the economic impact of current investment trends in ......failure to act: the economic impact of...
TRANSCRIPT
FAiluRE to ACt The economic impacT of current Investment trends Insurface TransporTaTion infrasTrucTure
This report was prepared for the American Society of Civil Engineers by Economic Development Research Group, Inc.
American Society of Civil Engineers1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, Virginia, 20191-4400World Headquarters
101 Constitution Avenue, NWSuite 375 EastWashington, DC 20001Washington Office
[email protected]/reportcard
Economic Development Research Group, Inc.2 Oliver Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02109
www.edrgroup.com
Copyright © 2011 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved.
2| List of Figures and Tables
2| Preface
3| Executive Summary
7| Section1IntroductIon
9| Section2the Infrastructure shortfall
13| Section3Wages, Value added, IndustrIal output, and Jobs
21| Section4regIonal ImplIcatIons
24| Section5dIVersIon of traffIc due to congestIon
26| Section6the natIonal modal fundIng gap
31| Section7ImplIcatIons of maIntenance fundIng (and a fundIng gap)
32| Section8conclusIons and further research
34| About the Study: Sources and Methods
36| Endnotes
37| Acknowledgments
37| About EDR Group
Atechnicalappendixisseparatelyavailableatwww.asce.org/reportcard
FailuretoactThe economic impacT of current InVestment trends Insurface TransporTaTion infrasTrucTure
★|contents
2 American Society of Civil Engineers
ThisreportseekstoprovideanobjectiveanalysisoftheeconomicimplicationsoftheUnitedStates’continuedunderinvestmentininfrastructure.The Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,publishedeveryfouryearsbytheAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,gradesthecurrentstateof15nationalinfrastructurecategoriesonascalefromAthroughDforgradationsofexcellenttopoor,andFforfailing.Thisreportanswersthequestion“Sowhat?”Intermsofeconomicperformance,whatdoesaDmean?WhatdoesanFmean?
Thisreportispartofaprojectthatisstructuredaroundfourreportstoassessimplicationsfortheproductivityofindustries,nationalcompetitiveness,andeffectsonhouse-holdsgiventhepresenttrendsofinfrastructureinvestment.Together,thesereportscover9ofthe15categoriesaddressedbytheASCEReport Card for America’s Infrastructure.
Thisreportonsurfacetransportationencompasseshighways,bridges,rail,andtran-sit.Subsequentreportswilladdresswaterandwastewaterdeliveryandtreatment,energytransmission,andairportsandmarineports.Thus,whenreadingthisreport,itisimportanttobearinmindthattheimpactsitdiscussesexcludeanyeconomicimpactsfromcontinuingcurrentinvestmenttrendsforwater,waste-water,energy,andairportandmarineportinfrastructure.
★|figures and tables
★|Preface
Figures1 NationalFundingGapbyMode
2 CarandTruckReliabilityCosts:Highway
3 ChangeinU.S.Jobsin2040AttributabletoTransportationInfrastructureDeficiencies
4 PatternofReassignmentsfromCongestedInterstates,2010–2040
5 DevelopmentofDeficienciesbyMode
Tables
1 TheMountingCumulativeCostofDeficientandDeterioratingSurfaceInfrastructureImposedonAmericans
2 SummaryofImpactsonEconomicPerformanceOverTime
3 PavementDeficienciesforCarsandTrucksbyFacilityType,2010
4 CumulativeTravelTimeandReliabilityCostsDuetoCongestion,2010–2040
5 Top20CountriesandEconomiesRankedbytheQualityofRoadsandRailroads
6 U.S.CommodityExportReductionsinDollars,2020&2040
7 U.S.CommodityExportReductionsbyPercentage,2020&2040
8 CongestionandPavementDeficiencybyRegion,2010
9 PassengerModeReliancebyRegion,2010
10 DevelopmentofDeficienciesbyMode
11 TransitModeBreakdownofPercentVMTOperatingonDeficienciesOverTimeGivenCurrentFundingLevels
12 TotalCostsDuetoDeficientandDeterioratingInfrastructure
13 MaintenanceNeedsinBillionsofConstant2010Dollars
14 U.S.DemographicChange,2010–2040
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 3
eXecutiVe suMMarYThenation’ssurfacetransportationinfrastruc-tureincludesthecriticalhighways,bridges,railroads,andtransitsystemsthatenablepeopleandgoodstoaccessthemarkets,services,andinputsofproductionessentialtoAmerica’seconomicvitality.Formanyyears,thenation’ssurfacetransportationinfrastructurehasbeendeteriorating.Yetbecausethisdeteriorationhasbeendiffusedthroughoutthenation,andhasoccurredgraduallyovertime,itstruecostsandeconomicimpactsarenotalwaysimmediatelyapparent.Inpractice,thetransportationfund-ingthatisappropriatedisspentonamixtureofsystemexpansionandpreservationprojects.Althoughtheseallocationshaveoftenbeensuf-ficienttoavoidtheimminentfailureofkeyfacilities,thecontinueddeteriorationleavesasignificantandmountingburdenontheU.S.economy.Thisburdenwillbeexploredfurtherinthisreport.
DeterioratingconditionsandperformanceimposecostsonAmericanhouseholdsandbusi-nessesinanumberofways.Facilitiesinpoorconditionleadtoincreasesinoperatingcostsfortrucks,cars,andrailvehicles.Additionalcostsincludedamagetovehiclesfromdeterioratedroadwaysurfaces,impositionofbothadditionalmilestraveled,timeexpendedtoavoidunus-ableorheavilycongestedroadwaysorduetothebreakdownoftransitvehicles,andtheaddedcostofrepairingfacilitiesaftertheyhavedeterioratedasopposedtopreservingthemingoodcondi-tion.Inaddition,increasedcongestiondecreasesthereliabilityoftransportationfacilities,mean-ingthattravelersareforcedtoallotmoretimefortripstoassureon-timearrivals(andforfreightvehicles,on-timedelivery).Moreover,itincreasesenvironmentalandsafetycostsbyexposingmoretravelerstosubstandardtravelconditionsandrequiringvehiclestooperateatlessefficientlev-els.Asconditionscontinuetodeteriorateover
time,theywillincreasinglydetractfromtheabil-ityofAmericanhouseholdsandbusinessestobeproductiveandprosperousatworkandathome.
