bottom linebottomline.transportation.org/Documents/BLR-09_lowres.pdf · Alan E. Pisarski and Arlee...

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

The Bottom Line Report—2009

TRANSPORTATION—Are We There Yet?

bottom line

AASHTO’s Authorization Recommendations

2

at a glanceAn annual investment of $166 billion for highways and bridges, between 2010 and 2015, is necessary to improve the condition and performance of the system, given an expected rate of travel growth of 1.4 percent per year.

If travel growth is held to about 1.0 percent a year, which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then needed investment to improve the highway system would come to $132 billion per year.

In 2006, highway capital investment from all levels of government totaled $78.7 billion, according to FHWA.

An annual investment of $46 billion for public transportation is necessary to improve system performance and condition, given an expected 2.4 percent annual growth in ridership.

If transit ridership growth rises to 3.5 percent, the level that would double ridership in 20 years which would also be helpful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, investment in public transportation would have to increase to $59 billion per year.

In 2006, transit capital investment from all levels of government totaled $13.3 billion, according to APTA.

The model-based investment estimates do not currently address all needs. Additional annual highway requirements total over $13 billion, including: More than $7 bil-lion in environmental mitigation costs; $2.6 billion in highway operations costs; $1.2 billion in safety program costs; and $1.6 billion in highway security costs.

Between 1995 and 2006, highway travel, measured in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), in-creased from 2.4 trillion to 3 trillion. By late 2008, because of high fuel prices and the economic downturn, VMT had declined to 2.9 trillion.

In 2006, the value of freight transported in America was $15 trillion. Freight volumes are expected to grow by 80 percent by 2035.

The BOTTOM LINE Report

�

at a glanceIn 2006, annual passenger miles traveled on America’s public transportation system reached 52.15 billion. Between 1995 and 2007, transit ridership increased from 7.8 billion to 10.3 billion trips.

Between 1980 and 2005, international container traffic through United States ports grew six-fold. In 2006, 42 million containers were shipped. By 2020, the number of con-tainers moving through our ports could reach over 100 million.

The travel and tourism industry generated $700 billion in 2006. It is the number one industry in three states, and is in the top ten in all but two states.

13 million people, about 10 percent of the nation’s work force, are employed in transportation jobs.

.Each billion dollars of federal highway construction investment supports nearly 35,000 jobs.

Since 1950, when our nation had 150 million people, our population has doubled to 305 million and our road system has grown by 20 percent from 3.3 million miles to 4 million miles. Over the next 50 years our population is expected to grow by another 150 million.

The number of motor vehicles in the United States has increased from around 65 million in the mid-1950s to more than 240 million today. Those vehicles traveled about 500 bil-lion miles per year in 1950 and now travel approximately 3 trillion miles.

While overall population grew by 5 percent from the year 2000 to 2005, the population over 55 grew by 13 percent to 67 million.

Over 41,000 people died on the nation’s highways in 2007.


�

AckNOWLEdgEMENTSThis report is the result of the efforts of many people. The Bottom Line Task Force, chaired by Dennis Slimmer of the Kansas Department of Transportation, provided invaluable oversight on behalf of the AASHTO Board of Directors.

Alan E. Pisarski and Arlee Reno of Cambridge Systematics served as the principle research team for the report.

Susan Binder, Ross Crichton, and their colleagues at the Federal Highway Administration provided technical advice on the nature of the modeling, the interpretation of results, and alternative scenarios.

Two research projects conducted under the auspices of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) of the Transportation Re-search Board of the National Academies provided background supporting the analyses and recom-mendations presented in this report. AASHTO wishes to thank the project panel members, staff, and research teams that guided and performed the research: NCHRP 20–24(58)G and TCRP H–33B.

AASHTO also wishes to express its profound appreciation to all who devoted long hours and shared their special knowledge to produce the Bottom Line Report. We believe it will serve as a valuable research tool as the nation addresses its transportation needs.

NcHRP Project 20-24(�4)g AASHTO Bottom Line Report Support

Dennis Slimmer, ChairKansas Department of Transportation

MembersDennis Keck, P.E., P.P.Vice President, Director of Highway PlanningJacobs Edwards & Kelcey

Jonette R. KreideweisMinnesota Department of Transportation

Calvin LeggettNorth Carolina Department of Transportation

Susan P. MortelMichigan DOT

Douglas R. RoseMaryland State Highway Administration

Sandra StraehlMontana Department of Transportation

Thomas M. Welch, P.E.Iowa Department of Transportation

FHWA LiaisonRoss Crichton

AASHTO LiaisonJanet Oakley

APTA LiaisonRobert Padgette

NCHRP StaffDr. Andrew Lemer Sheila Moore

Interested ObserverCrawford F. Jencks, P.E.

Suellen MarkleyKansas Department of Transportation

Karen MartinMichigan Department of Transportation

Sarah H. MitchellNorth Carolina Department of Transportation


�

TcRP Project H–��B Transit Investment Needs for the 2008 Bottom Line Report

Donna AllenMinnesota Department of Transportation (retired)

Rochelle CoteyExecutive Director ALTRAN

Edward R. CovenFlorida Department of Transportation

Ron EpsteinNew York State Department of Transportation

Thomas K. HarringtonWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Steven KishGeorgia Department of Transportation

Sarah RiosMetropolitan Transportation Authority

Joel VolinskiCenter for Urban Transportation Research

Janet Weaver

Christopher ZeilingerCommunity Transportation Association of America

FTA LiaisonMokhtee Ahmad Keith Gates

Henry A. NejakoFederal Transit Administration

Lisa ColbertFederal Transit Administration

AASHTO LiaisonJanet Oakley

APTA LiaisonJohn Neff

Robert PadgetteAmerican Public Transportation Association

TCRP StaffDianne S. Schwager

Interested ObserverRachel Beyerle

Lisa ColbertFederal Transit Administration


�

cONTENTS

FOREWORd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

kEY FINdINgS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Highway Investment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Public Transportation Investment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Additional costs for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

THE VALUE OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�

Transportation and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�

Future Travel demand in a changing Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�

dETERMININg HIgHWAY INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�

The current context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�

Past Forecasts of Vehicle Miles of Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�

current Highway conditions and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

condition and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Bridge conditions and Backlog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Bridge condition concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Improvement in Bridge deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2�

conditions and Performance Measures in the Bottom Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

A ScENARIO APPROAcH TO FUTURE HIgHWAY INVESTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2�

Need for a Scenarios Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2�

Two Investment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2�


8

Scenario Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2�

A Payoff graphic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2�

Special Bridge Scenarios—Faster Elimination of the Bridge Needs Backlog . . . . . . . . . . 29

PUBLIc TRANSPORTATION—THE BOTTOM LINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �1

The Value of Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �1

Public Transportation Services and Ridership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �2

Public Transportation capital Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ��

Types of Public Transportation System Expansion Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ��

PUBLIc TRANSPORTATION NEEdS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9

Ridership Forecasts and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9

Types of Public Transportation capital Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �9

Public Transportation Investment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Potential Operating costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Historical Funding for Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

ELEMENTS NOT INcLUdEd FULLY IN THE MOdELEd cOSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4�

FOREWORd2009 will be a pivotal year for the future of America. The 111th Congress and the new Administra-tion will be called upon to craft legislation that will put in place the surface transportation programs essential to the nation’s economic recovery and quality of life. This will take place against a backdrop in which the American public is rightly demanding new accountability and reform in the use of their transportation dollars.

Many issues must be addressed in the coming legislative debate:

Investing in highway and transit infrastructure to stimulate economic recovery;

Sustaining the solvency to the Federal Highway Trust Fund;

Redressing dramatically higher costs of highway and transit construction;

Addressing the transportation impacts on global climate change;

Reconstruction needs of an aging transportation system;

Reducing congestion on highways;

Increasing capacity for highways and public transportation; and

Maintaining international competitiveness.

