Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on
the U.S.-Mexico Border
2015
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................viii
Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... ix
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Port of Entry Project Development Process ........................................................................................................ 3
New POE Development Process ............................................................................................................................... 5
Financial Mechanisms for Infrastructure Projects in the United States and Mexico.......................... 6
Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 8
POE Development Process .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Financing ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Information Systems .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 1. Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S.-Mexico Border ........... 11
1.1
The U.S.–Mexico Border ......................................................................................................................... 12
1.1.1 General Border Data/Information ..................................................................................................... 12
1.1.2 Analysis of Economic and Trade Potential of the U.S.-Mexico Border ............................... 20
1.1.3 Vehicle and Pedestrian Crossings on U.S.-Mexican Border ..................................................... 25
1.1.4 Border Crossing Times ............................................................................................................................. 33
1.2
Evolution of the Institutional Vision of Both Governments .................................................... 33
1.2.1 U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee (JWC) ................................................................................ 35
1.2.2 Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism ........................................................................... 35
1.2.3 Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America.......................................................... 36
1.2.4 21st Century Border .................................................................................................................................. 37
1.2.5 U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic Dialogue ................................................................................... 40
1.2.6 Other Binational and Local Groups .................................................................................................... 40
1.2.7 Evolution of the Vision.............................................................................................................................. 42
Chapter 2. Port-of-Entry Project Development Process........................................................................ 45
2.1
Stakeholders................................................................................................................................................ 45
2.1.1 Agencies Involved in Border Port-of-Entry Development ........................................................ 45
2.2
General Process for New POE Projects ............................................................................................ 53
2.2.1 Mexican Process........................................................................................................................................... 56
2.2.2 U.S. Process .................................................................................................................................................... 57
2.2.3 Binational Process ...................................................................................................................................... 57
2.2.4 Regional Border Master Plans (RBMPs) .......................................................................................... 58
2.3
New POE Development Phases ........................................................................................................... 59
2.3.1 Phase I .............................................................................................................................................................. 59
2.3.2 Phase II ............................................................................................................................................................ 66
2.3.3 Phase III ........................................................................................................................................................... 71
2.3.4 Phase IV ........................................................................................................................................................... 75
2.4
Expansion and/or Modernization of Existing Ports of Entry ................................................. 78
2.4.1 Project Expansion and Modernization.............................................................................................. 78
Chapter 3. U.S.-Mexico POE Project Financial Mechanisms ................................................................. 81
3.1
Current Financial Mechanisms and Possible Alternatives....................................................... 81
3.2
General Overview of U.S.-Mexico POE Project Financial Mechanisms................................ 81
3.2.1 General Overview—Mexico .................................................................................................................... 81
3.2.2 General Overview—United States ....................................................................................................... 83
3.3
Financing Mechanisms for Infrastructure Projects .................................................................... 84
iii
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
3.3.1 Financing Mechanisms in Mexico........................................................................................................ 84
3.3.2 Public Financing Mechanisms in Mexico ......................................................................................... 85
3.3.3 Public-Private Financing Mechanisms in Mexico ........................................................................ 90
3.4
Level of Difficulty in Acquiring Funds and Alternatives ........................................................... 94
3.4.1 Level of Difficulty in Mexico ................................................................................................................... 94
3.4.2 Level of Difficulty in the United States .............................................................................................. 95
3.5
Example of Projects in the Process of Securing Financing on Both Sides of the
Border ............................................................................................................................................................ 99
3.5.1 Case Study: Mesa de Otay II—Otay Mesa East POE .................................................................... 99
3.6
New Financing Options Proposal .................................................................................................... 101
3.6.1 POE Support Infrastructure Financing.......................................................................................... 105
Chapter 4. Port of Entry Infrastructure Information System (POEIIS) ......................................... 107
4.1
Requirements for System Use........................................................................................................... 107
4.2
Entering the POEIIS System............................................................................................................... 107
4.3
Navigating the Project Categories ................................................................................................... 107
4.3.1 Navigation Bar.......................................................................................................................................... 108
4.4
Project Categories .................................................................................................................................. 108
4.5
POE Development Phases ................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 113
5.1
POE Development Process ................................................................................................................. 114
5.2
POE Financing.......................................................................................................................................... 119
5.3
Information System............................................................................................................................... 122
Appendix I. Port of Entry Infrastructure Information System (POEIIS) Design ....................... 123
A.1.
Infrastructure Project Classifications ............................................................................................ 124
A.1.1 Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................................... 124
A.1.2 New POEs ..................................................................................................................................................... 124
A.1.3. Binational Improvements .................................................................................................................... 124
A.1.4. National Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 124
A.2.
Levels of User Access ............................................................................................................................ 124
A.2.1 General Public ........................................................................................................................................... 125
A.2.2. Registered Users ....................................................................................................................................... 126
A.3.
Project Details ......................................................................................................................................... 128
A.4.
Project Process ........................................................................................................................................ 128
A.5.
Quick Start Guide.................................................................................................................................... 131
A.5.1. Requirements for System Use ............................................................................................................. 131
A.5.2. Entering the POEIIS System ................................................................................................................ 131
A.5.3. Viewing “Proposed Projects” .............................................................................................................. 131
A.5.4. Viewing “New POEs” ............................................................................................................................... 131
A.5.5. Viewing “Bi-National Improvements” ............................................................................................ 131
A.5.6. Viewing “National Improvements” .................................................................................................. 132
A.5.7. Viewing the Diagram of Phases for a Project on the Map .................................................... 132
A.5.8. Viewing Task Details within the Diagram of Phases of a Project ..................................... 132
A.5.9. Beginning a Session in the System ................................................................................................... 132
A.5.10. Changing the Language Preference ................................................................................................ 132
Appendix II. Proposed Project List in Database .................................................................................... 133
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................... 148
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................................... 151
iv
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
v
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
List of Figures
Figure ES.1. Trade between Mexico and the United States.....................................................................................1
Figure ES.2. U.S.-Mexico Collaborative Binational Border Programs .................................................................2
Figure ES.3. New POE Development General Process ..............................................................................................4
Figure ES.4. Financial Mechanisms for Infrastructure Projects in Mexico .......................................................7
Figure 1.1. States, Municipalities, and Counties along the Border.................................................................... 14
Figure 1.2. Binational Population Distribution along the U.S.-Mexico Border Region (Millions of
People per Region) ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 1.3. Summary of the State of the Border Report: A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.Mexico Border......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 1.4. Age of U.S.-Mexico Border Crossings...................................................................................................... 19
Figure 1.5. Location of Customs Offices along U.S.-Mexico Border .................................................................. 20
Figure 1.6. Mexico’s Foreign Trade, 2013 (Billions of Dollars) .......................................................................... 21
Figure 1.7. U.S.-Mexico Trade by Mode of Transport: January 2013 ............................................................... 21
Figure 1.8. Trade between Mexico and the U.S. ........................................................................................................ 23
Figure 1.9. International Trade by Trade Bloc, 2012 ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 1.10. Mexico’s Foreign Trade by Trade Bloc (Billions of USD and percentages).......................... 24
Figure 1.11. POV, CV and Pedestrian Northbound Crossing (1995–2013) ................................................... 26
Figure 1.12. Northbound Pedestrian Crossings 1995–2013 (Millions) ......................................................... 26
Figure 1.13. Private Vehicles Crossings U.S.–Mexico, 1995–2013 (Millions) .............................................. 27
Figure 1.14. Northbound CV Crossings 1995–2013 (Millions) .......................................................................... 27
Figure 1.15. Railcar Crossings 1996–2013 ................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 1.16. Collaborative U.S.-Mexico Binational Border Programs.............................................................. 34
Figure 2.1. Agencies That Comprise the Base Group of the Interdepartmental Port-of-Entry
Group .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 2.2. Other Agencies Included in GICYPF ........................................................................................................ 51
Figure 2.3. General Process for New POE Development ....................................................................................... 55
Figure 2.4. Mexico—Phase I of POE Development .................................................................................................. 62
Figure 2.5. United States—Phase I of POE Development ..................................................................................... 63
Figure 2.6. Mexico—Phase II of POE Development ................................................................................................ 68
Figure 2.7. United States—Presidential Permit Process....................................................................................... 69
Figure 2.8. Mexico—Phase III of POE Development ............................................................................................... 73
Figure 2.9. United States—Phase III of POE Development .................................................................................. 74
Figure 2.10. Agency Participation in POE Development in Mexico .................................................................. 76
Figure 2.11. Phase IV of POE Development ................................................................................................................ 77
Figure 2.12. Binational Process for POE Expansion and/or Modernization ................................................ 80
Figure 3.1. Stages of Public Works Funding in Mexico .......................................................................................... 82
Figure 3.2. Financial Mechanisms for Infrastructure Projects in Mexico ...................................................... 85
Figure 3.3. BANOBRAS Infrastructure Investment Projects in Mexico........................................................... 87
Figure 3.4. POE Tolls in Pesos .......................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 3.5. Two Most Common Financial Mechanisms in the United States ................................................ 91
Figure 3.6. Donation Proposal Evaluation Process Flowchart ........................................................................... 97
Figure 3.7. Location of the Binational Zone under Analysis ............................................................................. 100
Figure 3.8. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Initial Phase ...................................................................... 104
Figure 3.9. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Objective ............................................................................ 104
Figure 4.1. POEIIS Home Page ...................................................................................................................................... 108
vi
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 4.2. Navigation Bar .............................................................................................................................................. 108
Figure 4.3. Proposed Projects Page ............................................................................................................................ 110
Figure 4.4. Map of New POEs......................................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 4.5. Diagram of the Phases ............................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 4.6. Diagram of the Phases of a Project ....................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4.7. Details of a Project’s Tasks ...................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 5.1. Ground Trade between U.S. and Mexico ............................................................................................ 114
Figure 5.2. BDMP Objective + 5-Year Binational Plan......................................................................................... 116
Figure 5.3. Evolution of the Mexican Interagency Group into a Commission ........................................... 117
Figure 5.4. Mexican Federal Authorization Proposal .......................................................................................... 118
Figure 5.5. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Initial Phase ...................................................................... 121
Figure 5.6. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Objective ............................................................................ 121
Figure A.1. POEIIS Home Page ...................................................................................................................................... 125
Figure A.2. Map of New POE Projects ........................................................................................................................ 126
Figure A.3. POEIIS Sign In ............................................................................................................................................... 127
Figure A.4. List of Proposed Projects ......................................................................................................................... 129
Figure A.5. Border Crossings Development Process ........................................................................................... 129
Figure A.6. Example of the Placement of a Project in the BCDP ..................................................................... 130
Figure A.7. Example of Associated Details ............................................................................................................... 130
vii
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Mexico States and Municipalities at the U.S.-Mexico Border ......................................................... 13
Table 1.2. U.S. States and Counties at the U.S.-Mexico Border............................................................................ 13
Table 1.3. International Bridges and Crossings through the U.S. and Mexico ............................................. 18
Table 1.4. Customs Offices along the U.S.-Mexico Border .................................................................................... 19
Table 1.5. Intraregional and Interregional Trade 2012 (Billions of USD) ..................................................... 24
Table 1.6. Northbound Traffic Volumes by Border Region, 2013 (Thousands of Units) ........................ 28
Table 1.7. Northbound CV Crossings by Port of Entry, 2013 .............................................................................. 29
Table 1.8. Northbound POV and Pedestrian Crossings by Ports of Entry, 2013 ......................................... 30
Table 1.9. Northbound Train Crossings by POE, 2013 .......................................................................................... 32
Table 1.10. Value of Freight Transported by Rail, 2013 (Millions USD) ........................................................ 32
Table 1.11. Tons Transported by Rail, 2013 (Thousands of Metric Tons) .................................................... 33
Table 1.12. 21st Century Border Executive Steering Committee Participating Agencies and
Functions .................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 1.13. Regional Border Master Plans .................................................................................................................. 40
Table 1.14. Agencies that Form the Mexican Interagency Group of Bridges and Border Crossings .. 41
Table 2.1. Mexican Federal Agencies Involved in POE Projects ......................................................................... 46
Table 2.2. U.S. Federal Agencies Involved in POE Projects .................................................................................. 51
Table 2.3. Diplomatic Notes by Phase and Agencies Involved ........................................................................... 58
Table 3.1. POE Projects Developed through Mexican PPPs ................................................................................. 82
Table 3.2. Stages of Final Congressional Approval of the Executive Budget ................................................ 84
Table 3.3. FONADIN Products and Forms of Assistance for POE Project Financing ................................. 87
Table 3.4. POE Tolls by Vehicle Type ............................................................................................................................ 89
Table 3.5. Financing Mechanisms Available for POE Projects by Phase......................................................... 94
Table 3.6. Selection Criteria for Accepting Donations ........................................................................................... 98
Table 3.7. Criteria for TCIF Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 98
Table 5.1. Border Region Master Plans ..................................................................................................................... 116
viii
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Preface
As part of the objectives of the U.S.-Mexico
High-Level Economic Dialogue (HLED)
initiative, it was agreed that the development
of new infrastructure along the border region
of the two countries should be a high priority.
In reference to this emphasis on
infrastructure development, the U.S. and
Mexican governments along with the North
American Development Bank Board of
Directors expressed that it should “take all
actions necessary to carry out a study to
assist the U.S. and Mexican governments in
mapping priority ports-of-entry (POE)
infrastructure projects and identifying
potential financing structures for those
projects.” 1
Development of new POEs is a complex
process that involves coordination among
multiple stakeholders from two countries and
various government levels, as well as private
sector stakeholders. The development of a
new POE at the U.S.-Mexico border can take in
average between 10 and 15 years.
Land trade between the U.S and Mexico has
grown more than four times since the
implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and POE
development has not kept pace with this rate
of growth, creating congestion and
externalities that impact negatively regional
competitiveness.
More than 150 POE projects that include new
POEs and expansions of existing ones. These
projects require clear, transparent and
North American Development Bank, Resolution BR2013-29, November 14, 2103.
expedited development processes with up-todate information for sound decision making.
POE projects also require innovative
financing mechanisms that that could
accelerate development, increasing regional
competitiveness.
In order to meet these requirement, the North
American Development Bank (NADBANK)
commissioned a study to Felipe Ochoa y
Asociados (FOA) and the Texas A&M
Transportation Institute (TTI) to analyze
international POE development at the U.S.Mexico border, identifying opportunities that
would lead to increase international trade,
competitiveness and economic growth in both
countries.
The study includes four specific tasks:
1. Summarize the institutional vision of
both governments related to the
border and international crossings
and bridges.
2. Map existing international crossings
and bridges between Mexico and the
United States (U.S.), as well as those
currently in the process of being
implemented and those proposed in
the future. Likewise, organize the
infrastructure projects in the short
and long term based on their current
status and other criteria as
determined by the relevant federal
agencies. Review the implementation
process for binational infrastructure
projects in both Mexico and the U.S.,
1
ix
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
ranking the status of each one using
information from existing studies,
including regional border master
plans (RBMPs), prepared by the state
governments and specifying those
projects identified as a high priority.
3. Evaluate current financing
mechanisms and identify new
options.
4. Create an information technology (IT)
system so that the pertinent federal,
state, and local authorities in both
countries may follow up on the status
of existing infrastructure, projects in
the process of being implemented,
and new project proposals. In
addition, it will serve to support the
development process for regional
border master plans. The database
will be the exclusive property of the
two governments and will be
administered by the federal agencies
assigned by the two governments.
x
Results from this study will support agencies
of the two governments in project
development, providing an institutional
vision of the border and, for the first time, a
common and organized information system of
binational projects. This information will
facilitate the implementation and
development of POE projects.
This study does not intend to evaluate and
prioritize specific projects along the border.
The RBMPs, which have been conducted along
almost the entire border region, identify
potential POE infrastructure projects and
prioritize them according to a methodology
established in each region.
With this study the NADBANK complies with
the Board of Directors mandate supporting
the development of new border infrastructure
projects and provides tools to facilitate
international coordination.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Executive Summary
Over the last 15 years, only four new ports of
entry were constructed between Mexico and
the United States, while trade between the
two countries ascended to $500 million by
2014. This represents more than a doubling in
trade since 1998 (see Figure ES.1).
The vision that both the United States and
Mexico have for their shared border has
evolved over the past 20 years, as can be seen
in the diverse programs that have been
implemented during that period (see Figure
ES.2).
The HLED is an initiative that aims to bring
public- and private-sector leaders together to
promote economic development and
identify/develop opportunities for
cooperation between Mexico and the United
States. The HLED was established in 2013 and
is rooted in three pillars of cooperation:
1. Promote competitiveness and
cooperation.
2. Foster economic growth, productivity,
entrepreneurship, and innovation.
3. Create an association for regional and
global leadership.
The first two pillars are especially important
for the U.S.-Mexico border region. The first
pillar is vital for transportation infrastructure,
while the second involves economic
development at the border.
Figure ES.1. Trade between Mexico and the United States
1
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
JWC
NAFT
1994
(January)
C-TPAT
U.S.-Mexico
working
committee
planning
transportation.
Strengthen U.S.
security before
potential threats
could cross the
border.
Improve the
communication
channels during
transportation
planning
throughout the
Border States
through BMP.
Provide for the
coordination of
U.S.-Mexico
without
impeding on
growing trade
across the
border.
Agencies:
Agencies:
DOT/FHA
CBP-AGA
(federal/state)
—SCT
1994
2001 (Nov)
SPP
Promote the
balance of
security and
prosperous
trade.
21st
Century
Implemented for
the JWC to
strengthen trade
and reduce crime
along the border
region.
Started by the
Modernize POEs
U.S./Mex/CAN in and construct
order to
new POEs if
strengthen the
necessary.
security and
prosperity
within NAFTA.
Agencies:
DOS-DHS/CBPDOC
U.S. agencies
+Mexico
Interagency Group
+ PGR and Public
Safety
2005-2009
2010 (Mayo)
JWC = Joint Working Committee
C-TPAT = Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
SPP = Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America
HLED = U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue
US-Mex
HLED
Collaboration
between U.S.
and Mexico at
the highest
level of
government.
Promote the
competitiveness
and
connectivity, to
develop
production
economy and
become a
regional leader.
Increase regional
competitiveness
within the global
economy.
2013 (Sept)
BMP = Regional Border Master Plan
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
CBP = Customs and Border Protection
AGA = General Customs Administration (MEX)
PGR = Attorney General of Mexico
Figure ES.2. U.S.-Mexico Collaborative Binational Border Programs
The evolution of the institutional vision of the
border over the past two decades can be
broken up into three phases.
1. Post NAFTA: The vision of both
countries after the entry of the North
American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) was to increase trade
between the two countries and
facilitate higher rates of investment.
The manufacturing industry in Mexico
grew, and trade between the two
countries grew at an average annual
rate of 17 percent between 1995 and
2000.
2. Post 9-11: After the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001, the U.S.
government changed its border vision
to emphasize security concerns by
increasing inspections of freight
2
vehicles and passengers that were
traveling through the border. This
resulted in an increase in crossings
times and a decrease in cross-border
traffic, and it impacted the economy
of the region. Trusted traveler
programs were also implemented at
the border and made the border
“friendlier” for a selected group of
people.
3. Post 2009 Financial Crisis: The
world economy suffered a large crisis
in 2008. After this, the patterns of
world trade began to change and
businesses began to return to North
America. As a result,
intra/subcontinent trade has
increased. The governments of the
U.S. and Mexico have been changing
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
their policies and strengthening
partnerships to create a more
competitive area regarding other
foreign trading blocs.
Both countries are searching for a balance
between trade and security, as seen in the
various programs that have been
implemented on both sides of the border.
These programs include supply chain
transparency programs and coordination
between private companies, which helps the
secure flow of goods across the border.
The U.S.-Mexico border needs world-class
ports of entry with high levels of security and
user services that meet their mobility needs.
This represents a major challenge to the
planning and execution of bilateral POE
projects, as each country must align its
domestic needs with the needs of its neighbor.
Port of Entry Project
Development Process
The process for developing a new POE
between Mexico and the United States is a
complex task that requires multiple actions
on each side of the border to be successful.
There are also points at which joint bilateral
action is needed to coordinate the agencies in
each country in order to avoid temporal and
financial setbacks to the project.
The agencies in each country are driven by
their own tasks and objectives, which
sometimes do not coincide with the objectives
of other agencies in the country or across the
border. For this reason, long-term national
and binational cooperation is needed. In
addition to the federal agencies involved in
POE projects, there are regional initiatives,
and local organization should be incorporated
into a binational planning mechanism.
The U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee
(JWC) manages the regional Border Master
Plans (BMPs) binationally. Each BMP identifies
the binational infrastructure needed in each
border region based on current and future
capacity and demand. The strategic vision for
each border region is unique; therefore, the
BMP defines criteria based on local needs to
give priority to potential new POEs.
The general process for developing new POEs
can be broken down into four principle
phases, each of which has a list of activities
that must be completed before moving on to
the next phase (see Figure ES.3). Some
activities span more than one phase. Neither
country has formalized the POE development
process, but the four major phases are:
•
•
•
•
Phase I—Project planning and
preliminary approval.
Phase II—Agency’s technical review
Phase III—Preparation of final design,
and bidding and allocation of project.
Phase IV—Construction development
and operation.
3
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure ES.3. New POE Development General Process
4
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
New POE Development Process
The POE development process can be
initiated in either country. In some cases the
border agencies, particularly sister agencies,
identify the need for a new POE. These local
agencies are the ones that express the need
for new POEs to state and federal agencies
and request that POE development studies to
be conducted.
In Mexico, the Ministry of Communications
and Transportation (SCT) is responsible for
federal transportation services and is an
important player in POE development.
Another important stakeholder is the National
Institute of Administration and Valuation of
National Goods (INDAABIN), which is
responsible for managing and issuing
technical criteria for the construction of
federal real estate assets. INDAABIN also
issues technical approvals for new
infrastructure projects.
The general process for new POE project
development has been structured in four
distinct phases.
The process in the United States for the
development of new projects follows a
general framework that has the same phases
as the Mexican side, but with minor
differences in details.
The first phase is the process of identifying
and defining the project. This phase includes
the presentation of a preliminary feasibility
study that will present the objective of the
project, analyze the impact that this project
will have on the rest of the country, analyze
the environmental impacts, and present the
potential sources for funding. This first stage
concludes with a recommendation to proceed
with the application for a presidential permit
and defines which agency will be leading the
project. The agencies selected to lead the
project depend on the type of project. The
second phase consists of obtaining the
presidential permit. This permit consists of an
environmental impact study. If the permit is
approved, then the environmental review will
define the project as “Finding of No Significant
Impact.” During this phase, the Department of
State is the leading agency for the review
process and ultimately has to decide whether
or not this project is important to national
interest.
The third and fourth stages consist of the final
design and construction of the project. In
some cases, the design and construction will
be simultaneously conducted. This
simultaneous process is referred to as
“Design-Build.”
One vital component of POE development is
binational coordination between the United
States and Mexico. Coordination is critical for
effective completion of each task of the
project, especially those that require action on
both sides of the border.
Diplomatic notes between the two countries
and lobbying through the Binational Port-ofEntry Group help establish international
agreements and facilitate the processes. The
most important diplomatic notes are
highlighted in the general process diagram.
Other, less crucial, types of diplomatic notes
are exchanged throughout the process but are
not included in the diagram. Among the most
important diplomatic notes are the first notes,
which express interest for a new POE by each
country. The second notes establish the
geographic location of the new POE. The third
formalize the construction agreement, and the
5
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
fourth signal the completion of construction
and the commencement of operations at the
new POE. Expansion and/or Modernization of
Existing Ports of Entry
Unlike the process for new POE construction,
expansions and modernization projects
involve fewer steps, meaning fewer agencies
are involved on each side of the border. This
allows more dynamic coordination among the
agencies involved, resulting in faster project
completion. The processes and requirements
for expansions and modernizations vary
based on the nature of the project. For the
purpose of this project, expansions and
modernizations are defined as projects with
binational benefits and operations that impact
only one country. Only projects with a
binational impact involving substantial
modifications to existing POE infrastructure
require a presidential permit. 2
If the project does not have binational impact,
then the final design is proposed. In Mexico, it
is important to distinguish whether the
project will affect roads of real estate. If the
project affects roadways, then SCT must
approve. If the project affects real estate, then
INDAABIN and/or Servicio de Administración
Tributaria (SAT) must approve of the project.
This distinction is not required on the
American side. Once the final design is
approved, the next step is to select a financing
scheme and project executor. The final step is
the construction of the proposed
modifications.
2 U.S. Department of State. (2007). Interpretative Guidance,
Executive Order 11423.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/94946.htm.
6
Financial Mechanisms for
Infrastructure Projects in
the United States and
Mexico
Infrastructural modernization and
development on the U.S.-Mexico border play a
prominent role in the economies of both
countries and the region’s overall
competitiveness. The U.S. and Mexican
governments are committed to coordinating
with each other in order to further border
infrastructural development and determine
binational priorities and their positive impact
on economic development.
As Figure ES.4 shows, in Mexico, there are
various different forms of financing for POE
projects, including public sources (municipal,
state, and federal budgets; development
banks; etc.) and private funding through
various forms of public-private partnerships
(PPPs).
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Funding mechanisms for
infrastructure projects in
Mexico
Public
Federal Budget
Public and Private
Participation
PPPs
Customs Funds
Comercial
Financing
Development Bank
Source: Developed by FOA Consultores with information from Banobras, FONADIN and 2015 PEF
Figure ES.4. Financial Mechanisms for Infrastructure Projects in Mexico
In the United States, all POE projects are
traditionally funded by the executive
budget. The process for obtaining
resources begins with the lead agency
requesting resources and ends with
Congress appropriating funds.
The General Service Administration (GSA)
and the Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) work together to request and
manage funding for infrastructure projects.
GSA works to secure funding for
construction, and CBP is responsible for
daily management and operations.
The typical process of funding for POE
projects starts with CBP. First, CBP will
Christensen, Michelle D. “The Executive Budget
Process: An Overview.” Congressional Research
Service. July 27, 2012.
3
draft the budget request under the
Department of Homeland Security’s
(DHS’s) budget. CBP takes up about
22 percent of DHS’s budget. A portion of
the budget request is for POE
infrastructure development funding. This
requesting process is coordinated between
CBP and various partners (one of which is
GSA). DHS will then submit its budget
request to the executive administration for
the President and his staff to review the
various agency budget requests. The
President assigns the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to develop the budget
and review the budget requests while
interacting with the various agencies in the
approval process. 3 After OMB coordinates
7
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
with the various agencies in the approval
process, the President will then finalize the
budget to be sent to Congress.
Part of CBP’s mission for the POEs is its
resource optimization strategy. This
strategy was developed to support
increasing volumes of trade and travel
through POEs. This strategy includes
“Business Transformation Initiatives, a
data-driven Workload Staffing Model, and
alternative sources of funding.” 4 CBP is
working on developing alternative sources
of funding that include:
•
•
•
•
Reimbursable service agreements.
Inflation-adjusted user fees.
Agriculture inspection user fees.
Public-private partnerships.
•
•
Conclusion and
Recommendations
POE Development Process
Use the BMP as the binational
source of project identification.
Among the opportunities for
improvement is the need for all
agencies to move toward more
homogeneous prioritization criteria
for new POE projects, as well as
broaden the spectrum of
institutional and technical
participation by all agencies
involved. It should also be
mandatory to include any POE
project that requires studies in the
BMP (by 2018).
Create a 5-year binational
investment plan for border
infrastructure projects, focusing
financing mechanisms on the most
deserving projects. It is necessary
for the governments of both
countries to agree on binational
projects since RBMPs prioritize
projects based on locally weighed
criteria. This 5-year plan will be the
vetting mechanism for each agency’s
priorities. As a first step, each
country can produce a 5-year plan
and ultimately come to a consensus
on priorities (see Figure ES.5).
On the Mexican side, evolve the
Port-of-Entry Group into an
Interagency Port-of-Entry
Commission that would expedite
project implementation (see Figure
ES.6). The POE Group is a
mechanism for communication and
coordination that can evolve into
the Interagency Commission. The
Base Group and the Mexican part of
the International Boundary and
The process for developing POE projects is
not clearly defined or documented in either
country. This study identified the most
important steps on each side of the border
for planning and developing POE projects.
Recommendations related to establishing a
well-defined process for POE development
are:
•
“CBP Takes the Next Step in Public-Private
Partnerships.” Customs and Border Protection.
Accessed November 10, 2014.
http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/portsentry/resource-opt-strategy/public-privatepartnerships.
•
Agree on a standardized four-phase
(planning, authorization, bidding,
construction/start of operation)
binational process for creating new
POEs and expanding and/or
modifying existing POEs.
4
8
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
•
Water Commission would support
the group in order to approve
technical aspects of POE projects. It
is recommended that the group be
co-chaired by the Ministry of
Foreign Relations and the SCT.
Create a process similar to the
presidential permit in Mexico. The
process can be in the form of a
federal authorization (FA), which
approves new POE projects
according to the powers of each
agency within the Base Group. The
FA should include Phase II
authorizations, which will lead to an
official authorization document. To
make the FA equal to the U.S.
presidential permit, it is
recommended that diplomatic notes
be exchanged and a binational
agreement be signed for the new
POE.
Financing
It is suggested that the new financial
mechanism be developed in two stages that
could evolve from a tactical phase aimed at
funding multiple projects in the short term,
to a more strategic phase as an instrument
to leverage binational policies.
The goal of the proposed program would
be to promote POE infrastructure
investment by attracting private and
multilateral capital as well as co-financing
between the local, state, and federal
governments of both countries. The
expected results would be increased
competitiveness and efficiency in the
border region and support binational
policy objectives like the ones established
in the HLED.
The new program could be integrated into
the binational development bank in order
to finance new POE projects, promote highlevel binational modernizations, and
provide assistance for research and
financial studies required to develop POE
projects. Support will be provided based on
specific rules that each project should
comply with.
The creation of an Interagency Commission
is recommended, so that the program
would be under the purview of a technical
committee consisting of representatives
from both federal governments, with
subcommittees organized by task (new
POE planning, regulations and standards,
support, etc.). These representatives would
approve the program design and assistance
packages when the program is operational.
It is recommended that the program be
designed with the following
considerations:
•
•
•
•
•
Clearly define which projects would
be eligible for support, including
new POEs, high-impact binational
expansions, or other related
projects.
Establish the minimum eligibility
requirements, which might consist
of diverse factors such as minimum
investment amount, develop of
certain pre-investment studies, etc.
Develop a specific set of rules for
studies and not only for
construction.
Define the type of expenditures that
would be eligible for financing
through this program.
Define whether or not funding
ceilings would be incorporated into
the program relative to the total
9
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
•
•
•
•
amount project investment, and
whether there should be caps on
non-recoverable support.
Define procedures for projects that
could require future subsidies.
Technically, the program should
only support development and not
operating costs. However, the
program could provide assistance
for projects that require subsidies as
long as the proponent provides
proof that the project can payback
the subsidies.
Determine whether the program
should require a competitive
bidding process for all funded
projects.
Consider incorporating other
financing mechanisms into the
program structure (specifically
global financing mechanisms aimed
to reduce carbon emissions).
Select the institutions that would
participate in the Credit Committee
in charge of assessing funding
applications.