Thisreportisabouttheeffectthatsurfacetransportationdeficiencieshave,andwillcontinuetohave,onU.S.economicperformance.Forthepurposeofthisreport,theterm“defi-ciency”isdefinedastheextenttowhichroads,bridges,andtransitservicesfallbelowstandardsdefinedbytheU.S.DepartmentofTranspor-tationas“minimumtolerableconditions”(forroadsandbridges)and“stateofgoodrepair”fortransit1.Thesestandardsaresubstantiallylowerthanidealconditions,suchas“free-flow2,”thatareusedbysomeresearchersasthebasisforhighwayanalysis.Thisreportisabouttheeffectthesedeficiencieshave,andwillcontinuetohave,onU.S.economicperformance.
In2010,itwasestimatedthatdeficienciesinAmerica’ssurfacetransportationsystemscosthouseholdsandbusinessesnearly$130billion.Thisincludedapproximately$97billioninvehicleoperatingcosts,$32billionintraveltimedelays,$1.2billioninsafetycostsand$590millioninenvironmentalcosts.
In2040,America’sprojectedinfrastructuredeficienciesinatrendsextendedscenarioareexpectedtocostthenationaleconomymorethan400,000jobs.Approximately1.3millionmorejobscouldexistinkeyknowledge-basedandtechnology-relatedeconomicsectorsifsufficienttransportationinfrastructureweremain-tained.Theselossesarebalancedagainstalmost900,000additionaljobsprojectedintradition-allylower-payingservicesectorsoftheeconomythatwouldbenefitbydeficienttransportation(suchasautorepairservices)orbydecliningproductivityindomesticservicerelatedsectors(suchastruckdrivingandretailtrade).
Ifpresenttrendscontinue,by2020theannualcostsimposedontheU.S.economyby
4 American Society of Civil Engineers
deteriorating infrastructure will increase by 82% to $210 billion, and by 2040 the costs will have increased by 351% to $520 billion (with cumulative costs mounting to $912 billion and $2.9 trillion by 2020 and 2040, respectively). Table 1 summarizes the economic and societal costs of today’s deficien-cies, and how the present values of these costs are expected to accumulate by 2040. Table 2 provides a summary of impacts these costs have on eco-nomic performance today, and how these impacts are expected to increase over time.
CostofDefiCienCies
Performance area in 2010 by 2020 by 2040
Pavement and Bridge Conditions $10 $58 $651
Highway Congestion $27 $276 $1,272
Rail Transit Conditions $41 $171 $370
Bus Transit Conditions $49 $398 $659
Inter-City Rail Conditions $2 $10 $20
totALCosttosYsteMUseRs $130 $912 $2,972
*Present value of cost stream in billions of constant 2010 Dollars
SOURCE EDR Group analysis using Transportation Economic Impact System (TREDIS), 2011 NOTE Totals may not add due to rounding.
table 2★summaryofimpactsoneconomicPerformanceovertime(billions of 2010 dollars)
cumulative cumulative
imPact of Deficiencies imPact by 2020 imPact by 2040
Personal Income –$930 –$3,135
US Value Added (Impact on GDP) –$897 –$2,662
SOURCE LIFT/INFORUM model, University of Maryland. Calculations by University of Maryland using the personal consumption expenditure deflator. Income loss exceeds GDP because the deterioration of infrastructure has a disproportionately negative effect on high-wage industry sectors.
The avoidable transportation costs that hinder the nation’s economy are imposed primarily by pavement and bridge conditions, highway con-gestion, and transit and train vehicle conditions that are operating well below minimum tolerable levels for the level of traffic they carry. If the nation’s infrastructure were free of deficient conditions in pavement, bridges, transit vehi-cles, and track and transit facilities, Americans would earn more personal income and industry would be more productive, as demonstrated by the gross domestic product (value added) that
table1★theMountingCumulativeCostofDeficientandDeterioratingsurfaceinfrastructureimposedonAmericans*
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 5
willbelostifsurfacetransportationinfrastruc-tureisnotbroughtuptoastandardof“minimumtolerableconditions.”Asof2010,thelossofGDPapproached$125billionduetodeficientsurfacetransportationinfrastructure.TheexpectedlossesinGDPandpersonalincomethrough2040aredis-playedinTable2.
AcrosstheU.S.,regionsareaffecteddifferentlybydeficientanddeterioratinginfrastructure.Themostaffectedregionsarethosewiththelargestconcentrationsofurbanareas,becauseurbanhigh-ways,bridgesandtransitsystemsareinworseconditiontodaythanruralfacilities.Peakcommut-ingpatternsalsoplacelargerburdensonurbancapacities.However,becausethenationissodepen-dentontheInterstateHighwaySystem,impactsoninterstateperformanceinsomeregionsorareatypesarefeltthroughoutthenation.Nationally,forhighwaysandtransit,630millionvehiclehourstraveledwerelostduetocongestionin2010.Thistotalisexpectedtotripleto1.8billionhoursby2020andfurtherincreaseto6.2billionhoursin2040.3Thesevehiclehoursunderstatepersonhoursandunderscoretheseverityofthelossinproductivity.
ThespecificeconomicimplicationsofthefurtherdeteriorationoftheU.S.nationalsurfacetransportationsystemareasfollows:
«« Deficient surface transportation infrastruc-ture will cost Americans nearly $3 trillion by 2040,asshowninTable1,whichrepre-sentsmorethan$1.1trillioninaddedbusinessexpensesandnearly$1.9trillionfromhouse-holdbudgets.
«« This cost to business will reduce the productivity and competitiveness of American firmsrelativetoglobalcompetitors.Increasedcumulativecosttobusinesseswillreach$430billionby2020.Businesseswillhavetodivertincreasingportionsofearnedincometopayfortransportationdelaysandvehiclerepairs,drainingmoneythatwouldotherwisebeinvestedininnovationandexpansion.
««Households will be forced to forgo discre-tionary purchasessuchasvacations,cultural
events,educationalopportunities,andrestau-rantmeals,reducehealthrelatedpurchasesalongwithotherexpendituresthataffectqualityoflife,inordertopaytransportationcoststhatcouldbeavoidedifinfrastructurewerebuilttosufficientlevels.Increasedcumulativecoststohouseholdswillbe$482billionin2020.
«« The U.S. will lose jobs in high value, high-pay-ing services and manufacturing industries.Overall,thiswillresultinemployeeincomein2040thatis$252billionlessthanwouldbethecaseinatransportation-sufficienteconomy.