This comprehensive assessment of the nation’s surface transportation needs provides a definitive base of information to assist in making critical decisions. It is based upon the forecasting models used by the Federal Highway Administration, and supplemented with additional research to incorporate areas not fully addressed by those models. The result is the most comprehensive analysis of the nation’s transportation investment needs now possible.

John Horsley

Executive DirectorAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials


9


10


11

kEY FINdINgSTransportation in America has come to a breaking point. Drivers experience the frustration of congestion and lost hours stuck in traffic. Shippers add extra time to delivery schedules, and then worry if goods will arrive “just in time.” Families bear untold grief at the loss of a son or daughter in a tragic accident. Critics wonder why can’t this be fixed.

The answer is, it can. By investing in America’s transportation system, the nation will not only solve the deficiencies that plague us, but also lay a sound foundation for a revitalized economy equipped to meet a growing and changing society.

Highway Investment Requirements

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reports that since the mid 1990s, highway travel in the nation has grown just under 12 percent. After growing from 2.4 trillion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1995 to over 3 trillion VMT in 2007, because of record high fuel prices and the decline of the economy VMT declined to 2.9 trillion by late 2008.

Future highway travel demand will depend on many factors. The U.S. population is expected to grow from 305 million in 2005 to over 420 million by 2050. Freight shipped by truck is expected to nearly double in the next 20 years. Passen-ger vehicle demand is expected to parallel population growth, which is increasing around one percent per year. Truck freight demand is expected to parallel economic growth, which is expected to increase between two and three percent per year. While VMT grew at over two percent annually during the last two decades, over the next twenty years it is expected to grow between 1.0 percent to 1.4 percent per year as many of the factors that determine VMT stabilize.

To estimate future highway and bridge investment needs, this report projects two scenarios based upon anticipated growth in travel, a 1.4 percent growth rate , and a policy-based 1.0 percent annual growth rate which would be ex-pected to yield significant progress in reducing transportation’s share of greenhouse gas emissions.

Two Highway Investment Scenarios

Growth Rate of VMT per Year Cost to Improve Highways(2006 Dollars)

1 .4 Percent Annual growth $1�� billion

1 .0 Percent Annual growth $1�2 billion

At a 1.4 percent growth rate in VMT, annual average investment requirements for highways and bridges total $166 billion. If travel growth is held to a 1.0 percent annual VMT growth rate, the investment requirements come to $132 billion. Both these levels are significantly higher than the $78 billion invested in highway capital improve-ments by all levels of government in 2006. If highway investment were increased to the levels indicated in either of the “cost to improve” scenarios, drivers would see smoother roads, improved highway speeds, a reduction in delays, fewer congested miles, and reduced cost.


12

Public Transportation Investment Requirements

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports that since the mid-1990s, public transportation ridership in the nation has grown 32 percent, from 7.8 billion trips annually in 1995 to 10.3 billion trips in 2007.

Future ridership growth will depend on factors such as changes in fuel prices, housing and commercial development patterns, employment growth, the relative health of metropolitan areas where public transportation plays a large role, and overall economic growth. The level of investment provided to maintain the current transit system and the level of investment made in system expansion will also affect potential ridership.

Projected investment needs were calculated for two scenarios:

A continued 2.4 percent increase, the average annual growth between 1995 and 2007; and

A 3.5 percent annual growth, which would result in doubling of ridership in 20 years, which is a goal that has been adopted by AASHTO’s Board of Directors.

Average Annual Transit capital Requirement (200� dollars)Improve Physical Conditions, Improve Service Performance

Needs ComponentReplacement/

Rehabilitation of Existing Assets

Transit: Cost to Improve Condition and Performance

2.4% Annual Growth 3.5% Annual Growth

Total Needs $18 billion $4� billion $�9 billion

Additional costs for the Future

The transportation models used to develop the estimates for highways and transit, shown above, do not currently address all investment requirements. Based on recent research, $13 billion in additional costs have been identi-fied. These include more than $7 billion in environmental mitigation costs; $2.6 billion in highway operations costs; $1.2 billion in safety program costs; and $1.6 billion in highway security costs. APTA has identified capital needs for transit security which were likewise not addressed by the modeling forecasts.

It is our hope that in the future these factors can be incorporated in the cost estimation techniques used by the trans-portation models. These areas of costs not accounted for in current modeling are detailed in the final section of this report.


1�

THE VALUE OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTSWhether it is connecting the nation’s metropolitan economic centers or ensuring that a school bus arrives safely, transportation is vital to every aspect of American life. This section addresses many of the functions transportation serves, and also analyzes how the transportation system must change with a changing nation.

Transportation and Employment

Transportation and employment are inextricably linked. The vast majority of America’s wage earners must travel to a job site, whether by highways or public transportation. Good transportation expands job opportunities—a benefit for workers; and expands access to the labor pool—a benefit for industry. Over 13 million workers nationwide were en-gaged in transportation-related employment in 2006, about 10 percent of America’s total employment of 136 million.

Highway construction generated Employment1

Of particular importance in periods of significant unemployment is the power of transportation construction invest-ment to generate jobs. Every billion dollars of federal highway investment supports nearly 35,000 jobs. The FHWA has developed a new computer model to estimate the employment generated by highway construction investment in three components:

Construction-Oriented Employment—All those jobs created by the hiring of firms to do construction or who produce direct inputs (e.g., paving materials) to the construction project.

Supporting Industry Employment—Includes employment in firms that provide inputs to the firms that provide direct inputs (e.g., production of steel that goes into guardrail).

Induced Employment—Includes the jobs generated by the consumption expenditures of the job-holders in the first two categories (e.g., their groceries, housing, and other purchases).

Jobs generated per Billion dollars of Federal Investment

Jobs Person Yrs 2007 Estimates

direct 11,920

Supporting �,400

Induced 1�,4�0

All 34,770

The model assumes state matching spending of 20 percent for federal dollars, for a total of $1.25 billion.

1 There has not been a comparable revision of transit job estimates in this reauthorization cycle thus far, but it can be assumed that the transit job esti-mates will parallel the new highway estimates as they did the earlier work.


14

Freight

Freight movement in the United States has seen prodigious growth in recent decades and accommodating this increase will be a key challenge of the coming authorization legislation. Expectations are that freight movements, as measured in tons, will grow by approximately 80 percent by 2035, with air freight and air/truck freight flows forecast to quadruple. The overall value of goods shipped is forecast to nearly triple in the period, indicating a growing em-phasis on the speed and reliability. While the nation is currently experiencing a recession, the economy is expected to rebound. Growth expectations for the future indicate greater distribution and consumption of goods by businesses and households.

Overall forecasts of freight flows by all modes in the period from 2006 to 2035 by value are shown in the table below. Overall values of goods shipped are expected to grow in the range of 3 to 3.5 percent per year, contrasted to the fore-cast of tonnage growth of around 2 percent per year. Truck flows comprise about 60 percent of total tonnage now and are forecast to maintain that share in the future, with approximately two-thirds of the domestic flows by truck.

Forecasts of Freight Value Shipped by Mode (Billions of dollars per Year)

Category Year 2006 Year 2035

Truck $9,�� $2�,��

Rail $4�0 $�02

Water $102 $1�1

Air, Air and Truck $1,048 $�,92�

Intermodal $2,09� $8,9��

Pipeline and Unknown $1,494 $2,��

Total $14,935 $41,869

international trade

Freight has also grown as a result of increases in international trade. Between 1980 and 2005, container traffic through United States ports grew six-fold. In 2006, nearly 42 million containers were shipped. By 2020, the number of containers shipped through America’s ports could exceed 100 million. A significant part of the growth in freight shipments has been in Mexican and Canadian trade, which has increased substantially since implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. While Canada and Mexico have for decades been our major trading partners, in 2006 trade with China surpassed that with Mexico.

travel and tourism

The Travel Industry Association estimated that travel and tourism in the United States generated $700 billion in 2006, with about $90 billion of that amount from foreign visitors. Travel and tourism is the number one industry in three states, as measured by employment, and among the top ten industries in all but two states.