It is suggested that a project manager be
hired throughout this program and used in
every project that is funded under the
program. The project manager would help
in the implementation of each project, with
binational interactions to coordinate the
tasks listed on the POE Master Plan. The
biggest contribution of the project manager
would be the continuous planning and
development of the program.
10
Information Systems
As part of this research project, a new
information system that allows users to
store information regarding all POE
projects along the U.S.-Mexico border was
developed. The POE projects have been
classified as follows:
•
•
•
•
Proposed projects.
New projects.
Binational modernizations.
National modernizations.
This new system allows the information for
all POE projects to be stored in one
location. The system can be accessed via
the following link: http://biisdev.tti.tamu.edu.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Chapter 1. Analysis of
International Port-of-Entry
Projects on the U.S.-Mexico Border
As part of the objectives of the U.S.-Mexico
High-Level Economic Dialogue (HLED)
initiative, it was agreed that the
development of new infrastructure along
the border region of the two countries
should be a high priority. In reference to
this emphasis on infrastructure
development, the U.S. and Mexican
governments along with the North
American Development Bank Board of
Directors expressed that it should “take all
actions necessary to carry out a study to
assist the U.S. and Mexican governments in
mapping priority ports-of-entry (POE)
infrastructure projects and identifying
potential financing structures for those
projects.” 5 The North American
Development Bank commissioned a study
to meet this goal. The study includes four
specific tasks:
•
•
Summarize the institutional vision
of both governments related to the
border and international crossings
and bridges.
Map existing international crossings
and bridges between Mexico and the
United States (U.S.), as well as those
currently in the process of being
implemented and those proposed in
the future. Likewise, organize the
infrastructure projects in the short
and long term based on their
current status and other criteria as
•
•
determined by the relevant federal
agencies. Review the
implementation process for
binational infrastructure projects in
both Mexico and the U.S., ranking
the status of each one using
information from existing studies,
including regional border master
plans (RBMPs), prepared by the
state governments and specifying
those projects identified as a high
priority.
Evaluate current financing
mechanisms and identify new
options.
Create an information technology
(IT) system so that the pertinent
federal, state, and local authorities
in both countries may follow up on
the status of existing infrastructure,
projects in the process of being
implemented, and new project
proposals. In addition, it will serve
to support the development process
for regional border master plans.
The database will be the exclusive
property of the two governments
and will be administered by the
federal agencies assigned by the two
governments.
Deliverables from these tasks will serve an
additional input to facilitate the decision-
North American Development Bank, Resolution BR2013-29, November 14, 2103.
5
11
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
making of both governments related to
border infrastructure projects.
This study does not intend to evaluate and
prioritize specific projects along the
border. The RBMPs, which have been
conducted along almost the entire border
region, identify potential POE
infrastructure projects and prioritize them
according to a methodology established in
each region.
The results of the study will support the
U.S. and Mexican governments with the
implementation of binational infrastructure
projects, provide an institutional vision of
the border, and establish criteria to
organize the projects according to the
binational needs and their status in the
process. The project will also analyze the
actual project implementation process and
recommend changes to the process to make
it more expeditious.
1.1
The U.S.–Mexico Border
1.1.1 General Border
Data/Information
The U.S.-Mexico border extends 3,142 km
(1,953 miles), 6 from the Pacific Ocean at
the border between Tijuana and San Ysidro
to the mouth of the Rio Grande into the
Gulf of Mexico. The border area is includes
six states and 38 municipalities in Mexico
and by four states and 23 counties in the
U.S. (Tables 1.1 and 1.2, and Figure 1.1).
According to statistical data from 2010, the
border population is estimated to be 14
million inhabitants; 6.7 million live in
Mexican municipalities, and 7.3 million live
in U.S. counties. Population growth in the
6
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE).
12
border region, from 2000–2010, is
measured at 2.0 percent in the Mexican
municipalities and 1.5 percent in the U.S.
counties. Both of these rates of population
growth are higher than the rest of their
respected countries (Mexico at 1.4 percent
and U.S. at 0.9 percent) during the same
period of 2000–2010.
The majority of the population of the
Mexican side of the border region is
concentrated in the municipalities within
the state of Baja California, with
38.5 percent of the Mexican border region
population. Next is Tamaulipas with
26.5 percent and Chihuahua with
20.8 percent. The rest of the population is
distributed through the municipalities in
the states of Sonora (9.7 percent), Coahuila
(5.1 percent), and Nuevo León
(0.3 percent).
In the U.S., the majority of the border
population is concentrated in California,
with 44.8 percent of the U.S. border region
population. Next is Texas with
33.4 percent, Arizona with 18.6 percent,
and New Mexico with 3.3 percent of the
total border region population.
Considering the distribution of the border
population on both sides of the border, the
highest concentration is located at the
border region between the states of
California and Baja California, with
45 percent of the total border region
population. The next border location with
the highest concentration on both sides is
in Texas at the Brownsville–Matamoros
region with 18 percent, and El Paso–Ciudad
Juárez. The rest of the population is
distributed along the zones of Arizona–
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Sonora, Presidio–OJinaga, Acuña/Piedras
Negras–Del Río/Eagle Pass, and
Laredo/Nuevo Laredo.
Figure 1.2 shows the binational population
distribution along the U.S.-Mexico border
region, per millions of people per region.
Figure 1.3 summarizes a recent border
study.
Table 1.1. Mexico States and Municipalities at the U.S.-Mexico Border
Baja
California
Sonora
Chihuahua
1. Mexicali
4. Agua Prieta
14. Ascensión
21. Acuña
2. Tecate
5. Altar
15. Guadalupe
22. Guerrero
30. Guerrero
3. Tijuana
6. Caborca
16. Janos
23. Hidalgo
31. Gustavo
Díaz Ordaz
7. Naco
17. Juárez
24. Jiménez
32. Matamoros
8. Nogales
18. Manuel
Benavides
25. Nava
33. Mier
9. Puerto Peñasco
19. Ojinaga
26. Ocampo
10. San Luis Río
Colorado
20. Praxedis G.
Guerrero
27. Piedras
Negras
Coahuila
Nuevo León
Tamaulipas
28. Anáhuac
29. Camargo
34. Miguel
Alemán
35. Nuevo
Laredo
11. Santa Cruz
36. Reynosa
12. Sáric
37. Río Bravo
13. General
Plutarco Elías Calles
38. Valle
Hermoso
Source: National Institute of Geographic Statistics and Information (INEGI) (Mexico) and U.S. Census Bureau
Table 1.2. U.S. States and Counties at the U.S.-Mexico Border
California
1. Imperial
County
2. San Diego
County
Arizona
3. Cochise County
4. Pima County
5. Santa Cruz
County
6. Yuma County
New Mexico
7. Doña Ana
County
8. Hidalgo
County
9. Luna County
Texas
10. Brewster County
17. Maverick
County
11. Cameron County
18. Presidio County
12. El Paso County
19. Starr County
13. Hidalgo County
14. Hudspeth
County
15. Jeff Davis County
20. Terrell County
21. Val Verde
County
22. Webb County
13
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
16. Kinney County
Source: INEGI and U.S. Census Bureau
23. Zapata County
Source: INEGI and U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 1.1. States, Municipalities, and Counties along the Border
Source: INEGI and U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 1.2. Binational Population Distribution along the U.S.-Mexico Border Region
(Millions of People per Region)
14
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
15
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Border Research Partnership
In May of 2013, the Border Research Partnership (BRP) published the “State of the Border Report: A
Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.–Mexico Border.” This document was developed by the (BRP), which is
comprised of Arizona State University’s North American Center for Transborder Studies, El Colegio de la
Frontera Norte, and the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute.
The Report´s objective is to provide a comprehensive look at the state of affairs in border management
and the border region, focusing on four core areas: ( 1 ) quality of life (2) trade and economic
development, ( 3 ) security a nd ( 4) sustainability. A summary of findings include:
1. Quality of Life
The U.S.-Mexico border region presents two characteristics that result in substantial challenges for traditional
social and development policy. First, the deficits affecting the well- being of people along the border have
increased in magnitude, and second, the border is not only one of the fastest growing regions in North America;
it is also a space where a long and profound history of cross-border human interactions is paralleled by deep
national disparities. Some of the key findings are:
The overall quality of life on both the U.S. and Mexican sides of the border region improved
between 2000 and 2010. Though there is still a major cross-border asymmetry in many of the
quality of life indicators, the quality of life gap between U.S. and Mexican border communities
decreased slightly between 2000 and 2010.
Lasting progress in improving quality of life can only result from the combination of
independent national policies and binational efforts. Through complementary development
strategies, the investments of each country can be mutually reinforcing, creating a virtuous
cycle of development and raising living standards.
2. Security
Security, understood primarily by themes of organized crime and illegal migrants through the U.S.-Mexico
border, is considered the highest point of concern in the last few years and has resulted in various debates and
public discussions throughout both nations. It is concluded that there must be specific agreements that would
satisfy the themes and concerns of both nations and advance binational cooperation. Key conclusions:
The more the two governments can push key security processes away from the border, the
better, as an overconcentration of resources at the border (and particularly between the
ports of entry) has the potential to distract from a more strategic distribution of security
resources throughout the U.S., Mexico and beyond.
While it is difficult to predict future flows of migrants, we seem to be at or past a point of
diminishing returns in terms of improving border security through increases in Border
Patrol staffing.
3. Sustainability
The availability of underground water is also considered another theme that requires the attention and
coordination of both nations. The demand for water along the border region, along with the relatively high
population growth and the growth of the industrial/agricultural sectors, embodies the importance that water
represents for the sustainability of the border region and the job growth in this region.
For more than a century, shared surface water resources have been managed according to
bilateral treaties and agreements. The growing population of the border region and the
advent of water intensive methods of drilling for oil and gas heighten the urgency for
16
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
transboundary groundwater resources to be addressed proactively and binationally. Data
sharing regarding subsurface water would be a natural place to start.
The La Paz agreement and the environmental institutions formed alongside NAFTA have
focused U.S.-Mexico environmental cooperation on managing pollution in the border region.
In order to promote the development of vibrant and sustainable communities, much more
emphasis must be put on shared resource management.
The potential for renewable energy in the border region is significant. Inadequate
transmission infrastructure and limited incentives for renewable generation projects
currently limit its development.
4. Competitiveness
The infrastructure and capacity of the ports of entry to process goods and individuals entering the U.S.
has not kept pace with the expansion of bilateral trade or the population growth of the border region.
Greater border security initiatives by US authorities led to a thickening of the border, dividing the twin
cities that characterize the region and adding costly, long and unpredictable wait times for commercial
and personal crossers alike. Some key items are:
Well over a billion dollars’ worth of goods cross the border each day.
Long and unpredictable wait times at the border ports of entry are costing the U.S. and
Mexican economies many billions of dollars each year.
Trusted traveler and shipper programs (SENTRI, FAST, C-TPAT) allow vetted, low-risk
individuals and shipments expedited passage across the border. Improving these
programs and significantly expanding enrollment could increase border efficiency with
minimal investments in infrastructure and staffing—all while strengthening security by
giving border officials more time to focus on unknown and potentially dangerous
individuals and shipments.
Source: Erik Lee and Christopher E. Wilson, “The State of the Border Report: A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border,” May
2013.
Figure 1.3. Summary of the State of the Border Report: A Comprehensive Analysis of
the U.S.-Mexico Border
1.1.1.1
Existing Border Crossings and
International Bridges
There are 57 existing ports of entry along
the U.S.-Mexico border; 53 POEs are
currently in operation, three are closed
(rail crossings at Ojinaga–Presidio, La
Linda–Heath Canyon, and Miguel Alemán–
Roma), and one rail crossing at
Matamoros–Brownsville is currently under
construction. Table 1.3 lists the current
international bridges and crossings. The
7
Including the Ferry of Los Ebanos, Texas.
classifications of the existing POEs are as
follows: 21 7 are land border crossings, and
36 are bridges that cross the Rio Grande.
The POEs are also classified according to
the types of traffic that they see: tourist
(light vehicles), commercial (cargo
transportation), or mixed. There are also
POEs that are classified for pedestrians,
loading vehicles, or personal use vehicles.
The state of Tamaulipas takes up
20 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border,
17
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
spanning 629 km, and has the highest
number of POEs; next is Chihuahua and
Sonora. With the exception of Nuevo León,
all of the Mexican states have railroad
crossings at the POEs.
1.1.1.2. Historical Evolution of Crossings
and International Bridges
According to authorities, 42 percent of the
border crossings were built before the
1950s, 33 percent were constructed
between 1950 and 1990, and the rest of the
crossings (24 percent) were constructed in
response to the signing and
implementation of NAFTA. Figure 1.4
displays the period of time of construction
of crossings.
The older international bridges and are
undergoing reconstruction and
rehabilitation projects with the objective of
keeping them in the best operating
conditions. As expected, the international
bridges that have a higher vehicular traffic
capacity are the bridges that were
constructed recently.
There are 19 customs offices on the
Mexican side and 23 on the U.S. side. Table
1.4 lists the customs offices by state, and
Figure 1.5 shows their locations.
Not all of the border crossings serve all
modes of transportation. Some crossings
are exclusively dedicated to private
vehicles and in other cases are only for
commercial vehicles. Even though Nuevo
León is the only state that does not have a
rail crossing, it is important to note that
there are limited rail international
crossings at the border.
Table 1.3. International Bridges and Crossings through the U.S. and Mexico
Border States
Baja California–California
Sonora–Arizona
Chihuahua–Nuevo México
Chihuahua–Texas
Coahuila–Texas
Nuevo León–Texas
Tamaulipas–Texas
Total
Crossings and
Bridges in
Operation
7
10
3
9
6
1
17
53
Source: International Boundary and Water Commission, Border Ports U.S.-Mexico, August 2012
18
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
50
3
1
7
BORDER CROSSINGS
40
6
9
30
NAFTA
19
20
10
0
Antes 1950
1950-1969
1970-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2013
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION
Source: Texas-México International Bridges and Border Crossings, 2013, and data provided by Texas A&M University
Figure 1.4. Age of U.S.-Mexico Border Crossings
Table 1.4. Customs Offices along the U.S.-Mexico Border
California
Andrade
Calexico
East
Calexico
West
Arizona
New Mexico
San Luis
Douglas
Columbus
Brownsville/
Los Indios
Laredo
San Ysidro
Lukeville
Santa Teresa
Eagle Pass
Presidio
Tecate
Naco
El Paso
Nogales
Fabens
Otay Mesa
Baja
California
Sonora
Chihuahua
Tijuana
San Luis Río
Colorado
Puerto
Palomas
Tecate
Sonorita
Juárez
Mexicali
Nogales
Naco y Agua
Prieta
Ojinaga
Texas
Hidalgo/Phar
r/Anzalduas
Progreso/
Donna
Rio Grande
City/Los
Ebanos
Roma/Falcon
Dam
Nuevo León
Tamaulipas
Coahuila
Acuña
Colombia
Piedras
Negras
Source: Portal SAT: www.sat.gob.mx/aduanas
Nuevo Laredo
Miguel Alemán
Camargo
Reynosa y
Matamoros
19
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source: INEGI, SAT/Aduanas, and U.S. Census Bureau
Figure 1.5. Location of Customs Offices along U.S.-Mexico Border
1.1.2 Analysis of Economic and Trade
Potential of the U.S.-Mexico
Border
1.1.2.1
Trade within NAFTA
With the signing of NAFTA, Mexico’s
foreign trade with the U.S. and Canada
(1993–2013) is increasing at an annual
rate of 9.0 percent. Between 2010 and
2013, Mexico’s trade with the U.S. and
Canada was 8.0 percent per year.
NAFTA trade has also played a major role
in increasing the gross domestic product
(GDP) of both the U.S. and Mexico. In 2013,
the border states contributed to nearly a
quarter of the total GDP (22 percent in
Mexico and 24 percent in the U.S.) of the
subcontinent. The comparative advantages
of the Mexican side of the border region are
low-cost labor, engineering/ construction,
20
and land. On the U.S. side of the border
region, the comparative advantage is in
science/technology, research and
development, and access to capital. This
collaboration allows the region to become
one of the fastest-growing regions within
both nations.
In 2013, Mexican foreign trade grew to a
total of $761 billion dollars, with
67 percent of the total trade being
manufactured goods with the U.S. and
Canada (see Figure 1.6).
Recently, a decrease in the share of
Mexico’s total imports from the U.S. and
Canada has created an opportunity for
other countries to increase their
participation in sales to Mexico. China is
the primary country that is filling this gap,
with 16 percent of Mexico’s purchases
from abroad in 2013. During this same
year, the U.S.’ total exports represented
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
64 percent of Mexico’s imports. Canada
only represented 2.7 percent of Mexico’s
foreign purchases.
The majority of trade between the U.S. and
Mexico is transported through land modes.
Figure 1.7 displays the January 2013
statistics of land transportation between
the U.S. and Mexico, with 67.4 percent of
total trade between the two nations by
truck or rail through land ports of entry.
USA+Can 52%
Other 48%
USA+Can 82%
Other 18%
Imp
50%
Exp
50%
Total 761 billion USD
NAFTA Trade
Mexico/United States+Canada
507 billion USD
Source: Ministry of Economy, with data from Banxico
Value of trade (Billons of US$)
Figure 1.6. Mexico’s Foreign Trade, 2013 (Billions of Dollars)
27
5
Truck
Rail
6
Vessels
1
0.3
1
Air
Pipelines
Other &
Unknown
Mode of Transportation
Figure 1.7. U.S.-Mexico Trade by Mode of Transport: January 2013
21
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
1.1.2.2
Trade Related Employment
Border states have a significant amount of
employment that is directly related to
trade and transportation (Texas with
463,000 and California with 692,000). Even
though a large number of jobs depend on
U.S.-Mexico trade, there are other states
outside of the border region that rely
directly on U.S.-Mexico trade. There are 6
million jobs that depend directly on U.S.Mexico trade. These jobs are closely related
to Mexican GDP growth; as Mexico’s GDP
grows more U.S. goods are purchased.
Mexico’s GDP growth in 2010 was
5.4 percent, and there was increase of $34
billion of imports from the U.S.
The increase in flow of capital and goods
between Mexico and the U.S. highlights the
need to develop infrastructure in order to
maintain the economic growth pace.
Taking into account that the most of trade
between both countries is done by land
modes, the number of trucks crossing the
border will increase, creating congestion.
Figure 1.8 displays goods trade between
Mexico and the U.S. since 1998.
International trading is concentrated in
three large trade blocs. North America,
Europe, and Asia. These three trade blocks
concentrate 80 percent of world exports
and 84 percent of the imports recorded in
2012, as shown in Figure 1.9.
As shown in Table 1.5, 27 countries in
Europe had the highest value of exports
and imports to/from other countries, with
22
close to 36 percent of the world total trade.
Seventy percent of its foreign trade was
interregional or within European
countries. In North America, 50 percent
and 40 percent of its exports and imports,
respectively, were interregional (Mexico,
Canada, and the U.S.).
The U.S. and Canada concentrate a large
portion of Mexico’s foreign trade. However,
China is becoming an important trade
partner and in 2013 had 9 percent of
Mexico’s foreign trade. The European
Union also had a 9 percent share of
Mexico’s foreign trade.
The analysis of Mexico’s foreign trade data
shows higher exports, mainly to the U.S.
and Canada, with 80 percent of the total.
There is a slight diversification in Mexico’s
imports origins with the European Union
and China becoming more relevant in
recent years.
Mexico registered a high concentration of
its foreign trade with its trade NAFTA
partners, representing 52 percent of
Mexico’s imports and 82 percent of its
exports. See Figure 1.10.
U.S. trade with Mexico is increasing at a
faster rate than trade with Canada. Since
2010, total trade between the U.S. and
Canada has been increasing at an annual
rate of 10 percent, while trade with Mexico
increased at a rate of 14 percent. Even
though the value of trade between the U.S.
and Canada is higher than with Mexico, the
U.S.-Mexico trade growth is significant.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 1.8. Trade between Mexico and the U.S.
Origin of Exports
World Total
Trade: $17,930
North Americabillion
Destination of
Imports
North America
17%
13%
Europe
36%
Others
20%
Europe
37%
Asia
31%
Others
16%
Asia
30%
Source: International Trade Statistics, WTO 2013
Figure 1.9. International Trade by Trade Bloc, 2012
23
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table 1.5. Intraregional and Interregional Trade 2012 (Billions of USD)
Region
World
North America
Europe
Asia
Others
North America
3,035
Europe
6,564
Asia
5,333
Others
2,998
World
17,930
1,151
492
975
380
4,383
855
488
643
3,012
352
867
798
2,371
6,385
5,640
417
946
1,190
981
3,534
Source: International Trade Statistics, WTO 2013
Figure 1.10. Mexico’s Foreign Trade by Trade Bloc (Billions of USD
and percentages)
1.1.2.3
Nearshoring
Starting in the 1970s, Mexico established a
number of manufacturing plants using
foreign capital, primarily originating from
the U.S. Investments were concentrated
along the Mexican side of the border
region. The maquiladora export industry
started attracting industry due to low labor
costs compared to the rest of the world and
24
the strategic location, relative to company
headquarters/offices and consumer
markets. With supplies originating in the
North, assembly was conducted in Mexico,
semi-finished and/or finished products
were typically sent back to the northern
side of the border for completion and/or
final distribution to market.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Later, international businesses began
searching for production alternatives to
reduce manufacturing costs, and
manufacturing companies migrated to
China or India, where more convenient
fiscal schemes, cheaper labor, and other
opportunities were offered (offshoring
trend).
Recently, these production structures
trends have changes seeking international
production closer to consumer markets.
This new trend is known as “nearshoring.”
This phenomenon is typically referring to
Mexico because of its geographic location
and the common border with the U.S. With
the installation of manufacturing industry
in Mexico, logistical costs of produced
goods that will be sold in the U.S. and the
rest of the Americas can be reduced.
Studies revealed that various international
businesses have identified 10 benefits of
nearshoring in Mexico:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
13 free trade agreements.
Strategic geographic location.
Stable domestic economy.
Better supplier network
Less cultural differences compared
to China.
Lower transportation costs.
Similar time zone.
Better control of operations.
Faster-growing markets.
Demographic (48 percent of the
Mexican population is less than 26
years old).
1.1.3 Vehicle and Pedestrian
Crossings on U.S.-Mexican
Border
This section presents statistical
information of pedestrian and vehicle flows
across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Northbound commercial vehicle (CV)
volumes have increased since 1995 (Figure
11), compared to a decline in recent years
of pedestrians and privately-owned
vehicles (POV).
Since 2008 the number of pedestrians and
POVs crossing from Mexico to the U.S. have
declined (Figures 1.12 and 1.13). The
annual average growth rate for pedestrians
was 1.3 percent in the period, and POVs
grew at an AAGR of 0.4 percent.
POV crossings show the lowest number
since the 1990s, with 61.2 million
crossings. Organized crime violence along
the Mexican border cities, especially in
Tijuana, Juarez, Reynosa, and Matamoros
has discouraged the legitimate crossing of
throughout the border.
CV crossing volumes have maintained a
positive growth rate since the signing of
NAFTA in 1994, with a 3.5 percent AAGR
(see Figure 1.14). Between 1995 and 2000
the AAGR was 9.6 percent. Between 2010
and 2013, after the recession, the AAGR
was 3.1 percent; higher than national GDP
growth in Mexico of 2.9 percent, and
population growth rate of 1.2 percent.
25
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 1.11. POV, CV and Pedestrian Northbound Crossing (1995–2013)
60.0
50.0
Pedestrians
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
Figure 1.12. Northbound Pedestrian Crossings 1995–2013 (Millions)
26
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
100.0
90.0
80.0
POV
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Source: USDOT, RITA, BTS
Figure 1.13. Private Vehicles Crossings U.S.–Mexico, 1995–2013 (Millions)
6.0
5.0
Commercial Vehicles
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Year
Source: USDOT, RITA, and BTS
Figure 1.14. Northbound CV Crossings 1995–2013 (Millions)
1.1.3.1
Vehicle Crossings by Port of Entry
along the U.S.-Mexico Border
Interrelationship between populations at
both sides of the border, coupled with the
important commercial traffic, leads to a
considerable amount of traffic through the
border crossings (see Table 1.6). In 2013,
67 million POVs and 5.2 million CVs
crossed from Mexico into the U.S. Sixtyseven percent of the trucks moving
northbound were loaded vehicles.
Population concentration in the Pacific
Coast of the border explains the highest
number of POV crossings at the
Tijuana/San Ysidro border, while
commercial corridors in the east part of the
border concentrate the highest volume of
CVs crossings (Table 1.6).
In 2013, the Nuevo Laredo–Laredo
crossing had the highest number of CVs
crossings, with 36 percent of the total
throughout the border, followed by Otay
Mesa–San Diego with almost half of the
27
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Laredo volume. The third region with the
highest commercial crossings is Ciudad
Juarez–El Paso crossing. Table 1.7 shows
the truck volumes by crossing, divided by
total vehicles and empty vehicles.
As shown in Table 1.8, POV northbound
crossings was 200,000 units daily in 2013.
The Tijuana–San Ysidro POE, which
contains the largest concentration of
border population is the largest POV
crossing with an average of 31,000 cars per
day. Tijuana–San Ysidro also has the
largest number of pedestrian crossings.
Table 1.6. Northbound Traffic Volumes by Border Region, 2013 (Thousands of
Units)
Region
Baja California–California
Sonora–Arizona
Chihuahua–New Mexico
Chihuahua–Texas
Coahuila–Texas
Nuevo León/Tamaulipas–
Texas
Total
PrivatelyOwned Vehicles
(POV)
26,034
8,173
758
11,774
3,627
16,182
66,548
Source: USDOT, RITA, and BTS
28
Commercial
Vehicles (CV)
1,143
382
93
748
186
2,642
5,194
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table 1.7. Northbound CV Crossings by Port of Entry, 2013
State
Texas
New Mexico
Arizona
California
Port of Entry
Nuevo Laredo–Laredo
Cd. Juárez–El Paso
Reynosa/Hidalgo–McAllen
Matamoros–Brownsville
Piedras Negras–Eagle Pass
Acuña–Del Río
Progreso–Donna
Camargo–Río Grande City
Ojinaga–Presidio
Miguel Alemán–Roma
Jerónimo–Santa Teresa
Rod. M. Quevedo–Columbus
Nogales–Nogales (Mariposa)
San Luis Río Col.–San Luis
Agua Prieta–Douglas
Naco–Naco
Sonoyta–Lukeville
Mesa de Otay–Otay Mesa
Mexicali II–Calexico East
Tecate–Tecate
Total
Trucks
3,577,037
1,846,282
738,914
510,706
208,148
118,363
67,718
42,761
27,120
9,546
7,479
92,924
80,944
11,980
381,568
311,669
33,402
32,497
3,947
53
1,143,338
769,886
325,690
47,762
5,194,867
Loaded
Trucks (%)
67%
74%
48%
69%
60%
65%
73%
69%
–
40%
58%
73%
71%
90%
75%
80%
59%
53%
48%
–
65%
72%
48%
57%
67%
Source: transborder.bts.gov/tbdr/bc
29
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table 1.8. Northbound POV and Pedestrian Crossings by Ports of Entry, 2013
State
Texas
New
Mexico
Arizona
California
Total
POE
Cd. Juárez–El Paso
Nuevo Laredo–Laredo
Reynosa/Hidalgo–
McAllen
Matamoros–Brownsville
Piedras Negras–Eagle
Pass
Acuña–Del Río
Progreso–Donna
Miguel Alemán–Roma
Ojinaga–Presidio
Camargo–Río Grande
City
Caseta–Fabens
Jerónimo–Santa Teresa
Rod. M. Quevedo–
Columbus
Nogales–Nogales
(Mariposa)
San Luis Río Colorado–
San Luis
Agua Prieta–Douglas
Sonoyta–Lukeville
Naco–Naco
El Sasabe–Sasabe
Tijuana–San Ysidro
(Chaparral)
Mesa de Otay–Otay
Mesa
Mexicali–Caléxico West
Mexicali II–Caléxico East
Tecate–Tecate
Algodones–Andrade
POV
31,584,131
10,877,163
5,023,185
4,768,256
Busses
92,394
21,595
38,017
22,521
Pedestrians
15,870,112
6,015,421
3,558,660
2,061,995
4,277,352
2,361,447
8,443
927
2,125,476
803,446
1,265,779
1,079,671
683,834
603,238
350,054
0
1
507
383
0
100,423
757,381
259,716
65,803
53,058
294,152
757,794
0
1,512
68,733
445,498
427,334
330,460
215
1,297
144,759
300,739
8,172,192
3,162,451
11,294
8,699
7,154,133
2,912,079
2,948,504
16
2,315,369
1,470,933
289,997
284,677
15,630
26,033,552
11,346,966
2,076
486
17
0
105,000
60,173
1,804,110
40,699
81,146
730
17,729,194
7,741,210
6,235,300
42,145
3,289,778
4,112,348
3,198,849
745,541
394,548
66,547,669
0
2,571
111
0
210,200
4,398,916
717,009
750,385
831,896
41,198,937
Source: transborder.bts.gov/tbdr/bc
30
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
1.1.3.2
U.S.-Mexico Border Rail Crossings
There are seven operating rail crossings at
the U.S.-Mexico border:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Laredo–Nuevo Laredo.
Eagle Pass–Piedras Negras.
El Paso–Ciudad Juárez.
Brownsville–Matamoros.
Nogales–Nogales.
San Ysidro–Tijuana.
Calexico–Mexicali.
A total of 837,326 railcars crossed the
border in 2013, with 53 percent of the cars
loaded and 47 percent of the cars empty.
Rail crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border
showed an AAGR of 21.4 percent between
1998 and 2000, as a result of the Mexican
rail privatization process. In the 2000–
2006 period, the AAGR was 7.6 percent,
while in the 2006–2009 period there was a
negative growth due to the economic
recession with an AAGR of −16.0 percent.
Between 2009 and 2013 there has been a
recovery in the cross border rail traffic
with an AAGR of 5.8 percent (Figure 1.15).
The overall growth between 1996 and
2013 was 6.9 percent.
In 2013, 85 percent of rail crossings
between Mexico and the US occurred in the
state of Texas. The Laredo–Nuevo Laredo
POE handled 46 percent of the total
crossings. Eagle Pass followed with
31 percent, and the rest was distributed
between El Paso (17 percent) and
Brownsville (7 percent). On average, 25
trains a day crossed the U.S.-Mexico border
(Table 1.9).
The Nuevo Laredo–Laredo rail crossing,
which is served by Kansas City Southern of
Mexico on the Mexican side of the border,
and Union Pacific Railroad and Kansas City
Southern on the U.S. side, is the largest
POE, with 50 percent of the total railcar
crossings in 2013.
As shown in Table 1.10, the value of
Mexican exports to the U.S. moved by rail
across the border in 2013 was $41.972
billion. $27.744 billion worth of goods was
imported to Mexico from the U.S.by rail.
Laredo was the POE that had the highest
volume of Mexican exports, with
43 percent of the total value via rail. Eagle
Pass–Piedras Negras handled 25 percent,
Nogales had 18 percent, and 14 percent
was handled between El Paso (10 percent),
Brownsville (3 percent), and Calexico
(1 percent).