Ingeneralthreedistinctforcesareprojectedtoaffectemployment:
nFirst,anegativeimpactisduetolargercostsoftransportationservicesintermsoftimeexpendedandvehiclecosts.Thesecostsabsorbmoneyfrombusinessesandhouseholdsthatwouldotherwisebedirectedtoinvestment,innovationand“qualityoflifepurchases.”Thus,notonlywillbusinessandpersonalincomebelower,butmoreofthatincomewillneedtobedivertedtotransportationrelatedcosts.Thisdynamicwillcreatelowerdemandinkeyeconomicsectorsassociatedwithbusi-nessinvestmentsforexpansionandresearchanddevelopment,andinconsumersectors.
nSecond,theimpactofdecliningbusinessproductivity,duetoinefficientsurfacetransportation,tendstopushupemploy-ment,evenifincomeisdeclining.Productivitydeteriorateswithinfrastructuredegradation,somoreresourcesarewastedineachsector.Inotherwords,itmaytaketwojobstocompletethetasksthatonejobcouldhandlewithoutdelaysduetoworseningsurfacetransportationinfrastructure.
nThird,relatedtoproductivityeffects,degrad-ingsurfacetransportationconditionswillgeneratejobstoaddressproblemscreatedbyworseningconditionsinsectorssuchastransportationservicesandautomobilerepairservices.
6 American Society of Civil Engineers
«« Overall job losses are mitigated by more people working for less money and less productivelyduetothediminishedeffec-tivenessoftheU.S.surfacetransportationsystem.Recastingthe2020and2040initialjobimpactsbasedonincomeandproductivitylostreducesworkereffectivenessbyanaddi-tional27%(another234,000jobs).By2040,thisdrainonwagesandproductivityimpliesanadditional115%effectifincomeandpro-ductivitywerestable(another470,000jobs).
«« By 2040 the cost of infrastructure deficien-cies are expected to result in the U.S. losing more than $72 billion in foreign exportsincomparisonwiththelevelofexportsfromatransportation-sufficientU.S.economy.TheseexportsarelostduetolostproductivityandthehighercostsofAmericangoodsandservices,relativetocompetingproductpricesfromaroundtheglobe.
approach and methodologyIntheresearchforthisreport,establishingfuturetransportationconditionsunderpresenttrendsweremodelsusedbytheFederalHigh-wayAdministration(FHWA)andtheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)todeterminetransportationsufficiency,costs,conditionsandperformance,andwerebuttressedbyaliteraturereview.Forthedetailsofthemethodsused,seetheappendix.
Theoverallneedsanddeficienciesfoundwerecomparedagainsttheinvestmenttrendsreportedinfederalhighwaystatistics,theU.S.DepartmentofTransportation(USDOT)2008ConditionsandPerformanceReport,andthe2007NationalSurfaceTransportationPol-icyandRevenueStudyCommissionreportforconsistencyandreasonableness,allowingfordifferentdatayearsandsources.Theanalysispresentedinthisreportisintendedtodescribetheimplicationsofunmetneedsinnationaleconomicterms,andisnotofferedasasubstituteformorespecificnational,state,ormetropoli-tan-levelanalysisofneedsanddeficienciesforplanningandprogrammingpurposes.
objective and limits of This studyThepurposeofthisstudyislimitedtopresent-ingtheeconomicconsequencesofcontinuinginvestmentinAmerica’ssurfacetransportationinfrastructureonatrends-extendedbasis.Itisnotintendedtoproposeorimplyprescriptivepolicychanges.Inrecentyears,manysolutionshavebeenofferedtoaddressthedeterioratingconditionandperformanceofAmerica’ssurfacetransportationinfrastructure.Examplesincludechangingthemixofinvestmentbetweenfixed-railtransitandroadways,expanding“rubbertire”transit(e.g.,busand/orvan),implementingvariabletimetollingpoliciestolimitpeakhourhighwaytraffic,demandmanagementstrate-giestoshiftthetimeoftravelorotherwiselimitdemandforthetransportationsystem,leveragingbroadbandtechnologytoexpandtelecommut-ingandreducecommutingtraffic,changinglanduseregulationstogeneratedensitiesandmixesoflandusesthatreducetransportationdemand,andexpandingthenation’shighwaynetwork.ThisanalysisisintendedtoexplaintherelationshipbetweenthefailingsurfacetransportationinfrastructureanditseffectontheU.S.economy.Itisclearthatsomecombinationoftheseorothersolutionsisnecessaryonmultistate,regional,andnationallevelstoaddressthewell-documentedneeds.
Moreover,becausethisstudy’spurposeistoaddresstheconsequencesofcurrentinvestmenttrends,itdoesnotincludethepotentialeconomicimpactsofconstructionthatwouldberequiredto,atleastinpart,addressidentifiedsurfacetranspor-tationinfrastructuredeficiencies.Recentstudieshaveassertedthatevery$1billioninvestedinhigh-wayconstructiongeneratesapproximately30,000temporaryjobsinthenationaleconomy,andspendingfortransitprojectsgenerates24,000–41,000temporaryjobs,dependingongeographyandblendofspendingbetweennewconstruc-tion,maintenance,andvehiclereplacement.4Ananalysisthatincludestheeconomicimpactsofconstructionandhownewinvestmentwillaffecteconomicperformancewillvarydependingonthemixofsolutionsthatareimplemented.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 7
introduction1
theanalysispresentedinthisreportillustrateshowdifferenttypes
ofsurfacetransportationinfrastructuredeficienciesaffectthe
u.s.economy,andwillcontinuetodosointhefuture.thisreport
highlightsnotonlyhowdeficientsurfacetransportationsystems
imposecostsonhouseholdsandbusinessesbutalsohowthesecosts
relatetotheproductivityandcompetitivenessofindustries,aswell
astheprosperityofhouseholds.
thebasesforthisreport’seconomicanalysisincludedocu-
mentationofsurfacetransportationdeficienciesin2010,recent
investmenttrendsinsurfacetransportationinfrastructure,and
extendingthesetrendsto2040.theneedtomaintaintheexist-
ingsurfacetransportationsystem,toservetheneedsofachanging
populationandindustrycompositioninthenext30years,andthe
projectedinvestmentstoaccomplishallthesetasks;havehighly
significantimplicationsforindustry’scompetitivenessandperfor-
mance,aswellasstandardsoflivingforamericanhouseholds.