Roughly $180 billion of total spending is estimated to be in transportation services.

Recent traffic volume data indicate that about 57 million international visitors came to the United States in 2007, up 11 percent over 2006, with roughly 18 million from Canada, 15 million from Mexico, and 24 million from overseas.


1�

The new dynamic economies around the world want to see America. China, already sixth in the world in interna-tional tourism spending, showed a 24 percent increase in travel to the United States for the year 2007. India also has rapidly increased its spending in the United States, up 39 percent in 2007.

Future Travel demand in a changing Nation

The United States population now stands at roughly 305 million people, and has been growing in this decade at about 1 percent. We are a growing society, expanding in population, workers, and households. In contrast, West-ern Europe, Russia, and Japan are all expected to lose population over the next 50 years. The United States is a nation that adds a Canada each decade and our necessary responses to growth are never done.

The Census Bureau reported that, of the 15 million persons added in the decade as of 2005, 58 percent came from natural increase (births minus deaths), and the remainder was the product of immigration. This has significant implications for driver age population.

growth in Mid-Sized Metropolitan Areas the Fastest

Population distribution trends in this decade indicate that midsized metropolitan areas, with populations between one and five million, are expanding faster than the national average of roughly one percent per year.

Population Group 2000 (thousands)

2007(thousands)

Change(thousands)

Percentage Change

Areas Over � Million ��,�9� �8,�0� 2,80� � .0%

Areas 2.5 to 5 Million 47,520 52,593 5,073 10.7%

Areas 1 to 2.5 Million 46,458 50,421 3,963 8.5%

Areas �00,000 to 1 Million 2�,�� 29,�� 2,1�2 � .9%

Areas �0,000 to 2�0,000 ��,�88 �8,��1 �,08� � .9%

All Other �1,2�� 1,�9� ��0 1 .1%

Total 282,194 301,621 19,427 6.9%

Source: demographia .

By Demographia’s count, America now has 51 metropolitan areas of over one million containing 163 million people, which is more than half of the United States population. This will need to be a focus of transportation improvements in the years ahead.

Trends in population distribution show us:

A highly dispersed, high-value, globally engaged, high-mobility society.

Skills-seeking employers in search of replacements for the retiring baby-boomer generation. Connecting distant workers with jobs will be a critical productivity-enhancing function of transportation.

Approximately half the United States population will live in metropolitan complexes of over 5 million. These im-mense “megalapolitan” areas will span a hundred miles or more. These areas will be critical to national productiv-ity; and serving their transportation needs will be a major input to that productivity.


1�

Continued “suburbanization” of people and jobs with continuing in-fill of existing areas should be expected, leading to a blurring of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan boundaries. Population growth will continue in the metropolitan areas and in their rural fringes, with households in search of affordable housing.

Within this overall metropolitan context, it is possible that communities will evolve with a greater emphasis on walking for some local trips. Concerns for limiting travel costs may spur more development in areas easier to serve with transit. More compact development patterns with more infill may result in shorter trip lengths.

Rural populations will be increasingly important to the nation’s economy; and rural development will accommo-date retirees and amenities-seeking workers focused around recreation/tourism or specialized economic develop-ment features. Maintaining high-quality access for rural areas will require substantial investments in transporta-tion.

Greater competition will arise between air and auto travel for intermediate trips between 250 to 500 miles. In some corridors, intercity passenger rail will play a significant role.

commuting in central cities/Suburbs/Rural Areas

A reality of future metropolitan areas will be the continued growth of the suburbs—not merely in population, but in jobs and retail sales. In metropolitan areas over a million in population, where about 54 percent of the nation’s popu-lation resides, 92 percent of the population growth in this decade has been suburban.2

Commuting flows already reflect many of these attributes, as shown in the figure below, but will increasingly follow this pattern as different growth rates continue. The increasingly crucial nature of the interaction of rural areas with metropolitan areas and between metropolitan areas is revealed by the figure.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4�

40

��

�0

2�

20

1�

10

�

0

Living in Central City Living in Suburbs Living in Non-Met

Wor

k in

c

c

Wor

k in

Su

burb

s

Wor

k in

ot

her

cc

Wor

k in

ot

her

Sub

Wor

k in

N

on-M

et

Wor

k in

c

c

Wor

k in

Su

burb

s

Wor

k in

O

ther

cc

Wor

k in

O

ther

Sub

Wor

k in

N

on-M

et

Wor

k in

c

c

Wor

k in

Su

burb

s

Wor

k in

N

on-M

et

Metropolitan commuting Flows 2000

2 Note that the work force that lives and works in rural areas today roughly equals those who live and work in central cities.

Num

ber

of c

omm

uter

s (m

illio

ns)


1�

dETERMININg HIgHWAY INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS

The current context

The analysis of future vehicle miles of travel and other dynamics which will determine highway and transit needs takes into account many rapidly evolving factors:

It incorporates research used by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, “Transportation for Tomorrow,” 2008, to develop forecasts of VMT.

Recent trends in vehicle miles of travel, transit ridership, per capita incomes, and fuel prices have been used to shape the forecasts for the next six years of authorization and for the 20 years of highway and transit investment needs.

Ten-year trends in the growth of vehicle miles of travel for the United States through 2007 were at 1.6 percent per year, and six-year growth of VMT has been an average of 1.2 percent per year. VMT has declined from 3 tril-lion in 2006 to 2.9 trillion in late 2008.

Ten-year growth trends in transit ridership have been at 2.4 percent average per year, which is well above the base case numbers used for all recent transit needs analyses.

Clearly, previous forecasts need to be adjusted to reflect the factors that are driving VMT growth and transit passenger growth. At the same time, the declining VMT trend seen over the past two years is not expected to continue for the next 20 years.

Past Forecasts of Vehicle Miles of Travel

Between 1993 and 2004, highway vehicle miles of travel (VMT) grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent. This was slower than the rates for the two previous decades. The 20-year forecasts made by U.S. DOT in 2004 called for future growth rates of 2.02 percent. By the time of their 2006 report, they had reduced their forecast to 1.91 percent. More recent trendlines have pointed to an even slower future rate of VMT growth.

The forecast sources utilized for the previous Bottom Line Reports and the U.S. DOT’s Condition and Performance reports have been the annual Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data sets submitted by the states to the FHWA. The HPMS data submitted by the states includes information on a sample of highway segments in each state.

A projection of 1.4 percent growth in VMT is the base case for highway VMT growth used here.3 In addition to this base case, needs analyses have also been conducted for a future VMT growth rate of 1.0 percent per year (effectively constant VMT/per capita with population growth at about 1 percent. AASHTO studies have shown that holding the rate of growth in VMT to under 1 percent annually will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a part of the transpor-tation sector’s strategy to be helpful regarding global climate change). A forecast of 1.91 percent growth, which is the HPMS forecast, was also analyzed. In addition, a no growth forecast, holding VMT at present levels has been devel-oped to help understand the nature of underlying needs in the backlog.

3 Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), University of South Florida, prepared by Dr. Steven Polzin and Dr. Xuehao Chu.


18

Why is the rate of travel growth declining? There are several factors which together explain this trend. The popula-tion growth rate in the United States has slowed from 1.3 percent in 2001 to around .95 percent in 2007. The worker boom of the 1970s and 1980s has ended. The boom came about due to the large number of baby boomers who en-tered the work force in this period and the increasing participation of women in the labor force. Although the overall population is expected to grow 20 percent between 2000 and 2020, the age group of new drivers licensing, 15 to 19, will only grow about 6 percent. The percentage of the population of the age 65 and higher will grow significantly. People of the age 65 and above tend to travel less than younger age groups. Vehicle ownership is at near-satura-tion levels: today one-third of households have one vehicle, 40 percent have two, 17 percent have three, and only 10 percent have none. The next two factors are expected to be temporary in nature: First, the United States experienced record high gas prices from 2006 to 2008 of $3 to $4 per gallon, up from under $2 per gallon in 2000 to 2005. Prices have just dropped to under $2 again. Should prices increase again, as is expected, this will tend to dampen the rate of travel growth. Second, today the United States economy is undergoing one of the most serious economic downturns in decades. Highway travel has declined as a result. Once the economy recovers, the rate of growth in VMT is expect-ed to resume to somewhere in the range of 1 percent to 1.4 percent per year.