Laredo was also the POE that registered
the largest amount of Mexican imports by
rail in 2013. Laredo handled 58 percent of
the total value, followed by Eagle Pass with
15 percent, Nogales 12 percent, and
14 percent was split between El Paso
(10 percent), Brownsville (3 percent), San
Ysidro (1 percent), and Calexico
(1 percent).
Eighty-seven percent of Mexican rail
exports (by tons) crossed through a bridge
in Texas in 2013. Thirty-seven percent of
Mexican exports crossed through Eagles
Pass, 32 percent through Laredo,
12 percent through El Paso, and 6 percent
through Brownsville. The last 13 percent
used Nogales, Arizona. Very few goods
crossed through the California border. In
2013, Mexico exported via rail, more than
11.2 million tons of goods (see Table 1.11).
31
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cargados
Vacios
Total
----- Loaded
----- Empty
----- Total
Figure 1.15. Railcar Crossings 1996–2013
Table 1.9. Northbound Train Crossings by POE, 2013
State
Texas
Arizona
California
POE
7,971
3,629
2,459
1,357
526
866
866
504
254
250
Loaded
cars
392,483
255,965
91,498
36,123
8,897
49,481
49,481
475
0
475
Empty
cars
351,783
157,436
110,441
48,396
35,510
33,885
33,885
9,219
4,574
4,645
9,341
442,439
394,887
Trains
Laredo
Eagle Pass
El Paso
Brownsville
Nogales
San Ysidro
Calexico
Total
Source: USDOT, BTS, 2013
Table 1.10. Value of Freight Transported by Rail, 2013 (Millions USD)
Mexican exports to U.S.
Laredo, Texas
17,881
Eagle Pass, Texas
10,504
Nogales, Arizona
7,660
El Paso, Texas
5,457
Brownsville, Texas
440
Calexico, California
30
Total
41,972
Mexican imports from the U.S.
Laredo, Texas
16,067
Eagle Pass, Texas
4,107
Nogales, Arizona
3,597
El Paso, Texas
2,701
Brownsville, Texas
872
San Ysidro, California
200
Calexico, California
200
Total
27,744
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics
32
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table 1.11. Tons Transported by Rail, 2013 (Thousands of Metric Tons)
Exports from Mexico to the U.S.
Eagle Pass, Texas
4,175
Laredo, Texas
3,588
Nogales, Arizona
1,460
El Paso, Texas
1,325
Brownsville, Texas
657
Calexico, California
35
Total
11,240
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics
1.1.4 Border Crossing Times
The time required CVs and POVs to cross
the U.S.-Mexico border has increased in
recent years. In particular, the crossing
time for POVs has increased and the actual
volume has decreased.
A study conducted by Bloomberg
Government estimated that the cost of the
delays along the border cost the U.S.
economy $7.8 billion in 2011, and if there
were no actions taken to change the status
quo, then these costs could reach up to
$14.7 billion by 2020. 9
The excessive time to cross the border has
become a large issue that significantly
impacts the border region. The San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG)
released an analysis of the impact of the
delays through border crossings in the
California–Baja California region,
estimating that the “inadequate
infrastructure capacity is failing to keep up
with the increase in trade and security
requirements at the principal border
crossings between San Diego County and
Baja California. This creates congestions
and delays that cost the economies of
Mexico and the U.S. $6 billion in gross
output in 2005.” 8
The impact of crossing times varies in each
region along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Throughout the border, the costs estimated
due to a 3.5 hour crossing delay can range
from $5.8 billion to $12 billion, and job loss
can be between 26,000 and 54,000
employees. 10
8 San Diego Association of Governments, California
Department of Transportation, District 11. Economic
Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja
California Border. Final Report, 2006.
http://www.sandag.org/programs
/borders/binational/projects/2006_border_wait_im
pacts_execsum.pdf.
9 Border Delays Cost U.S. $7.8 Billion as Fence Is
Focus. Mayo 2013.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0515/border-delays-cost-u-s-7-8-billion-as-fence-isfocus.html.
10 The State of Trade, Competitiveness and
Economic Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border
Region, Erik Lee, Christopher E. Wilson, June 20111
1.2
Evolution of the
Institutional Vision of
Both Governments
When NAFTA started, the U.S. and Mexico
developed and implemented various
initiatives towards developing the
economy of the region and foster trade by
developing infrastructure along the border.
33
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
The border vision of the U.S. and Mexico
has evolved during the last 20 years, and is
reflected on the various programs that
programs that have been implemented
during this time period.
•
•
•
The binational programs that impact the
border include:
•
•
Joint Working Committee (JWC) of
the U.S. and Mexico.
Customs-Trade Partnership against
Terrorism (C-TPAT).
Security and Prosperity Partnership
(SPP) for North America.
21st Century Border.
U.S.-Mexico High-Level Economic
Dialogue.
These programs and implementation dates
are shown in Figure 1.16.
JWC
U.S.-Mexico
working
committee
planning
transportation.
NAFTA
1994
(January)
C-TPAT
Strengthen U.S.
border security
from
potential
threats r.
Improve
the Secure the U.S.communication Mexico
border
channels during while fostering
transportation
legitimate crossplanning
border trade
throughout the
Border States.
Through RBMP.
DOT/FHWA
CBP-DHSstates)
— Shippers
SCT/Mx border Carriers
states
1994
SPP
Promote
balance
security
trade.
the
of
and
Started
by
U.S./Mex/CAN to
strengthen
security
and
prosperity within
NAFTA.
21 Century
Border
US-Mex
HLED
Implemented to
strengthen trade
and reduce crime
along the border
region.
Collaboration
between U.S.
and Mexico at
the highest level
of government.
Modernize POEs
and
construct
new POEs if
necessary.
Promote
the
competitiveness
and connectivity
to
develop
production
economy
and
become
a
regional leader.
agencies
DOS-DHS/CBP- U.S.
+Mexico
and DOC
2001 (Nov)
Interagency Group
+ PGR and Public
Safety
2005-2009
2010 (May)
JWC = Joint Working Committee
C-TPAT = Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
SPP = Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America
HLED = U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue
2013 (Sept)
RBMP = Regional Border Master Plan
DHS = Department of Homeland Security
CBP = Customs and Border Protection
AGA = General Customs Administration (MEX)
PGR = Attorney General of Mexico
Figure 1.16. Collaborative U.S.-Mexico Binational Border Programs
34
Increase regional
competitiveness
within the global
economy.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
1.2.1 U.S.-Mexico Joint Working
Committee (JWC)
The JWC was initiated in 1994, shortly after
NAFTA, with the intention of promoting
“effective communication related to
transportation planning between U.S.Mexico Border States” and working to
“develop a well-coordinated land
transportation planning process along the
border.” 11 The goals of the JWC were to
promote clear communication concerning
transportation planning between the U.S.Mexico Border States by implementing
methods and procedures to analyze
current transportation infrastructure
vulnerabilities and to anticipate future
changes in land transportation.
FHWA leads the U.S. side of the JWC.
Border planning that is conducted by
USDOT/FHWA includes ports of entry,
roadways serving POEs, and transit and
pedestrian facilities. 12 The vision for
USDOT with border planning is to ensure a
safe and reliable system that will secure
the continued thriving of border activity.
SCT, specifically the Directorate-General
for Road Development, manages the
Mexican side. The state departments of
transportation in the U.S. and the public
works organizations on the Mexican side
are also members of the JWC and meet
twice a year alternating in each country.
1.2.2 Customs-Trade Partnership
against Terrorism
The leading organizations for this initiative
are the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and its counterpart in Mexico, the Ministry
of Communications and Transportation
(SCT). Up until 9-11, the JWC was
conducting studies on enhancing the speed
and safety of border crossings. After 9-11,
studies began to focus more on preventing
illicit materials that could be associated
with terrorism from crossing the border.
Currently, JWC is conducting activities that
focus on themes that include but are not
limited to green technology, sustainability,
green financing, and reliability measures.
The JWC meets regularly and is conducting
the regional border master plans (RBMP).
Shortly after 9-11, the U.S. government
began to focus more on ensuring national
security and preventing threats from
crossing into the homeland via POEs along
the land border. The U.S. government
created the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) in November
2001. This initiative is meant to create a
clear and secure supply chain for
organizations that are bringing goods into
the U.S. by coordinating efforts between
the public and private sectors identify
security gaps in the logistics supply chain.
11 “U.S./Mexico Joint Working Committee on
Transportation Planning.” USDOT: Federal Highway
Administration. Accessed August 11, 2014.
http://www.borderplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/mexico.a
sp.
12 “Border Planning.” U.S. Department of
Transportation: Federal Highway Administration.
Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty. Accessed
August 12, 2014.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/border_plannin
g/.
Currently, there are more than 10,000
member organizations in the trade
community that are part of the C-TPAT
program. These members include
organizations that operate between Mexico
35
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
and the U.S., including border drayage
carriers, Mexican shippers and
manufacturers that export to the U.S., and
Mexican long-haul carriers. 13 These
companies “account for over 50 percent
(by value) U.S. imports.”13
The companies that are members of CTPAT also have access to Free and Secure
Trade (FAST) lanes at the POE. FAST was
created with C-TPAT to give expedited
processing at borders for organizations
and individuals enrolled in the program. In
order to participate in FAST, all the
members of the supply chain must be
C-TPAT- certified and undergo background
checks and fulfill eligibility requirements. 14.
According to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), “C-TPAT importers are 4
to 6 times less likely to incur a security or
compliance examination (at the border).” 15
The Mexican government launched the
New Scheme of Certified Companies
(NEEC) program, which seeks to
strengthen the security of the supply chain
for foreign trade by implementing
minimum standards that are based on
internationally recognized security
measures and in coordination with the
private sector and provides benefits to
these participating businesses. The
program focuses on imports to Mexico, and
the stage of this program is directed
toward manufacturing and distributing
organizations. It is expected that in 2015,
NEEC and C-TPAT will join forces and the
13 “C-TPAT: Customs-Trade Partnership against
Terrorism.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Accessed August 25, 2014.
http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/portsentry/cargo-security/c-tpat-customs-tradepartnership-against-terrorism.
14 “FAST: Free and Secure Trade for Commercial
Vehicles.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
36
participating companies will benefit from
imports and exports between Mexico and
the U.S.
1.2.3 Security and Prosperity
Partnership for North America
U.S. decision makers are required to
balance between securing the border from
illegal drugs and weapons, and supporting
legal trade flows that can cross the border
in an efficient way and not hurt the
economy. The SPP is an initiative between
the governments of the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico to achieve a balance between
security and prosperity along the border
through increased cooperation. The SPP is
based on the principle of prosperity, in
which North America is dependent on
security and recognizes that the three
nations share a belief in freedom, economic
opportunity, and strong democratic
institutions.
The SPP has a comprehensive agenda for
the cooperation between the three
countries while also respecting the
sovereignty and unique cultural heritage
within each nation. The SPP provides a
vehicle whereby the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico are able to identify and resolve
necessary obstacles to trade. It provides
the means to improve response to
emergencies and increase security, in
addition to benefiting and protecting the
Accessed August 25, 2014.
http://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-travelerprograms/fast.
15 U.S. Customs and Border Protection C-TPAT
Program, Office of Field Operations. “A Guide to
Program Benefits.”
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
citizens of these countries. The SPP has the
following objectives:
•
•
•
Coordinate security forces to protect
the majority of the citizens of North
America from terrorist threats and
transnational crime and to promote
the secure and efficient movement
of persons and legitimate goods.
Expand economic opportunity for
everyone through the creation of
more competitive business in a
global market, reduce bureaucracy,
reduce costs, and encourage more
innovative products.
Unite forces to combat infectious
diseases, act before manmade or
natural disasters to improve the
quality of life for citizens, protect
the environment, and improve
consumer security.
1.2.4 21st Century Border
The 21st Century Border Executive
Steering Committee was implemented in
May of 2010. This is an agreement between
Mexico and the U.S. with the objective to
“promote trade and deter criminal
activities. 16 The declaration expresses the
agreement to strengthen cooperation in the
following scope:
•
•
•
Improve economic competitiveness
through the streamlining of
legitimate trade, while at the same
time avoiding transit of illegal goods
between the two countries.
Facilitate legitimate travel in a way
that at the same time prevents the
undocumented movement of people
between the two countries.
Share information that improves the
safe flow of goods and people.
Disrupt and dismantle transnational
crime organizations and punish
those who support these
organizations.
This initiative started in 2005 and was
ended in 2009. The initiative was a simple
understanding between the three countries
and was never formalized into an actual
treaty.
•
16 “21st Century Border: A Comprehensive
Response & Commitment.” Department of Homeland
Security. March 4, 2014. Accessed August 12, 2014.
http://www.dhs.gov/21st-century-bordercomprehensive-response-commitment.
The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) of the U.S. led the security agenda of
this initiative, and the Department of
Commerce (DOC) coordinated the
prosperity agenda. The U.S. State
Department supervised the collaboration
between DOC and DHS, as well as the
coordination with Canada and Mexico. The
Attorney General of the Republic was the
Mexican agency that participated in this
initiative.
The Executive Steering Committee was
created to coordinate and facilitate the
forces of this initiative on behalf of the
Administration of the 21st Century Border.
The Executive Steering Committee is the
leader of the development initiative and
contributes to the projects along the U.S.Mexico border. This committee ensures the
implementation of the objectives of the
declaration and has adopted annual action
plans, which are agreed upon bilaterally
and contain specific short-term tasks to be
executed by the responsible subgroups.
The committee is composed of
37
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
representatives of each government and
meets twice a year. The Declaration for the
Administration of the 21st Century Border
has three fundamental principles:
•
•
•
Development of infrastructure.
Public safety.
Table 1.12 lists the participating agencies
from each country in each working group.
Efficient and safe flow of goods and
people.
Table 1.12. 21st Century Border Executive Steering Committee Participating
Agencies and Functions
Participating
Agencies
Mexico
SRE
SCT
SAT (AGA)
SEGOB
SE
SEGOB (CNS)
CISEN
U.S.
DOS
CBP
USDOT
GSA
DHS
DOC
USTR
FDA
DOJ
BP
ICE
38
Bilateral Subcommittee
Security and
Procurement of
Justice
Infrastructure
Safe and Efficient Flow of
Goods and People
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
The Executive Steering Committee
effectively designed and implemented an
action plan that has already done the
following to improve the flow of goods and
people through the border: 17
•
•
•
•
Three new POEs in 2010—these
three POEs were the first new
border crossings in over 10 years
and included the Anzalduas
International Bridge; the crossing
between San Luis, Arizona, and San
Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora; and the
Donna–Rio Bravo International
Bridge.
Modernization of Border
Crossings—Projects to update
facilities included $500 million at
San Ysidro and $200 million at
Nogales–Mariposa.
Trusted Traveler Program—the
expansion of the Global Entry
Trusted Traveler Program allows
passengers from both countries to
expedite through the customs and
inspection process when entering
countries.
Engagement of Border
Communities—the committee has
been working to include
participation of all levels of
government for managing the
border. This involves state
legislators, universities, businesses,
state and local governments, law
enforcement, and U.S. and Mexican
agencies.
17 “Fact Sheet: A 21st Century Border Vision.” U.S.
Embassy. Accessed September 4, 2014.
http://www.dhs.gov/publication/2013-actionitems.
1.2.4.1
Regional Border Master Plans
As part of the Declaration for the
Administration of the 21st Century Border,
USDOT has taken leadership in the
development of RBMPs along the U.S.Mexico border. These plans are a tool
developed by the JWC to identify and
prioritize transportation projects along the
border. RBMPs prioritization criteria
include land use, environment, population,
and socioeconomic indicators.
RBMPs help to foster consistency between
the planning processes of all of the
participating agencies along the border.
RBMPs consider short, medium, and longterm needs and include a list of projects
and priority assessment of the
transportation and POE needs to support
international trade and improve crossborder travel, as well as the quality of life
of residents and tourists in each region.
RBMPs should be constantly updated
(every 3–5 years) with new data, policies,
and economic and infrastructure changes
in each region. 18 The planning process
includes the three levels of government
(local, state, and federal) of Mexico and the
U.S.
In October 2014, the RBMPs listed in Table
1.13 were developed.
18 U.S./Mexico Joint Working Committee on
Transportation Planning. Regional Border Master
Plans.
http://www.borderplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/masterpl
ans.asp.
39
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table 1.13. Regional Border Master Plans
Border Region
1. Baja California–California
2. Sonora–Arizona
3. El Paso, TX/Santa Teresa, New
Mexico–Chihuahua
4. District of Laredo, TX–
Coahuila/Nuevo León/Tamaulipas
5. Valle del Río Bravo–Tamaulipas
1.2.5 U.S.-Mexico High-Level
Economic Dialogue
The High-Level Economic Dialogue is an
initiative that aims to attract leaders from
the public and private sectors to promote
economic development and to
identify/develop potential areas for
cooperation between the two nations. 19
The HLED was announced in September of
2013 and identified three pillars in which
the two nations will collaborate:
1. Promoting competiveness and
connectivity.
2. Fostering economic growth,
productivity, entrepreneurship,
and innovation.
3. Partnering for regional and global
leadership.
The first two pillars are especially
important for the border region. The first
concerns transportation and
telecommunications infrastructure, while
the second pillar involves economic
development along the border.
19 Office of the Vice President. “FACT SHEET: U.S.Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue.” The White
House. September 20, 2013. Accessed August 25,
40
Date of Publication
In 2008 developed the first program, and in
2014 the second version was published
Published February 2013
Published October 2013
Published June 2013
Published October 2013
This initiative is another tool that the two
governments are using to create stronger
trade relations, as well as find a common
ground that will help coordinate efforts in
developing and maintaining strong
commercial relations. It is extremely
important to identify common goals in
order to modernize U.S.-Mexico trade
relations and be able to keep up with other
rapidly developing regions in the world.
1.2.6 Other Binational and Local
Groups
Two other groups related to the
development of programs along the border
exist. One of the groups is binational, and
the other was formed in Mexico.
1.2.6.1
U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and
Border Crossings Group
This group is the official forum of
binational dialogue for the negotiation and
concentration of agreements for border
infrastructure between the U.S. and Mexico.
This group has been meeting since 1983
and is comprised of the Mexican Ministry of
Foreign Relations (SRE) and the U.S.
2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/09/20/fact-sheet-us-mexico-high-leveleconomic-dialogue.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Department of State. It meets three times a
year (two regional meetings and one
plenary), alternating sites every year
between the U.S. and Mexico.
1.2.6.2
Mexican Interagency Group of
Bridges and Border Crossings
With the objective of supporting internal
activities within Mexico related the
planning of bridges and border crossings,
Mexico boasts a body that promotes
coordination between federal agencies in
Mexico and that, by law, has the ability to
negotiate for, construct, operate, and
maintain POEs and other related services.
The group communicates with the state
and municipal authorities in order to
establish a consensual national position to
present to the U.S. Mexico Binational
Bridges and Border Crossings Group.
The federal agencies participating in the
group are led by the Ministry of Exterior
Relations, which requests the participation
of other federal agencies that may interject
on a specific issue when deemed necessary.
Table 1.14 lists the agencies that form the
Interagency Group of Bridges and Border
Crossings.
Table 1.14. Agencies that Form the Mexican Interagency Group of Bridges and
Border Crossings
Primary Ministries
Ministry of Foreign
Relations (SRE)
Ministry of the
Interior/National
Institute of Migration
(SEGOB/INM)
Ministry of Finance
and Public
Credit/General
Customs
Administration
(SHCP/AGA)
Ministry of
Communications and
Transportation (SCT)
Ministry of Civil
Service/Institute of
National Asset
Management and
Valuation (INDAABIN)
Invited Participants
Ministry of the Economy
(SE)
Ministry of National
Defense (SEDENA)
Ministry of Environment
and Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT)
Border State Governments
Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock, and Fisheries
(SAGARPA)
National Water
Commission (CONAGUA)
Ministry of Social
Development (SEDESOL)
Ministry of Tourism
(SECTUR)
41
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
1.2.7 Evolution of the Vision
In Mexico, the National Development Plan
(PND) frames public policy that governs
the scheduling and budget of all of the
Federal Public Administration. It has been
conceived as the Federal Government’s
channel of communication, which
transmits the vision and strategy of the
government’s executive power to citizens.
The 2013–2018 PND, presents the national
goals to be a “prosperous Mexico” and an
“inclusive Mexico,” in which it is
considered that adequate infrastructure
and access to strategic inputs will promote
competitiveness and connect the human
capital with the opportunities generated by
the economy.
The PND does not specifically mention a
policy focused on the bilateral relationship
between the U.S. and Mexico in terms of
border infrastructure. However, the 20142018 National Infrastructure Program
(PNI) emphasizes the problems of
congestion and delays at border crossings.
To address this problem, the PNI
designates the following general strategy:
“Develop Mexico as a logistics platform
with multimodal transportation
infrastructure that generates added value
and competitive costs, improves security,
and boosts social and economic
development.” The program also address
the goals on the border by stating the
following: “Developing projects that
facilitate international flows of freight and
decongest access to maritime and land
border ports to facilitate foreign trade.”
20 Mensaje a medios de comunicación del secretario
de relaciones exteriores, José Antonio Meade, sobre
la relación México-Estados Unidos.
42
The Mexican government’s priority is the
development and modernization of the
border to turn the region into a
prosperous, safe, and sustainable zone. 20
The government has decided to promote
the necessary measures, working in a
coordinated manner alongside the U.S.
government, with the hopes of facilitating
the safe transporting of goods and people,
supporting regional development, and
improving the rule of law to prevent illegal
flows of goods and achieve a more modern
humane migration regime. The
government recognizes that it must
modernize the POEs to improve their
infrastructure and provide administration
that will allocate resources to such
projects.
On the other hand, the institutional vision
of the U.S. Department of State is to
facilitate the flow of goods and people
between the U.S. and Mexico in the most
secure manner possible. This agency
recognizes that the border is an artificial
boundary that affects the flow of people
and goods, as there are social and
economic bonds that go far beyond the
border. Its policy on border issues, is
focused on having a higher level of trade
and travelers, provided they are safe and
efficient.
The importance and complexity of bridges
and border crossings along the U.S.-Mexico
border require higher levels of
coordination between government
agencies of both countries, as well as more
domestic coordination between the private
sector and society of both countries. It
requires collaboration and cooperation
http://saladeprensa.sre.gob.mx/index.php/discurso
s/2767-016.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
between the authorities of the U.S. and
Mexico for the development and operation
of border crossings and the success of
potential projects. Any new border
infrastructure project will need to address
the needs and desires of both countries. If
the planning process of these projects is
not conducted correctly, the projects may
never come to fruition, making the crossing
of persons and vehicles through the border
more difficult.
The border vision has changed throughout
the years since the signing of NAFTA. The
terrorist attacks of 9-11 affected the U.S.
vision by making the U.S. government focus
more on security. While the U.S.
government seeks to achieve a balance
between trade and security, one can
observe how the U.S. has begun to favor
trade policies and programs (e.g., HighLevel Economic Dialogue). The U.S. has
realized that by encouraging a transparent
and secure supply chain, and coordinating
actions with the private industry, it is
possible to increase security along the
border and improve the efficient flow of
goods across the border.
21 “Fact Sheet: A 21st Century Border Vision.” U.S.
Embassy. Accessed September 4, 2014.
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/mexico/310329/1
In order to develop infrastructure
throughout the border, the JWC meets
constantly in order to implement action
plans on the border. The U.S. has planned
an investment of more than $60 million in
nonintrusive inspection equipment and
quickened the movement of plants and
animals through the issuance of electronic
certificates of health for the Department of
Agriculture, the Food and Drug
Administration, and their Mexican
counterparts. 21
With these new investments and
developments, it is clear that the U.S. seeks
to strengthen its trade relations in order to
increase economic competitiveness of
North America in the global economy. It is
expected that this competitiveness will be
achieved by supporting increased flows of
trade through the border and securing
assets.
6may/21st%20Century%20Border%20Vision%20
May%202011%20Final-.pdf.
43
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Chapter 2. Port-of-Entry Project
Development Process
The development of an international POE
project between the United States and Mexico
is a complicated process that requires
multiple actions. On one hand, each federal
government must coordinate the multiple
departments or agencies involved with each
phase of the project, including planning,
negotiation, approval, financing, construction,
operation, and maintenance. On the other
hand, each stage of the process requires
binational activities, which require
coordination between the agencies of both
countries in order to ensure the project
progress is made and to avoid delays.
This chapter contains information related to
mapping the process for the development of
port-of-entry (POE) projects between the
United States and Mexico. Two types of POE
projects were identified: those that create
new POEs and those that aim to modernize
existing POEs with beneficial effects on both
sides of the border.
This chapter was prepared with information
obtained from both countries and from
interviews conducted with various key
stakeholders, with special support from the
Ministry of Foreign Relations (SRE) and the
U.S. Department of State. The agencies that
were interviewed include:
Mexican Agencies:
• Ministry of Foreign Relations (SRE)
• Ministry of Communications and
Transportation (SCT).
•
•
Tax Administration Service (SAT).
National Institute of Asset
Management and Valuation of National
Assets (INDAABIN).
U.S. Agencies:
• U.S. Department of State (USDOS).
• Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
• U.S. General Services Administration
(GSA).
• U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT)/Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).
This chapter is structured as follows: Section
1 presents the stakeholders involved in POE
project development. Section 2 introduces the
general process for developing a new POE,
and Section 3 details the process. Finally
section 4 addresses the expansion of an
existing POE.
2.1
Stakeholders
2.1.1 Agencies Involved in Border Portof-Entry Development
2.1.1.1
Mexican Agencies
The Mexican government, through various
agencies and public organizations,
participates in the development of new POEs.
Table 2.1 lists the Mexican agencies that are
involved in the development, planning,
construction, and operation of POE
infrastructure projects. The table also
describes the function of each agency.
45
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table 2.1. Mexican Federal Agencies Involved in POE Projects
Agency
Ministry of Foreign
Relations (SRE)
Ministry of
Communication and
Transportation (SCT)
Ministry of Government
(SEGOB)
Function
Conducts Mexican politics outside the
country and helps Mexicans abroad.
Coordinates the country’s
international actions.
Sponsors the development and
operation of the national roadway
system.
Contributes to the democratic
governance and political development
of Mexico by maintaining good
relations between the federal
government and other agencies within
the country to ensure the country’s
national security, social harmony, and
the well-being of the Mexican people.
Responsibility in POE Projects
Chairs or co-chairs bilateral working
groups related to POE projects.
Plans the infrastructure required for
new POE projects. Grants concessions
for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of POEs.
Compiles and systemizes laws,
international treaties, regulations,
decrees, and federal, state, and
municipal regulations into a unified
database in order to provide
information through an electronic data
system.
Prepares and implements policies,
programs, and actions to ensure public
safety.
Coordinates the surveillance and
protection of strategic installations.
Ministry of the
Interior—National
Migration Institute
(INM)
Strengthens the protection of domestic
and foreign immigrant rights.
Ministry of Finance and
Public Credit (SHCP)
Proposes, directs, and controls the
economic policy of the country
including taxes, spending, revenue, and
debt in order to promote economic
growth and strengthen Mexican
welfare.
Prepares and directs national
immigration policy and oversees the
country’s borders and entry points.
Provides immigration services to
domestic and foreign immigrants going
into or out of the country.
Authorizes the section of the POE that
will be used for the transit of people.
Determines the geographic area for
Mexican customs (Aduana).
Verifies the import/export of goods and
data; ensures the correct payment of
contributions and compliance with nontariff regulations and restrictions
according to the Customs Law.
Sets guidelines for loading, unloading,
and handling of goods in foreign trade
and movement of vehicles within the
bonded areas; exclusively controls and
supervises the entry and exit of goods
and people at POEs.
46
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Agency
Ministry of Finance and
Public Credit—Tax
Administration Services
(SAT)
Function
Controls the entry and exit of goods
from the country through the customs
service.
General Customs
Administration (AGA)
Ministry of Finance and
Public Credit—
Investment Unit
Ministry of Public
Administration (SFP)
Ministry of Public
Administration—
National Institute of
Management and
Valuation of National
Assets (INDAABIN)
Ministry of Economy
(SE)
Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock, Rural
Development, Fisheries
and Food (SAGARPA)—
National Health Service,
Food Safety and Quality
(SENASICA)
Ministry of
Environment and
Responsibility in POE Projects
Inspects commercial merchandise
during transport in international
crossings and ensures their legal
operation.
Supports other units in compliance with
its rules.
Ensures that federal spending and
investments are used efficiently and
effectively, and promotes investment
patterns that complement public funds
with private resources based on the
objectives and strategies outlined in
the National Development Fund.
Ensures that public servants adhere to
the law as they carry out their duties.
Directs and determines the politics of
public purchases. Coordinates and
conducts audits on federal
expenditures, coordinates
administrative development processes,
operates and leads the Professional
Career Service, coordinates the work of
internal control bodies in each federal
agency, and evaluates management
entities at the federal level.
Administers federal and state-owned
real estate. Provides valuation services
for the Public Federal Administration.
Boosts productivity and
competitiveness of economy through
commercial policy, promoting trade
and services, and boosting
entrepreneurs and companies in the
social and private sectors. Strengthens
the internal market and attracts
domestic and foreign investments.
Regulates, manages, and promotes
health, safety, and food quality.
Monitors compliance with the general
policy on environmental impact and
Determines taxes on foreign trade and
collecting and countervailing duties.
Authorizes public resources to be
invested in POE projects.
Develops and proposes the draft
provisions and criteria for international
government procurements.
Coordinates the preparation of the
annual public works and related service
audits and inspections, and contracts
for the provision of services relating to
competition, public tender, or granting
permits and concessions under the
federal law.
Awards criteria and technical
specification for building, maintaining,
and managing federal property at POEs.
In new POE projects, it participates in
the release of right of way.
Performs tasks to strengthen Mexican
integration and competitiveness in
global value chains through negotiation,
execution, and administration of
treaties and international trade and
investment agreements.
Performs inspections of agricultural
products at POEs.
Monitors and regulates the possible
environmental effects of POE projects.
47
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Agency
Natural Resources
(SEMARNAT)—
General Directorate of
Environmental Impact
and Risk (DGIRA)
Ministry of Tourism
(SECTUR)
Ministry of Social
Development
(SEDESOL)
Ministry of Agrarian
Development and Urban
Planning (SEDATU)
Ministry of National
Defense (SEDENA)
Ministry of
Environment and
Natural Resources—
National Water
Commission
(CONAGUA)
Part of the SRE —
International Boundary
and Water Commission
(IBWC CILA)
Ministry of Finance and
Public Credit—National
Public Works and
Services Bank
(BANOBRAS)—National
Infrastructure Fund
(FONADIN)
Border State and
Municipal Governments
48
Function
risk. Evaluates and resolves
environmental impact statements and
reports of preventive works or
activities under federal jurisdiction.
Designs and implements public
policies to strengthen tourism
development.
Addresses the specific needs of the
most vulnerable social sectors.
Executes social development projects.
Transferred land management
responsibilities to the Ministry of
Agrarian Development and Urban
Planning (SEDATU) in 2013.
Plans, coordinates, manages, creates,
and executes public land management
and urban/rural development
programs. Provides legal certainty to
agricultural centers.
Defends the integrity, independence,
and sovereignty of the nation; ensures
security inside the country.
Manages, regulates, controls, and
protects national waters.
Responsibility in POE Projects
Provides tourist information for people
passing through the POE.