8 American Society of Civil Engineers
Themainsectionsofthisreportcoversixkeytopics:
«« the shortfall of infrastructure investment;
«« the implications of this shortfall for national economic performance;
«« regional transportation and economic implications;
«« Implications of lower speeds on interstate highways;
«« funding gaps by mode; and
«« Implications of maintenance funding shortfalls.
Thefinalsectionsincludeconclusionsandadiscussionoffutureresearchneeds.Anappen-dixexplainsthesourcesandmethodologyusedindetail.
objective and limits of This studyThepurposeofthisstudyislimitedtopresent-ingtheeconomicconsequencesofcontinuinginvestmentinAmerica’ssurfacetransportationinfrastructureonatrends-extendedbasis.Itisnotintendedtoproposeorimplyprescriptivepolicychanges.Inrecentyears,manysolutionshavebeenproposedtoaddresstheperceivedworseningofAmerica’sinfrastructure.Solutions
putforwardhaveincludedchangingthemixofinvestmentbetweenfixed-railtransitandroadways,expanding“rubbertire”transit(e.g.,busand/orvan),implantingvariabletimetoll-ingpoliciestolimitpeakhourhighwaytraffic,leveragingbroadbandtechnologytoexpandtelecommutingandreducecommutingtraf-fic,changinglanduseregulationsandtherebygeneratingdensitiesandtransit-orienteddevel-opment,andprudentlyexpandingourhighwaynetwork.Thisanalysisdemonstratesthatthenation’ssurfacetransportationinfrastructureisfailingtosustaintheeconomyandacombina-tionoftheseorothersolutionsarenecessaryonmultistate,regionalandnationallevels.
Moreover,becauseourpurposeinthisstudyistoaddresstheconsequencesofcurrentinvest-menttrends,thisstudydoesnotincludethepotentialeconomicimpactsofconstructionthatwouldberequiredto,atleastinpart,addressidentifiedsurfaceinfrastructuredeficiencies.Recentstudies,forexample,haveassertedthatevery$1billioninvestedinhighwayconstruc-tiongeneratesapproximately30,000temporaryjobsinthenationaleconomy,andspendingfortransitprojectsgenerates24,000–41,000temporaryjobs,dependingongeographyandtheblendofspendingbetweennewconstruc-tion,maintenanceandvehiclereplacement.5Thefocusofthisstudyoncurrenttrendsmeansthatspendingforsurfacetransporta-tioninfrastructureaboveordifferentthanthesetrendsiseffectivelyzero.Thisstatementisnotintendedtodisregardtheeconomicimpactsofconstructingnewsurfacetransportationinfrastructure.Ananalysisthatincludestheeconomicimpactsofconstructionandhownewinvestmentwillaffecteconomicperformancewillvarydependingonthemixofsolutionsthatareimplemented.
This analysis demonstrates that the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure is failing to sustain the economy and a combination of these or other solutions are necessary on multistate, regional and national levels.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 9
investmentofroughly$220billionannually(2010dollars)is
neededfrom2010to2040,basedonunitcosts,minimumtolerable
conditions,6anddatasourcesconsistentwithcurrentapplication
offederalhighway,bridge,andtransitinvestmentmodels.this
breaksdowntoanaverageinvestmentofapproximately$196
billionperyearforhighwaypavementsandbridges,including$161
billionforcongestionmitigation7and$35billionforpreservation
ofexistingfacilities.inaddition,$25billionperyearintransit
capitalinfrastructureinvestment(includingrollingstockaswell
astrackage,terminals,androadwaysforaccess)isneeded.
approximately37%ofthishighwayandbridgeinvestmentand
25%ofthistransitinvestmentwillbeneededsimplytoresolve
existingdeficienciesofalmost$74billionthatarealreadyaffecting
theu.s.economy.theremainderisneededtopreventdeficiencies
fromrecurringorgettingworseovertime.Figure1showsthe
fundinggapbyhighway,bridgeandtransitprogramstoday,in
2020andin2040.8asillustratedinFigure1,thefundinggapsfor
highwaysandtransitareexpectedtoincreasethrough2040,and
theincreaseinthetransitgapwillbemorepronouncedthanthe
highwaygap.ifpresenttrendscontinue,thefundinggapforrail
andbustransit,seenas41%in2010,isexpectedtoincreaseto55%
by2040.theexpectedgapinhighwayfunding,48%in2010,is
expectedtoincreaseto54%by2040(seeFigure1fordatasources.)
tHe infrastructure sHortfall2
10 American Society of Civil Engineers
Figure1★nationalFundingGapbyMode
sources EDRGroupanalysisusing2010USDOTHighwayEconomicRequirementsSystemforStates(HERS-ST)and2008HighwayPerformanceMonitoringSystem(HPMS)data,USDOTTransitEconomicRequirementsModel(TERM),and2010NationalTransitDatabase.
note Dollarsandpercentagesrepresentcumulativecapitalfundingandexpectedgapsbasedonpresenttrends($billions2010).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% Unfunded
a
Highway 2040
Highway 2020
Highway 2010
Transit 2040
Transit 2020
Transit 2010
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
n%Fundedn%Unfunded
Thecostsofdeterioratinginfrastructurearemeasuredintermsofvehiclemilestraveled(VMT)subjecttodeficientpavementandbridgeconditions,thepercentageofvehiclemilesandhoursexperiencingcongestion,andthepercentageoftransitrevenuemilestraveledoninfrastructure(includingtracksandstructures,systemsstationsandvehicles)thatareknowntobeinlessthanastateofgoodrepair(considered“marginal”or“poor”ratingsintheTransitEconomicRequirements,TERM,model).