Projected VMT at different growth Rates (in trillions)

VMT Levels Reported 2000 Reported 2006 Estimated 2009

Estimated 2015

Change from 2000

Change from 2009

At 1 .0% 2 .�4� � .014 � .10� � .29� 0 .��0 0 .191

At 1 .4% 2 .�4� � .014 � .10� � .��8 0 .��1 0 .2�2

current Highway conditions and Performance

There are over 4 million miles of roads in America connecting our vast land area. In 1950, when our nation had 150 million people, our road system was 3.3 million miles. Since then, the population has doubled and the road system has grown by about 20 percent. In 1950, there were just below 50 million motor vehicles, today the national fleet is about five times that number. Those vehicles traveled about 500 billion miles per year in 1950 and now are at 6 times that level at approximately 3 trillion miles. That mileage is owned by different levels of government and divided into functional classes that do different levels of work in the national system.

Roads by Ownership

Rural Urban All

State ��,141 14�,�02 �8�,�4�

county 1,�0�,�40 18�,�82 1,�91,122

Town/Municipality ��,9�9 �90,0�� 1,2�4,01�

Other �1,42� 14,418 ��,84�

Federal 12�,�92 4,98� 128,��8

Total 2,990,477 1,042,525 4,033,002


19

Rural Facility Mileage by Function

Rural Facility Miles of Travel by Function

1%�%

�%

14%9%

�8%

Interstate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1%

Other Principal Arterial . . . . . . .�%

Minor Arterial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�%

Major collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Minor collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%

Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �8%

Interstate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

Other Principal Arterial . . . . . 22%

Minor Arterial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�%

Major collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Minor collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�%

Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�%

22%

1�%

19%

�%

1�%

24%


20

Urban Facility Mileage by Function

Urban Miles of Travel by Function

2%1% �%

10% 11%

�0%

Interstate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%

Other Fwy and Expw . . . . . . . . .1%

Other Principal Arterial . . . . . . .�%

Minor Arterial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%

Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �0%

Interstate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

Other Fwy and Expw . . . . . . . 11%

Other Principal Arterial . . . . . 24%

Minor Arterial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%

Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1�%

11%

24%

19%9%

1�%

24%


21

condition and Performance Pavement Condition and ride Quality

U.S. DOT’s Condition and Performance Report of 2006 indicates that there have been mixed trends in pavement condi-tion, with improvement seen primarily in rural areas and decline or status quo in urban areas large and small.Between 1995 and 2004, the share of travel on pavement in “Acceptable” condition in rural areas rose from 91.5 percent to 94.5 percent; while travel in urbanized areas declined from 83.5 percent on “Acceptable” pavement to 79.2 percent. Travel in small urban areas remained without change at about 84 percent on “Acceptable” pavement throughout the period.

Interstate pavements do best in the ratings; sustaining ratings approaching 98 percent of all travel on rural Inter-states on pavements of “Acceptable” quality. Urbanized area interstates are rated lower in quality but still are quite effective, with 90 percent of travel on “Acceptable” pavements. When the percentage of travel rated “Good” is con-sidered, the contrast between the condition of urban and rural systems is more clear, with almost 74 percent of rural travel on “Good” pavements, contrasted to only 48.5 percent of urbanized-area interstates. Other urbanized area freeways and expressways fare worse at 37.8 percent of travel on “Good” pavements, and their principal arterials are worse yet, with less than 25 percent of travel on “Good” pavements.

system PerFormanCe

The performance table below shows the across-the-board declines in every measure of travel performance at all metro levels of population size over the past 18 years. It also shows that the smaller metropolitan areas are rapidly closing the gap with larger areas regarding levels of congestion. The greatest increases in congestion occurred in the smaller metropolitan areas.

Urbanized Area Size

Travel Time Index

Average Daily % Congested VMT

Average Hours of Congested Conditions

Annual Hours Delay per Peak Road Traveler

Average Annual Hours Delay/

Capita

1987 2004 1987 2004 1987 2004 1987 2004 1987 2004

Less Than Half-Million 1 .0� 1 .14 � .� 1� .� 2 .8 4 .� � .� 1� .9 2 .4 8 .�

Half to One Million 1 .10 1 .21 1� .� 24 .8 4 .1 � .1 1� .� 29 .9 � .0 1� .1

One to Three Million 1 .12 1 .�� 1� .8 �1 .� 4 .9 � .8 14 .8 �8 .4 � .4 21 .0

Over Three Million 1 .�� 1 .�8 �1 .� 40 .� � .2 � .8 �9 .� �4 .9 28 .� �8 .9

All Urbanized Areas 1.22 1.38 21.1 31.6 5.4 6.6 30.0 45.7 12.8 24.4

Bridge conditions and Backlog

The public travels over the almost 600,000 bridges in the nation on the order of a billion times each day, often with-out noticing. State highway agencies own, maintain, and manage the largest share of American bridges, with 277,000 of the total. County highway agencies manage the second greatest share—230,550 bridges.

If a concept called deck area, which encompasses bridge length and width, is used, providing a sense of scale of bridge size, then state highway agencies own more than 70 percent of bridge area. There are 116,000 bridges on the National Highway System, which accounts for 4 percent of the nation’s roads but about 45 percent of its travel. These are the nation’s main bridges and almost all of them, 95 percent, are owned by the states.


22

Bridges by Ownership

2007 All Bridges

State Highway Agency 2��,028

county Highway Agency 2�0,��0

Town or Township Highway Agency 29,092

State Toll Authority �,44�

Local Toll Authority �99

Federal Agencies 8,40�

All 599,777

One great concern about our bridges is their age. The figure (bridges by age) shows the age for the bridges built over the past 100 years or more. Roughly half of our bridges are more than 40 years old.

All Bridges by Age_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

�0

�0

40

�0

20

10

0

Years of Age

>10

0

90–9

4

80–8

4

�0–�

4

�0–�

4

�0–�

4

40–4

4

�0–�

4

20–2

4

10–1

4

0–4

Num

ber

of B

ridg

es(in

tho

usan

ds)

Bridge condition conceptsBridges are evaluated based on their ability structurally and functionally to meet the demands placed on them.

struCturally deFiCient—A bridge that cannot meet the load-carrying capacity needs or other condition aspects will be considered structurally deficient. All such bridges do not need to be closed. They often can continue to function with rehabilitation or load limits placed on them.

FunCtionally obsolete—A bridge that is not consistent in design with the related highway systems in terms of lanes, widths, curvature etc. is deemed functionally obsolete and in need of an upgrade. Generally these bridges are too narrow for modern trucks.

The figure (year built and percent deficiency) shows the percentage of bridge deficiencies by year built. The figure sharply illustrates that, although only half of our bridges are more than 40 years old, they account for more than 80 percent of structural deficiencies and about 75 percent of total deficiencies.


2�

All Bridges by Year Built and deficiency

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

100%

80%

�0%

40%

20%

0%

Years of Age

>10

0

9�–1

00

90–9

4

8�–8

9

80–8

4

��–�

9

�0–�

4

��–�

9

�0–�

4

��–�

9

�0–�

4

4�–4

9

40–4

4

��–�

9

�0–�

4

2�–2

9

20–2

4

1�–1

9

10–1

4

�–9

0–4

n Non-Deficient n Functionally Deficient n Structurally Deficient

Improvement in Bridge deficiencies

The record shows strong improvement in addressing structural deficiencies on our nation’s bridges. In 1994, more than 107,000 bridges, almost 19 percent of the nation’s bridges, were structurally deficient. This dropped sharply to under 74,000 by 2006, and to below 73,000 in 2007. Such bridges are now below the number of functionally obsolete bridges.