Promotes assistance programs such as
the 3x1 migrants program.
Plans land use in the entire country.
Stops and detains the flow of illicit
goods and persons across the border.
Reviews POE to ensure it does not affect
the environment.
Monitors compliance with
Grants technical approval for the
international treaties on boundaries
construction of POEs; is also involved in
and waters. Represents the Mexican
border environmental issues.
government in diplomatic negotiations
or international agreements dealing
with the operation and maintenance of
infrastructure covered in international
agreements.
Serves as the center of Mexican
Supports the financing of POE projects.
government coordination for financing
and infrastructure development in the
communications, transportation,
water, environment, and tourism
sectors. The fund supports the
planning, design, construction, and
transfer of infrastructure projects with
high social and financial profitability.
Analyzes project applications and issues opinions for approval or rejection or new
projects.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
49
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
The Mexican government created the
Interagency Port-of-Entry Group (Grupo
Intersecretarial de Cruces y Puentes
Fronterizos - GICyPF) in order to coordinate
all the agencies and public organizations
involved in POE development.
This group is the center of coordination
between the federal agencies involved in POE
development. These agencies are involved in
the negotiation, construction, operation, and
maintenance of POEs. The group itself does
not have any power to authorize projects. The
power to authorize rests solely with the
individual agencies.
The interagency group also serves as a
mechanism for coordination between the
federal government and local and state
authorities involved in POE development.
The group consists of 13 agencies and federal
organizations, five of which comprise the Base
Group of GICYPF. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 list these
agencies.
The agencies that make up the GICYPF
primarily participate in the negotiation and
operation of POEs.
2.1.1.2
United States Agencies
The United States agencies that participate in
the development of POEs are listed in Table
2.2.
Figure 2.1. Agencies That Comprise the Base Group of the Interdepartmental Port-of-Entry
Group
50
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.2. Other Agencies Included in GICYPF
Table 2.2. U.S. Federal Agencies Involved in POE Projects
Agency
U.S. Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
U.S. Department of
State (USDOS)
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA)
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
(DHS)
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and
Border Protection
(CBP)
Function
Ensures that the U.S. transportation
system meets national needs and
interests, and improves quality of life.
Promotes and shapes the world
through peace, democracy, stability,
and progress.
Develops and enforces regulations to
protect human health and the
environment.
Oversees real estate, acquisition, and
technology services for the U.S.
government.
Oversees national security and the
majority of law enforcement agencies
that protect the borders (land,
maritime, airports) and focus on
crime prevention/response within the
borders of the U.S.
Oversees security of maritime ports
and navigable waterways in the
United States.
Oversees law enforcement for
customs, immigration, border
security, and agricultural control,
while also encouraging legal travel
and trade.
Responsibilities in Ports of Entry and
International Crossings
Oversees all other federal transportation
agencies.
Issues presidential permits for projects at
land POEs. Must be notified of any
proposed new POE projects or
modifications of existing POEs.
Ensures that environmental quality
standards along the border are met.
Builds and maintains most of the land
POEs in the U.S. Also responsible for
repairs, maintenance, and management
of the physical facilities.
Coordinates activities between agencies
that fall under its control, including CBP.
Is the principal operator throughout the
ports of entry.
Has jurisdiction over the construction,
modification, operation, and maintenance
of bridges that connect the U.S. with
other countries.
Conducts inspections at POEs and
dictates operation.
Creates planning documents.
51
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Agency
U.S. Office of
Management and
Budget (OMB)
Border States’
Departments of
Transportation
(California, Arizona,
New Mexico, Texas)
Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs)
and Regional Planning
Organizations (RPOs)
Cities, Counties, and
Regional Planning
Associations
New Mexico Border
Authority (NMBA)
California Air
Resources Board
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
(TCEQ)
52
Function
Serves the executive branch in areas
of budget, agency management,
federal regulations, legislation,
executive orders, and presidential
memoranda.
Oversees building, planning, and
operating of all transportation
systems within each state.
MPOs: Oversees regional
transportation planning for cities with
a population of 50,000 or more.
RPOs: Oversees transportation
planning for non-metropolitan rural
areas.
Creates transportation plans and
prioritizes projects.
Provides leadership in the
development of POEs and advises the
governor.
Reduces air pollutants in order to
promote human health and ecological
well-being while considering the
economy of California.
Acts to protect public health and
natural resources in Texas, as well as
sustainable economic development.
Responsibilities in Ports of Entry and
International Crossings
Directs GSA in creating annual target
budgets for POEs.
Ensures regulations with federal
planning guidelines.
Prioritizes and selects POE projects.
MPOs: Includes all relevant projects in
transportation plans.
RPOs: Seeks public input about own
plans and disseminates information
about regional projects and programs.
Includes POE needs in planning
documents.
Oversees development and promotion of
New Mexico POEs. Promotes publicprivate partnerships and involves itself in
New Mexico–Mexico trade.
Assists businesses and individuals with
border crossings.
Quantifies air pollutants and toxins in the
border region. Also conducts pollutantrelated inspections of heavy-duty
vehicles at the border.
Monitors air and water quality and
enforces regulations in the border region.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.1.1.3
Binational Bridges and Border
Crossings Group
The Binational Bridges & Borders Crossing
Group (BBBXG) is the forum for negotiating
and concentrating resources for POE projects
between Mexico and the United States. The
group was formed in 1983 and is co-chaired
by the SRE and DOS. The group meets three
times per year: two regional meetings and
one full meeting. The meeting locations
alternate between U.S. and Mexican cities.
The Mexican agencies that participate in the
binational group are those that make up the
Interagency POE Group:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministry of Foreign Relations (SRE).
Ministry of Communications and
Transportation (SCT).
National Migration Institute (INM).
National Institute of the
Administration and Valuation of
National Goods (INDAABIN).
Tax Administration Service (SAT).
Ministry of National Defense
(SEDENA).
Ministry of Social Development
(SEDESOL).
Ministry of Economy (SE).
Ministry Environment and Natural
Resources (SEMARNAT).
National Food Safety and Quality
Services (SENASICA).
National Water Commission
(CONAGUA).
Federal Police.
The U.S. agencies involved in the binational
group are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
General Services Administration (GSA).
U.S. Coast Guard.
Animal Plant Health Inspection
Services (APHIS).
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC).
In addition to these agencies, the departments
of transportation and the border authorities
of the corresponding U.S. States are involved,
as well as corresponding Mexican federal and
state agencies.
2.2
General Process for New
POE Projects
The Mexican or U.S. governments will pursue
the development of a new port of entry if the
project meets the needs of both countries. The
approach for the development of a new POE
project is similar to any other infrastructure
project. However the involvement of multiple
agencies from each country requires a high
level of cooperation and agreements among
stakeholders.
There is no documentation describing the
binational process to develop a new POE. The
current legislation outlines the
responsibilities that each agency has in
creating a new POE. In the United States, the
53
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
presidential permit (PP) is well defined, but
this is only one part of a much larger process.
ones that sponsor new POE projects to the
state and federal governments.
The development of a new POE project can
begin in any of the countries involved but
requires coordination with the other to
complete the project. In some cases border
organizations, usually between sister cities or
regions at the border identify the need for a
new POE or expansion of an existing one.
These border regions or organizations are the
Based on the analysis of current practices, a 4phase process for the development of new
POEs is proposed (Figure 2.3). The process
has four main phases and each phase has
tasks that must be completed in order to
complete that phase and continue to the next
one, except the right-of-way acquisition and
Presidential Permit that could take more than
one phase to be completed. The proposed
binational process outlines general tasks,
however the process is no linear and each
POE development could be different.
The required tasks to develop a new POE
between the United States and Mexico, from
the initial planning stages to the operation
and maintenance of a new POE, are similar on
both sides of the border. Key milestones have
been identified that require high levels of
binational coordination between different
agencies in each country. Frequent exchange
of diplomatic notes between the two
countries is necessary to formalize
agreements between the two countries and
ensure project progress.
54
The lack of a clear definition over POE project
development processes cause delays and
inefficiencies in the implementation of new
projects. This has resulted in new POE projects
taking between 10–15 years to complete. In
contrast, trade between the United States and
Mexico have continued to growing, outpacing
border capacity.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.3. General Process for New POE Development
55
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.2.1 Mexican Process
SCT, as the responsible party for the federal
transportation sector, plays a very important
role in new POE road and railroad project
development. SCT decides which projects
enter into official consideration and which
projects are viable for development, based on
studies that are performed by other agencies.
SCT is also a key member of the Interagency
Port-of-Entry Group and as such, monitors the
process of project agreements and
negotiations with other member agencies for
the completion of specific activities.
•
Another important stakeholder is INDAABIN,
which is responsible for the administration of
federal real estate assets and issuing technical
criteria for the constructions of federal real
estate. INDAABIN also issues technical
approvals for new infrastructure projects.
The general process for new POE project
development has four distinct phases:
•
•
Phase I—Project Planning and
Preliminary Approval. Based on an idea
and/or interest from a private sponsor
or public agency, the SCT makes a
preliminary assessment of the project.
If the project is feasible and/or there is
a general interest by the Country to
develop it, the SCT creates a “Technical
File” and a preliminary conceptual
design and feasibility studies are
developed. If approved, the project
moves on to the second phase and a
diplomatic note is drafted to formalize
the new POE project defining the
“crossing point”.
Phase II—Technical Opinions of Project
and SCT Evaluation. The feasibility
studies are sent to the various agencies
56
•
involved in the process for approval,
including the Mexican section of the
IBWC, SEMARNAT, and the Investment
Unit at SHCP. The federal government
also informs state and municipal
governments of the new POE project to
begin coordination. SCT receives
feedback and reviews the project’s
financial structure to decide whether it
will be developed with public funding,
grants, or other financial mechanisms.
Phase III—Final Design, Bidding and
Definition of Project Contractor. The
final design is prepared and approved
by SCT and the project’s work plan is
defined. SCT must also define and
approve the project’s financial
structure prior to the bidding process.
If the project is funded under the
Public-Private Partnership Law, it does
not need to have a defined final design
prior to bidding, and it could be
procured as a design-build project.
Phase IV—Construction Development
and Operation. Before project
construction can begin, the right-ofway should be secured. With the rightof-way acquired, the final schedule is
defined and the project is constructed
based on the master plan. Once the
construction is concluded, operational
tests are performed on both sides of
the border. Before operation starts, a
“point of entry” declaration should be
declared. The last step of the process is
a diplomatic note that acknowledges
the completion of construction and
formalizes the start of operation.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.2.2 U.S. Process
The process in the United States for the
development of new projects follows a similar
general process than in Mexico, with minor
differences.
•
•
•
Phase I—Project Planning and
Preliminary Approval. The first phase is
the process of identifying and defining
the project. This phase includes the
preparation of a preliminary feasibility
study that describes the project
objectives, the impact that the project
on the rest of the country, defines
potential environmental impacts, and
potential sources for funding. This first
stage is concluded with a
recommendation to proceed with the
application for a Presidential Permit
and defines which agency will be
leading the project. The selection of the
lead agency is a function of the type of
project, and could be FHWA, GSA or
EPA.
Phase II—Presidential Permit. The
second phase consists of obtaining of
the Presidential Permit. In order to
obtain the Presidential Permit an
environmental impact study could be
required with a “finding of no
significant impact” (FONSI). The
Department of State is the lead agency
during the review process and based
on consultation with other agencies
identifies if the project is important to
national interest and approves the
Presidential Permit.
Phase III—Final Design. If the POE is
developed under the regular process,
the lead agency will be in charge of
securing and engineering and architect
•
firm to prepare the final design and
bidding documents. The project could
also be let through a design-build
option where the design and
construction are done concurrently.
This alternative is more efficient in
terms of project development
schedule.
Phase IV—Construction Development
and Operation. During this phase of the
project, the contrition takes place and
tests are performed to assure that the
POE operates properly.
2.2.3 Binational Process
Both countries maintain a relation of
cooperation and mutual understanding, which
helps overcome some of the major challenges
associated with the development of POE
projects. This binational coordination of
activities between the agencies of the United
States and Mexico is very important during all
phases of the project. Not having a clear
understanding of the project needs and
challenges in the early stages or lack of
coordination most likely will result in project
delays and higher costs.
Diplomatic notes exchange between the two
countries and regular communication through
the Binational Port-of-Entry Group help
establish international agreements and
facilitate the processes. The key diplomatic
notes are highlighted in the general process
diagram. Other, not critical to the process
diplomatic notes are exchanged throughout
the process but are not included in the
diagram. Among the most important
diplomatic notes are the first note, which
explicitly mentions the interest of developing
a new POE by each country. The second note
specifies the geographic location of the new
57
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
POE. The third diplomatic note formalizes the
construction agreement, and the fourth
diplomatic notes notifies the completion of
construction and the start of operations at the
new POE. Table 2.3 summarizes the
diplomatic notes by phase. As mentioned
earlier, there are other diplomatic notes that
are not key milestones during the process, but
are exchanged during the process and are
necessary to formalize communication and
keep POE projects on track.
In an effort to have a better binational border
infrastructure planning process, FHWA and
the Border States have developed and
implemented a planning process throughout
the U.S./Mexico border. The process is
described in the following section.
Table 2.3. Diplomatic Notes by Phase and Agencies Involved
Phase
Phase I
Phase II
Phase
III
Phase
IV
Activity
Interest for new POE
construction by both
countries.
Agreement on the
geographic location of the
new POE.
Binational approval of new
POE.
Bidding and construction.
Bilateral construction
agreement and signing.
Completion of construction
and POE start of
operations.
Document
First
Diplomatic
Notes
Second
Diplomatic
Note
Third
Diplomatic
Note
Fourth
Diplomatic
Note
2.2.4 Regional Border Master Plans
(RBMPs)
The U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee
(JWC) on Transportation Planning manages
the RBMPs. The JWC was created after the
signing of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). This group is comprised
of binational stakeholders representing
various federal agencies from both countries
as well as 10 border states. Local stakeholders
are involved in the planning process in order
to assist state and local governments.
58
SRE
Mexico
SCT
DOS
SRE
SRE
SRE
DOS
SCT
SRE
SRE
USA
DOT
CILA
State
DOS
DOS
IBCW
DOS
SCT
DOS
Each RBMP identifies the binational
infrastructure needed at each POE based on
the local capacity and current and future
demand. The strategic vision of each POE
changes according to the region (for example,
congestion, potential security, maximum
trade, etc.), and therefore each RBMP defines
the specific criteria for a new POE.
There are currently six RBMP initiatives
active along the U.S.-Mexico border:
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
•
•
•
•
•
•
Arizona-Sonora.
California–Baja California.
New Mexico–Chihuahua (under
development).
El Paso/Santa Teresa–Chihuahua.
Laredo-Coahuila/Nuevo
León/Tamaulipas.
Río Grande Valley–Tamaulipas.
In order to strengthen this binational
planning mechanism, it is suggested that any
new POE project should be part of the RBMP
before it can be placed in the project portfolio
of either country. Modifications to the current
project selection and ranking process should
be agreed, and aligned with federal priorities
in each country, therefore it is recommended
that a bilateral agenda be defined. It is
expected that by 2018 the new process would
defined and implemented in the next round of
RBMP development.
2.3
New POE Development
Phases
Each phase of the project development
includes several specific tasks that need to be
conducted by the various stakeholders that
participate in the process. It is estimated that
the development of a new POE could take
from 8 to 10 years average duration of a new
POE project is 8–10 years. Due to the
complexity of a binational project, and based
on previous experiences a new POE could
take from 8 to 10 years to be developed, and
in some cases the project could take more
than 15 years.
2.3.1 Phase I
During the initial phase, new POE projects are
identified and analyzed. The origin of the
project varies and could be part of the
country’s federal portfolio (i.e., Mexican
National Infrastructure Program 2013–2018),
result from the RBMP, or from local
initiatives. If both countries are interested
and agree to construction, diplomatic notes
are exchanged expressing the interest of
developing a new POE.
2.3.1.1 Mexico: Project Planning and
Preliminary Approval
This section describes the different tasks that
are part of Phase I of a new POE project in
Mexico. It is important to note that the
description assumes that the SCT takes the
lead on the project. This is the most common
practice.
2.3.1.1.1 Planning
The project starts with the idea to build and
operate a new border crossing between the
United States and Mexico. The project sponsor
may be an independent agency or part of the
local, state, or federal government of either
country. The project sponsor contacts one of
the Mexican agencies involved in the planning
and construction of new POEs (SRE, SAT,
INDAABIN, SCT) to propose the project and
seek preliminary approval from SCT. As the
head of the transportation sector in Mexico,
SCT analyses the feasibility of the project and
domestic interest in the new POE. SCT then
approves the project and informs the Base
Group of the Interagency POE Group.
In some cases, a preliminary analysis of the
overall POE vision and demand for the project
is performed. As the project is analyzed,
revisions to the overall concept may be
required.
59
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.3.1.1.2 Integration and Review of
Technical Files
Once SCT agrees to study the project, it
created a technical file or dossier, which is
used to manage a series of specific studies,
including:
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Analysis (conducted by
SEMARNAT). The study evaluates the
potential environmental impact of the
project.
Zoning (directed by SEDATU—
municipal and state governments).
Project plans are compared to local,
state, and national development plans
to ensure consistency with other land
use plans.
International Boundary and Waters.
The CILA or Mexican section of the
IBWC issues permits for surveying
within the floodplain in which the
project will be built (if any). CILA also
reviews information on hydraulic
design, embankments, and potential
water-related impacts at the
construction site. This authorization
applies only when the project is
located on the banks of the Rio Grande
and Colorado Rivers.
Urban Compatibility (SCT—municipal
and state governments). Topographic
studies are performed to establish the
feasibility of the project. Construction
plans connecting local and regional
road networks are also proposed.
Operational Structure (directed by
INDAABIN). Right-of-way acquisition
plans are reviewed, and if necessary,
acquisition process is performed.
60
2.3.1.1.3 General Conceptual Design
The project sponsor or SCT presents a
document detailing the general description of
the project as well as the justification for the
new construction. The document should
include the location of the new project, the
schematic plans of the area, support facilities,
and the draft of the road networks serving the
POE. SCT is responsible for the assessment,
and will be coordinating with INDAABIN,
which will issue approval when appropriate.
2.3.1.1.4
Preliminary Design Review by the
U.S.
The general details and description of the
project should be reviewed by the United
States in order to ensure that the project is
feasible on both sides of the border. After the
review, both countries sign a notice of intent
in which they agree to develop the necessary
feasibility studies and to complete the preconstruction tasks needed in each country.
2.3.1.1.5
Preliminary Financial Structure
SCT analyses and proposes a financial
structure for the new POE. First, the most
suitable financing mechanism is defined,
whether it is public works budget, a designbuild concession, or a public-private
partnership. The level of public investment
that is required is also included in the
proposal. The Investment Unit (Unidad de
Inversiones –UI) of SHCP reviews the
proposed structure. At the end of this phase,
there should be a preliminary funding
structure for the project, the funding source,
and the expected financial conditions.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.3.1.1.6
Social Justification of Project
The project sponsor or SCT conducts a series
of socioeconomic studies, identifying the
benefits that the new project will have. This
includes cost-benefit analysis, travel demand
analysis, and traffic studies with
origin/destination data that justify the
binational construction. The UI should
produce an official opinion on the project, and
if appropriate, approval of the project.
2.3.1.1.7
Project Review
SCT reviews the studies to determines the
feasibility of the project, and if necessary,
requests additional information to
supplement the analysis. If the study is
rejected, SCT or the sponsor could develop
additional studies to prove feasibility. The
Interagency POE Group is kept informed of
the progress of the project during this phase.
At the conclusion of this phase, the first set off
diplomatic notes, with the interest of
developing the new POE are exchanged.
Figure 2.4 depicts the first phase of POE
development in Mexico.
2.3.1.2
United States: Project Identification
and Planning
POE projects in the United States are
developed through the coordination of
multiple agencies for the financing,
construction, maintenance, and operation of
bridges and border crossings. This
multifaceted approach is seen in both
countries, each with its particular planning
process concerning environmental impacts
and restrictions on design and financing. The
similarity between the two countries
concerning POE projects helps to strengthen
binational coordination and guide the success
of future potential POE projects.
This section covers the initial phase of
identifying projects and the preliminary
planning process on the U.S. side, as shown in
Figure 2.5.
A combination of federal, state, and local
activities impact the development of the
project prior to requesting a presidential
permit from the Department of State. The
identifications of border-crossing projects
derive from a combination of various sources:
•
•
•
•
•
RBMPs.
DHS and CBP’s strategic resource
assessment (SRA) plan.
CBP’s 5-year construction plan,
reviewed by GSA.
Requests from any local
agency/government or private
developer.
An important element of this first
phase is the coordinated effort to
combine the different criteria of local,
state, and federal governments in
order to create a final proposal/design
for a POE project.
61
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.4. Mexico—Phase I of POE Development
62
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.5. United States—Phase I of POE Development
63
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.3.1.2.1
Project Identification and Planning
Process
New POE projects can originate from various
federal, state, or local sources, although there
are three major sources of origin for most
POE projects—federal agencies, border
master plans, and the Binational Bridges and
Border Crossing Group. Local and state
officials can pursue POE projects by
consulting with federal agencies such as GSA,
CBP, or DOTs. However, the border master
planning process has been implemented to
establish regionally coordinated binational
strategies for future POE projects and to avoid
uncoordinated efforts.
Advancing POE projects through any of these
three routes is intended to prepare projects
for consultation with the DOS to request a
Presidential Permit. This Presidential Permit
is required for any new POE project or
substantial modification to existing ports of
entry (defined under the presidential permit
process). The Department of State’s function
is to enable projects with consensus between
local, state, and federal stakeholders—an
applicant-driven process. Localities should
determine projects and identify funding
sources prior to seeking a permit. In essence,
a list of prioritized projects is derived from
CBP’s 5-year plan, SRA, and BMP.
2.3.1.2.2
Federal Agency Request (CBP and
GSA)
CBP’s SRA process identifies the agency’s
desired POE improvement projects, and also
includes POE projects requested by other
agencies and stakeholders. CBP creates a 5U.S. General Services Administration. Port of Entry
Infrastructure: How Does the Federal Government
Prioritize Investments.
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/194547.
22
64
year plan that contains SRA projects from its
field offices and other agencies. This 5-year
plan scores identified needs, conducts
sensitivity analysis on the ranking of needs,
assesses project feasibility and risk, and
determines a capital investment plan. 22
2.3.1.2.3
Strategic Resource Assessment
Process between DHS and CBP
The SRA process includes the following
elements:
•
•
•
•
Strategic planning.
Integrated planning guidance.
Future Years Homeland Security
Program.
Annual performance plan.
This 5-year plan is shared with the
corresponding regional division from GSA.
GSA is tasked with evaluating CBP’s projects
and selecting a budget based on funding
constraints by way of feasibility studies,
alternative designs, and cost estimates. CBP
and GSA prioritize projects based on four
overarching criteria:
•
•
•
•
Mission and operations.
Space and site deficiencies.
Security and life safety.
Workload and personal growth.23
GSA does not act alone when determining
whether to develop a potential POE project. It
consults the State Department to determine if
a project serves the national interest and
review environmental assessments.
SANDAG. (2008). California-Baja California Border
Master Plan.
23
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Similarly, GSA can coordinate with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
the environmental assessment process and
federal and state departments of
transportation to assess highway
infrastructure needs near potential ports.
2.3.1.2.4
GSA Land Port-of-Entry Capital
Program Delivery Process
Submitted to OMB
In high-priority POE cases, GSA’s national
office has the authority to suggest POE
projects for capital funding consideration by
submitting a request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), who can
insert the request into the President’s annual
budget for Congress. The typical process
under this procedure is as follows:
•
•
•
•
Year 1–2 Feasibility Study:
o Based on facility need/agency
request.
o Informal site consultations.
Year 2–3 Site Design:
o Site design prospectus to OMB.
o Site design authorization request
to Congress.
o Site design appropriation request
to Congress.
Year 4–5 Program Development:
o Architecture/Engineering (A/E)
firm selected.
o Predesign.
o A/E concepts.
Year 5–7 Construction:
o Construction prospectus.
o Submit prospectus to OMB.
o Construction authorization request
to Congress.
 Site acquisition activities.
o Construction appropriation
request to Congress.

2.3.1.2.5
General contractor selection.
RBMP Criteria
Due to the different needs and economic
situation throughout the border, each region
has different priorities regarding POE project
development. Regions prioritize projects
strategically, seeking maximum benefits for
their community and surrounding regions.
Priorities can vary widely, from promoting
trade of specific commodities, increasing
security, or even reducing congestion.
RBMPs have attempted to unify criteria
within each region to identify and prioritize
border related projects. As part of the RBMPs
development process, different criteria and
weight for each criterion was developed at
each region. In the future, it would be
important to try to unify criteria and weights
toward a nation border crossing development
plan.
2.3.1.2.6
Transportation Planning Process
Local, regional, and state agencies are
responsible for planning and preparing
transportation facilities neighboring POEs.
Navigating through these transportation
processes is important for timely delivery of
POE projects, particularly if adjoining
roadway or multimodal infrastructure is
essential for a POE project. All four U.S.
border states conduct system and project
planning to determine a strategic course for
their transportation infrastructure. This
planning must be consistent with federal and
state transportation planning requirements.
For example, a statewide long-range
transportation plan is a 20+ year strategic
plan to which all other state and regional
transportation plans must conform (both
65
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
system and project plans). Metropolitan
transportation plans (MTPs) are the regional
equivalent of the statewide strategic plan
prepared by MPOs in urbanized areas over
50,000 in population. MTPs identify needs,
policies, and multimodal projects for the next
20 years and designate future funding
allocations based on present-day legislation
and funding to meet these needs. If possible,
long-range POE projects (15–30 year horizon)
requiring roadway or multimodal
infrastructure should be coordinated with
MPO officials for funding consideration and
inclusion into the MTP plan to comply with
preliminary design, cost estimates, and
engineering tasks.
Statewide transportation improvement
programs (STIPs) and transportation
improvement programs (TIPs) are 4-year
capital plans (project-based plans). TIPs are
conducted at the regional level by MPOs,
representing the near-term plan advancing an
area’s long-range plan or MTP. STIPs
represent the collection of all the TIPs in a
state and are conducted by the state
departments of transportation.
Both STIPs and TIPs include project
descriptions, cost estimates, and funding
sources used to develop projects by local
entities. STIPs and TIPs are usually
consolidated in a separate transportation
program to further projects’ engineering,
environmental reviews, right-of-way
acquisition, or design. For example, Arizona
uses a 5-Year Transportation Facilities
Program for this purpose, while Texas
maintains its Unified Transportation
Program.
It is important to ensure POE projects in San
Diego and El Paso are consistent with EPA66
approved air quality implementation and
maintenance plans for these two nonattainment areas. Local and regional
transportation plans are verified by USDOT to
ensure they do not conflict with California Air
Resources Board and Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality plans for these
corresponding cities.
2.3.2 Phase II
2.3.2.1
Mexico: Authorizations and Permits
Phase II of the project, as shown in Figure 2.6,
begins when SCT and other agencies review
the studies submitted in Phase I. During the
second phase of the new POE development
process, there is a second exchange of
diplomatic notes, in which the geographical
location of the new POE is defined. During this
phase the approval of the project by each the
various federal agencies is required, and they
include at the minimum:
•
•
•
CILA
SEMARNAT
SHCP - IU
2.3.2.1.1
Review and Approval by the CILA
CILA ensures that the project complies with
the international treaties relating to land
boundaries and international waters, as well
as with all environmental issues. CILA also
conducts an analysis of the technical
characteristics of the project.
2.3.2.1.2
SEMARNAT Review
SEMARNAT analyzes whether the project
meets the general environmental impact and
risk policies, and issues an opinion on the
environmental impact assessment of the
project (including road access) and
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
recommends mitigation measures to address
any environmental risks.
2.3.2.1.3
Review and Approval by the
Investment Unit of SHCP
SCT uploads the cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
into the UI System in order to register the
new project in the federal investment
portfolio. If the cost-benefit analysis is
positive, the project is registered, and will be
able to access resources for further project
development.
2.3.2.1.4
SCT Coordination with Municipal
and State Governments
SCT informs the relevant municipal and state
governments of their interest in construction
of a new POE in order to initiate coordination
between all levels of government.
At this stage, determinations can be made
over land ownership and the strategy to
acquire right of way. Acquisition of right of
way is essential for project construction and
must be completed before the final
construction schedule could be defined.
This phase is completed when SCT receives
comments and/or approvals from
participating agencies and continues with the
project evaluation. SCT can approve or reject
the funding structure at this stage.
2.3.2.2
United States: Presidential Permit
2.3.2.2.1
Presidential Permit Process
Once the new POE project goes through the
initial phase, a Presidential Permit application
is sought from the DOS. It is important to note
that DOS does not generate projects, the DOS
evaluates whether the project is of national
interest and, if so, coordinates the approval
with all agencies involved in POE
development process. The Secretary of State
has the authority to review POE project
applications and to issue Presidential Permits
for POE construction, connection, operation,
or maintenance.
DOS’s function is to lead a consensus-building
process with agency stakeholders. Localities
should determine projects and identify
funding sources prior to seeking a
Presidential Permit. Stakeholders might
prioritize some border-crossing goals more
than others. For example, CBP might view
security as paramount, while another agency
might prioritize facilitating an easy and
efficient flow of goods. Consensus building
includes communication with Mexico, which
is an important economic partner. On both
the U.S. and Mexican sides, goals are to
maintain and improve border infrastructure
and processes as overarching goals reinforced
through sound communication.
The Secretary of State works with the
following agencies to determine whether the
project is of national interest.
•
•
•
•
•
DOT.
GSA.
DHS/CBP.
EPA.
DOS.
67
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.6. Mexico—Phase II of POE Development
68
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.7. United States—Presidential Permit Process
69
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.3.2.2.2
Step I: Project Categorization
Using the Interpretative Guidance on
Executive Order 11423, the project needs to
be classified according to its complexity and
size. Three colors are used to classify projects:
•
•
•
Red: all new and extensive
modifications for existing border
crossings.
Yellow: modifications on existing
border crossings that affect Mexican
operations.
Green: changes in the proximity of the
border that are not expected to affect
Mexican operations.
2.3.2.2.3
Step II: Application Requirements
The required components for application are
as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identifying information.
Description of facility.
National interest—information on why
the project is of national interest.
Similar facilities (in the area).
Traffic information.
Construction plan.
Financing.
Mexican approvals.
Other U.S. approvals.
Historic preservation (if required).
Environmental justice.
2.3.2.2.4
Step III: Environmental Review
In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act process, USDOS
must take into account environmental
impacts of the proposed project and related
construction. The exact process is outlined
below.
70
2.3.2.2.5
Step IV: Agency Review and Public
Comment
Once the application is complete, USDOS will
instruct the applicant to provide copies—
including all environmental and other
documentation—to relevant federal and state
agencies for their comment. USDOS will also
publish a notice in the Federal Register
inviting public comment on the project.
If during the environmental review USDOS
finds no significant impact, a FONSI report
will be published. Otherwise, additional
environmental impact reports are needed
before the project is considered further.
2.3.2.2.6
Step V: National Interest
Determination and Permit Issuance
Executive Order 11423 specifies certain
federal officials with whom USDOS must
consult when reviewing a permit application.