DeficientpavementimposessignificantcostsontheU.S.economyandwillcontinuetodosounlesstheU.S.isabletofullyclearitsbacklogofunmetpavementpreservationneeds.UnfundedneedsarepassedontoAmerica’sbusinesses
andhouseholds.Overall,31%ofthenation’svehiclemilesoftravelusedeficientpavement,resultinginhighervehicleoperatingcostsandlowersafetravelspeedsforallvehicles,andcreatingthepotentialfordamagedgoodsmovedbytruck,orlongerroutingsfortrucksincaseswheretrucksmustbedetouredduetopavementweightrestrictions.Pavementdeficienciesaffect38%ofvehiclemilestraveledoninterstatesand30%VMTonnon-interstatefunctionalclasses(arterials,collectors,etc).Deficientpavementismoreofaprobleminurbanthanruralareas,with47%ofurbaninterstateVMTexperiencingdeficientpavementand15%ofruralinterstates.Table3presentsasnapshotofcurrentconditions,showingthedegreetowhichcarsandtruckson
$11 billion
$123 billion
$344 billion
$70 billion
$754 billion
$2,743 billion
$8 billion
$90 billion
$416 billion
$63 billion
$756 billion
$3,248 billion
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 11
% vmT on
FaciliTy Type DeFicienT pavemenT
Urban Freeway 46%
Urban Non-Freeway 37%
Rural Freeway 14%
Rural Non-Freeway 10%
source EDRGroupAnalysisusing2010USDOTHighwayEconomicRequirementsSystemforStates(HERS-ST)and2008HighwayPerformanceMonitoringSystem(HPMS)data
Table4★cumulativetraveltime&reliabilitycostsDuetocongestion,2010-2040 (billions of 2010 dollars)
vehicle Type 2010 2020 2040
Cars $4.1 $39.4 $175
Trucks $7.5 $69.6 $165
source EDRGroupanalysisusingTransportationRegionalEconomicImpactSystem(TREDIS),2011
Table3★PavementDeficienciesforcarsandtrucksbyFacilitytype,2010 (percent of VMT on deficient pavement or bridges)
12 American Society of Civil Engineers
Figure2★carandtruckreliabilitycosts:Highway(billions of 2010 dollars)
source EDRGroupusingTransportationEconomicImpactSystem(TREDIS),2011.
$0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225 $250 $275 $300 $325 $350 $375 $400
B
A
2040
2020
2010
nCarsnTrucks
differentfacilitytypesareaffectedbytoday’spavementdeficiencies.
Inadditiontodeficientpavements,18%ofthenation’svehiclemilesoftraveloccuronroadswithoutsufficientcapacitytocarrycurrenttrafficlevels.Congestionisconsideredpartoftheimpactofinfrastructuredeteriorationbecauseitresultsfromdesignsthatwereadequateforpastlevelsoftrafficbutcannolongersupporttheintendedlevelofservice.Congestionaffectsboththespeedandreliabilityofhighwaysforcarsandtrucks,imposingthecostsofadditionaltraveltime,higheroperatingcostsduetooperatingcarsandtrucksinstop-goconditions,andtheinterruptioninbusinessoperationsduetolessreliableoveralltraveltimes.(Forexample,morecongestedroadsaremorelikelytobesusceptibletounpredictablerecurringcongestionpeaks,
aremorelikelytohavecrashes,andarelikelytohavemuchlongerdelayswhencrashorweatherincidentscausedelay.)Approximately34%ofinterstateVMTand12%ofarterialVMThavedeficientcapacitytoday.Morethan40%ofurbaninterstatesexperiencecapacitydeficiencies,whereasonly6%ofruralinterstatesexperiencethisproblem.
CongestiononurbaninterstatesisthemostsignificantandfastestgrowingsourceoftransportationinefficiencyonAmerica’ssurfacetransportationsystem,andisexpectedtoimposesignificantlygreatercostsinthefuturethanitdoestoday.Table4andFigure2showhowcongestiononurbanandruralfacilitiesresultsintraveltimeandreliabilitycosts9todayandhowthesecostsareexpectedtogrowinthefuture.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 13
Wages, Value added, industrialoutPut, and Jobs3
By2040,america’sdeterioratingsurfacetransportation
infrastructureisexpectedtocostthenation’seconomymorethan
400,000jobs.althoughinfrastructuredeficiencycreatesjobs
insectorssuchasautoandbusrepair,retailsalesofgasoline,
servicesandpartspurchasedduetothedeficienciesanddecreased
productivityperworker,criticaljobopportunitiesarelostinhighly
skilledandwell-compensatednontransportationsectorsthroughout
theeconomy.thesectorslosingthemostemploymentinclude
high-valueprofessional,businessandmedicalsectors,aswellas
sectorssuchasrestaurants,entertainmentandotheramenities,
whichmustbeforgonebyhouseholdswhenalargershareof
thehouseholdbudgetmustgotowardtransportation.Figure3
showsthoseindustriesinwhichjobswillbegainedandlosttothe
u.s.economyin2040duetodeficientinfrastructurecompared
with2040conditionsifthesurfacetransportationsystemwas
maintainedtominimumtolerableconditions/stateofgoodrepair.
14 American Society of Civil Engineers
–1,000,000 –800,000 –600,000 –400,000 –200,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000
A
Knowledge Based Industries
Whoelsale Trade
Entertainment
Other Durable Manufacturing
Non-Durable Manufacturing
Other Services
Construction & Utilities
Durable Materials & Products
Natural Reasources
Retail Trade
Automobile Repairs
Transportation Service Providers
SOURCE LIFT/Inforum model, University of Maryland, 2011; and Transportation Economic Impact System (TREDIS) used by EDR Group.
NOtE: Natural resources include mining, agriculture, forestry and fishing. Other durable manufacturing includes electrical and nonelectrical machinery, instruments, and transportation equipment. Nondurable manufacturing includes chemicals, drugs, plastics and synthetics, rubber and leather products, food processing, textiles, apparel, and miscellaneous manufacturing. Entertainment includes restaurants, bars, amusements, and movies. Knowledge-based services include computer and data-processing services, educational services, finance, insurance and real estate, professional services and other business services, and medical services.
Figure 3 ★ Change in U.S. Jobs in 2040 Attributable to Transportation Infrastructure Deficiencies
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 15
TheeffectofinfrastructuredeficienciesonAmerica’sjobcompositionhasaprofoundimpactontheeverydaylivesofhouseholdsandfamilies.Thetotalannualincomeforemploy-eesintheknowledge-basedindustriessector(whichlosesthemostjobs)is$2.8trillion,comparedwithannualincomeforemployeesinthetransportationsectorof$471billion.Over-all,industrysectorsgainingjobsasaresultofinfrastructuredeficienciesin2040haveanaverageannualincomelevelof28%lessthantheincomelevelofthosesectorslosingjobs.