The trend for functional obsolescence has slowly improved from about 14 percent of bridges in that category in the 1990s to 13 percent in this decade.

Structurally deficient Bridges

120

110

100

90

80

�0

�0

�0

n Percent Structurally Deficient n Number Structurally Deficient

- - - - - - - -

1994 199� 1998 2000 2002 2004 200�

Stru

ctur

ally

defi

cien

t Br

idge

s (in

tho

usan

ds)

20%

19%

18%

1�%

1�%

1�%

14%

1�%

12%

11%

10%

Structurally deficient Bridges

(in percentage)

• •

• •

• • •

• •

• • • • •

18 .�%

1� .4%

1� .0%

14 .8%

1� .�%1� .1%

12 .4%

��,��4��,�9�

81,�04

8�,��8

9�,0�2101,�18

10�,�8�


24

conditions and Performance Measures in the Bottom Line

In order to establish the base for analysis in 2009, highway conditions for 25 years were projected using the FHWA Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) model and then modified by applying actual spending in recent years and estimates for the years for which data do not yet exist. Performance measures are generated by the HERS model that describe the outcomes of different investment levels. This document focuses on five performance mea-sures:

Pavement Condition—The International Roughness Index (IRI), is used to provide a sense of the level of pave-ment service.

Delay Experienced by the Public—The primary measure used is hours of delay per 1,000 miles of vehicle travel based on the concept that no additional amount of time should be needed to produce a given level of travel in the future. Total delay is the sum of signalization effects, delay due to incidents, and congestion-based delay.

Speed of Travel—Vehicle speed is used as the most straightforward measure of system performance quality.

Percent of VMT on Congested Roadways—This measure assesses the scope of overall traffic congestion in estab-lishing how much of travel services is under negative conditions.

Total User Cost—User cost components sum up vehicle operating costs (trucks and personal vehicles), crash costs, and travel time costs.


2�

A ScENARIO APPROAcH TO FUTURE HIgHWAY INVESTMENT

Need for a Scenarios Approach

To project investment needs, several scenarios were employed in response to the changes in highway travel demand. The scenarios include the following factors:

The scenarios cover a time span of six years from 2009 to 2015, the next authorization timeframe, but are based on 20-year perspectives.

The scenarios are based on travel growth estimates ranging from no growth to a maximum of 1.4 percent per year for the six-year period.

Program costs shown are total capital program estimates for highways and bridges by all levels of government for all levels of the highway system.

All scenarios represent the sum of projects that have been subjected to a benefits-cost test; only projects with benefits exceeding costs are permitted into the calculation.

All scenarios are based on a multimodal context in which a range of alternative demand levels for other modes of travel can be accommodated.

All scenarios include a separate investment component for bridges designed to advance further the progress made in bridge conditions.

All scenarios assume that the cost effective operations deployments designed to ease the flow of traffic and en-hance the efficiency of existing investments have been made.

the baCklog eFFeCt

While significant future growth has an important effect on investment needs, even with limited growth there are still substantial benefits to be obtained by investment. The existence of a massive investment backlog in the highway system is perhaps the key factor to consider. As shown below, the backlog of investment requirements had grown to $430 billion by 2006. With the extensive increases in construction costs, the backlog is considerably higher today.


2�

Highway and Bridge Backlog____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

�00

400

�00

200

100

0

4�0

1999 2002 2004 200� 2008

$ Bi

llion

s

1�� .�

2�1 .�

�98

490

An overall estimate of the combined highway and bridge backlog is that, as of 2008, it had increased to about $490 billion. If there were no current backlog, the 20-year needs for each scenario would be considerably less per year, perhaps by around $25 billion per year.

The bridge backlog, which was reported to be $87 billion in 1997, had dropped to approximately $52 billion in the 2004 Bottom Line; the 2006 Condition and Performance Report showed a bridge backlog of just above $65 billion.

The backlog can be considered to be that level of investment that is justified today without any further future growth in the system or any further future deterioration due to time, system wear, and weathering. Note that 58 percent of the 2006 backlog was the product of current capacity deficiencies.

Two Investment Scenarios

Two scenarios were tested in this analysis which assessed investment levels that would increase both system con-dition and performance: one scenario in which VMT increased at 1.4 percent annually, and a second where VMT increased at 1.0 percent annually.

Below is a graphic of the investment needs factors considered:

Investment Needs Factors

Other Factors

growth

Backlog

Inflation Adjustment

THEN NOW

$


2�

Scenario Results

The results of the two VMT-based variations on the “Cost to Improve” Conditions and Performance scenario are out-lined below.

cost to Improve Scenario Results

Growth Rate of VMT per Year Cost to Improve Highways(2006 Dollars)

1 .4 Percent Annual growth $1�� billion

1 .0 Percent Annual growth $1�2 billion

“Cost to improve” terminology. U.S. DOT has decided to change the terminology used in its Condition and Performance reports to more precisely convey what their analysis means. In place of the term “Cost to Improve” for highways, they have decided to use the term “Maximum Economic Investment,” which they define as, “the maximum average annual level of investment that could be utilized while still investing only in cost-beneficial highway invest-ments over 20 years.” While AASHTO understands why U.S. DOT has chosen to change its terminology, we have de-cided to continue to use the term “Cost to Improve” for highways, bridges, and transit in this and subsequent Bottom Line Reports. We believe the term is consistent with the drive in many states to use “plain English” to communicate to the public in official publications and that it continues to convey the concept of “optimal” investment levels more simply than does the term “Maximum Economic Investment.” We will, however, in the criteria used to estimate the “Cost to Improve” dollar amounts for highways, bridges, and transit, continue to use the same factors used by U.S. DOT to make its estimates. It continues to be our objective to keep the two reports as comparable as possible. AASHTO has discontinued reporting on a “Cost to Maintain” number for highways, bridges, and transit, because it is our judgement that the analysis behind this term no longer serves a useful purpose. The term “Cost to Maintain” was used to identify a level of investment which would continue the condition and performance of highway, bridge, and transit at levels that are recognized as inadequate and unsatisfactory. That is not a policy objective the state DOTs be-lieve is useful or which we believe should be seriously considered as an option. This analysis and future Bottom Line Reports will address only the “Cost to Improve” standard for highways, bridges, and transit. By comparison to the above figures, AASHTO’s 2002 Bottom Line Report estimated a highway “Cost to Improve” an-nual investment need of $125.6 billion per year, based on a 2.1 percent forecast of growth in VMT per year. Since then, the increased costs and higher backlog for both highways and bridges have more than outweighed the lower investment estimates that might result from reduced vehicle miles of travel.

A Payoff graphic

To understand the benefits the public can expect from future investment, AASHTO examined five performance mea-sures for each level of travel growth.


28

The Payoffs of Investment

Improvement from Current Conditions if “Cost to Improve” Investments Are Made

VMT Growth Improved Road Smoothness Speed Delay Percent of VMT

in CongestionUser Cost Savings(dollars/1,000 VMT)

1 .0% +14 .4% +2 mph –0 .�9 hours –0 .��% –2� .��

1 .4% +1� .�% +2 mph –0 .�� hours –1 .0�% –2� .��

Smoothness is measured by the International Roughness IndexSpeed = miles per hourdelay = hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle miles of travelPercent congested = the percentage of vehicle miles of travel occurring under congested conditionsUser cost = dollars of user cost per 1,000 vehicle miles of travel

These results show the impacts on highway performance of levels of investment considered to be economically justi-fied. While greater investment might improve certain areas of performance, the FHWA model does not calculate those benefits. The table compares improvements to present performance levels.

The “Cost to Improve” investment provides significant improvement in road smoothness. Smoothness would actually improve somewhat more with higher traffic volumes because more new roads with new pavements are built; roads are reconstructed earlier and improve the overall pavement condition.

Average speed improves by two miles per hour, or almost a 5 percent improvement. Speed improvements are unaffected by the small change in estimated VMT as investment levels keep pace.