USDOS may also consult with other federal,
state, and local government officials, and it
will consider all views expressed, including
public comment, before making a decision on
a permit.
USDOS informs federal agencies of its
intention to issue a presidential permit.
Assuming there are no objections from any of
the officials specified in the executive orders,
USDOS will issue the presidential permit 15
days thereafter. In the case of an objection,
the Secretary of State will refer the matter
directly to the President for a final decision.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.3.2.2.7
Step VI: Other Necessary Approvals
Prior to Authorizing Construction
The Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the
construction, modification, operation, and
maintenance of any bridge connecting the
United States with a foreign country.
Plans for construction of the proposed facility
must be submitted to IBWC for its approval.
The U.S. section of IBWC is located in El Paso,
Texas, and the Mexican section (CILA) is in
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. IBWC will assess
whether the effects of the facility will be
consistent with existing bilateral
arrangements between the United States and
Mexico.
2.3.2.2.8
Step VII: Bilateral Coordination with
the Mexican Government
Through the Ministry of External Relations
and Embassies, communication between
Mexico and the United States is established.
Diplomatic notes are exchanged at various
stages of the process to communicate permit
authorizations and information.
2.3.3 Phase III
As Figure 2.8 illustrates, Phase III of the new
POE development process.
2.3.3.1
Mexico: Final Design
The project financial structure defines the
type of process that will be followed for
design and construction. If it is decided that
the project will be developed through a PPP,
the bidding process will be developed first.
The typical structure is to develop a complete
final design and use this to go out for bid in a
request for proposals (RFP). The other
alternative is to issue and RFP that includes
the final design. This is usually performed
when a concession under a build-operatemaintain contract with a private sector
developer is sought...
The project developer of SCT is responsible
for developing the final design of the POE and
its construction schedule according to the
timeline specified in the technical proposal.
SCT is also responsible for reviewing and
approving the final project design. The project
is also reviewed by INDAABIN, SAT, and CILA,
who issue comments and recommendations.
CILA-IBWC approval will be formalized
through a document signed by the Mexican
and U.S. commissioners.
Once the final design is approved, SCT notifies
the Interagency Port-of-Entry Group. The
complete acquisition of right of way must be
completed before the approval of the final
design.
2.3.3.2
Mexico: Bidding
SCT must finalize the project financial
structure and define the project bidding
structure before the letting process can begin.
If the project is being financed through a PPP,
then the bidding process will determine
which private developer will develop the
project through a service contract. The RFP
has to be published in the Federal Registry.
This phase is finalized with the decision by
SCT of the winning proposal.
2.3.3.3
United States: Final Design
The third phase on the U.S. side consists of the
final design of the POE (Figure 2.9). The final
design could be developed at the same time as
the Presidential Permit is being processed.
This will save time and accelerate the process.
71
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Also, in order to expedite the process, the
design-build mechanisms can be followed. In
this case the selected contractor does not has
to wait for the final design to be completed
before construction starts. The definition of
the process is done through coordination with
the U.S. lead agency or project leader.
The design and construction processes in the
United States vary according to the project.
The project can be a turnkey project, where
there is a single contractor that is responsible
for all of the work, including the installation of
supporting inspection equipment facilities,
72
electronic equipment, and other systems, or
several individual contracts are let
coordinated by the lead agency. Usually GSA is
responsible for contracting an
engineering/architecture firm that will
manage the design and construction of the
project. The design must follow regulations
established by the National Institute of
Building Sciences: Land Ports of Entry. When
selecting a contractor, CBP and GSA use
design standards that focus on five specific
objectives: aesthetics, functionality,
effectiveness, safety, and sustainability.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.8. Mexico—Phase III of POE Development
73
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.9. United States—Phase III of POE Development
74
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.3.4 Phase IV
During this phase, the new project is built
according to the specifications outlined in the
bidding processes. Operational tests are also
performed during this phase of the project.
The most efficient and effective procedure is
to have the construction of the POE on both
sides of the border be done simultaneously in
order to avoid delays.
The third diplomatic note is exchanged at the
beginning of the fourth phase. The third note
formalizes the construction of the new POE.
At the end of this phase, the fourth diplomatic
note, with the notice of end of construction
and the beginning of operations, is exchanged.
2.3.4.1
Mexico: Construction and
Development
In order for this process to begin, SRE must
obtain the point of entry from the Mexican
National Migration Institute. The
environmental impact statement issued by
SEMARNAT is also required to start this
phase.
The contractor coordinates with SCT,
CONAGUA, Civil Protection, SAGARPA, CILA,
and municipal authorities to acquire other
new POE required construction permits and
licenses (see Figure 2.10).
If the new POE involves the construction of a
new bridge, CILA will need to review
activities related to bridge construction; for
example, CILA will be responsible for the
review and approval of any type of temporary
work that is required or for the demolition of
existing structures. It is also responsible for
determining the location of the international
boundary on the new bridge structure. If the
project is a border crossing with no water
involved, CILA will simply supervise and
monitor the construction process (Figure
2.10).
The following supervision tasks must be
completed during this phase:
•
•
•
•
•
Construction schedule control.
Specification supervision.
Quality control and certification to
authorize payments
Payment control
Verify compliance with environmental
and labor regulations.
Project progress information will be shared
with the Interagency and Binational POE
Groups. Once the construction is completed, a
certificate of completion will be issued and
the exchange of the third diplomatic note will
be performed.
Mexican agencies will coordinate with
INDAABIN to make any adjustments or
approvals to the POE to ensure efficient
operation. The fourth diplomatic note, which
includes the date for the POE operations, is
then exchanged.
2.3.4.2
United States: Construction
Development
The project construction phase will require to
follow federal and local construction
regulations, guidelines and specifications. GSA
and the lead agency will coordinate efforts to
assure that the project construction goes
according to plan.
75
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Technical Consultant –
Contractor
Private Sponsor
CILA
Construction process
Hire a consulting company
Review construction
progress
Temporary work
Define the required
temporary work
SCT/CNA
Approve temporary work
Review temporary work
progress
Propose a location for POE
component locations
Analyze Information
Receive location approval
Approve the locations
Request a demolition plan
Create a demolition plan
Review the demolition
plan
Review and approve the
demolition plan
Demolition
Review demolition
progress
Support demolition plans
Source: Developed by FOA Consultores with information from the Mexican IBWC section
Figure 2.10. Agency Participation in POE Development in Mexico
76
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.11. Phase IV of POE Development
77
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
2.4
Expansion and/or
Modernization of Existing
Ports of Entry
Unlike the process for new POE construction,
expansions and modernization projects
involve fewer steps, meaning fewer agencies
are involved on each side of the border. This
allows more dynamic coordination among the
agencies, resulting in faster project
completion.
The processes and requirements for
expansions and modernizations vary based on
the nature of the project. For the purpose of
this study, we have defined expansions and
modernizations as projects with binational
impacts and those that will impact only one
country. Only projects with a binational
impact, involving substantial modifications to
existing POE infrastructure, require a
Presidential Permit.
The project will require a presidential permit
when the project involves “substantial
change” to existing POEs as defined by
Executive Order 11423 and outlined below: 24
•
•
•
Expansion beyond the existing POE
area, including inspection facilities and
grounds, access, and ancillary areas.
Changes to the POE ownership that
were not included in the presidential
permit.
Permanent changes to the type of
vehicle (freight vehicles, light vehicles,
pedestrians, etc.) that either (a) are not
consistent with what is covered in the
presidential permit, or (b) were not
24 U.S. Department of State. (2007). Interpretative Guidance,
Executive Order 11423.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/94946.htm.
78
•
established under the presidential
permit.
Any other changes that may have an
inaccurate definition of facilities
covered in the presidential permit.
2.4.1 Project Expansion and
Modernization
As shown in Figure 2.12, the process begins
when there is a need to modify or expand any
existing POE between the United States and
Mexico and a conceptual design of the project
is presented to the SRE and DOS.
If the project has binational impact, then
coordination between the United States and
Mexico will be necessary. In the United States,
the initial step is to define if a Presidential
Permit is required. If the project does not
require a Presidential Permit, the project can
proceed to the development phase, where the
final design is proposed and a financial
structure is selected. The project ends with
the construction and operation of the
restructured POE.
If the project does not have binational impact,
then the final design is proposed. In Mexico, it
is important to distinguish whether the
project will affect roads or real estate. If the
project impacts roadways, then SCT must
approve the design. If the project affects real
estate, INDAABIN and/or SAT must approve
of it.
Once the final design is approved, the next
step is to define the financing structure and
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
project developer. The final step is the
construction of the proposed modifications.
79
80
CREATION OF AN
EXECUTIVE PROJECT
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
DOS-GSA-DOT-Private
Sponsor
Expansions/Modifications
POE MODIFICATION
REQUIREMENT IDENTIFIED
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
DOS-GSA-DOT- Private
Sponsor
PROJECT
WITH
BINATIONAL
IMPACT
Yes
PROJECT APPROVAL
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
DOS-GSA-DOT
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF THE EXECUTIVE
PROJECT
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
NO
MEXICO
NO
UNITED
STATES
TYPE
OF
PROJE
CT
No
YES
POE Access
Modifications
Facility Expansions
or Modifications
PRESIDEN
TIAL
PERMIT
REQUIRED
EXECUTIVE PROJECT
APPROVAL
SCT
EXECUTIVE PROJECT
APPROVAL
INDAABIN-SAT
PRESIDENTIAL
PERMIT PROCESS
DEFINITION OF
FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
EXECUTIVE PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AND
APPROVAL
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
DOS-GSA-DOT
REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF THE EXECUTIVE
PROJECT
DOS-GSA-DOT-Sponsor
CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
DEFINITION OF
FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
DEFINITION OF
FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE
DOS-GSA-DOTSponsor
CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION
SAT-SCT-INDAABIN
DOS-GSA-DOT
CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION
DOS-GSA-DOTSponsor
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 2.12. Binational Process for POE Expansion and/or Modernization
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Chapter 3. U.S.-Mexico POE Project
Financial Mechanisms
Infrastructural modernization and
development on the U.S.-Mexico border plays
a prominent role in the economies of both
countries and the region’s overall
competitiveness. The U.S. and Mexican
governments are committed to coordinate
with each other in order to further border
infrastructural development and determine
binational priorities and their positive impact
on economic development.
This report contains the information related
to the third task of the project: identify
financial mechanisms for infrastructure
projects in the United States and Mexico.
3.1
Current Financial
Mechanisms and Possible
Alternatives
In order to understand the financing
mechanisms for the development and
maintenance of ports of entry (POEs), an
understanding of traditional financing
practices on both sides of the border as well
as more recent innovations being pursued by
Mexican institutions such as the Department
of Finance and Public Credit and the
Department of Communication and
Transportation, as well as the Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) in the United States,
is necessary.
The purpose of this section is to provide a
general overview of the financing for U.S.Mexico border crossing projects, existing legal
regulations, level of difficulty in funding these
type of projects, and current projects that are
in the implementation phase using these
financing mechanisms.
The scope of this analysis is limited to land
POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border. This
includes commercial vehicle, passenger
vehicle, mixed, pedestrian, and rail POEs.
3.2
General Overview of U.S.Mexico POE Project
Financial Mechanisms
One important aspect to consider is the
source of the funding necessary for POE
infrastructural development. Recently, the
United States and Mexico have both sought
diverse sources of financing in order to
diversify the risk, provide solvency in the
sector, and provide a secure and manageable
investment.
3.2.1 General Overview—Mexico
POE projects in Mexico have to go through
multiple phases and processes before the
financial approval and project development.
In Mexico, these projects are usually carried
out through a public works scheme (see
Figure 3.1), which relies on the project being
registered with the Investment Unit (IU) of
the Department of Finance and Public Credit.
Registration with the IU allows the projects to
be included in the federal budget
(Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federacion
[PEF]).
81
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
POE projects have also been developed
through public-private partnerships (PPPs),
some of which are listed in Table 3.1.
Planning
1. Strategic planning
of project
Evaluation &
2. POE project
socioeconomic evaluation
and financial structure
analysis
3. Project registration in
front of the Investment
Unit within the Ministry of
Finance and Public Credit
Progress
4. Physical and financial
progress review
Figure 3.1. Stages of Public Works Funding in Mexico
Table 3.1. POE Projects Developed through Mexican PPPs
Project
Tamaulipas/Texas—
Reynosa International
Bridge—
McAllen/“Anzalduas”
Sonora/Arizona—San
Luis Rio International
Bridge—Colorado/San
Luis II
Tamaulipas/Texas—
International Bridge—
Rio Brava/Donna
82
Investment Amount
(million Mex pesos)
Location
890 mdp
Reynosa, Tamaulipas
112 mdp
San Luis Rio
Colorado, Sonora
307 mdp
Rio Bravo,
Tamaulipas
Scheme
Concessions granted
to Marnhos Group
Concessions granted
to bridge
concessionaire and
operator
Concessions granted
to the Tamaulipas
state government
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
3.2.2 General Overview—United States
3.2.2.1
Federal Funding
Traditionally, the construction of POEs was
funded under the executive budget. The
process of obtaining these funds started with
the project´s lead agency requesting the funds
and concluded with the appropriation of the
funds by Congress.
The General Services Administration (GSA)
and CBP have traditionally collaborated in the
ownership of land POEs. The GSA’s mission
for the POEs is to “develop and maintain
processes, procedures and perform program
oversight to ensure POEs are developed
consistently and to an acceptable standard.” 25
CBP’s mission for POEs is to manage the
operations of goods and people crossing the
borders, while also increasing efforts in
modernizing and maximizing existing
resources to supplement the efficient flow of
goods and people. These two agencies work
together to manage and acquire finances to
support this infrastructure. GSA works to
acquire the finances, and CBP manages the
day-to-day operations and management.
The typical process of funding for POE
projects starts with CBP. First CBP will draft
the budget request under the Department of
Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) budget. CBP
takes up about 22 percent of DHS’s budget. A
portion of the budget request is for POE
infrastructure development funding. This
25 “Land Ports of Entry.” General Services
Administration. Last updated March 4, 2014. Accessed
November 22, 2014.
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104472.
26 Christensen, Michelle D. The Executive Budget
Process: An Overview. Congressional Research Service.
July 27, 2012.
requesting process is coordinated between
the CBP and various partners (one of which is
GSA).
DHS will then submit its budget request to the
executive administration for the President
and his staff to review the various agency
budget requests. The President assigns the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
develop the budget and review the budget
requests while interacting with the various
agencies in the approval process. 26 After OMB
coordinates with the various agencies in the
approval process, the President will then
finalize the budget to be sent to Congress.
Congress is the branch of government that
will pass the final approval of the budget and
distribute the appropriate funds. There are
four stages of the process that Congress will
perform (the last three stages occur
simultaneously): 27
1. Adoption of the budget resolution.
2. Passage of appropriation bills.
3. Consideration of reconciliation
legislation.
4. Consideration of authorization
legislation.
Table 3.2 provides a description of each stage.
27 “Stages of the Congressional Budget Process.” House
of Representatives Committee on the Budget. Accessed
November 12, 2014.
http://budget.house.gov/budgetprocess/stages.htm.
83
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
3.3
Financing Mechanisms for
Infrastructure Projects
3.3.1 Financing Mechanisms in Mexico
In Mexico, there are diverse sources of
funding for infrastructure projects, and
specifically POE infrastructure projects. These
sources include public funds (federal budgets,
state and municipalities, the Development
Bank, the National Infrastructure Fund, etc.)
and private funds that come from a PPP.
Figure 3.2 outlines the diverse financial
mechanisms used to fund infrastructure
projects in Mexico.
Table 3.2. Stages of Final Congressional Approval of the Executive Budget
Stage
Adoption of the Budget
Resolution
Passage of
Appropriation Bills
Consideration of
Reconciliation
Legislation
Consideration of
Authorization
Legislation
Function
The House and Senate committees will hold hearings on the budget
and will develop the framework used to consider spending and
revenue levels for the next fiscal year.
The House will then begin considering the actual appropriation of
the budget based on the discretionary spending allocation that was
developed in the previous stage.
If spending and revenue levels that were established in the first stage
require a change in any law, then the committees have to report
which legislation requires statutory changes.
Congress “considers the measures authorizing the appropriation of
funds on the programs each fiscal year.”27
Source: “Stages of the Congressional Budget Process.” House of Representatives Committee on the Budget.
84
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Funding mechanisms for
infrastructure projects in
Mexico
Public
Federal Budget
Public and Private
Participation
PPPs
Customs Funds
Commercial
Financing
Development Bank
Source: Developed by FOA Consultores with information from from Banobras, FONADIN and the 2015 PEF
Figure 3.2. Financial Mechanisms for Infrastructure Projects in Mexico
3.3.2 Public Financing Mechanisms in
Mexico
The PEF is prepared annually by the executive
branch and is approved by the House of
Representatives. Within the budget, the
public spending policy is outlined according
to the current National Development Plan and
the corresponding sectorial and special
projects. The PEF prioritizes expenditures
based on economic concept in order to
maintain the current processes of operation
in the state, or to maintain or expand the scale
of operation, i.e., infrastructure and public
services.
Within the federal budget, POE projects are
considered economic infrastructure projects
based on the fact that POE project funding
goes toward the construction, acquisition,
and/or expansion of fixed assets for the
production of goods and services in the
communications, transportation, and tourism
sectors. This classification includes all longterm infrastructure projects, including
restoration and maintenance projects aimed
at expanding the utility or original capacity of
fixed assets intended to produce goods and
services in the above-mentioned sectors, as
stated in Article 18, Paragraph 3 and Article
32, Paragraph 2 of the Public Debt Law.
Within the federal budget, infrastructure
investments, and specifically POE
infrastructure investments, are classified as
capital expenditures, which include
expenditures on public investments, meaning
investments from decentralized organizations
85
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
and public-sector corporations for the
construction, expansion, maintenance, and
conservation of POEs.
3.3.2.1
Development Bank
The purpose of the Development Bank is to
maximize access to financial services for
those who have limited access to traditional
or commercial financial services. In this sense,
the financial reforms passed by Congress on
November 26, 2013, allow institutions to
meet this goal by establishing a mandate to
facilitate access to credit and financial service
in their respective markets.
3.3.2.2
Development Bank: BANOBRAS and
FONADIN
The Development Bank, through the National
Bank for Public Works and Services
(BANOBRAS) and the National Infrastructure
Fund (FONADIN), designates financial
resources for the development of high-impact
projects such as roads, ports, airports,
international crossings, and more.
Figure 3.3 lists the products that BANOBRAS
provides for infrastructure projects.
FONADIN is a vehicle for coordination of
infrastructure funding within the Federal
Public Administration (primarily in the
communications, transportation, hydraulics,
environment, and tourism sectors), which
86
assists in the planning, promotion,
construction, operation, and transference of
infrastructure projects that have a social
impact or economic profitability, according to
the current programs and budgeted
resources.
FONADIN relies on diverse products designed
to strengthen the financial structure of
infrastructure projects in the country. These
products can be applied to the development
of POEs. FONADIN can provide financial
instruments such as guarantees and
subordinate loans from the point of
conception to the culmination of a project,
which makes projects attractive to private
investors.
FONADIN offers the following products:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contributions.
Grants.
Guarantees.
o Securities guarantees.
o Credit guarantees.
o Performance guarantees.
o Political risk guarantees.
Subordinate credit.
Venture capital.
Sectorial programs.
Assistance with project studies.
Table 3.3 outlines the products and forms of
assistance that FONADIN offers for POE
project financing.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source: BANOBRAS
Figure 3.3. BANOBRAS Infrastructure Investment Projects in Mexico
Table 3.3. FONADIN Products and Forms of Assistance for POE Project Financing
Product
Description
Provided by:
FONADIN grants non-recoverable assistance to entities and agencies of the Federal
Public Administration to finance investments in the development of infrastructure
projects such as POEs based on the following eligibility criteria.
Contributions
and Subsidies
Guarantees
Has a self-reliant payment source.
Has hiring process in compliance with Article 134 of the Mexican Constitution.
Has planned private-sector participation.
Provides feasibility studies that demonstrate the technical feasibility of the project, the
social impact, and the justification for financial assistance from FONADIN.
Is registered in the Department of Finance and Public Credit Investment Unit.
Has approval from the National Infrastructure Fund (FNI) Evaluation and Financing
Subcommittee.
Requested assistance is not more than 50% of the total project investment, except in
explicitly justified cases, which are approved by the Technical Committee of FNI.
To maximize private-sector participation in infrastructure projects that have high social
impacts, such as POE projects, and that present an opportunity for economic profits, the
fund grants subsidies based on the following eligibility requirements.
FONADIN
Has a self-reliant payment source.
Has private-sector participation.
Is registered in the Investment Unit of the Department of Finance and Public Credit.
Shows insufficient cash flow projections to provide a reasonable return to private
investors.
Provides feasibility studies that demonstrate the project will be technically, socially, and
financially viable once the subsidy is granted.
Gets positive feedback from the Evaluation and Financing subcommittees.
Requested subsidy is not more than 50% of the total project investment, except in
explicitly justified cases, which are approved by the Technical Committee.
Licensee provides, at minimum, 25% of the total project investment.
Security Guarantees: FONADIN also grants stock guarantees in order to facilitate credit
allocations for the financing of infrastructure projects in the stock market, which splits
the risks of the project with the investors.
BANOBRAS
and
Credit Guarantees: These are guarantees that are granted in financial schemes that use FONADIN
intermediate bank financing related to infrastructure projects. The federal, state, or
87
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Product
Description
Provided by:
municipal government awards these guarantees to public-sector, or private-sector,
contractors who receive concessions, such as POE infrastructure development
concessions.
Performance Guarantees: These guarantees are granted in order to reduce the risks
inherent in the construction and operation of new infrastructure projects.
Political Risk Guarantees: FONADIN grants this type of guarantee in order to absorb the
inherent risk associated with acts of authority determined by the Technology Committee
that can affect the feasibility of a project, which are defined by the corresponding judicial
instruments. These types of guarantees can be attractive in binational projects such as
POE projects.
FONADIN grants credit for projects that have a subordinate debt scheme and that allow
for a better cash flow and coverage of the bank or stock debt that will be requested to
finance the infrastructure project.
Credits
FONADIN is empowered to make supplementary contributions of capital in order to
allow borrowing enough capital necessary to execute infrastructure projects. Borrower
will be defined as follows:
Venture
Capital
Private-sector entities that receive a concession, permit, or other contract that permits
public-private partnerships for the construction, operation, conservation, and/or
maintenance of infrastructure projects.
Investment funds specifically dedicated to infrastructure projects.
Project Study
Assistance
Stock
Mechanisms
3.3.2.3
FONADIN
and
BANOBRAS
FONADIN promotes infrastructure projects through financing research studies and
assessments that are relevant to infrastructure projects. This funding can be used to
develop POE feasibility studies.
Recoverable Assistance: FONADIN provides recoverable assistance for feasibility studies
in order to extract financial rents.
Non-Recoverable Assistance: FONADIN grants non-recoverable assistance, up to 50% of
total investment, to public-sector entities for research and analysis on infrastructure
projects that are highly socially profitable, but not economically profitable. In the case
that the project becomes financially profitable, FONADIN will be reimbursed based on a
pre-agreed scheme.
Structured investment instruments are those securities whose aim is to allocate
resources to invest in activities or infrastructure projects within the country. The two
primary instruments are outlined below:
Infrastructure and Real Estate Trust (Fideicomiso de Infraestructura y Bienes Raíces
[FIBRAS]): These are tools used to finance real estate. They offer period payments and
have the possibility for capital gains.
Development Certificate of Deposit: These CDs are used to finance infrastructure
projects. The projects can be greenfield or brownfield.
Customs Funds
In Mexico, there is a trust that is funded by
the Customs Law, and whose profits are sent
88
BANOBRAS
and
FONADIN
FONADIN
BANOBRAS
to the federal treasury, and later directed
toward the trust specifically created for POE
projects. These funds can be used for a wide
variety of projects, including employee
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
of the concession to the private sector that
has the right to charge tolls in order to pay
back the investment made in the construction
of a new POE or expansion of an existing one.
The map in Figure 3.4 shows the various toll
rates at international bridges. Table 3.4 lists
POE tolls by vehicle type.
housing construction or POE expansions or
reorganizations.
3.3.2.4
Financing POE Projects with SelfSustaining Repayment Sources
In this scheme, the payment source is the cash
flow from tolls collected at POEs. This is part
Source: Developed by FOA Consultores with information from SCT’s Dirección General de Desarrollo Carretero
Figure 3.4. POE Tolls in Pesos
Table 3.4. POE Tolls by Vehicle Type
Busses
Bridge
Implemented Since
Anzalduas
01/01/2014
Camargo o Río Grande
City
01/01/2014
Cd. Acuña o del Río
01/01/2014
Juárez-Lincoln
01/01/2014
Laredo I
01/01/2014
Las Flores o Progreso
01/01/2014
Libre Comercio o los
Indios
01/01/2014
A
B
CU
CA1
CA2
$35
$70
$70
$70
$71
$26
$50
$50
$50
$50
$26
$26
$26
$26
$29
$50
$55
$50
$50
$61
$50
$50
$50
$55
$110
$183
$61
$124
$198
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
$50
89
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Los Tomates o
Brownsville—Veterans
01/01/2014
Matamoros o
Brownsville
01/01/2014
Miguel Alemán o Roma
01/01/2014
Nuevo Laredo III
01/01/2014
Ojinaga o Presidio
01/01/2014
Paso del Norte
01/01/2014
Piedras Negras o Eagle
Pass
01/01/2014
Piedras Negras II o
Eagle Pass II
01/01/2014
Reynosa o Hidalgo
01/01/2014
Reynosa-Pharr
01/01/2014
Int. Río Bravo—
Donna
01/01/2014
San Luis Río Colorado
II Cucapá
20/01/2014
Solidaridad
30/11/2012
Zaragoza-Ysleta
01/01/2014
AVERAGE
$32
$67
$67
$139
$218
$26
$50
$50
$50
$50
$26
$50
$30
$65
$24
$45
$26
$45
$26
$50
$26
$50
$26
$50
$32
$67
$30
–
$50
$144
$214
$50
$50
$50
$45
$45
$45
$164
$67
$139
$218
$89
$117
$167
$265
$50
–
$26
$79
$79
$51
$45
$45
$105
$62
$28
$45
$50
$62
$58
$50
$65
$30
$27
$50
$58
$51
$50
–
$129
$78
$50
–
$191
$106
Source: Developed by FOA Consultores with information from SCT’s Dirección General de Desarrollo Carretero
3.3.3 Public-Private Financing
Mechanisms in Mexico
3.3.3.1
Public-Private Partnerships
Public-private partnerships have proven to be
a good method of contracting infrastructure
projects through the years. This financing
mechanism combines experience, innovation,
and risk assignment between the public and
private sectors. The various financing options
possible in PPPs have made these
mechanisms more popular in light of the
global financial crisis. PPPs are used equally
in the developing world as in the developed
world.
The recent promulgation of the Public-Private
Partnership Law gives more certainty to PPPs
90
as financial mechanisms for infrastructure
programs. Some PPP financial mechanisms
include:
•
•
Purely Public-Private Partnership
Projects: Projects in which the origin of
funds for the payment of services to
the public sector or the payment to the
final user and the cost of investment,
operation, maintenance, and
conservation of infrastructure comes
solely from the federal budget.
Combined Public-Private Partnership
Projects: Projects in which the funds
for the payment of services to the
public sector or the payment to the
final user and the cost of investment,
operation, maintenance, and
conservation of infrastructure comes
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
from the public sector, including
funding from the federal budget, funds
from FONADIN, or any other public
funding not included in the federal
budget.
3.3.3.2
Concessions
Under the financial scheme of concessions,
the government grants rights for a specific
U.S.
entity to provide a determined service. Some
POEs operate under this financial scheme.
3.3.3.3
Financing Schemes in the United
States
The two most common financial mechanisms
in the United States are shown in Figure 3.5.
Other common financial mechanisms are
outlined below.
Traditional and State/County- GSA and CBP plan international
bridges, defining the cost which is included in the Quinquennial
Plan. This plan may receive funds from the OMB after Congress´
authorization
PPP- Section 559 authorizes CBP and GSA to receive donations
from the private sector and government entties, to be used in
construction, operation, and maintenance of POEs. Operational
criteria is used in evaluating applications.
Figure 3.5. Two Most Common Financial Mechanisms in the United States
3.3.3.4
CBP’s Alternative Sources of Funding
•
Inflation-adjusted user fees.
Part of CBP’s mission for POEs is its resource
optimization strategy. This strategy was
developed to support increasing volumes of
trade and travel through its POEs. This
strategy includes “Business Transformation
Initiatives, a data-driven Workload Staffing
Model, and alternative sources of funding.” 28
CBP is working on developing alternative
sources of funding that include:
3.3.3.5
28 “CBP Takes the Next Step in Public-Private
Partnerships.” Customs and Border Protection.
Accessed November 10, 2014.
http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/portsentry/resource-opt-strategy/public-privatepartnerships.
•
•
•
Reimbursable service agreements.
Public-private partnerships.
Agriculture inspection user fees.
Reimbursable Service Agreements
and Public-Private Partnerships
Reimbursable service agreements and PPPs
are under the jurisdiction of Section 559 of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, from
2014. This allows CBP to be supported
through reimbursable service agreements
and the Donation Acceptance Program.
Reimbursable services include “customs,
immigration, and agricultural processing;
salaries for additional staff; and overtime
expenses at airports.”28 Reimbursable service
agreements allow outside organizations to
91
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
provide funds for the hiring of new CBP
employees at POEs. The Donation Acceptance
Program applies directly to the construction
and maintenance of POE infrastructure. This
program allows CBP and GSA to accept
donations of “real personal property or nonpersonal services to be used for construction,
alterations, operation, or maintenance of a
new or existing port of entry.”28
CBP views these programs as a method of
coordinating with communities and other
stakeholders to identify and implement
business solutions for various border
management needs. The theory behind this is
that more private-sector involvement will
expedite the implementation process of
various projects. This will also align the
mission of the construction of these POEs
with the surrounding community.
Organizations that desire a partnership with
CBP through its Reimbursable Services
Program must meet the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
Submit a request for CBP customs and
immigration services (excluding
agricultural services).
Agree to reimburse CBP for all costs
associated with the service.
Complete an agricultural compliance
agreement.
Have a successful site visit by CBP to
discuss services and ensure that CBP
facility and equipment requirements
are met.
Conclude agreement with CBP
specifying requester’s responsibilities,
nature of request and fees etc. 29
“CBP Outlines Reimbursable Services Program.”
Airports Council International—North America.
Accessed November 22, 2014. http://www.aci-
29
92
The local municipalities and counties own and
operate the U.S.-Mexico border crossings
(bridges, railways, roads, etc.) that are within
their territory. Because of this, CBP cannot
collect tolls to fund the POE infrastructure
and is now turning toward these local
governments and private businesses to aid in
development of infrastructure through PPPs.
The primary revenue sources from PPPs are
from tolls, parking fees, retail operations
adjacent to the border, and advertising.
Traditionally, the cities and counties would
collect a percentage of the net revenues
collected. With the new PPP program, these
revenues would be redirected to the
improvement of the POE infrastructure and
be a long-term investment in
maintaining/increasing economic
competitiveness of the border region.