ByrequiringAmericanstotakelower-payingjobstosupporttheneedsofdeficientinfrastructure,transportationshortfallshaveasignificanteffectonpersonalincomeforallAmericans.By2040,itisestimatedthatAmericanswillbeearningatotalof$252bil-lionlessthanwouldhavebeenpossibleifallinfrastructurehadbeensufficient.AlthoughAmericanhouseholdsearnlessbecauseofinfrastructuredeficiencies,thesamehouse-holdshavetospendmoreofwhattheydohaveontransportation,insteadofotherhouseholdexpenditures.By2040,Americanhouseholdswillbenotonlyearninglessinincome;theywillalsobespending$54billionmoreontrans-portationcoststhantheywouldwithafullysufficientsystem.
SurfacetransportationdeficiencieslimitthetypesofjobsavailabletoAmericans,andaffecthowproductiveAmericanscanbeintheirwork.Overall,by2040,itisexpectedthatAmericanfirmswillbegenerating$232bil-lionlessinvalueaddedthantheywouldifallsurfacetransportationinfrastructureweresufficient.Thelossofpotentialvalueaddedattributabletodeterioratingsurfaceinfrastruc-tureismostconcentratedintheMid-Atlanticregion,costingroughly$69billion.
international competitivenessWhendeficientinfrastructuremakesU.S.firmslessproductive,theU.S.economyoverallisalsogloballylesscompetitive.Theoperating,reliability,traveltime,safety,andenvironmen-talcostsofadeficienttransportationsystemaffectthecoststructureandcompetitivenessoffirmsoperatingintheU.S.Duetocostsimposedbydeficientinfrastructure,in2020theU.S.economyisexpectedtoexport$28billionlessingoodsthanwouldhavebeenthecasewithsufficientinfrastructure,andin2040exportsareexpectedtobe$72billionless.
TheUnitedStatesranks19thinthequalityofitsroadwaysand18thinthequalityofitsrailinfrastructure,accordingtoa2009–10executiveopinionsurveyfor139countriesconductedbytheWorldEconomicForum(Table5).Maintaining,ifnotimproving,theseconditionswillbeimportantinmaintaining(orimproving)thenation’soverallexportposition.
Withdeterioratingsurfacetransporta-tioninfrastructure,UnitedStatesexportsofproductsandserviceswillfaceelevatedpricepressuresintwoways:
1.ExportingfirmsdirectlyexperiencehighertransportationcostswiththeirowntruckfleetforshipmentstotheMexicanandCanadianbordersortoanairportorseaport;and
2.Exportingfirmsabsorbpriceincreasesrelatedtotransportationcostsonsomeportionofintermediatesuppliesthatarrivebytruckandgointoafinalproduct.Thoseintermediatesuppliesmaybedomesticallyproduced,ortheymaybeforeignimportsthatmustincuraland-bridgingcostfromanairportorseaport,orfromtheCanadianorMexicanborders.
Iftheconditionofsurfacetransporta-tiondoesnotstabilizeatcurrentlevels,79of93tradablecommoditiesareexpectedto
16 American Society of Civil Engineers
experiencelowerexporttransactionsin2020and2040.Table6showsthe10commoditiesineachyearthatwilllosetheexportsalesexpectedundercurrentconditions.
Thelargestdollarexportlossesbycom-modityaretheresultofboththescaleofprojectedexportproductionandtheexpectedimpactfromdeficientsurfacetransportation.Transportationdeficienciesaffecttheproductionprocessbyincreasingcostsofreceivinggoods.Italsomakesaccesstomarketsmoreexpensive,andthereforelesscompetitive,includingmarketreachtoCanadaandMexico,andinsurfaceaccesstoairportsandseaports.Inaddition,somelargeknowledge-basedactivities(suchasfinanceandinsurance)thatexportservicesabroad,accountforasizabledollarloss.
Thetotalnationalexportvaluelostis$28billionin2020and$72billionin2040—rela-tivetotheexpectedbasecaseeconomiesinthoseyears.U.S.commoditiesthatlosethelargestproportionoftheirexportsareshowninTable7.Thetableshowscommoditiesirrespectiveofthevolumeofexports(thatdimensioniscapturedinTable6),andillus-tratesthepercentofimpactpercommodity.
In2020,the10commoditiesthatareexpectedtolosethehighestlevelsofexport
dollarsaccountfor53%oftheexportvaluelostbytheaggregated79commoditiesand52%in2040.Moreover,manyexportsshownonthe2020and2040tables,bothintermsofpercentdeclinesanddollarlosses,arekeytechnologysectorsthatdrivenationalinnovation.Theseincludemachinery,communicationsequipment,medicaldevices,transportationequipment,aero-space,otherinstrumentsandchemicals.
innovative surface Transportation infrastructure investmentsThisreportfocusesontheeconomicconse-quencesstemmingfromtheexpectedstateoftheU.S.surfacetransportationsystemunderapres-enttrendinvestmentscenarioandthelevelsofinvestmentsrequiredforattainingminimumtol-erableconditionsforhighwaysandbridgesandthestateofgoodrepairfortransitsystems.How-ever,otheraspectsofinfrastructureinvestmentfalloutsidethisframework.(Formoredetailsonthissection’stopic,seethetechnicalappendix.)Theseincludenewtechnologiesorinnovativeremixesofexistingtechnologies.
Asanexampleofanewtechnology,high-speedrailaddressestheissueofhowinvestmentsinbothnewinfrastructure(tracksandre-rationalizationofexistingrailroadrightsofway)andnewtransportationtechnology(advancedtransportationequipmentandassoci-atedcommunications)cantransformintercitypassengertransportationandtheeconomiesofthemetropolitanareastheyconnect.