Hours of delay per mile of travel is significantly reduced by investment, by about 16.5 percent for each growth scenario. A motorist traveling 15,000 miles per year would save about 12 hours by not sitting in congestion.

Small decreases occur in the percentage of traffic occurring under conditions of delay.

User costs are reduced by about 2.5 percent in both cases. When multiplied by the number of miles driven, the economic gain is substantial. For a motorist traveling 15,000 miles per year, the savings would amount to some $400 annually.

adjusting For Further Cost inCreases From 2006 to 2008

The above numbers are based on 2006 costs which have been incorporated into the latest version of HERS that was used in this analysis. From 2006 through June of 2008, the Producer Price Index for Highway Construction increased by just over 26 percent, resulting in about a 12 percent increase in the full economic needs for each scenario:

1.00 percent VMT growth per year: $148 billion, for 2008

1.41 percent VMT growth per year: $186 billion, for 2008


29

Special Bridge Scenarios—Faster Elimination of the Bridge Needs Backlog

Using federal bridge models, forecasts are made of the rapidity with which the backlog of bridge needs can be reduced at various levels of investment in bridges. As can be seen, the backlog is never eliminated at funding levels of $5 bil-lion or $10 billion per year. At $20 billion per year, the backlog is eliminated within eight years.

Bridge Needs Backlog

Measure $5 Billion per Year

$10 Billion per Year



Total Bridges 4�8,�22 4�8,�22 4�8,�22 4�8,�22

Estimated deficient Bridges After Six Years of Funding (201�)

Structurally deficient �2,2�2 4�,��4 28,29� 14,201

Functionally deficient �8,�2� �8,�21 ��,��0 �1,��9

Total deficient Bridges 140,��8 114,28� 94,04� ��,840

Year the Backlog Is Eliminated Never Never 2018 201�


�0


�1

PUBLIc TRANSPORTATION— THE BOTTOM LINEThe Value of Public Transportation

An efficient, safe, and environmentally sound public transportation system is essential to moving people in both rural and urban areas, and is an important part of the nation’s multimodal transportation system. The nation’s public transportation network is essential to the economy. It connects workers to jobs and employers to labor markets. Public transportation also provides basic mobility options for the economically challenged, the young, the elderly, and physically challenged individuals with disabilities, in urban areas, small towns, and rural areas. Public transporta-tion also plays a significant role in state and national efforts to mitigate traffic congestion, conserve fuel, enhance the efficiency of highway transportation, address air quality issues, and support security and emergency preparedness activities.

In 2007, 10.3 billion passenger trips were provided by the nation’s public transportation systems. In some of the nation’s largest cities, public transportation carries from 12.2 percent to over 53 percent of all work trips originating in central cities, and is an essential link between these CBDs and the rest of the region. This table identifies the 15 cities in the United States with the highest levels of workers using public transportation.

Percentage of commuters Using Public Transportation, 2004

City Percent Using Public Transportation

New York, New York �� .2%

Washington, dc �� .�%

Boston, Massachusetts �1 .8%

San Francisco, california 29 .�%

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2� .0%

Newark, New Jersey 2� .�%

chicago, Illinois 2� .�%

Oakland, california 22 .�%

Baltimore, Maryland 20 .�%

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 19 .4%

Seattle, Washington 1� .2%

St . Louis, Missouri 1� .8%

Portland, Oregon 1� .�%

Atlanta, georgia 12 .�%

Minneapolis, Minnesota 12 .2%

Source: 2004 American community Survey, United States Bureau of the census .


�2

With the United States projected to experience significant population and employment growth in coming decades, with the aging of the population, and with continued issues of greenhouse gases and energy supplies and prices, the demand for public transportation services is projected to continue to increase.

Public Transportation Services and Ridership

Public transportation services are available in 450 urbanized areas. In every state, public transportation provides service to rural residents, elderly individuals, and physically challenged individuals with disabilities. There are:

729 public transportation service providers in urbanized areas;

1,217 public transportation service providers in rural areas; and

4,836 public transportation service providers to the elderly and persons with physical challenges, across both urban and rural areas.

The return on Federal, state, and local investment is clear. Public transportation ridership has increased substantially over the last decade. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reports that, since the mid-1990s, pub-lic transportation ridership in the nation has grown 32 percent (from 7.8 billion trips annually in 1995 to 10.3 billion trips in 2007). Fifty-nine percent of all public transportation trips in the nation are work related—significantly sup-porting the country’s economic growth and vitality.

Although public transportation is commonly associated with the nation’s major urban-area subway or commuter-rail systems, approximately 59 percent of all public transportation trips in the United States are provided by buses. The remaining public transportation trips are made on other types of public transportation, including commuter rail (four percent), light rail (four percent), demand responsive services (one percent), and others, including automated guideways and ferries.

Public Transportation Ridership by Mode, 200�

Mode Annual UnlinkedTrips (Millions)

Percentage of All Public Transporta-

tion Trips

Annual Passenger Miles Traveled

(Millions)

Percentage of All Transit Passenger

Miles Traveled

Bus �,894 �8 .8% 22,821 4� .8%

Heavy Rail 2,92� 29 .2% 14,�21 28 .2%

commuter Rail 441 4 .4% 10,��1 19 .9%

Light Rail 40� 4 .1% 1,8�� .�%

demand Responsive 12� 1 .�% 1,0�8 2 .1%

Trolley Bus 100 1 .0% 1�4 0 .�%

Other 121 1 .2% 1,14� 2 .2%

Total 10,017 100% 52,154 100%

Source: American Public Transportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book, June 2008 .


��

On December 8, 2008, APTA announced that, during the third quarter of 2008, there had been a 6.5 percent jump in transit ridership over the same period in 2007. They reported that ridership growth in 2007 and 2008 was spurred in large part by record high gas prices. In contrast, they reported that Americans drove 4.4 percent less or almost 11 billion fewer miles in September 2008, compared with September 2007.

Compared to the 10.3 billion ridership APTA reports that transit achieved in 2007, what that 6.5 percent increase means is that transit ridership for 2008 may have reached the 11 billion mark. If transit passenger miles increased at a parallel rate, compared to the 52 billion miles traveled in 2006, passenger miles traveled in 2008 could be estimated to have reached nearly 58 billion. In contrast, highway vehicle miles traveled (VMT) declined from 3 trillion in 2006 to 2.9 trillion in late 2008. Even though highway travel growth is expected to begin to increase again once the current economic crisis has passed, the more transit ridership can be increased, and the more person trips that can be shifted from cars to transit, the more transit can help reduce congestion, especially in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, which have the most extensive transit systems.

Public Transportation capital Assets

urban bus systems

The nation’s public transportation bus fleet is approximately 70,000 vehicles. There are currently over 400 providers of traditional bus services and over 400 providers of paratransit service in urbanized areas. The average age of the bus fleet and the percentage of overage vehicles indicate that public transportation systems nationwide have not been able to keep pace with investment needs for vehicle replacement.

characteristics of Urban Public Transportation Bus Fleet

Vehicle Type Total Fleet

Assumption of Expected Life FTA Recom-mended Re-

placement Age (Years)

Percentage Currently Overage

Percentage that Will Reach Re-placement Age within Next Six

Years

Total Percent-age That Will

Need Replace-ment in Six

Years

Articulated 2,294 12 2% �8% �0%

Transit buses, class A (>40 ft .) 44,�0� 12 18% 41% �9%

Transit buses, class B (��–40 ft .) �,��0 12 21% 40% �1%

Transit buses, class c (�0–�� ft .) �,��2 10 1�% �8% ��%

Transit buses, class d (<�0 ft .) 11,08� � 21% �2% 9�%

Trolley Buses �1� � ��% ��% 100%

Vans 2�,9�4 � 10% �1% 81%

Total 96,615

Source: FTA and cambridge Systematics Estimates .

urban rail systems

In many large and mid-sized cities across the country, fixed-guideway rail operations play a significant role in provid-ing public transportation service. Today, services are provided by 72 urban public rail systems, with nearly 11,000 track miles and almost 3,000 stations in revenue service. The number of rail systems, track miles, and stations are


�4

shown here by type of system (heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, and other rail). There are now more than 19,000 vehicles in the existing rail transit fleet, as shown in the table below. Parallel to the issues associated with the nation’s bus fleet, the average age and percentage of overage rail rolling stock are indicators that public transportation sys-tems have not been able to keep pace with their expected replacement cycle.

