional staff member to
work on documentation for US entry. We interviewed carriers as they were adjusting to
ACE requirements, and this hire was seen as temporary, while the companies adjusted to
the new system. However, there was also a sense that the post 9-11 security regime
required significantly more documentation from Canadian companies moving goods into
the US.
Summary and Conclusions
We have described the border crossing process, and the characteristics of the US/Canada
border in Western Cascadia. We also describe the current performance of the border, and
freight carriers adaptations to the current challenges.

The primary commodities crossing at Blaine are wood, pulp and paper products, food and
farm products, metals, and petroleum products. Approximately 15 to 20 % of the trucks
crossing are empty vehicles. The majority of these trucks are not operating in a
particularly time sensitive environment. However, many of the goods that are operating
in a time sensitive environment are agri-food products, particularly fresh seafood.
Delay at the border increases the length of time goods spend moving through the supply
chain. Not just by the average delay at the border, but by significantly more time than
that. We describe this through investigation of the impact of delay, variability in crossing
times, and increased documentation on border logistics. This has a much more
significant impact on those industries operating under time pressure, which at the North
Western border is more often agribusiness. Not only does this increase total logistics
cost, but also the risk of cargo spoilage and food safety.

Reference List:
Battelle Memorial Institute. (April 2002). Evaluation of Travel Time Methods to Support
Mobility Performance Monitoring:
Blaine (Pacific Highway) [Electronic Version], from
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/blaine/index.htm
Blank, S. (2008). Trade Corridors and North American Competitiveness. Association for
Canadian Studies in the United States Occasional Papers on Public Policy series,
1(4).
Bowen, J. T., & Slack, B. (2007). Shifting modes and spatial flows in North American
freight transportation. Globalized Freight Transport: Intermodility, E-commerce,
logistics, and sustainability.
BTS. (2001). North American Trade and Travel Trends, BTS01-07 [Electronic Version],
from http://www.bts.gov/publications/north_american_trade_and_travel_trends/
BTS. (2006). North American fright transportation: U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico
[Electronic Version], from
http://www.bts.gov/publications/north_american_freight_transportation/
BTS, & U.S. Department of Transportation. (2006). Border Data. 2008, from
http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/international/border.asp?dvar=1&cvar=truck&sy=2006&r
edirect=Crossings.asp
DAMF Consultants Inc. (2005). The cumulative impact of U.S. impact compliance
programs at the Canada/U.S. land border on the Canadian trucking industry
[Electronic Version], from
http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/EN/Report/BorderStudy/Main.htm
Diop, A., Hartman, D., & Rexrode, D. (August 2007). Cost/Benefit Survey [Electronic
Version],
FHWA. (2002). Federal Highway Administration. from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
Goodchild, Globerman, Albrecht (in press). Service Time Variability at the Blaine,
Washington International Border Crossing and the Impact on Regional Supply
Chains. Journal of the Transportation Research Board
Halcrow Consulting. (2007). Pacific Highway Port-of-Entry Commercial Vehicle Border
Operations Survey Final Report [Electronic Version], 27, from
http://resources.wcog.org/border/cvo_2007finalreport.pdf

Heaver, T. (1993). Rail freight service in Canada: restructuring for the North American
market. Journal of Transport Geography, 1(3), 156-166.
IMTC, BCMoT, & WSDOT. (2008). Border Wait-Time Archive (Publication., from
Whatcom Council of Governments: www.cascadegatewaydata.com
International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project, T. W. C. o. G. (2007). IMTC Resource
Manual [Electronic Version],
Jones, C., Murray, D., & Short, J. (2005). Methods of Travel Time Measurement in
Freight-Significant Corridors [Electronic Version],
Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC). (2005). Cost of border delays to the United
States economy [Electronic Version], from
http://www.thetbwg.org/downloads/Cost%20of%20Border%20Delays%20to%20t
he%20United%20States%20Economy%20-%20April%202005.pdf
Transport Canada. (2003). Transport Canada in 2003. 2008, from http://www.tc.gc.ca/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). 2008 Commodity Flow Survey (Publication., from U.S.
Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/foreign-
trade/reference/products/catalog/port.html
U.S. Customs and Border Protection “Assessing the Impact of the ACE Truck e-Manifest
System n Trucking Operations.” from http://www.atri-
online.org/research/results/economicanalysis/850874_CBP.pdf
U.S. Customs and Border Protection “Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
Cost/Benefit Survey. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/what_ctpat/ctpat
_cost_survey.ctt/ctpat_cost_survey.pdf
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Advance Electronic Presentation of Cargo
Information. from
http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/ace_factshe
ets/ace_overview/ace_carriers.xml
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Free and Secure Trade Program. from
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/prog/fast-expres/menu-eng.html
Webber, J. (2005). Network-centric security for Canada-U.S. supply chains [Electronic
Version], 60, from
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/COMMERCE.WEB/product_files/supplychain.pdf
Woudsma, C. (1999). NAFTA and Canada-US cross-border freight transportation.
Journal of Transport Geography, 7, 105-119.