MostofAmerica’smajoreconomiccom-petitorsinEuropeandAsia—includingJapan,Germany,France,SpainandGreatBritain,aswellasrapidlydevelopinganddevelopedcountriessuchasChina,Taiwan,andSouthKorea—havealreadyinvestedinandarereap-ingthebenefitsofimprovedcompetitivenessfromtheirintermetropolitanhigh-speedrailsys-tems.Simplycontinuingtoinvestinthenation’sexistingtransportationinfrastructuremaynotbeenoughtomaintainitsstandingintheglobaleconomyinthelongrun.
most of america’s major economic competitors in europe and asia have already invested in and are reaping the benefits of improved competitiveness from their intermetropolitan high-speed rail systems.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 17
Qualityofroads Qualityofrailroads
ranK counTry/economy ranK counTry/economy
1 Singapore 1 Switzerland
2 France 2 Hong Kong
3 Switzerland 3 Japan
4 Hong Kong 4 France
5 Germany 5 Germany
6 United Arab Emirates 6 Singapore
7 Austria 7 Finland
8 Portugal 8 Taiwan, China
9 Denmark 9 Netherlands
10 Oman 10 South Korea
11 Luxembourg 11 Belgium
12 Chile 12 Denmark
13 Finland 13 Spain
14 South Korea 14 Sweden
15 Namibia 15 Austria
16 Taiwan, China 16 Canada
17 Canada 17 Luxembourg
18 Sweden 18 unitedstates
19 unitedstates 19 United Kingdom
20 Spain 20 Malaysia
source WorldEconomicForum,“ExecutiveOpinionSurvey,”asreportedinThe Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011,©2010WorldEconomicForum.
Table5★top20countriesandeconomiesrankedbythe Qualityofroadsandrailroads
18 American Society of Civil Engineers
table 6 ★ U.S. Commodity Export Reductions in Dollars, 2020 & 2040 (billions of 2010 dollars)
2020 2040 export export
Commodity dollarslost Commodity dollarslost
Finance & Insurance 3.2 Finance & Insurance 8.1
Wholesale Trade 2.7 Wholesale Trade 6.1
Aerospace 1.9 Aerospace 5.9
Motor Vehicle Parts 1.4 Communications Equipment 5.4
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries 1.3 Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries 2.7
Air Transportation 1.0 Other Instruments10 2.4
Other Instruments 0.9 Air Transportation 2.2
Professional Services 0.8 Professional Services 2.1
Motor Vehicles 0.8 Other Chemicals 1.4
General & Misc. Industrial Equipment 0.7 Meat Products 1.2
Other (69 Sectors) 13.9 Other (69 Sectors) 34.4
Total 28.4 billion Total 71.7 billion
Other Instruments includes photographic and photocopying equipment, automatic environmental controls, industrial process variable instruments, totalizing fluid meters and counting devices, electricity and signal testing instruments, analytical laboratory, instruments, watch, clock, and other measuring and controlling devices, and laboratory apparatus and furniture.
SOURCE LIFT/INFORUM Model, University of Maryland, based on calculations by EDR Group using the Transportation Economic Impact System (TREDIS).
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 19
AsecondexampleoftechnologychangeisMagneticLevitation(maglev)Systems,whichhavebeenunderdevelopmentandreviewintheU.S.andabroadformanyyears.Bothhigh-speedintercityandlow-speedurbansystemshavebeendevelopedandtested—primarilyinGermany,Japan,SouthKorea,andChina.Ahigh-speedmaglevsystemhasbeenbuiltandiscurrentlyinoperationbetweendowntownShanghaiandthePudongInternationalAir-port.OtherairportconnectorsystemshavebeenplannedforMunichandareundercon-siderationinseveralMiddleEasterncountries.AmaglevsystemiscurrentlybeingplannedbetweenGenevaandLausanne,andanotherbetweenBerneandZurich.
Anexampleofapplyingexistingtoolsisrethinkingvariousformsofintercitytransportandinvestinginthingslikeintercityrailwithairportconnections(notnecessarilyhighspeed,butrailatspeedsthateffectivelycompetewithautos),particularlytoaddressthemobilityandaccessrequirementswithinandbetweenanentiretierofsmallandmid-sizedurbanareas.Theremayevenbeexpress,scheduledbusser-vicethatwouldwork.
Inthiscase,itisnotsomuch“new”technol-ogythatisneeded,butnewthinkingofhowtouseexistingtechnologiestoeasetravel,par-ticularlyforcommutingandthe100–500miletrip.Atthepresenttime,theaverageAmericancommuteisworsethanthatinmanyEuropeannationsandanewmixofexistingtransporta-tionandothertechnologiescouldbepartofasolution.12
mitigationThisreportcontrastsatransportationsystemfundedatlevelscomparabletotoday’slev-elswithafullyfundedsystemtoassessthedegreetowhichU.S.economicconditionsareaffectedbycurrentandprojectedinfra-structuredeficiencies.“Trendsextended”isunderstoodasthecostofeffectivelycontinu-ingtofundtransportationattoday’slevels,
withtoday’spriorities,andnotactingtomakesignificantimprovementsinareasthatarecur-rentlyunfunded,oraddressingfutureneedsforwhichthereisnoevidentfundingsource.How-ever,the2007NationalSurfaceTransportationPolicyandRevenueStudyCommissionreportsuggeststhatevencurrentlevelsassumedinthisreport’seconomicanalysismaynotbesus-tainable.13ThemagnitudeofneedsfoundbytheanalysisinthisreportgenerallyconcurswiththemagnitudesfoundbythePolicyandRev-enueStudyCommission;though,thisreportdoesnotattempttoquantifytheadditionallosstotheU.S.economyiffundinglevelsweretodeclinebecauseofincreasingfuturerevenueshortfalls.
Formanyyears,federalsurfacetransporta-tionlegislationandstatewideplanninghaveplacedanemphasisonthepreservationofexistingassets.14Forhighways,pavementandbridgepreservationhasbeenapriority,asimplementedbystateswitha“fixitfirst”pol-icytoprotectexistingassets.ThefundingandemphasisforbridgepreservationalsoincreasedinthewakeoftheI-35bridgecollapseinMin-neapolisinthesummerof2007.Thepriorityplacedonhighwayandbridgefundingshowsthattransportationinvestmentcanmakeadifference,withtheFederalHighwayAdminis-tration(FHWA)reportingpavementconditionsimprovingfrom39%withacceptableridequal-ityin1997to57%in2006.Furthermore,the
This report contrasts a transportation system funded at levels comparable to today’s levels with a fully funded system to assess the degree to which u.s. economic conditions are affected by current and projected infrastructure deficiencies.