Public Transportation Rail Systems, Track Miles, Stations

Rail Type Number of Systems One-Way Track Miles Number of Stations

Heavy Rail 1� 2,2�� 1,042

Light Rail 29 1,211 ��4

commuter Rail 22 �,40� 1,1�9

Other Rail � �9 �8

Total 72 10,933 3,043

characteristics of Urban Public Transportation Rail Fleets

Vehicle Type Total Fleet

FTA Recommend-ed Replacement Age Assumption of Expected Life

(Years)

PercentageCurrently Overage

Percentage that Will Reach

Replacement Age within Next 6 Years

Heavy Rail 11,08� 2� ��% 28%

commuter Rail Passenger coaches �,42� 2� �1% 14%

commuter Rail Self-Propelled coaches 2,��1 2� ��% 1�%

commuter Rail Locomotives ��9 2� 2�% 8%

Light Rail 1,8�8 2� 18% 12%

cable car 40 2� 90% 0%

Automated guideway 8� 2� 0% 2�%

Inclined Plane 8 �0 0% �0%

Total 19,832

Source: FTA and cambridge Systematics Estimates .

other urban PubliC transPortation assets

In addition to the bus and rail vehicles discussed in the previous two sections, the nation’s urban public transporta-tion systems consist of a wide variety of nonrevenue vehicle assets. Unlike vehicles, the expected life cycles for these assets are generally quite long. The table below shows that the service life for other assets ranges from 25 years for ferries to 96 years for guideway elements. Ten percent of nonrevenue vehicle assets are estimated to have exceeded their expected service life as defined for this analysis. In addition to the existing backlog of assets eligible for replace-ment, another six percent of nonrevenue vehicle assets will reach the age of their expected life. In total, 16 percent of nonrevenue vehicle assets are overage or reach the age of their expected life during the next six years.


��

characteristics of Existing Other Public Transportation Assets in Urbanized Areas

Asset CategoryAssumption of Expected Life (Years)*

AverageAge*

PercentageCurrently Exceeding

Expected Lifea

Percentage that Will Reach Re-placement Age within Next 6

Years*

guideway Elements 9� .8 28 .4 �% �%

Stations 91 .� 4� .� 4% 2%

Facilities 44 .1 22 .� 12% �%

Systems �� .8 2� .8 20% 8%

Vehicles (not including revenue vehic .) 12 .0 1� .� �4% 2�%

Ferries 2� .0 1� .9 �0% 1�%

Averages 73.7 29.5 10% 6%

Source: FTA and cambridge Systematics Estimates .* Expected life based on useful estimates provided by FTA as guidance in estimating New Starts costs . Average age based on National

Transit database .a dollar-weighted .

rural PubliC transPortation systems

Typically, rural public transportation systems are quite small, with only a handful of employees and a limited num-ber of vehicles. The primary source of data used here was a 2000 study on the Status of Rural Public Transportation regarding the rural public transportation systems funded by FTA. That study identified approximately 22,000 vehicles engaged in the provision of rural general public transportation service through the Section 5311 program.

Estimated Rural Public Transportation Fleet

Fleet Segment Estimated Fleet

Rural general Public (S . ��11 recipients) 22,000

Rural Specialized Operators (S . ��10 recipients) ��,000

Rural Intercity (S . ��11 if eligible) 1,�00

Total Fleet 56,700

The most recent inventory of Section 5310 providers and vehicles was conducted in 1994 by the Community Trans-portation Association of America (CTAA) under the Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP). Based on this study, about 19,200 vehicles were estimated to serve nonurbanized areas in 1994. Based on the observed increase in rural public transportation service provided between 1989 and 1994 (an increase in fleet size of 37 percent), an increase in the total fleet size from 1994 to 2004 of more than 70 percent was assumed. This resulted in a total year 2004 estimated fleet size of approximately 33,000 vehicles. Based on information obtained from private intercity bus operators, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,700 vehicles eligible to receive Section 5311(f) funding. The total current rural public transportation fleet is, thus, estimated to be approximately 56,700 vehicles.


��

Assuming a service life of five years for vans, seven years for small buses, and 10 years for medium buses, an estimat-ed 55 percent of the existing fleet has already exceeded their expected FTA recommended service life; and within the next six years, almost all of the nation’s rural public transportation vehicles will need to be replaced.

Types of Public Transportation System Expansion Needs

Addressing the public transportation needs associated with the projected growth in ridership over the next 20 years will require significant capital investment in system expansion, in addition to the investments needed just to replace existing assets. This section summarizes the public transportation system expansion needs necessary to accommo-date continuing ridership growth.

CaPaCity and Core CaPaCity imProvements

In many of the nation’s largest cities, public transportation ridership has significantly increased over the past several years. As a result, some existing rail systems are operating near to or in excess of their physical capacity, and above a level that provides acceptable passenger comfort and safety. Without significant capital investment to expand the core capacity of these systems, it is likely that some public transportation systems will be unable to address growing demands—potentially resulting in shifts of people from overburdened public transportation systems to the use of the urban areas’ already congested highway networks. “Core capacity” is defined here as those improvements that are required to provide sufficient capacity at the major points of constraint on public transportation system capacity. Core capacity constraints are equivalent to bottlenecks on major highway corridors or on rail freight systems.

This issue is emerging primarily in some of the largest urban rail systems in the country, such as Washington, DC, and New York City. Since this is an emerging issue, public transportation systems are exploring ways to address these specific capacity constraints and are just beginning to develop detailed cost estimates of needed capital infrastructure investment to address the topic of core capacity.

New Starts Program Improvements

In addition to the expansion of existing systems, ridership growth will also be accommodated through the introduc-tion of new systems or new public transportation modes within existing systems. Many metropolitan areas across the country have recently completed or are pursuing major fixed-guideway public transportation capital improvements. Between 1996 and 2006, more than 460 miles of fixed-guideway public transportation service were added in 26 cities.

Rural Public Transportation

Rural public transportation needs are much more difficult to define on a national basis than urban public transporta-tion needs. Many rural areas do not currently have any public transportation service; and in those areas with service, the quality and coverage of service are not consistent. Service may be limited to only a few days a week, to only a few hours in the day, or to only very limited service areas. In contrast to urban public transportation systems, very lim-ited data are available on public transportation ridership, trends in service provision, or growth in ridership.


��

Alternative Fuels and Technology Enhancements

There is increasing attention on issues of technology and alternative fuels that are likely to affect capital and operat-ing costs. Similarly, a number of public transportation systems are exploring approaches to improve the quality of traveler information, system management, and fare collection. Enhancements are often designed to improve the quality and reliability of service. Alternative fuel vehicles are also increasing rapidly in response to environmental concerns, such as global climate change, and are expected to reach about 20 percent of the fleet by 2007.

seCurity enhanCements

Public transportation systems across the country are also facing increasing needs associated with improving the se-curity of systems. Although system-by-system estimates are not available, a recent study conducted by APTA, Survey of United States Transit System Security Needs and Funding Priorities (2004), estimates that total capital needs for security enhancements are in the range of $5.2 billion. These needs should be included in a comprehensive summary of all needs, in addition to the traditional capital needs that are estimated here.


�8


�9

PUBLIc TRANSPORTATION NEEdS

Ridership Forecasts and Assumptions

The estimate for projected public transportation investment needs is highly dependent on changes in ridership. Sev-eral factors underlie the ridership growth projections of this analysis:

The nation’s population has increased 1.0 percent annually between 2000 and 2005; the United States Census projects a similar level of just below 1 percent per year annual population growth through 2030.