3.3.3.6
Agriculture Inspection User Fees
Agricultural products entering the United
States are subject to inspection. Shipping
companies have to pay a fee for these
inspections in order to support the wages of
CBP inspectors. CBP traditionally worked
with the United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service for inspecting
agricultural commodities entering the
country. There are proposals to increase
these fees to cover rising inspection costs.
The problem with agricultural quarantine
inspections is that the fees were insufficient
to cover all costs to conduct these inspections.
From FY 2000 to FY 2010, these fees were
solely adjusted for inflation. CBP hired
na.org/content/cbp-outlines-reimbursable-servicesprogram.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
hundreds of additional inspectors because of
an increase in arriving cargo. 30 Since the fees
were not sufficient, CBP and DHS had to
spend their own budget on the salaried
employees that were conducting these
inspections. This money could have been
better spent on other actions, such as
construction and maintenance of
infrastructure.
This source of funding is relevant because it
allows CBP and DHS to redirect funds to other
POE construction and development projects.
This is possible because agriculture
inspection user fees are used to provide
funding for wages of CBP inspectors.
3.3.3.7
undertaken promptly with follow-up action
taken as necessary.” 32
These fees have to be adjusted, just like with
the agriculture inspection fees, because of the
increase in hiring of salaried employees of
CBP. Exact proposals for these adjustments
have not yet been made, but CBP says that
this is a goal in the near future.
This source of funding allows CBP to direct
more capital toward infrastructure
development and construction. This is
possible because the user fees provide for a
portion of the salaries of CBP inspectors.
3.3.3.8
Inflation-Adjusted User Fees
Statewide Transportation
Improvement Funds
CBP collects user fees under the Consolidate
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(COBRA) (P.L. 99-272). These fees are
collected by CBP on behalf of other federal
agencies such as the USDA and the Internal
Revenue Service. These fees are then
deposited to the U.S. Treasury and distributed
to other federal agencies in accordance with
various laws and regulations. 31 The Federal
Claims Collection Standards states, “Federal
agencies shall aggressively collect all debts
arising out of activities of, or referred or
transferred for collection services to, that
agency. Collection activities shall be
The California Transportation Commission
(CTC) passed the Highway Safety, Traffic
Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond
Act of 2006, which allocated $2 billion a year
for infrastructure improvements along
federally designated “Trade Corridors of
National Significance.” 33 This program is
referred to as the Trade Corridors
Improvement Fund (TCIF) and was approved
under Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006.
“USDA Proposes Adjustments to Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection (AQI) Program User Fees.”
United States Department of Agriculture. April 2014.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2014/04/pdf/
AQI_fees.pdf.
31 “General Fees Collected by CBP.” U.S. Customs and
Border Protection. January 30, 2014. Accessed
December 4, 2014.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/15/rela
ted/1/~/user-fee---cbps-authority-to-collect.
32
30
“User Fee, Transponder, and Decal Information.” U.S.
Customs and Border Protection. Accessed December 4,
2014. http://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-importexport/uftd-info.
33 “Trade Corridor Improvement Fund.” California
Transportation Commission. Last updated August 20,
2014. Accessed November 20, 2014.
http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/tcif.htm.
93
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Under Proposition 1B, the eligible projects for
funding include but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Airport ground access improvements.
3.3.3.9
Financing Mechanisms by Phase
Highway capacity improvements.
Table 3.5 outlines the financing mechanisms
Freight rail system improvements.
available for POE projects by phase. This table
Port capacity and efficiency projects.
can help federal agencies secure POE funding
Truck corridor improvements.
based on the phase the project is in.
Improvements that maximize state
access to federal border infrastructure
funds.
Table 3.5. Financing Mechanisms Available for POE Projects by Phase
Phase
I. Planning
II. Authorization
and Permits
III. Design and
Bidding
IV. Construction
and Testing
3.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Financing Mechanisms
Mexico
United States
Federal budget
• Local and state budget
State and municipal budget
• Private financing from project sponsor
Federal budget
• Sponsor financing (private, local, or
state)
State and municipal budget
• Federal budget
Development Bank
Development Bank
• Sponsor financing (private, local, or
state)
PPPs
• Federal budget
Concession
Development Bank
• Sponsor financing (private, local, or
state)
PPPs
• Federal budget
Concessions
FONADIN
Venture capital funds
Specialized infrastructure
investment funds
Level of Difficulty in
Acquiring Funds and
Alternatives
3.4.1 Level of Difficulty in Mexico
The difficulty that entities encounter when
trying to fund infrastructure projects in
Mexico is unique to the financial scheme in
which they operate. The difficulties to public
94
and private financial schemes are outlined in
the next subsections.
3.4.1.1
Level of Public-Sector Financing
Difficulty
The primary difficulty for public financing of
infrastructure projects is the scarcity of
budgetary resources that are used to develop
infrastructure projects such as POEs.
Frequently in Mexico, the first budgetary cuts
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
to be made are to infrastructure maintenance
projects.
This lack of budgeted resources means that
infrastructure projects need to be included in
national strategies as well as sectorial
strategies. POE projects should be considered
in national development plans as well as
investment plans of various sectorial entities.
The difficulties facing public infrastructure
financing are summarized below.
3.4.1.2
Budgetary Difficulty
Budgetary difficulties facing public
infrastructure financing include the following.
•
•
•
•
•
Funding difficulties before the
development of the project:
o Conducting feasibility studies that
demonstrate the feasibility of the
new project.
o Proving the socioeconomic and
financial feasibility of a new
project.
Scarcity of budgetary resources.
Prioritization of public spending.
Management of public liabilities and
the financial cost of public entities.
Politicization of funds toward other
projects.
3.4.1.3
Development Bank
Development-Bank-related difficulties facing
public infrastructure financing include the
following.
•
The creation of, and contribution to,
reserve funds for infrastructure
projects, which in some cases reduces
liquidity of projects.
•
•
•
Credit ratings, which often require
minimum investments that the
participants cannot meet.
High commissions at the moment of
funding and throughout the
development of the infrastructure
project.
Limitation on the portion of total
investment allowed.
3.4.1.4
Level of Private-Sector Financing
Difficulty
Of the many difficulties faced by the private
sector, the most pressing are outlined below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In some cases, the inability to draw
large investors.
Limited interest in infrastructure
project investment.
High costs and timeline necessary to
obtain funding.
High financing costs reflected in high
interest rates.
Relatively high capital costs.
Delayed return on investment.
Lack of experience, especially on POE
projects.
3.4.2 Level of Difficulty in the United
States
3.4.2.1
Level of Difficulty for PPPs
There are specific criteria for the selection
process in order to qualify to participate with
CBP’s Donation Acceptance Program.
Proposals by entities will be submitted to the
Donation Acceptance Authority. The
Framework of the Donation Acceptance
Authority has two separate criteria—
operational evaluation criteria and nonoperational evaluation criteria—as outlined
in Table 3.6.
95
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
In December 2013, CBP selected two POE
entities, out of five total entities, for
partnership in a pilot program: the City of El
Paso and the South Texas Assets Consortium
(STAC). STAC is comprised of POEs including
Laredo, Rio Grande City, Pharr, McAllen, and
Cameron County. The City of El Paso and CBP
signed a $1.5 million contract. This contract is
primarily for providing salaries for more CBP
officers to operate in more lanes for
crossings. 34
In 2014, CBP and GSA announced that they
would begin the Donation Acceptance
Program to support POE infrastructure needs.
Figure 3.6 illustrates the donation proposal
evaluation process.
3.4.2.2
Level of Difficulty for Statewide
Transportation Funds
In California, in order to qualify for financing
from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund,
it is necessary to meet certain criteria. First,
the regions that fall under eligibility for
funding are the Bay Area Corridor, Central
Valley Corridor, Los Angeles/Inland Empire
Corridor, and San Diego/Border Corridor. In
order to qualify for funding in a respected
corridor, the applicant must provide a project
funding plan and demonstrate the public
benefit of the project. Also, it must be shown
that private-sector revenue streams cannot be
acquired and that TCIF is necessary.
According to CTC, “TCIF should not supplant
Martiinez, Aaron. “El Paso City Officials, CBP Sign
Agreement to Reduce Bridge Wait Times.” El Paso
Times. January 24, 2014. Accessed November 18, 2014.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_24982324/cityofficials-cbp-sign-agreement-reduce-bridge-wait.
34
96
revenues otherwise available through existing
private sector revenue streams.” 35
Also, to qualify for funding from TCIF, the
applicant must complete the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Description of project delivery plan,
including potential obstacles in the
project development and construction.
Description of non-TCIF funding
(source and amount).
Description and quantification of
improvements in trade corridor due to
the project.
Environmental description and
quantification of the effects of the
project.
CTC will select the projects using
screening criteria and evaluation
criteria, as outlined in Table 3.7. The
screening criteria will decide whether
or not a nomination will be moved to
the next stage of the evaluation
process.
After CTC selects a project into the TCIF
program, a project baseline agreement will be
executed and will design the scope, benefits,
delivery schedule, and budget and funding
plan. Within six months of the project
beginning, the California Department of
Finance will review the budget.
“Adoption of Program Guidelines for the Trade
Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF).” California
Transportation Commission. December 12, 2007.
Accessed December 2, 2014.
http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/TCIF
/TCIF_Guidelines_112707.pdf.
35
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 3.6. Donation Proposal Evaluation Process Flowchart 36
36 Section 559 Donation Acceptance Authority: Proposal Evaluation Procedures & Criteria Framework. U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, General Services Administration. Accessed December 5, 2014. http://www.cbp.gov/sites
/default/files/documents/DAA%20Proposal%20Evaluation%20Procedures%20%26%20Criteria%20Framework_Public
%20FINAL.pdf.
97
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Table 3.6. Selection Criteria for Accepting Donations
Operational Evaluation Criteria
Operational Impact
Operational Benefits
Funding Strategy
Health & Safety
Economic & Community Benefits
Community Support
Other Agency Support for Operations
Project Duration & Timeline
Non-Operational Evaluation Criteria
Financial Feasibility
Legal Implications
Real Estate Implications
Environmental & Cultural Resource
Implications
Technical Feasibility
Planning Implications
Proposal Support
Table 3.7. Criteria for TCIF Eligibility
Screening Criteria
Evaluation Criteria 37
Freight System Factors:
Throughput: Provides for increased volume of freight traffic.
Velocity: Increases speed of freight traffic moving through
distribution system.
Reliability: Reduces unpredictability of travel time.
Transportation System Factors:
Safety: Increases safety of the public, industry workers, and traffic.
Congestion Reduction: Reduces daily hours of delay.
Key Transportation Bottleneck Relief: Relieves key freight
system bottlenecks that indicate the necessity for infrastructure
advancements.
Multi-modal Strategy: Employs or supports multi-modal
strategies to increase port and transportation throughput while
reducing truck vehicle miles traveled.
Interregional Benefits: Serves state or national corridor needs.
Air quality: Project
Community Impact Factors:
contributes to corridor or • Air Quality Impact: Reduces emissions of diesel particulate, CO 2 ,
air basin emission
NOx, and other pollutants.
reduction of pollutants.
• Community Impact Mitigation: Reduces negative impacts on
communities.
• Economic/Jobs Growth: Stimulates economic activity, enhances
trade value, and preserves/creates jobs.
Project will stimulate
economic activity, enhance
trade value, and
preserve/create jobs.
Project is included in trade
infrastructure and goods
movement plans adopted
by regional transportation
planning agencies.
Project can demonstrate a
1:1 funding match (local,
federal, or private funds).
37 California Department of Transportation. Otay Mesa East Port of Entry/State Route 11: Presidential Permit Application.
December 26, 2007. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/border
/07_OME_POE_Presidential_Permit.pdf.
98
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
3.5
Example of Projects in the
Process of Securing
Financing on Both Sides of
the Border
Numerous new initiatives have been
identified from various sources, including
border master plans. These initiatives for the
construction of new ports of entry include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anapra–Sunland Park.
Between Bridge of the Americas and
Ysleta-Zaragoza International Bridge.
Colombia-Webb International Rail
Bridge.
Otay Mesa II—Otay Mesa East.
Agua Prieta-Douglas New Commercial
Port Facility.
Billy the Kid POE to be located between
Socorro and San Elizario.
Flor de Mayo International Bridge.
Naco—new rail POE.
Nogales Area (east)—new POE.
Longoreñ o Bridge.
Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge
(truck-only lane).
Ciudad Acuña II—Del Río.
Nogales West.
San Luis Río Colorado—San Luis II
(new rail POE).
Puerta de Anza (Nogales).
New location, Cameron County, Texas.
Kansas City Southern de Mexico
(KCSM)—new rail international bridge.
South of Sullivan City, Texas.
Nuevo Laredo IV—Laredo V (Project
45).
Mexico and the United States have proposed a
new POE between California and Baja
California. The new POE is Mesa de Otay II—
Otay Mesa East and will connect Tijuana and
San Diego with this second mixed traffic POE.
In order to illustrate the complexities
associated with planning and financing new
POEs, the Otay Mesa East project is outlined
below.
3.5.1 Case Study: Mesa de Otay II—
Otay Mesa East POE
This project is seen as necessary to alleviate
existing bottlenecks at border crossings and
to foster the growth in trade that flows
through this region. The coordinating
agencies for the construction of the Otay Mesa
East POE are CBP, GSA, the Federal Highway
Administration, the California Department of
Transportation and the San Diego Association
of Governments. GSA is expected to lead
responsibility for the “design, construction
and maintenance of the new Port of Entry.”37
The proposed project consists of:
•
•
•
The development of a new POE in the
Tijuana–San Diego region.
The development of a toll road (SR 11)
in the U.S. side of the border, which
will connect the new POE with the
existing roadway system in the area.
The creation of a new commercial
vehicle enforcement facility for trucks
entering California from Mexico. This
includes the connection of SR 11 to SR
905, which is under construction.
The access route from Mexico to the new POE
will be via Las Torres Boulevard and is
expected to have six lanes (three in each
direction), divided by 8 meters of median, and
two access lanes.
The new cross-border facility will form part of
a connection between the Tijuana-Rosarito
corridor, with links the Tijuana-Tecate and
99
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Tijuana-Ensenada highways. These will be the
main routes in and out of the POE area. Figure
3.7 shows the proposed project location.
The expected revenue from the tolls at the
Otay Mesa East POE will cover some project
costs on both sides of the border. The
project’s binational planning team has
proposed some unique characteristics for the
development of the project:
•
Tolls will be collected in one single
location for both directions
(northbound and southbound).
•
•
The project will have an adjustable toll
rate (with adjustments for vehicle
type).
The toll rates will be adjusted to try to
reduce wait times to less than 20
minutes.
Given that wait times are often asymmetrical
on each side of the border, with wait times in
the northbound direction being longer, the
toll adjustment and toll distribution among
the two sides of the border would need to be
defined, and a binational administration is
expected to play a key role.
Source: Developed by FOA Consultores with information from Google Earth
Figure 3.7. Location of the Binational Zone under Analysis
100
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
3.6
New Financing Options
Proposal
This document has outlined the difficulty in
securing financing for border infrastructure
projects, but it has also examined the
strengths and recent advances, including the
following.
•
•
•
•
It has been established that financing
mechanisms are different in both
countries, making it difficult to
prepare, develop, and implement new
projects.
The new trend toward the PPPs in
Mexico, with the help of the 2012 PPPs
law, offers a new way to secure public
and private funding. Recently, new
financial mechanisms, such as FIBRAS,
development CDs, and stock market
instruments, have been incorporated
into the mix of alternatives.
It is important to note that in Mexico,
there is a history of paying tolls at
POEs which helps create an important
source of capital for credit payments
and recovering investments. The
establishment of FONADIN provides an
additional source of funding
complementary to those already
included in the federal budget. There is
also the Customs Equipment Fund,
which helps fund modernization
projects on the Mexican side.
The United States has also recently
started moving toward more PPPs
funding for POE projects, which
complements the federal funding that
usually finances POE projects. Section
559 authorizes CBP and GSA to receive
donations from the private sector and
government agencies for the
construction, modification, operation,
and maintenance of POEs. The
application evaluation is based on
operational and non-operational
factors.
The formalization of the binational POE
planning mechanisms in light of the regional
border master plans (RBMP) and the HighLevel Economic Dialogue (HLED) initiative
has generated multiple projects that both
countries expect to be implemented in order
to promote competitiveness and economic
growth. However, the current financing
mechanisms cannot ensure the level of
investment that is required to develop all POE
projects.
POE project development history and the
recent binational planning of the Otay II—
Otay Mesa East POE, shows that new
binational mechanisms that support
concurrent infrastructure development on
both sides of the border should be explored.
Among these new mechanisms, the following
should be considered:
•
•
•
Creating a unique binational
administration for POEs that would
reduce operating and administrative
costs by eliminating one of the two
existing POE administrative structures
in each country. This will create a more
efficient single binational organization.
Concentrating revenues in one single
clearinghouse that will distribute funds
to the US and Mexican agencies. In
particular, any surplus in Mexico could
be a source of payment for credits.
Creating a new POE funding program,
preferable a binational one. The
program can take the FONADIN
experience and apply it to the specific
POE development. In the initial phase
of the program it could start in Mexico
101
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
under the current FONADIN structure.
However the long term goal should be
to have a binational program under a
binational funding institution.
Based on the above, it is thus proposed to
strengthen existing POE financing schemes
through two mechanisms:
•
•
•
Creating a specifically designed trust to
bring together various sources of
assistance and lines of credit, including
private capital through PPPs.
Creating an International Ports-ofEntry Development Program
(including new POEs and binational
improvements to existing POEs)
created within the trust with the
necessary resources.
It is suggested that the new financial
mechanism be developed in two stages
that could evolve from a tactical phase
aimed at funding multiple projects in
the short term, to a more strategic
phase as an instrument to leverage
binational policies.
The goal of the proposed program would be
to promote POE infrastructure investment by
attracting private and multilateral capital as
well as co-financing between the local, state,
and federal governments of both countries.
The expected results would be increased
competitiveness and efficiency in the border
region and support binational policy
objectives like the ones established in the
HLED.
The new program could be integrated into the
binational development bank in order to
finance new POE projects, promote high-level
binational modernizations, and provide
assistance for research and financial studies
required to develop POE projects. Support
102
will be provided based on specific rules that
each project should comply with.
Public sector agencies would be eligible for
support when projects are part of the
program, including new crossings and
international bridges, expansion of POEs,
access roadways as well as other
infrastructure required to implement the POE
into the urban environment. Projects seeking
funding should meet minimum eligibility
requirements, which could get harsher as the
project moves through the different phases of
completion; this way, pre-investment
feasibility projects could be funded as well as
project management, following predefined
guidelines.
As mentioned in the Process Report, the
creation of an Interagency Commission is
recommended, so that the program would be
under the purview of a technical committee
consisting of representatives from both
federal governments, with subcommittees
organized by task (new POE planning,
regulations and standards, support, etc.).
These representatives would approve the
program design and assistance packages
when the program is operational.
It is recommended that the program be
designed with the following considerations:
•
•
•
Clearly define which projects would be
eligible for support, including new
POEs, high-impact binational
expansions, or other related projects.
Establish the minimum eligibility
requirements, which might consist of
diverse factors such as minimum
investment amount, develop of certain
pre-investment studies, etc.
Develop a specific set of rules for
studies and not only for construction.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
•
•
•
•
•
•
Define the type of expenditures that
would be eligible for financing through
this program.
Define whether or not funding ceilings
would be incorporated into the
program relative to the total amount
project investment, and whether there
should be caps on non-recoverable
support.
Define procedures for projects that
could require future subsidies.
Technically, the program should only
support development and not
operating costs. However, the program
could provide assistance for projects
that require subsidies as long as the
proponent provides proof that the
project can payback the subsidies.
Determine whether the program
should require a competitive bidding
process for all funded projects.
Consider incorporating other financing
mechanisms into the program
structure (specifically global financing
mechanisms aimed to reduce carbon
emissions).
Select the institutions that would
participate in the Credit Committee in
charge of assessing funding
applications.
Specific documents to support the
implementation should be prepared and
include the following:
•
A document establishing the creation
of the program within the US-Mexico
•
•
•
•
bilateral framework, and anchored in
the selected development bank.
A guide for project development and
evaluation.
Technical documents to guide project
developers in the funding request
procedures.
A set of performance measures to
assess and monitor projects.
General agreements between the
project sponsors and the binational
development bank: the “Bonding
Agreement” and the “Contributions
Agreement”—both of which would
establish the allocation of resources
that would be affected by project
implementation, should be signed by
the bilateral development bank and the
project sponsors.
It is suggested that a project manager be hired
throughout this program and used in every
project that is funded under the program. The
project manager would help in the
implementation of each project, with
binational interactions to coordinate the tasks
listed on the POE Master Plan. The biggest
contribution of the project manager would be
the continuous planning and development of
the program.
Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9 outline the
institutional program that is proposed to
make the border POE development more
efficient.
103
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Sponsor should have developed or can
request assistance to develop:
 Demand studies
 Environmental impact studies
 Cost - benefit analysis
 Financial business plan
 Presidential Permit/Federal
Authorization
 POE Master Plan
 Institution agreement
 Financial scheme
 Work plan for following steps
Project Manager’s duties
Binational coordination
Physical and financial progress
Risk analysis and risk prevention
Right of way acquisition support
Contractual compliance control
Technical, financial and legal
support






SPONSOR MEX
-Federal Government
- State
- Municipal
-Private Sector
SPONSOR USA
-Federal Government
- State
-County
-Private Sector
MX Inter-Agency
Commission
U.S. Agencies
Trust MEX
- Review and Analyze
Application
- Authorize assistance
Funding in USA
• Federal
• PPP
Project Development
in MEX
Project Development
in USA
Project Manager
Project Manager
Figure 3.8. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Initial Phase
Sponsor should have developed or can
request assistance to develop:
 Demand studies
 Environmental impact studies
 Cost - benefit analysis
 Financial business plan
 Presidential Permit/Federal
Authorization
 POE Master Plan
 Institution agreement
 Financial scheme
 Work plan for following steps
Project Manager’s duties






Binational coordination
Physical and financial progress
Risk analysis and risk prevention
Right of way acquisition support
Contractual compliance control
Technical, financial and legal
support
-Public
-Private
Binational Sponsors
5-year Binational Border Crossings and
Bridges Development Program
Inter-Agency
Commission
U.S. Agencies
Binational Funding Mechanism
- Review and analyze application
- Authorize assistance
Project
Development in
MEX
Project
Development in the
USA
Binational Project Manager
Figure 3.9. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Objective
104
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
3.6.1 POE Support Infrastructure
Financing
As mentioned earlier in this report, the
federal compound infrastructure of the POE is
usually funded with federal sources. Support
infrastructure that include road access
network, vehicle inspection facilities, as well
as right of way for these facilities is usually
funded with state or local sources.
States and counties in the US side of the
border have access to various credit
instruments and to issue bonds with
discounted rates and terms. The
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act of 1998 - TIFIA loans is
commonly used for this type of projects. The
TIFIA program provides Federal credit
assistance in the form of direct loans, loan
guarantees, and standby lines of credit to
finance surface transportation projects of
national and regional significance.
States, counties, cities and Regional Mobility
Authorities –RMAs can issue bonds that are
guaranteed with toll revenues. At the TexasMexico border, most of the international
crossings are tolled and revenues go to the
City or development agency.
105
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Chapter 4. Port of Entry
Infrastructure Information System
(POEIIS)
This chapter is intended to serve as a brief
guide to the Port of Entry Infrastructure
Information System or POEIIS.
The main purpose of the POEIIS is the
administration of information regarding portof-entry infrastructure activities along the
U.S.-Mexico border. The system is publically
available to any user that has Internet access
and is interested in U.S.-Mexico border bridge
and port infrastructure projects.
This user’s manual includes the system
features available for public use. The system
will be available to any user, without the need
for a username or password. These public
users will not require any type of
authentication, and the information available
to them is limited. User registration is
required to get further access to the system
and to execute changes in the system, update
information, etc. This user registration is
described in a separate document.
4.1
•
•
Requirements for System
Use
Internet connection,
Modern web browser.
4.2
Entering the POEIIS System
The steps for entering the POEIIS system are
the following:
1. Verify Internet connection.
2. Open browser.
3. Enter the web address biisdev.tti.tamu.edu 38 into the address
bar.
4.3
Navigating the Project
Categories
Once the user enters the POEIIS system, a
page similar to the one shown in Figure 4.1
will be shown in the screen.
In the center of the page, there is an
introduction to the system. The introduction
is presented in English on the left and Spanish
on the right. Each of these introductions
shows a table with the four categories of
projects contained within the system. For
more information about the different project
types, please refer to the Port of Entry
Infrastructure Information System (POEIIS)
Design report. Clicking on either introduction
will automatically set the language preference
for the rest of the session. To change the
language preference, please refer to the
following Navigation Bar section.
This is a temporary web address. The final address
will be available in the future.
38
107
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
4.3.1 Navigation Bar
At the top of the home page, the user will find
a red navigation bar (see Figure 4.2). This bar
appears at the top of all the screens
throughout the system. On the navigation bar,
the user will find links to each of the project
categories contained within the project. In
addition, the navigation bar has options to
return to the home page, go to the contacts
page, or start a new session. A language
option will appear on the navigation bar once
the user has selected a language preference
on the home page. The user can use this
language link on the navigation bar to switch
between languages at any point during the
session. After clicking the desired language on
the navigation bar, the page will automatically
reload in the desired language.
Figure 4.1. POEIIS Home Page
Figure 4.2. Navigation Bar
4.4
Project Categories
The projects under the “Proposed Projects”
category function differently than the rest of
the projects in the system. When the user
108
selects this category, a page similar to that
shown in
Figure 4.3 will be shown in the screen. On this
page, there is a table that shows the name of
the projects, a brief description of each
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
project, the United States state and the
Mexican state for the project, and the source
or sponsor of the project. At the top of this
table is a search box that can be used to
quickly filter through the list for a specific
project. To perform a search, the user should
follow the following steps:
1. If the user knows a keyword related
to the project, or the name of the
project, the “Search by Name” box
should be filled with it. Otherwise, it
should stay blank.
2. If the user knows the state in the
United States of the project, it should
be selected in the “US State” option.
Otherwise, it should stay blank.
3. If the user knows the state in Mexico
of the project, it should be selected in
the “MX State” option. Otherwise it
should stay blank.
4. Once the required fields are filled in,
the user should click the “Search”
button.
The list of proposed projects can be organized
based on the various fields. To sort the table
by a specific field, the user clicks on the title of
the field to be used to sort, and the table will
automatically reorganize.
For each of the other project types, the user
will be redirected to a page similar to the one
shown in Figure 4.4.
The resulting page will show a map of the
United States-Mexico border with markers
indicating a project relating to the category
chosen by the user. For “Bi-national
Improvements” category, the markers will be
blue, for “National Improvements”, the
markers will be green, and for “New POEs”,
the markers will be red (see Figure 4.4). The
map functions are similar to Google Maps©.
This means that the user can scroll and zoom
using the mouse based on the search needs. In
the upper right-hand corner, there is a search
bar that can be used to quickly locate a
project within the map. To use the search
function on this page, the user should follow
the steps below:
1. If the user knows a keyword related
to the project, or the name of the
project, the select the “Search by
Name” option in the search box will
be selected.
2. If the user knows the state in the
United States where the project tis
located, the “US State” option in the
search box should be selected.
3. If the user knows the Mexican state
where the project is located, the “MX
State” option in the search box should
be selected.
4. Once the boxes have been filled in, the
user should click the “Search” button.
Once the search is finished, the system will
eliminate the markers on the map that do not
coincide with the search parameters entered
by the user. To show all projects in the map,
the user can click the “Erase” button and the
system will automatically reset and show all
the projects in the specific category.
109
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 4.3. Proposed Projects Page
Figure 4.4. Map of New POEs
110
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
4.5
POE Development Phases
For projects that fall under the “New POEs,”
“Bi-national improvements,” and “National
Improvements” categories, there is a
representation of the tasks involved in
developing each project. These tasks are
represented in a diagram, which is divided
into three sections corresponding to the three
types of processes for project development
tasks: activities in the United States, activities
in Mexico, and bi-national processes. The
diagram shown in Figure 4.5, is also divided
into various columns corresponding to the
different phases of the project. Task lists can
be generated from this diagram for each
project. For more information on this
diagram, please refer to the Port of Entry
Infrastructure Information System (POEIIS)
Design and Task 2 POE Process reports.
Once a project on the map is selected, the user
will be directed to a page similar to the one
shown in Figure 4.6. Those tasks that are
conducted in more than one phase, will be
marked by the following symbols: “«” and “»”.
When the user selects a task, a page detailing
the selected task will be shown (Figure 4.7).
On this screen, the user can see the details for
each individual task. This information can be
plain text or attachments.
Appendix I presents a description of the
system design and a quick guide of the
system. Appendix II presents the list of
projects in the Proposed Category
Figure 4.5. Diagram of the Phases
111
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 4.6. Diagram of the Phases of a Project
Figure 4.7. Details of a Project’s Tasks
112
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Chapter 5. Conclusions and
Recommendations
When analyzing the border region, it is
important to keep in mind that the border
divided Mexico, a developing economy with
the U.S. one of the most important economies
of the world. The economic and commercial
activity in the border region is of utmost
importance to both nations, primarily as it
related to international trade, transportation,
logistics, and other related services.
The vision of the border has changed
throughout the last two decades and can be
characterized in three stages:
1. Post NAFTA: The vision of both
countries at the beginning of NAFTA
was to increase trade between the
two countries and facilitate
investment. The manufacturing
industry in Mexico and trade between
the two countries grew at an average
annual rate of 17 percent between
1995 and 2000.
2. Post 9-11: After the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001, the U.S.
government changed its border vision
to emphasize security concerns by
increasing inspections of CV and POVs
traveling through the border. This
resulted in the increase crossings and
wait times at the border, and a
decrease in cross-border traffic, that
impacted the economy of the region.
Trusted traveler programs were also
implemented through the border and
made the border “friendlier” for a
select group of users.
3. Post 2009 Financial Crisis: The
world economy suffered an economic
downturn in 2008. After the crisis,
world trade began to change, and
businesses returned to North
America, and intra/subcontinent
trade increased. The governments of
the U.S. and Mexico have been
changing their policies and
strengthening partnerships to make a
more competitive area against other
trading blocs.
Figure 5.1 illustrates the three stages and
their influence on cross-border trade.
The importance of the current and future
status of the border region, with more than 14
million people and an economy that
represents nearly a quarter of the GDP of both
nations, requires a competitive binational
border area that promotes trade without
compromising security.
In order for these border crossings and
international bridges to remain competitive,
they require to provide timely and secure
services to users with reduced wait times at
the border. This is a great challenge in the
planning and joint implementation of
projects. The greatest challenge lies in a
consensual binational POE planning and
implementation process respecting internal
decision-making processes at each country.
113
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
450,000
400,000
Millions of US$
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: USDOT BTS TransBorder Freight Data
Figure 5.1. Ground Trade between U.S. and Mexico
5.1
POE Development Process
The process for developing POE projects is
not clearly defined or documented in either
country. This report identified and
documented the most relevant tasks on each
side of the border for planning and
development of new POE projects and
expansion of existing ones. A four-phase
process that addresses the new POE project
development and explicitly states the
activities required by each country are
proposed.