Public transportation ridership has increased at an average of 2.4 percent annually between since 1995 and 2007, according to APTA.

When gas prices increased to over $4 per gallon in mid-2008, this brought about a surge in transit ridership. Should the average price per gallon of gasoline again increase to these prices or higher, this can be expected to further increase transit ridership.

The actual pace of future public transportation ridership growth will depend on a number of factors such as fuel prices, housing and commercial development patterns, the relative health of metropolitan areas, and overall econom-ic growth. The level of investment which occurs to preserve the existing system and to provide for expansion will also affect ridership. Projected investment needs were calculated assuming a range of ridership growth assumptions.

f A continued 2.4 percent increase, the average annual growth between 1995 and 2007; and

f A 3.5 percent annual growth, which is a rate that would result in doubling of ridership in 20 years;

Types of Public Transportation capital Needs

Public transportation capital needs are defined both by the requirements of system preservation and expansion needed to serve an increase in riders. Needs estimates are based on the following components:

Replacement of bus and rail vehicles as they reach the end of their expected FTA recommended service life;

Major rehabilitation of bus and rail vehicles (midlife rebuilds) to maintain vehicles in proper and safe condition and to allow the fleet to remain fully usable until the end of its FTA recommended expected service life;

Elimination of the backlog of vehicle needs to bring the nation’s fleet into a state of good repair;

Replacement and rehabilitation of other existing public transportation assets, including, but not limited to, bus and rail maintenance and yard facilities, stations, track, signals, switching systems, power generation and distribution facilities, structures, and fare collection and communication systems and other associated capital equipment;

Expansion of the bus and rail vehicle fleet to accommodate increased ridership demands, provide new services, and reduce crowding on some existing systems; and

Expansion of other public transportation assets to accommodate increased ridership demands, including the construction of new fixed-guideway public transportation systems to serve high demand corridors.


40

Rural public transportation needs have been estimated in a separate analysis, and consist of two major compo-nents—the maintenance of the existing system and the expansion of the system to address unmet needs.

Public Transportation Investment Scenarios

Several alternative investment scenarios were analyzed. Presented here are the scenarios which addressed improving both system physical condition and service performance.

Average Annual capital Requirement (Year 200� $ in Billions)Improve Physical Conditions, Improve Service Performance

Improve Physical Conditions, Improve Service Performance

Needs ComponentReplacement/

Rehabilitation of Existing Assets

Total Including Expansion and Modernization of Assetsto Accomodate Ridership Growth at:

2.4% Annual Growth 3.5% Annual Growth

Urban Total $1� .� $44 .� $�� .�

Rural/Small Urbana $0 .8 $1 .� $1 .�

Total Needs $18.3 $46.1 $59.2

a Public transportation ridership growth assumptions are not explicitly a part of the rural public transportation needs estimates .

Potential Operating costs

Ridership growth would result in annual growth in operating costs in real terms at the same rate as the respective growth in ridership for each scenario. With a total operating cost of $33.7 billion in 2006, the operating cost would grow gradually over twenty years to $54.2 billion per year at the 2.4 percent growth rate, and to $67.4 billion per year at the 3.5 percent growth rate.


41

Historical Funding for Public Transportation

Public Transportation Funding by Year in Millions of current Year dollars

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total Funding (all sources) $36,707 $39,480 $41,262 $42,964 $44,091 $47,053

Operating Funding (all sources)a $2�,288 $2�,��2 $28,021 $29,�18 $�1,�08 $��,�1�

capital Funding (all sources) $11,419 $12,848 $1�,241 $1�,24� $12,�8� $1�,�40

Percent capital �1% ��% �2% �1% 28% 28%

Federal Share of Total Funding 19% 1�% 1�% 1�% 1�% 18%

Federal Share of capital Funding �1% 41% 40% �9% �9% 44%

State Share of Total Funding �2% ��% ��% ��% ��% ��%

State Share of capital Funding 9% 12% 1�% 14% 1�% 1�%

a Operating funding includes funds received from passenger fares which cover approximately �� percent of total operating expenditures nationally . Source: APTA Fact Book.

According to APTA, operating and capital expenditures from all sources for public transportation in 2006 totaled approximately $47.1 billion, representing an increase of 28 percent since 2001. Capital funding totaled about $13.3 billion in 2006. This represents about one-third to one-fifth of the projected annual investment required to maintain public transportation system physical conditions and service performance at current levels, or about one fourth to one-sixth of the projected investment required to improve physical conditions and service performance.

During this same period, from 2001 to 2006, the Federal share of total capital funding declined from 51 percent in 2001 to 44 to 39 percent in 2004 and 2005. During those same years, the Federal share of total funding was consis-tently in the range of 16 to 19 percent. Other sources of funding included passenger fares, and local and state funding.

Phot

o co

urte

sy o

f Reg

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

dis

tric

t


42

Photo courtesy of Michael R

osenthal, New

Jersey Transit


4�

ELEMENTS NOT INcLUdEd FULLY IN THE MOdELEd cOSTSCost inCreases to mitigate Community and environmental imPaCts

As transportation agencies adjust designs to better respond to community concerns and to mitigate environmental impacts, additional program delivery costs are generated. Two research studies conducted in the past year indicate that these factors commonly increase costs from 7 to 10 percent over and above the project costs addressed by cur-rent cost modeling procedures. Applying the results of these studies to the broader national program would indicate an annual increase in the range of $7.3 billion to $10.5 billion for the 1.4 percent growth highway scenario.

system oPerations

Operational improvements, such as signalization and special signage, ramp metering, and improved incident re-sponse, can have extraordinary benefits to the highway system. A research study examined two investment options, continuing current implementation practices and a more aggressive implementation scenario.

Total capital costs over the 20-year analysis period developed in the study are $22.2 billion in capital costs for the aggressive deployment scenario plus another $29.6 billion for system infrastructure support and replacement, for a total of $51.8 billion. This would amount to only $ 2.6 billion per year in new capital and reconstruction costs. Opera-tions and maintenance costs would amount to slightly less than $1.6 billion per year. Benefits generated per unit of cost are extraordinary.

saFety

With annual highway deaths still exceeding 41,000 per year, the United States lags behind the safety levels already achieved in other nations. A 2006 update of the costs and benefits of implementing the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan came to $1.5 billion in annual costs for operations, maintenance, education, and enforcement, and a total capital investment of $24.39 billion for infrastructure and related investments, or $1.2 billion per year.

seCurity

Preserving the security of the nation’s transportation infrastructure remains a vital concern. A research study was conducted to produce new cost estimates of security investment needs: threat assumptions and possible modes of at-tack were updated; facility inventories and vulnerability status were reviewed; and alternative countermeasures were evaluated. The report identifies capital cost investment needs of just below $2 billion per year over the authorization period plus additional operating and maintenance costs of $1.6 billion per year. The capital costs are estimated at $1.072 billion for highways and $867 million for transit, and at roughly equal shares in operating costs.

inFrastruCture reConstruCtion

Today large parts of the interstate system are reaching the age where major reconstruction will be required. This work has already begun around the country and reconstruction costs have been dramatic. It is not possible at this time to estimate the costs involved in a complete reconstruction of the system. A special analysis conducted to assess how to obtain reconstruction cost estimates recommends that the states conduct a complete systematic nationwide inven-tory of the interstate system to determine the future investment requirements.


44

For complete information on AASHTO’s authorization recommendations, visit: www .transportation .org

AMERIcAN ASSOcIATION OF STATE HIgHWAY ANd TRANSPORTATION OFFIcIALS

bottom linebottomline.transportation.org/Documents/BLR-09_lowres.pdf · Alan E. Pisarski and Arlee...

Documents

Transcript of bottom linebottomline.transportation.org/Documents/BLR-09_lowres.pdf · Alan E. Pisarski and Arlee...