Based on the research conducted and
comments from stakeholders, it is clear that
the process of implementing POE projects is
not linear and varies greatly based on the
nature of the project. This variations and lack
of detailed definitions opens the door for
construction delays or lack of continuity in
the project development and construction.
114
In the United States, the Presidential Permit
process is relatively well structured.
However, the definition of a lead federal
agency is not clearly documented and this
could lead to confusion by APOE sponsors and
delays in the overall process.
In Mexico, the process for developing POE
projects is not documented. It is difficult to
clearly identify the agencies involved and
their roles in POE projects. This ambiguity can
lead to delays.
The following actions are recommended to
improve the process of constructing,
expanding, or modifying POEs along the U.S.Mexico border.
•
Agree on a standardized four-phase
(planning, authorization, bidding, and
construction/start of operation)
binational process for the development
of new POEs and expanding and/or
modifying existing POEs.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
•
•
Use the RBMPs as the binational source
of project identification. It is necessary
to expand the technical and
institutional range of agencies involved
in project identification and to ensure
that all proposed projects are included
in the RBMP by 2018. As part of the
21st Century Border Declaration,
USDOT has taken the lead on the RBMP
development, which is the first
binational project identification and
prioritization mechanisms. These plans
include a wide range of criteria
including regional accessibility; land
use; environmental issues; population;
and short-, medium-, and long-term
socioeconomic indicators. The RBMP
mechanism should be updated on a
regular basis (every 5 years) including
new data and political, economic, and
financial characteristics in each region.
Another advantage is that this planning
process includes the Mexican agencies
at all levels (local, state, and federal).
Among the opportunities for
improvement is the need for all
agencies to move toward more
homogeneous prioritization criteria for
new POE projects, as well as broaden
the spectrum of institutional and
technical participation by all agencies
involved. It should also be mandatory
to include any POE project proposal in
the RBMP by 2018. (Table 5.1 presents
current RBMP status).
Clearly define a 5-year binational POE
plan, including funding stream. It is
important for both governments to
agree on a binational projects plan that
is updated on a rolling basis. Since
BMPs prioritize projects based on
locally weighed criteria, the 5-year
plan will be where both federal
•
•
governments could include national
priorities. Figure 5.2 shows the
proposed process to lead to the 5-year
plan.
On the Mexican side of the border, the
Interagency Port-of-Entry Group
should transition into an Interagency
Port-of-Entry Commission that would
expedite project implementation (see
Figure 5.3). The Interagency POE
Group is a mechanism for
communication and coordination that
can evolve into an Interagency
Commission. The Base Group and CILA
on the Mexican side would support the
newly created Commission in order to
technically approve POE projects. It is
recommended that the group be cochaired by the SRE and the SCT as the
technical support.
Create in Mexico a process similar to
the U.S. Presidential Permit. The
process can be in the form of a Federal
Authorization (FA), which approves
new POE projects, according to each
agency’s characteristics within the
Base Group.
It is clear that the Presidential Permit is not a
linear process, and varies widely from project
to project. In the United States, the
presidential permit process is legally
established with a clear definition. The
process in Mexico is not documented, leading
to confusion on POE development
requirements and authorizations. The FA
should include Phase II authorizations, which
will lead to an official authorization
document.
115
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
To make the FA similar to the U.S. Presidential
Permit, once the Mexican FA is implemented,
it is recommended to define an exchange of
diplomatic notes when the FA and PP are
defined.
Table 5.1. Border Region Master Plans
Border Region
1. Baja California—California
2. Sonora—Arizona
3. El Paso, Texas/Santa Teresa, Nuevo México—Chihuahua
4. Distrito de Laredo, Texas—Coahuila/Nuevo
León/Tamaulipas
5. Valle del Río Bravo—Tamaulipas
Current Status
The initial MP was developed in 2008; the
second version was published in mid-2014
Published February 2013
Published October 2013
Published June 2012
Published October 2013
Source: U.S./Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning, Regional Border Master
Plans, http://www.borderplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/masterplans.asp
5-Year Binational
Plan
• Project
Identification Source
• Regional
Prioritization
RBMP
• Federal and
Binational
Prioritization
• Technical,
Economic, Social,
and Environmental
Feasibility
Opportunity to link the RBMP and the 5-year binational investment plan considering
binational criteria and the level of development progress.
Figure 5.2. BDMP Objective + 5-Year Binational Plan
116
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 5.3. Evolution of the Mexican Interagency Group into a Commission
117
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure 5.4. Mexican Federal Authorization Proposal
118
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
5.2
POE Financing
The governments of Mexico and the United
States have worked not only to develop
border infrastructure but also to facilitate
infrastructure financing for POE
infrastructure projects.
In both countries, federal funding is the main
source to develop border infrastructure
projects. However, as the need for
infrastructure projects grows, the federal
funding for infrastructure projects has stayed
the same or risen only slightly. POE project
demand will continue to increase, while
funding will remain at the same level, creating
a deficit. Since these POE projects primarily
rely on federal funding, it is important to
clearly identify the benefits that this
infrastructure brings to the border region, the
country as a whole, and the subcontinent.
Public funding, on its own, is not enough to
continue supporting the development of
infrastructure projects, specifically POE
infrastructure projects. Private-sector
participation is required in order to efficiently
develop POE infrastructure projects.
In Mexico and the United States, publicprivate partnerships and state transportation
funds can be the best funding sources for POE
infrastructure programs. In Mexico, PPPs
have been used in many recent infrastructure
projects.
Both countries face challenges to border
infrastructure financing, such as promoting
PPPs as a valid source of diversifying funding
sources, designing innovative operating
models, securing institutional investors, and
strengthening national regulatory and
institutional frameworks.
It is important to explore the possibility of
developing binational management structures
that could reduce operating costs for new
POEs by having a single revenue
clearinghouse and administrative body.
It is suggested that the new financial
mechanism be developed in two stages that
could evolve from a tactical phase aimed at
funding multiple projects in the short term, to
a more strategic phase as an instrument to
leverage binational policies.
The goal of the proposed program would be
to promote POE infrastructure investment by
attracting private and multilateral capital as
well as co-financing between the local, state,
and federal governments of both countries.
Public sector agencies would be eligible for
support when projects are part of the
program, including new crossings and
international bridges, expansion of POEs,
access roadways as well as other
infrastructure required to implement the POE
into the urban environment. Projects seeking
funding should meet minimum eligibility
requirements, which could get harsher as the
project moves through the different phases of
completion; this way, pre-investment
feasibility projects could be funded as well as
project management, following predefined
guidelines.
The creation of an Interagency Commission is
recommended, so that the program would be
under the purview of a technical committee
consisting of representatives from both
federal governments, with subcommittees
organized by task (new POE planning,
regulations and standards, support, etc.).
These representatives would approve the
program design and assistance packages
when the program is operational.
119
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
It is recommended that the program be
designed with the following considerations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Clearly define which projects would be
eligible for support, including new
POEs, high-impact binational
expansions, or other related projects.
Establish the minimum eligibility
requirements, which might consist of
diverse factors such as minimum
investment amount, develop of certain
pre-investment studies, etc.
Develop a specific set of rules for
studies and not only for construction.
Define the type of expenditures that
would be eligible for financing through
this program.
Define whether or not funding ceilings
would be incorporated into the
program relative to the total amount
project investment, and whether there
should be caps on non-recoverable
support.
Define procedures for projects that
could require future subsidies.
Technically, the program should only
support development and not
operating costs. However, the program
could provide assistance for projects
that require subsidies as long as the
proponent provides proof that the
project can payback the subsidies.
Determine whether the program
should require a competitive bidding
process for all funded projects.
Consider incorporating other financing
mechanisms into the program
structure (specifically global financing
mechanisms aimed to reduce carbon
emissions).
Select the institutions that would
participate in the Credit Committee in
120
charge of assessing funding
applications.
Specific documents to support the
implementation should be prepared and
include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
A document establishing the creation
of the program within the US-Mexico
bilateral framework, and anchored in
the selected development bank.
A guide for project development and
evaluation.
Technical documents to guide project
developers in the funding request
procedures.
A set of performance measures to
assess and monitor projects.
General agreements between the
project sponsors and the binational
development bank: the “Bonding
Agreement” and the “Contributions
Agreement”—both of which would
establish the allocation of resources
that would be affected by project
implementation, should be signed by
the bilateral development bank and the
project sponsors.
It is suggested that a project manager be hired
throughout this program and used in every
project that is funded under the program. The
project manager would help in the
implementation of each project, with
binational interactions to coordinate the tasks
listed on the POE Master Plan. The biggest
contribution of the project manager would be
the continuous planning and development of
the program.
Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 outline the
institutional program that is proposed to
make the border POE development more
efficient.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Sponsor should have developed or can
request assistance to develop:
 Demand studies
 Environmental impact studies
 Cost - benefit analysis
 Financial business plan
 Presidential Permit/Federal
Authorization
 POE Master Plan
 Institution agreement
 Financial scheme
 Work plan for following steps
Project Manager’s duties
Binational coordination
Physical and financial progress
Risk analysis and risk prevention
Right of way acquisition support
Contractual compliance control
Technical, financial and legal
support






SPONSOR MEX
-Federal Government
- State
- Municipal
-Private Sector
SPONSOR USA
-Federal Government
- State
-County
-Private Sector
MX Inter-Agency
Commission
U.S. Agencies
Trust MEX
- Review and Analyze
Application
- Authorize assistance
Funding in USA
• Federal
• PPP
Project Development
in MEX
Project Development
in USA
Project Manager
Project Manager
Figure 5.5. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Initial Phase
Sponsor should have developed or can
request assistance to develop:
 Demand studies
 Environmental impact studies
 Cost - benefit analysis
 Financial business plan
 Presidential Permit/Federal
Authorization
 POE Master Plan
 Institution agreement
 Financial scheme
 Work plan for following steps
Project Manager’s duties






Binational coordination
Physical and financial progress
Risk analysis and risk prevention
Right of way acquisition support
Contractual compliance control
Technical, financial and legal
support
-Public
-Private
Binational Sponsors
5-year Binational Border Crossings and
Bridges Development Program
Inter-Agency
Commission
U.S. Agencies
Binational Funding Mechanism
- Review and analyze application
- Authorize assistance
Project
Development in
MEX
Project
Development in the
USA
Binational Project Manager
Figure 5.6. Proposed Institutional Arrangement: Objective
121
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
5.3
Information System
To expedite information transfer in POE
projects, a tool has been developed to help
store information on the state and progress of
each POE project. The main purpose of this
system is the administration of information
regarding port-of-entry.
POE projects have been divided in four
categories.
•
•
•
•
Proposed projects.
New POEs.
Binational improvements.
National improvements.
Information on the activities each project has
completed and is currently completing can be
stored in this system. And it can be accessed
through the following website: http://biisdev.tti.tamu.edu.
122
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Appendix I. Port of Entry
Infrastructure Information System
(POEIIS) Design
The objective of this appendix is to present
the details of the Port of Entry Infrastructure
Information System (POEIIS) design. This
system is part of the Analysis of International
Port of Entry Projects at the Mexico–United
States Border project, which was conducted
on behalf of the North American Development
Bank by FOA Consultores and the Texas A&M
Transportation Institute. The main purpose of
this system is the administration of
information regarding port-of-entry (POE)
infrastructure activities along the U.S.-Mexico
border. The system is publically available to
any user that has Internet access and is
interested in U.S.-Mexico border bridge and
port infrastructure projects.
The system is designed as a web-based
platform and is accessible from almost any
electronic device with Internet connection
and an Internet browser. One of the biggest
advantages of this platform is the easy user
access regardless of the user’s geographic or
temporal location, which allows the
information contained in the system to be
available at all times. The system’s web-based
design also makes it possible to provide
reliable maintenance and updates for users.
The unit of information within the POEIIS is
an infrastructural project (IP). Each record
within the POEIIS corresponds to one border
IP. The projects registered within the system
can be classified based on four types of
projects. The types of projects registered in
the system are:
•
•
•
•
Proposed projects.
New POEs.
Binational improvements.
National improvements.
Each of this types of projects will be described
in the following sections. Each project also has
variables that correspond to its specific
project classification. These variables can be
updated, edited, or deleted by certain users
based on the needs of the project.
The POEIIS relies on a session manager to
identify each user accessing the system and
assign him or her a specific session. This
assignment of sessions allows the system
administrator to assign rights to specific users
or a specific level of user, who can then edit
the system. This control over editing rights
makes the data within the system more
reliable and trustworthy. The level of user
access and session rights is also described in
this report.
The primary function of the system is to
identify each activity and allocated to one of
the project development phases described in
the Border Crossings Development Process
(BCDP) report. The system is capable of
storing information on each project based on
the parameters entered by the user, as well as
updating the progress of each project over
time.
123
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
A.1. Infrastructure Project
Classifications
Border infrastructure projects can be
registered within the POEIIS and can be
classified under the following four types of
infrastructure projects:
•
•
•
•
Proposed projects.
New POEs.
Binational improvements.
National improvements.
There are some border crossing projects that
do not fall under any of these four categories
and thus will not be included in the system.
A.1.1 Proposed Projects
Projects that have been proposed but do not
have the formal documentation needed to be
included in the BCDP, as well as isolated
proposals that have not been confirmed, will
be cataloged under this category. The
information stored in the system for this
category may include only the proposed
project location and sponsor.
A.1.2 New POEs
Projects in this category must be newly
proposed POEs that meet the requirements
and have the necessary documentation to be
included in the “pipeline” and that eventually,
when the process is finalized, will lead to the
construction and operation of a POE that did
not exist before. These projects can be placed
in one of the phases of the BCDP (see Section
4). These projects require an independent
series of actions from both countries, as well
as some binational actions.
124
A.1.3. Binational Improvements
Projects in this category represent POEs that
are already operating and have
documentation to be in the BCDP and its
development will impact both Mexican and
the United States sides of the border. These
projects can be expansion or modifications to
existing POE infrastructure.
A.1.4. National Improvements
This category represents projects for existing
POEs that will be impact only one of the two
border countries. These projects could
include expansions to facilities in one side of
the border.
The primary purpose of this classification is
to identify the current state of a project and
track its progress over time. The system also
aims to track a project’s initial and final status
within the BCDP. Therefore, users with
different interests can search for information
by filtering through these categories. The
filters for these categories will be available on
the home screen and can be modified based
on the user’s needs.
The four types of projects will have similar
functionality options, which will be described
later in the report.
A.2. Levels of User Access
There are three different types of potential
sessions, depending on a set of privileges
within the system. Regardless of the type of
session a user has, the home page will look
like the image in Figure A.1.
On this page, the user can choose any of the
four project categories. The information is
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
displayed in English on the left side and in
Spanish on the right.
A.2.1 General Public
The default session for the system is set as a
public session. No prior user registration is
necessary to use this type of session, nor is a
login required. Public sessions only contain
public information and do not have the
authority to make any changes within the
system.
Once a user in a public session chooses a
project category, is directed to a page that
shows all projects under the selected
category. When a user chooses “New POE,”
“Binational Improvements,” or “National
Improvements,” the results are shown as a
map of the U.S.-Mexico border. Each point on
the map is a specific color depending on the
type of category under which the project falls.
Proposed projects will not be shown on the
map.
A menu bar will be available at the top of each
page in the system where the user can easily
access the projects within the selected
category. For example, when a user clicks on
“New POE,” a map showing where new POE
projects are located will be displayed, as in
Figure A.2.
Figure A.1. POEIIS Home Page
125
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure A.2. Map of New POE Projects
There are filters and project searches on the
home screen as well as the screen with the list
of projects. In the case of searches, for
example, the user can search the name of a
specific POE and the system will return a
result of POEs that match the user’s search. If
the results need to be filtered, the user can
establish certain parameters, such as
searching for projects in a certain state within
Mexico or the United States. Through this
method, the user can search for a project
through the map or through a filtered search.
By clicking on a point on the map, the user
will be directed to a page with the details of
the selected project. This function will be
described in detail in Section 4.
In order to widely disseminate the system,
users are able to access a public session
without having to contact one of the involved
agencies. Any form of Internet browser is
compatible with the public session, regardless
of the user type.
126
A.2.2. Registered Users
Another type of session is the registered user
session, which is designed for users who are
experts in areas related to border
infrastructure. Each of the interested parties
in the Analysis of International Port of Entry
Projects at the Mexico–United States Border
project is a candidate to receive a registered
user account. In general, the responsibilities
of these users include documenting and
updating project information in the system;
adding and/or modifying projects to the list of
POEIIS registered projects; and validating the
information within the system.
Once the user is on the POEIIS home page, a
“Sign In” link will appear in the upper righthand corner of the screen. Clicking on the link
will direct the user to a log-in page. This page
will ask the user for the registered email
address and password, as seen in Figure A.3.
In order to obtain the information necessary
to log in, users must contact the system
administrator and provide an email address
and a password. The project sponsors will
define who is authorized to request access to
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
registered user sessions. Once the user’s
registration is created, the email address and
password will be used to access the system
and begin a session with the privileges
described in the section.
Once the user logs in to the registered user
session, the system home page will be
displayed. Similar to the public session, a
registered user can select the POE that he or
she is interested in on the map and will be
directed to the detailed page of the POE.
Depending on the privileges, the user will be
able to edit certain information in the system.
The user may or may not have the required
privileges to modify and save information in
the system. The system administrator will
define these privileges, and users should
direct requests for privileges to the project
administrator.
The system also has the capacity to filter
information depending on the session type. A
registered user may have the privileges
necessary to view, or even edit non-public
information. Certain characteristics and
variables of each POE may not be for public
disclosure, which means that users cannot
view these fields in a public session. It is
necessary to be a registered user to view or
edit these fields.
The registered user session has all the
functionality of the public session in the
system, plus additional privileges. It allows
the user to see all the information that is
designated as general access, as well as the
information that is not public and requires
access control. The registered user session
may also have privileges to edit information
within the system. To obtain this type of
account, the user must contact the project
authorities.
Figure A.3. POEIIS Sign In
127
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
A.3. Project Details
The POEs that fall under the “Proposed
Projects” category are the only projects in the
system that are not represented in the project
development phase diagrams of the system
because they have not yet entered this stage.
By clicking on the “Proposed Projects” link on
the home page, the user will be directed to a
page similar to the one shown in Figure A.4.
On this page, any user can see the projects
that fall under the proposed project category.
Similar to the main search, the user can find
search options as well as filters at the top of
the screen. Registered users will be able to
edit and add information in this section.
As an additional tool, the POEIIS can place
each POE in one of the phases of the BCDP,
which is shown in Figure A.5. The projects in
the “Proposed Projects” category cannot be
placed within the BCDP, and therefore do not
have any of the options outlined in this
section.
The phase-by-phase breakdown and the
details of the diagram for each project can be
accessed in the project documentation. In
general, each phase is broken down into three
types of processes: United States, Mexico, and
binational. This refers to the assignment of
tasks to each party involved in the
development of a new or existing POE. Each of
the three process categories is independent
and can show how the POE development
advances in each of the 3 types of activities.
When the user selects a project on the map, a
screen like that shown in Figure A.6 will
appear. In this case, the checked boxes
indicate completed tasks.
128
Project under the “National Improvements”
category, will only show the section of the
diagram where the activities will take place.
For example for an improvement project on
the United States side will only show one raw
of tasks (blue).
A.4. Project Process
Each box on the BCDP diagram represents a
task within one of the four phases of POE
development. Each of these completed tasks
must be properly documented in the system.
On the BCDP (see Figure A6), users are able to
select a completed task and review the related
documentation for that task. Registered users
with sufficient privileges will be able to select
an uncompleted task and mark it as
completed, when the documentation is
entered into the system. These users will then
be redirected to a page where they can upload
the required documentation to change the
task status to complete. Documentation can
be entered as plain text or attachments.
A user with view-only privileges will be able
to review the documentation, both in plain
text and attachments, for each task.
Registered users with editing privileges will
be able to modify the text associated with the
task, as well as upload or remove
attachments.
In this case, clicking on the selected task will
direct the user to a page with a list of details
associated with the task (see Figure A7). On
this screen, the registered user will be able to
find, add, and modify attachments and text
fields. A registered user with sufficient
privileges has the option to document the
specific project task.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure A.4. List of Proposed Projects
Figure A.5. Border Crossings Development Process
129
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Figure A.6. Example of the Placement of a Project in the BCDP
Figure A.7. Example of Associated Details
130
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
A.5. Quick Start Guide
A.5.1. Requirements for System Use
•
•
Internet connection
Modern Internet browser
A.5.4. Viewing “New POEs”
1. Enter the POEIIS system.
2. Click on either of the links highlighted
in the following image.
A.5.2. Entering the POEIIS System
1. Verify Internet connection.
2. Open Internet browser.
3. Enter the web address biisdev.tti.tamu.edu into the address bar.
A.5.3. Viewing “Proposed Projects”
1. Enter the POEIIS system.
2. Click on either of the links highlighted
in the following image.
A.5.5. Viewing “Bi-National
Improvements”
1. Enter the POEIIS system.
2. Click on either of the links highlighted
in the following image.
131
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
A.5.6. Viewing “National Improvements”
1. Enter the POEIIS system
2. Click on either of the links highlighted in
the following image
A.5.8. Viewing Task Details within the
Diagram of Phases of a Project
1. Enter the diagram of phases for
interested project.
2. Find the task in the diagram.
3. Click on the name of the task.
A.5.9. Beginning a Session in the System
1. Locate the “Begin Session” link in the
upper right-hand side of the screen.
2. Input username and password.
A.5.10.
Changing the Language
Preference
A.5.7. Viewing the Diagram of Phases for a
Project on the Map
1. Select the category corresponding to
the desired project.
2. Locate project on the map.
3. Click the project marker on the map.
4. Click on the name of the project.
132
1. Locate the language bar on the upper
right-hand side of the screen.
2. Select the preferred language.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Appendix II.
Proposed Project List in Database
Source
Project
PNI 2014-2018/Listado
SRE.
Guadalupe-Tornillo
Listado SRE / Laredo
District / Coah / NL /
Tamps BMP
Ciudad Acuña – Del Río
Listado SRE.
Agua Prieta-Douglas
Listado SRE.
Agua Prieta-Douglas
Listado SRE.
Algodones – Andrade
Listado SRE.
Description
Acceso y Puente Internacional GuadalupeTornillo.
Construcción
del
puente
internacional sobre el Río Bravo, de aprox.
178 metros de longitud, así como la
construcción del Entronque “LaRibereña”,
que servirá de conexión entre la carretera
federal MEX2, El Porvenir-Ciudad Juárez, a la
altura del km 43+000 y el puerto fronterizo
New Puente Acuña II-Del Río. Se pretende
trasladar a este puerto las operaciones
comerciales que actualmente fluyen por el
de Acuña-Del Río I
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
SAT Proyecto de expansión que contempla la
ampliación a cuatro carriles de carga,
separación de vehículos ligeros, peatones y
repatriados, así como la adecuación de los
edificios de aduanas
Date
Type
Mx
State
US
State
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
18/06/2015
New
CO
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
Binational
SR
AZ
INDAABIN Plan de reordenamiento.
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
Anapra-Sunland Park
Anapra-Sunland Park
18/06/2015
New
CH
NM
Listado SRE.
Ciudad Acuña – Del Río
Proyecto para ampliación del puerto y la
modernización
de
las instalaciones
aduaneras y patios fiscales. Es promovido
por el Municipio de Ciudad Acuña (con aval
del SAT)
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
CILA
Colombia-Webb
Ferroviario Colombia-Webb
18/06/2015
New
NL
TX
133
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
134
Project
California-BC BMP
Calexico East
Listado SRE.
Córdova-Las Américas
California-BC BMP
Calexico East
Listado SRE.
Anzaldúas International
Bridge
California-BC BMP
Calexico West
California-BC BMP
Calexico West
Description
To relieve POV congestion at Calexico West,
it is proposed that as many as six POV lanes
and primary inspections booths be added at
Calexico East, as envisioned in the original
master plan for the facility, increasing the
port’s NB POV throughput by 75%. The
project’s scope includes six northbound
primary POV inspection lanes and
prefabricated booths with associated
canopy, electrical service, lighting, HVAC and
conduit for license plate reader, radiation
monitors and other IT cabling.
SAT
Proyecto
ejecutivo
para
el
reordenamiento de sus patios fiscales. Se
espera desarrollar entre 2016 y 2017.
It is proposed that as many as three NB
commercial lanes and primary inspection
booths and an exit control booth be added
at Calexico East. The project’s scope includes
three northbound primary truck inspection
lanes and booths with associated canopy,
electrical service, lighting, HVAC and conduit
for license plate readers, VACIS and other IT
cabling.
Instalaciones de Inspección de Carga. SAT
desarrollará el proyecto ejecutivo y SCT
aportará los recursos. Las obras incluyen la
segmentación de un carril para el paso de
transporte de carga vacío, dos módulos para
la entrada y salida de los patios fiscales y una
“pequeña” plataforma de revisión
CBP & GSA have together developed a scope
of work that would double the throughput of
the existing pedestrian processing area at
modest cost, pending funding of the major
expansion and reconfiguration of Calexico
West. The CBP/GSA concept would increase
the number of inspection stations from six to
12.
The existing facilities are undersized relative
to existing traffic loads and no longer meet
current standards in terms of inspection
officer safety and border security.
The
project involves construction of new
Date
Type
Mx
State
US
State
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CH
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
Description
Date
Type
pedestrian and POV inspection facilities,
expanding the port onto the site of the
former commercial inspection facility.
California-BC BMP
Calexico West
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Anzaldúas International
Bridge
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
Between Bridge of the
Americas and YsletaZaragoza International
Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Anzaldúas International
Bridge
Listado SRE.
Jerónimo – Santa Teresa
Listado SRE.
Good
Neighbor
International Bridge Stanton Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Anzaldúas International
Bridge
The second phase will include construction
the remaining six of sixteen total
northbound POV lanes, southbound POV
inspection islands, booths, canopies and
concrete paving, an administration building,
an employee parking structure and a
pedestrian processing building with 12
northbound pedestrian inspection stations.
Mx
State
US
State
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
New
CH
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CH
NM
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CH
TX
Construct a 0.5-mile segment of the
proposed
northbound
bridge
to
accommodate commercial truck traffic and
improve mobility by increasing the number
of lanes on the bridge.
18/06/2015
Binational
TS
TX
Improve mobility and decrease wait times
for northbound vehicles by adding four
additional non-commercial lanes. Construct
northbound commercial import lot facilities
and lanes. This is a cooperative effort with
government agencies.
Create new commuter POE (POVs and
pedestrians) between the Bridge of the
Americas and Ysleta-Zaragoza International
Bridge as recommended by the Camino Real
Border Improvement Plan.
Add two additional northbound POV lanes to
alleviate queuing on the bridge, and begin
expanding the secondary vehicle inspection
facility to accommodate southbound
commercial traffic of trucks and buses in
2015.
SAT Reordenamiento integral de la sección
aduanera (ampliación de carriles de carga,
vehículos ligeros, entre otros).
135
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Anzaldúas International
Bridge
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
Colombia-Webb
Internacional Rail Bridge
Listado SRE / CaliforniaBC BMP
Conexión
Peatonal
Aeroportuaria
PNI 2014-2018/Listado
SRE. / California-BC BMP
Otay Mesa II / Otay
Mesa East
CILA
El Chaparral – San
Ysidro (Puerta México)
Listado SRE./GSA/OMB
El Chaparral – San
Ysidro (Puerta México)
California-BC BMP
El Chaparral – San
Ysidro (Puerta México)
Date
Expand the vehicle inspection facility to
accommodate southbound commercial
traffic inspections.
Construction of the Colombia – Webb
International Rail Bridge
Construcción de un puente peatonal, para
uso exclusivo de viajeros con boleto pagado,
entre el Aeropuerto Internacional de
Tijuana, BC. e instalaciones de inspección,
locales comerciales y estacionamiento en el
área de Mesa de Otay en San Diego.
Construcción de un New puerto fronterizo
de alta tecnología para vehículos ligeros y de
carga.
TX
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
18/06/2015
New
BC
CA
18/06/2015
New
BC
CA
Peatonal Las Américas
18/06/2015
BC
CA
INDAABIN realiza el reordenamiento
integral del “Sistema Chaparral” (El
Chaparral, San Ysidro, Puerta México Este y
el puerto de entrada de Mesa de Otay).
National
Expansion
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
Ampliación a carriles de máxima velocidad
18/06/2015
Binational
BC
CA
18/06/2015
Binational
BC
CA
TS
TX
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
Listado SRE.
Díaz Ordaz – Los Ebanos
(El Chalán)
Agua Prieta-Douglas
Douglas ‐ Expansion and Modernization
Agua Prieta-Douglas
Douglas
‐
Non‐Commerical
Reconfiguration
Agua Prieta-Douglas
Douglas ‐ New Commercial Port Facility
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Agua Prieta-Douglas
Donna
Bridge
International
US
State
TS
El Chaparral – San
Ysidro/Tecate – Tecate
Border
Mx
State
National
Expansion
Listado SRE./GSA/OMB
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Type
18/06/2015
Pacific-Imperial Rail Line. Rehabilitación de
una línea ferroviaria de carga que circule
desde San Diego, CA, ingrese a México por
Tijuana, reingresa a EUA por Tecate y llegue
a Plaster City, CA. Incluye la construcción de
una terminal intermodal.
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
Arizona-Son
Border
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Border
Master Plan
Listado SRE / ArizonaSon Border Master Plan
136
Description
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
Port
Reconstruction of the LPOE to improve
southbound processing of commercial
vehicles,
passenger
vehicles,
and
pedestrians. Would negate the need for
projects 3008 and 3009.
Construct northbound and southbound
Federal inspection facilities for processing
empty commercial truck traffic.
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
18/06/2015
New
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
Binational
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
Donna
Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
International
Donna
International
Bridge
Donna
International
Bridge
Presidio-Ojinaga
International Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Listado SRE.
Listado SRE.
Listado SRE.
Listado SRE.
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Border
18/06/2015
TS
TX
TS
TX
TS
TX
CH
TX
Build the Freight Shuttle System
18/06/2015
New
CH
TX
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
INDAABIN Plan de reordenamiento.
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CH
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
TS
TX
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
Construct a new bridge.
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
Agua Prieta-Douglas
Reconfiguration of the existing LPOE.
Assumes relocation of commercial vehicle
processing to a new commercial port.
18/06/2015
Binational
SR
AZ
DeConcini
DeConcini ‐ Repatriation Consolidation
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
SR
AZ
Billy the Kid POE to be
located
between
Socorro and San Elizario
Piedras Negras -Eagle
Pass Bridge I
Camino
Real
International Bridge Eagle Pass II
Ferroviario – Vehicular
B&M
Border
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
US
State
NM
Listado SRE / LRGVTamps BMP
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
Mx
State
CH
Porvenir – Fort Hancock
LRGV-Tamps BMP
18/06/2015
Type
National
Expansion
Listado SRE.
PNI 2014-2018/Listado
SRE.
Construct northbound and southbound
Federal inspection facilities for processing
full commercial truck traffic.
Construct a U.S. border safety inspection
facility.
Construct inspection facilities for empty
commercial trucks (both directions).
SAT Proyecto ejecutivo para solucionar la
problemática del puerto.
SAT Reordenamiento del puerto. Incluye la
ampliación del área de revisión de
mercancías, los patios de maniobras, así
como los carriles de carga y vehículos
ligeros, habilitar un carril de retorno a EUA y
adecuar un edificio administrativo para el
procesamiento de peatones.
Date
18/06/2015
Palomas-Columbus
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
Description
Ferroviario MatamorosBrownsville
(Terminación)
Flor
de
Mayo
International Bridge
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
SCT Reconfiguración del puerto; se dejarán
de utilizar las vías y se adaptarán como
carriles para el cruce de vehículos ligeros en
modalidad SENTRI cuando entre en
operación el Puente Ferroviario MatamorosBrownsville. También contempla convertir
los patios fiscales en áreas comunes y
construir espacios culturales.
Construcción del New Puente Ferroviario
Brownsville-Matamoros de 0.56 km de
longitud
137
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
US
State
SR
AZ
New
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
Binational
BC
CA
18/06/2015
New
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
New
CH
NM
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
Binational
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
Date
Naco – Naco
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
Naco – Naco
Naco ‐ New Rail LPOE
18/06/2015
California-BC BMP
Los Algodones
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Modernize the tourist border crossing
facilities at Los Algodones - Andrade
Nogales East
Nogales Area (east) ‐ New LPOE
Listado SRE.
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
138
Mx
State
Description
Border
Border
Listado SRE.
Ferroviario
San
Jerónimo-Sta Teresa
Listado SRE.
Mesa de Otay – Otay I
Listado SRE.
Mexicali I – Calexico
West
Listado SRE.
Mexicali I – Calexico
West
California-BC BMP
Mexicali I – Calexico
West
California-BC BMP
Mexicali I – Calexico
West
Listado SRE.
Mexicali II – Calexico
East
Listado SRE.
Mexicali II – Calexico
East
California-BC BMP
Mesa de Otay – Otay I
Reubicación de las vías ferroviarias que
actualmente atraviesan la zona urbana de
Ciudad Juárez, a una zona localizada a 5 km
del cruce fronterizo existente en JerónimoSanta Teresa.
Proyecto para incrementar en un 50% la
capacidad de procesamiento de carga en el
área de importaciones. Tiempo de
ejecucuión 24 meses.
INDAABIN lleva a cabo el reordenamiento de
este puerto y edificación del confinamiento
de acuerdo con el Gobierno del Estado
SAT Proyecto ejecutivo para la adición de
tres carriles de acceso a México, con el
propósito de mejorar la interconexión con
las vialidades realizadas por el gobierno
estatal y reconfigurar y ampliar el área
peatonal.
Integral project between both Binational
authorities (Mexico - USA) to improve and
expand the Mexicali I -Calexico West border
crossing. Includes necessary alignments and
reconfiguration for new POV crossing.
Se construirá un edificio New para
dependencias federales que revisan a
peatones que ingresan a México
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral de este
puerto
SAT Reordenamiento de patios fiscales
durante 2014 (área de exportación) y 2015
(área de importación), con lo cual estima se
aumentará en 75% la capacidad de revisión
de carga en este puerto.
Commercial Modernizations anticipates the
paving the of the expansion parcel,
realignment and expansion of booths,
Type
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
California-BC BMP
Mesa de Otay – Otay I
California-BC BMP
San Ysidro
California-BC BMP
San Ysidro
California-BC BMP
San Ysidro
Listado SRE.
Tecate – Tecate
Description
realignment of truck flows within the port,
relocation of HAZMAT facilities and
development of a commercial Annex
Building.
Non-Commercial Modernization anticipates
phased demolition of head house and
pedestrian building, construction and
expansion of N/B primary booths, relocation
and expansion of pedestrian building,
construction of a new Head House and
construction of a new pedestrian bridge
crossing the 905 freeway.
Phase II replaces the northbound processing
buildings not demolished during the
previous phase, construction of a new
administration and pedestrian processing
building, renovation of the historic port
building, central holding facilities, and the
remaining central plant.
Phase III creates a new southbound
connection to Mexico, with inspection
facilities, and provides 17 additional
northbound primary inspection booths. It
involves the purchase of site necessary for
the realignment of the southbound roadway
to enter Mexico at the new El Chaparral
inspection
facility;
installation
of
southbound inspection facilities; an
employee parking structure with access
tunnel from the Parking Garage to the new
Auto Inspection Building.
The GSA anticipates developing a BiDirectional Pedestrian Facility adjacent to
the new Mexican LPOE (El Chaparral). This
facility would include 10 dedicated NB
Pedestrian Lanes and 2 bi-directional lanes.
In addition, GSA will be developing a transit
center at Virginia Avenue to replace the
transit and drop off functions being lost on
Camions Way.
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral de la
sección mexicana del puerto y la ejecución
de un confinamiento.
Date
Type
Mx
State
US
State
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
Binational
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
BC
CA
139
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Description
SAT desarrolla un proyecto ejecutivo para la
construcción de un corredor fiscal hacia EUA
y la ampliación y reordenamiento integral de
la sección aduanera del puerto. Con estas
obras, se estima duplicar la capacidad para
la revisión de transporte de carga en la
sección mexicana del puerto.
Se construirá en New cruce fronterizo
comercial en un predio de 5 hectáreas
donde se ampliaran las instalaciones de
revisión para los camiones de carga
Demolish the existing primary head house
and construct five additional inspection
stations with a new head house building
(second story).
Renovate the existing building “A” to
accommodate a bus transit terminal.
Security Enhancements: installation of doors
and walls to separate and secure hard
secondary in the main building of passport
control area.
18/06/2015
New
BC
CA
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
Fortification of port.
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
Fortification of port.
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Hidalgo International
Bridge Board
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Hidalgo International
Bridge Board
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
Laredo-Colombia
Solidarity Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Longoreño Bridge
Construct a new bridge.
Lucio Blanco–Los Indios
Free Trade Bridge
Piedras Negras -Eagle
Pass Bridge I
Camino
Real
International Bridge Eagle Pass II
Lake Amistad Dam
Crossing
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
New Road Bridge
Listado SRE.
Lucio Blanco–Los Indios
Free Trade Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Lucio Blanco–Los Indios
Free Trade Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Lucio Blanco–Los Indios
Free Trade Bridge
US
State
CA
Tecate – Tecate
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Mx
State
BC
California-BC BMP
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Type
National
Expansion
Tecate – Tecate
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Date
18/06/2015
Listado SRE.
Listado SRE.
140
Project
New CBP facility. This is an ARRA funded
project.
Construction of a new international road
bridge - Project 4-5.
SAT Construcción de plataformas para
revisión de exportaciones, entre otras obras.
Con este proyecto se pretende aumentar en
100% la capacidad de revisión de transporte
de carga.
Conduct Phase I—Feasibility and Phase II—
Design/Build of Commercial and Bus
Inspection Facility.
Expand customs facilities and construct
export platforms.
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Mx
State
US
State
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
NL
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
NL
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
NL
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
Convert an existing lane into FAST lane.
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
Widening of the fiscal premises and the reorganization of the new buildings that will
house the various administrative offices of
the port. This is necessary to increase the
capacity for imports and exports.
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CO
TX
Improve Customs to “Type A Customs”
18/06/2015
CO
TX
Widening of the fiscal premises.
18/06/2015
CO
TX
Widening of lanes.
18/06/2015
Binational
CO
TX
Improve Customs to “Type A Customs”
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CO
TX
18/06/2015
New
CO
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
Project
Description
Date
Listado SRE.
Matamoros
III
–
Brownsville
“Los
Tomates – Veterans”
INDAABIN Reorganizar la sección mexicana
del puerto.
18/06/2015
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo-Colombia
Solidarity Bridge
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo-Colombia
Solidarity Bridge
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo-Colombia
Solidarity Bridge
Listado SRE.
Miguel Alemán-Roma
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Piedras Negras -Eagle
Pass Bridge I
Del Rio - Ciudad Acuña
International Bridge
Camino
Real
International Bridge Eagle Pass II
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Piedras Negras
Pass Bridge I
Laredo District /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo District /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo District /
NL / Tamps BMP
Laredo District /
NL / Tamps BMP
Piedras Negras -Eagle
Pass Bridge I
Del Rio - Ciudad Acuña
International Bridge
Del Rio - Ciudad Acuña
International Bridge
Del Rio - Ciudad Acuña
International Bridge
Coah /
Coah /
Coah /
Coah /
-Eagle
Laredo District / Coah /
NL / Tamps BMP
Ciudad Acuña – Del Río
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
Presidio-Ojinaga
International Bridge
Construction and operation of a lowemission freight transportation system
(Freight Shuttle)
Construction of a U-turn lane for the
handling of freight exports origination from
the Import Center in the Bonded Warehouse
and destined for the Exports modules in
Customs.
Implementation of a truck-only lane at the
bridge and investments to facilitate the use
of the Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge to
connect shipments from and to Mexico with
the Port of Brownsville.
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
Convert an existing pedestrian lane into a
pedestrian express lane.
Convert an existing pedestrian lane into a
pedestrian express lane.
Building of a new rail bridge in Acuña. The
project would consist of a rail suspension
bridge located near the Amistad Dam.
Reconstruct the international rail bridge on
South Orient at Presidio, Texas.
Type
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
141
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
US
State
National
Expansion
CH
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
Perform necessary repairs to joints of
bridge.
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
Prepare Presidential Permit for the addition
of a twin structure and the construction of
the twin structure.
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
Perform necessary repairs to joints of
bridge.
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
Description
Date
Listado SRE.
Paso
del
Norte
International Bridge /
Puente Juárez-Santa Fe
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
18/06/2015
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
Córdova-Las Américas
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
142
Mx
State
Project
Paso
del
Norte
International Bridge /
Puente Juárez-Santa Fe
Paso
del
Norte
International Bridge /
Puente Juárez-Santa Fe
Paso
del
Norte
International Bridge /
Puente Juárez-Santa Fe
Good
Neighbor
International Bridge Stanton Bridge
Dedicate 1 bridge lane—from the Mexican
Aduana inspection area to CBP primary
inspection area—as a Ready lane.
Dedicate 1 bridge lane—from the Mexican
toll plaza to CBP primary inspection area—as
a Ready lane.
Type
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
Paso
del
Norte
International Bridge /
Puente Juárez-Santa Fe
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CH
TX
Listado
SRE
/
El
Paso/Santa Teresa-Chih
Border Master Plan
Construct access infrastructure, platforms,
and areas of security and inspection
necessary to begin operation of the PresidioOjinaga Rail Bridge.
YsletaZaragoza
International Bridge
Build the Freight Shuttle System
18/06/2015
New
CH
TX
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
YsletaZaragoza
International Bridge
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CH
TX
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
YsletaZaragoza
International Bridge
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
YsletaZaragoza
International Bridge
18/06/2015
Binational
CH
TX
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
YsletaZaragoza
International Bridge
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
CH
TX
Build up to 6 additional primary inspection
lanes at the Zaragoza International Bridge to
increase POE capacity.
Reconfigure the lanes by reducing width of
sidewalks on each side of the bridge from 10
feet to 5 feet to increase the number of
lanes from 5 lanes (1 SENTRI, 2 northbound,
and 2 southbound) to 6 lanes (1 SENTRI,
Perform repairs to the commercial and noncommercial bridge spans and reconfigure
the commercial bridge lanes to increase the
number of northbound lanes from 2 to 3, as
well as install light-emitting diode (LED)
signage.
Design and implement a new commercial
entrance and exit to the CBP compound at
the Zaragoza International Bridge. The new
entrance and exit will be connected to the
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
Description
Date
Type
new access road through Pan American
Drive and Winn Road.
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
Listado SRE.
El Paso/Santa TeresaChih Border Master Plan
Listado SRE.
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
YsletaZaragoza
International Bridge
YsletaZaragoza
International Bridge
El Paso - Ciudad Juárez
Nogales –Nogales I
Border
Nogales West
Nogales Area (west) ‐ New Rail LPOE
Listado SRE.
Nogales-Nogales
“Mariposa”
III
Listado SRE.
Nogales-Nogales
“Mariposa”
III
Nogales-Nogales
“Mariposa”
III
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Border
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
Listado SRE.
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Border
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Border
Border
Border
Border
Border
Border
Border
Increase the number of southbound access
gates to Aduana from 2 to 4.
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
Build the International Freight Shuttle
System
INDAABIN Proyecto ejecutivo para el
reordenamiento integral del puerto.
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
San Luis Río Colorado –
San Luis I
San Luis Rio Colorado I Expansion
and
Modernization
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
Proyecto de expansión a cargo de la SCT y la
empresa Vías Concesionadas del Norte S. A.
de C. V.
Reconfiguration of the existing LPOE facility
immediately adjacent to the border to
improve southbound processing of
passenger vehicles and pedestrians.
INDAABIN Reconfiguración integral en tres
fases para resolver los conflictos viales
derivados del entrecruzamiento de flujos
peatonales y vehiculares.
San Luis I ‐ SENTRI Primary Booth Project
San Luis I ‐ Pedestrian Pop‐Out Project #1
(Reconfiguration in place)
San Luis I ‐ Pedestrian Pop‐Out Project #2
(Expansion)
San Luis I ‐ SENTRI Secondary Inspection
Area
San Luis I ‐ Expansion and Modernization
San Luis I ‐ Outbound Inspection
Infrastructure
San Luis I ‐ Primary Booth Replacement
Project
Reconstruction of the LPOE to improve
southbound processing of passenger
vehicles and pedestrians.
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
Mx
State
US
State
CH
TX
CH
TX
18/06/2015
New
CH
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
New
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
Binational
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
Binational
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
Binational
143
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Listado SRE.
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Border
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Border
Border
Description
San Luis Río ColoradoSan Luis II
San Luis Río ColoradoSan Luis II
San Luis Río ColoradoSan Luis II
Proyecto para permitir el flujo de vehículos
ligeros por el puerto
San Luis II ‐ POV / Pedestrian Processing
Facility
San Luis Río ColoradoSan Luis II
Listado SRE.
Sasabe – Sasabe
Listado SRE.
Sonoita-Lukeville
Arizona-Son
Master Plan
Border
Sonoita-Lukeville
San Luis II ‐ New Rail LPOE
Expansion of the existing San Luis Rio
Colorado II commercial LPOE to
accommodate passenger vehicles and
pedestrians.
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
SAT Reordenamiento de sus patios fiscales
durante 2015 y 2016
Reconstruction of the LPOE to improve
southbound processing of commercial
vehicles,
passenger
vehicles,
and
pedestrians. Also includes additional
queuing capacity for northbound traffic to
coincide with improvements at Lukeville, AZ.
Date
Type
Mx
State
US
State
18/06/2015
Binational
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
New
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
Binational
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
SR
AZ
18/06/2015
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
National
Expansion
18/06/2015
Binational
SR
AZ
Nogales
Puerta de Anza (Nogales)
18/06/2015
New
SR
AZ
LRGV-Tamps BMP
New location, Cameron
County, Texas
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
Build a new bridge to link the United States
and Mexico at FM 3248 (Alton Gloor) and
Avenida Flor de Mayo. This project excludes
the border station.
New Rail Bridge
Project KCSM – New rail international bridge
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
New Laredo III – Laredo
IV “Comercio Mundial World trade Bridge”
New Laredo III – Laredo
IV “Comercio Mundial World trade Bridge”
SAT
Proyecto
ejecutivo
para
el
reordenamiento de la Aduana del puerto, el
cual sería ejecutado durante 2016 y 2017
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
Addition of a FAST lane.
18/06/2015
Binational
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
Listado SRE.
Listado SRE.
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
144
Project
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
New Laredo– Laredo II - Juárez-Lincoln Bridge
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
New Laredo– Laredo II - Juárez-Lincoln Bridge
Listado SRE / LaredoCoah-NL-Tamps BMP
New Laredo– Laredo II - Juárez-Lincoln Bridge
Design a new 10,000-15,000 square feet bus
processing facility to increase bus and bus
passenger processing capacity.
Fortification of Port - furnishing and
installing additional barriers, tire shredders,
and fencing.
SAT Ampliación del área de vehículos ligeros.
SAT espera duplicar la capacidad de revisión
de vehículos ligeros y revisión de autobuses
en un 150%
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
Listado SRE.
New Laredo-Laredo I -Gateway
to
the
Americas Bridge
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
New Laredo-Laredo I -Gateway
to
the
Americas Bridge
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
Laredo-Coah-NL-Tamps
BMP
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Listado SRE.
Listado SRE.
Listado SRE.
New Laredo-Laredo I -Gateway
to
the
Americas Bridge
New Laredo-Laredo I -Gateway
to
the
Americas Bridge
New Laredo-Laredo I -Gateway
to
the
Americas Bridge
New Laredo-Laredo I -Gateway
to
the
Americas Bridge
New
Progreso
–
Progreso
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
Description
Date
INDAABIN Reordenamiento del puerto
incorporando un proyecto del SAT (proyecto
2011). Cabe mencionar que las obras
estarán sujetas a los predios disponibles por
parte del Municipio y Gob. del Estado
Increase pedestrian processing capacity by
reconfiguring the existing space and
improving pedestrian path of travel from the
bridge through the facility. This is an ARRA
funded project.
Fortification of Port - furnishing and
installing additional barriers, tire shredders,
and fencing to enable outbound inspections.
Type
Mx
State
US
State
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
Convert an existing pedestrian lane into a
pedestrian express lane.
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
Reorganization of the
construction of barriers.
18/06/2015
Binational
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
bridge
and
Reconfigure and rebuild the existing LPOE in
compliance with current design standards
and operational requirements to improve
capacity, processing efficiency, security, and
officer safety.
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
INDAABIN Reordenamiento integral del
puerto.
SAT Construcción de un New carril para las
operaciones de importación y otro para las
operaciones de exportación.
Increase entrance inspection booth facilities
from six to ten inspection booths, and
expand the access roads from the bridge to
the inspection booths from two to eight
lanes, each 0.25 miles long.
Increase exit inspection booth facilities from
two to four inspection booths to eliminate
bottlenecks.
Widen the bridge by adding four additional
lanes to the current U.S. side of the bridge
structure (1.3 miles) to improve mobility
through designated lanes and encourage
145
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Source
Project
Description
Date
Type
commercial truck companies to become
FAST certified, which will in turn improve
wait times.
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
LRGV-Tamps BMP
146
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
Pharr-Reynosa
International Bridge on
the Rise
LRGV-Tamps BMP
Rio
Grande
Camargo Bridge
City-
LRGV-Tamps BMP
South of Sullivan City,
Texas
LRGV-Tamps BMP
WeslacoProgreso
International Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
WeslacoProgreso
International Bridge
LRGV-Tamps BMP
WeslacoProgreso
International Bridge
Increase entrance inspection booth facilities
from six to eight inspection booths, and
expand the access roads from the bridge to
the inspection booths from two to eight
lanes, each 0.25 miles long.
Add an emergency shoulder on both sides of
the bridge to prevent accidents and reduce
the interruption of traffic flow.
Build a lab and training room for U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA)
agriculture inspectors to allow for the
quicker release of cargo.
Increase the POE import lot inspection
facility by 50 percent through the expansion
of the current wings of the facility. This will
allow for quicker inspection of cargo and
efficiency of operations, thereby resulting in
increased use of the Pharr POE.
Add a FAST lane within the POE and two exit
booths to allow for gate to gate traffic flow.
Perform Phase I—Feasibility and Phase II—
Design/Build of Commercial and Bus
Inspection Facility.
Develop import and export cargo areas;
reorganize cargo areas and administrative
buildings.
Plan, develop, design, and construct a
proposed international border crossing
between Sullivan City and Gustavo Díaz
Ordaz in Tamps, Mexico.
Reconfigure and rebuild the existing POE in
compliance with current design standards
and operational requirements to improve
capacity, processing efficiency, security, and
officer safety.
Perform Phase I—Feasibility and Phase II—
Design/Build of Commercial and Bus
Inspection Facility.
Improve access. Construct inspection
facilities for the cargo lanes.
Mx
State
US
State
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
New
TS
TX
18/06/2015
Binational
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
18/06/2015
National
Expansion
TS
TX
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
147
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Abbreviations
AAGR. Average Annual Growth Rate.
AF.
Autorización
Federal.
(Federal
Authorization)
AGA. Administración General de Aduanas.
(General Customs Administration)
APHIS. Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service)
AQI. Agricultural Quarantine Inspections
BANOBRAS. Banco Nacional de Obras y
Servicios Públicos. (National Works and Public
Services Bank)
BANXICO. Banco de México. (Bank of Mexico)
BMP. Regional Border Master Plan
CALTRANS.
California
Department
of
Transportation
CARB. California Air Resource Committee
CBP. Customs and Border Protection
IBWC. International Boundary and Water
Commission
CONAGUA. Comisión Nacional del Agua.
(National Water Commission)
CTC. California Transportation Commission
C-TPAT. Customs-Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism
DHS. Department of Homeland Security
DOC. Department of Commerce.
DOT. Department of Transportation
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency.
FAST. Free and Secure Trade.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration
FHWA. Federal Highway Administration.
FIBRAS. Fideicomiso de Infraestructura y Bienes
Raíces. (Infrastructure and Real Estate Trust
Fund)
FONADIN. Fondo Nacional de Infraestructura.
(National Infrastructure Trust Fund)
FONSI. Finding of No Significant Impact.
GDP. Gross Domestic Product
GSA. General Service Administration
HLED. U.S. Mexico High Level Economic
Dialogue
IGBBC. Interagency Group of Bridges and
Border Crossings
INDAABIN.
Instituto
Nacional
de
Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales.
(Institute of Administration and Valuation of
National Goods)
148
INEGI. Instituto Nacional de Estadística,
Geografía e Informática. (National Institute of
Geographic Statistics and Information)
INM. Instituto Nacional de Migración. (National
Migration Institute)
IRS. Internal Revenue Service
JWC. Joint Working Committee
MPO. Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTPS. Metropolitan Transport Plans
NADBANK. North American Development Bank
NAFTA. North American Free Trade Agreement
NEEC. Nuevo Esquema de Empresas
Certificadas. (New Scheme of Certified
Companies)
NEPA. National Environmental Policy Act
NMBA. New Mexico Border Authority
OMB. Office of Management Budget
OME. Otay Mesa East
PEF. Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación.
(Federal Budget)
PGR. Procuraduría General de La República.
(Attorney General of Mexico)
PND. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo. (National
Development Plan)
PNI. Programa Nacional de Infraestructura.
(National Infrastructure Program)
POE. Port of Entry
PP. Presidential Permit
PPP. Public Private Partnership
RMA. Regional Mobility Authorities.
SAGARPA.
Secretaria de Agricultura,
Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural y Pesca. (Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development,
Fisheries and Food)
SANDAG.
San
Diego
Association
of
Governments
SCT. Secretaría de Comunicaciones y
Transportes. (Ministry of communications and
Transports)
SE. Secretaría de Economía. (Ministry of
Economy)
SECTUR. Secretaría de Turismo. (Ministry of
Tourism)
SEDATU. Secretaría de Desarrollo Agrario,
Territorial y Urbano. (Ministry of Agrarian
Development and Urban Planning)
SEDENA. Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional.
(Ministry of National Defense)
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
SEDESOL. Secretaría de Desarrollo Social.
(Ministry of Social Development)
SEGOB. Secretaría de Gobernación. (Ministry of
the Interior)
SEMARNAT. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales. (Ministry of Environment
and Natural Resources)
SENASICA. Servicio Nacional de Sanidad,
Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria. (National
Health Service, Food Safety and Quality)
SFP. Secretaría de la Función Pública. (Ministry
of Public Administration)
SHCP UI. Secretaria de Hacienda y Crédito
Público Unidad de Inversiones. (Ministry of
Finance and Public Credit, Investment Unit)
SRA. Strategic Resource Assessment
SRE. Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.
(Ministry of Foreign Relations)
STAC. South Texas Assets Consortium
STIP. Statewide Transportation Improvement
Programs
TCEQ. Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
TCIF. Trade Corridors Improvement Fund.
TIFIA. Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act of 1998.
USDA. US Department of Agriculture
USDOS. US Department of State.
UTP. Unified Transport Program.
149
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Bibliography
1.
1er. Informe de Avances del Diálogo Económico de Alto Nivel México-Estados Unidos
2.
"21st Century Border: A Comprehensive Response & Commitment.” Department of Homeland Security. March
4, 2014. Accessed August 12, 2014. http://www.dhs.gov/21st-century-border-comprehensive-responsecommitment
3.
"Adoption of Program Guidelines for the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF).”California Transportation
Commission. 12/12/2007. Accessed 12/2/2014.
http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/TCIF/TCIF_Guidelines_112707.pdf
4.
Base en datos de Banobras, FONADIN y el Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación 2015
5.
Border Delays Cost U.S. $7.8 Billion as Fence Is Focus, Mayo 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201305-15/border-delays-cost-u-s-7-8-billion-as-fence-is-focus.html
6.
"Border Planning.” U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. Office of Planning,
Environment, & Realty. Accessed August 12, 2014. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/border_planning/
7.
BTS-RITA-USDOT Border crossing
8.
"CBP Outlines Reimbursable Services Program.” Airports Council International- North America. Accessed
November 22, 2014. http://www.aci-na.org/content/cbp-outlines-reimbursable-services-program
9.
"CBP Takes the Next Step in Public-Private Partnerships.” Customs and Border Protection. Accessed November
10, 2014. http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/resource-opt-strategy/public-private-partnerships
10. Christensen, Michelle D. “The Executive Budget Process: An Overview.” Congressional Research Service. July
27, 2012.
11. Comisión de Transporte de California (CTC)
12. Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas (CILA). SRE.
13. "C-TPAT: Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Accessed
August 25, 2014. http://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/c-tpat-customs-tradepartnership-against-terrorism
14. Customs and Border Protection – CBP
15. "Fact Sheet: A 21st Century Border Vision.” U.S. Embassy. Accessed 9/4/14.
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/mexico/310329/16may/21st%20Century%20Border%20Vision%20May%202
011%20Final-.pdf
151
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
16. Fact Sheet: A 21st Century Border Vision.” U.S. Embassy. Accessed 9/4/14.
http://www.dhs.gov/publication/2013-action-items
17. "FAST: Free and Secure Trade for Commercial Vehicles.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Accessed August
25, 2014. http://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/fast
18. "General Fees Collected by CBP.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. January 30, 2014. Accessed December
4, 2014. https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/15/related/1/~/user-fee---cbps-authority-to-collect
19. Información de la Dirección General de Desarrollo Carretero
20. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, INEGI y US Census
21. International Trade Statistics, WTO 2013
22. "Land Ports of Entry.” General Services Administration. Last updated March 4, 2014. Accessed November 22,
2014. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104472
23. Martinez, Aaron. “El Paso City Officials, CBP sign agreement to reduce bridge wait times.” El Paso Times.
January 24, 2014. Accessed November 18, 2014. http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_24982324/cityofficials-cbp-sign-agreement-reduce-bridge-wait
24. Mensaje a medios de comunicación del secretario de relaciones exteriores, José Antonio Meade, sobre la
relación México-Estados Unidos. http://saladeprensa.sre.gob.mx/index.php/discursos/2767-016
25. Office of the Vice President. “FACT SHEET: U.S.-Mexico High Level Economic Dialogue.” The White House.
September 20, 2013. Accessed August 25, 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/09/20/fact-sheet-us-mexico-high-level-economic-dialogue
26. Permit submitted by California Department of Transportation. “Otay Mesa East Port of Entry/State Route 11:
Presidential Permit Application.” Submitted to Secretary of State. 11/26/2007.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/systplan/OMEPOEPresPermitApp.pdf
27. San Diego Association of Governments, California Department of Transportation, District 11, Economic
Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border, Final Report, 2006.
http://www.sandag.org/programs/borders/binational/projects/2006_border_wait_impacts_execsum.pdf.
28. SANDAG. (2008). California-Baja California Border Master Plan
29. Ministry of Foreign Relations (SRE).
30. Section 559 Donation Acceptance Authority: Proposal Evaluation Procedures & Criteria Framework
31. "Section 559 Donation Acceptance Authority: Proposal Evaluation Procedures & Criteria Framework. U.S.
Customs and Border Protection.General Services Administration.Pp. 6 Accessed 12/5/2014.
http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DAA%20Proposal%20Evaluation%20Procedures%20%26%
20Criteria%20Framework_Public%20FINAL.pdf
152
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
32. "Stages of the Congressional Budget Process.”House of Representatives Committee on the Budget
33. The State of Trade, Competitiveness and Economic Well-being in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region, Erik Lee,
Christopher E. Wilson, June 20111
34. "Trade Corridor Improvement Fund. California Transportation Commission. Last updated 8/20/2014. Accessed
November 20, 2014. http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/tcif.htm
35. Transborder.bts.gov/tbdr/bc
36. U.S. Department of State. (2007). Interpretative Guidance, Executive Order 11423
37. U.S. Department of State. (2007). Interpretative Guidance, Executive Order 11423.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/94946.htm
38. U.S. Department of Transportation, RITA, Bureau of Transportation Statistics
39. U.S. General Services Administration. Port of Entry Infrastructure: How Does the Federal Government
Prioritize Investment. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/194547
40. U.S./Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning, Regional Border Master Plans,
http://www.borderplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/masterplans.asp
41. "U.S./Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning.” U.S. DOT: Federal Highway
Administration. Accessed August 11, 2014. http://www.borderplanning.fhwa.dot.gov/mexico.asp
42. US Customs and Border Protection C-TPAT Program, Office of Field Operations. “A Guide to Program benefits”
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
43. "USDA Proposes Adjustments to Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) Program User Fees.” United States
Department of Agriculture. April, 2014. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2014/04/pdf/AQI_fees.pdf
44. "User Fee, Transponder, and Decal Information.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Accessed December 4,
2014. http://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/uftd-info
153
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
Disclaimer
This report and the documents incorporated herein by reference are subject to the terms of a
confidentiality agreement, and they are intended for the institutional and confidential use of
individual or entity that is the named client.
This report may contain forward-looking statements based on current expectations, estimates, and
projections about the economic performance of the country, a region, or an industry, or
consultants’ beliefs and assumptions. Words such as "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes,"
"seeks," and "estimates," as well as variations of such words and similar expressions, are intended
to identify such forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future
performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertain ties, and assumptions that are difficult to
forecast. Therefore, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or forecast in any
such forward-looking statements. The company undertakes no obligation to update publicly any
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.
The company undertakes no responsibility for any damages derived from the use of information
contained or referred to in this report.
154
Analysis of International Port-of-Entry Projects on the U.S. – Mexico Border
President and CEO
Dr. Reyes Juárez Del Angel
Director of Infrastructure
M. C. Paloma Salas Esparza
Ricardo Castro 54-PH2
Col. Guadalupe Inn
CP 01020, México, DF
Tel. +52 (55) 5662 3569
Fax. +52 (55) 5662 0422
[email protected]
www.foaconsulting.com
Regional Manager Latin
America
Juan Carlos Villa
Tel. México +52.55.5254.1382
United States: 979.862.3382
http://tti.tamu.edu
Tel. +52 (55) 5662 3569
Fax. +52 (55) 5662 0422
[email protected]
155