20 American Society of Civil Engineers
table 7 ★ U.S. Commodity Export Reductions by Percentage, 2020 & 2040 (billions of 2010 dollars)
2020 2040 PercentageofexPorts PercentageofexPorts
commodity lost(byvalue) commodity lost(byvalue)
TV, VCR, radios, phonographs, etc.11 6% Communications equipment 11%
Apparel 5% TV, VCR, radios, phonographs, etc. 5%
Motor vehicle parts 4% Ships & boats 3%
Agricultural fertilizers & chemicals 3% Ophthalmic goods 3%
Other transportation equipment 3% Agricultural fertilizers & chemicals 3%
Stone, clay & glass 3% Rubber products 2%
Ophthalmic goods 3% Motor vehicle parts 2%
Special industry machinery 2% Government enterprises 2%
Shoes & leather 2% Other transportation equipment 2%
Service industry machinery 2% Apparel 2%
SOURCE LIFT/INFORUM Model, University of Maryland, based on calculations by EDR Group using the Transportation Economic Impact System (TREDIS).
NOtE TV, VCR, radios and phonographs includes household audio and video equipment.
number of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges declined from 34% in 1996 to 27.6% in 2006. This progress has left the bulk of deficiency cost in the form of unmet transit needs and rising highway congestion.
If the preservation investments described above had not been made, the economic burden of deficient infrastructure would be signifi-cantly greater than we have found for today and in the future. If the Highway Trust Fund and
other sources are unable to continue today’s funding levels, then the loss of jobs, personal income, and value added will be beyond the losses we have quantified. However, if trans-portation investment levels rise in areas that support building and maintaining minimum tolerable conditions across the system, national jobs, income, and GDP can rise to the levels we have found and quantified in this study.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 21
regional iMPlications4
implications of DeficienciesTherelativeseverityofdifferenttypesofdefi-cienciesthatoccurredin2010foreachregionoftheUnitedStatesduetodeficientanddete-rioratinginfrastructureisshowninTable8.
RegionsoftheU.S.withlargecities,highdensities,andhighconcentrationsofurbaninterstatesandfreewaysexperiencethemostdirectcostsofdeficienttransportationinfra-structureintheformofurbancongestion.TheNewEnglandandFarWestregionstodayhavecongestionlevelsaccountingfor23%and24%ofVMT,respectively.Furthermore,areaswithhigherdensities,moretransit-dependentpopulations,andoldertransitsystemsareoftenmoresusceptibletotransitdeficiencies.
Thedeficientanddeterioratingtrans-portationconditionsdescribedabovetranslateintolossesintheAmericanecon-omythroughoutthe50statesandeveryindustrialsectoroftheeconomy.Ofthejobslostduetodeterioratinginfrastructure,theimpactwasthegreatestintheMid-Atlan-ticregion,followedbytheFarWestregion.Theseregionsaremostaffectedbecauseoftheirhighconcentrationofcongested,urban-izedareas,andtheirhighdependenceonurbaninterstates,freeways,andtransitsys-tems,whichareamongthemostdeficientaccordingtofederalhighwayandtransitstatistics.
eachregionoftheu.s.andeachindustryoftheamerican
economyisaffectedindifferentwaysbythecostsimposed
bysubstandardanddeterioratinginfrastructure.themost
affectedregionsarethosewiththelargestconcentrationsof
urbanareas,giventhaturbanhighways,bridges,andtransit
systemsareinpoorerconditiontodaythanareruralfacilities.
Peakcommutingpatternsalsoplacelargerburdensonurban
capacities.However,becauseamericaissodependentonthe
interstateHighwaysystem,impactsoninterstateperformance
insomeregionsorareatypesarefeltthroughoutthenation.
regionsareillustratedbythemaponpage22.
22 American Society of Civil Engineers
table 8 ★ Congestion and Pavement Deficiency by Region, 2010
★ FaR WeSt % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 53%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 24%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.1
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 0.7
★GReat laKeS % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 32%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 15%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.5
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.2
★MiD atlantic % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 44%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 23%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.2
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 0.2
★neW enGlanD % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 28%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 13%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.2
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 0.2
★PlainS % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 28%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 11%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.4
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 0.5
★RocKy MountainS % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 20%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 8%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 0.4
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 0.3
★South eaSt % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 14%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 16%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.7
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.1
★South WeSt % VMt PaVeMent DeFicient 31%
% VMt caPacity DeFicient 16%
tRanSit buS (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 1.1
tRanSit Rail (inteRRuPtionS PeR thouSanDS VMt) 0.4
Source EDR Group analysis using 2010 USDOT Highway Economic Requirements System for States (HERS-ST) and 2008 HPMS Data, USDOT Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) and 2010 National Transit Database.
FaR WeSt
RocKy MountainSPlainS
GReat laKeS
SoutheaSt
neW enGlanD
MiD atlantic
SouthWeStSource Adapted from the regional map of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 23
Table9★PassengerModereliancebyregion,2010(Percapita)
★plains auTo vmT 2,892 TrucK vmT 392 passenger bus Trips 258 passenger rail Trips 16 DemanD response Trips 115
★rocKy mounTains auTo vmT 2,721 TrucK vmT 327 passenger bus Trips 39 passenger rail Trips 8 DemanD response Trips 5
★souTh easT auTo vmT 2,936 TrucK vmT 353 passenger bus Trips 43 passenger rail Trips 5 DemanD response Trips 16
★souTh WesT auTo vmT 2,812 TrucK vmT 423 passenger bus Trips 429 passenger rail Trips 32 DemanD response Trips 170
★Far WesT auTo vmT 2,555 TrucK vmT 238 passenger bus Trips 725 passenger rail Trips 74 DemanD response Trips 197
★greaT laKes auTo vmT 2,580 TrucK vmT 349 passenger bus Trips 423 passenger rail Trips 57 DemanD response Trips 147
★miD aTlanTic auTo vmT 2,170 TrucK vmT 203 passenger bus Trips 1,036 passenger rail Trips 668 DemanD response Trips 182
★neW englanD auTo vmT 2,568 TrucK vmT 175 passenger bus Trips 405 passenger rail Trips 176 DemanD response Trips 186
Different reliance and vulnerabilities by modes Regionswithalargerpercentageofurban-izedareasaremoredirectlyaffectedbythetraveltimeandoperatingimpactsofdefi-cienthighwaysandtransitsystems.Ruralregionsareaffectedmorebytheroutingeffectsofdeficientinterstates,andbyfund-ingshortfallsindemandresponsetransitsystems.Table9comparestherelianceofdif-ferentregionsoftheU.S.ondifferenttypesofsurfacetransportationinfrastructureandservices(percapita).Overall,lower-densityregionsliketheRockyMountainsandtheGreatPlainshavemorevehiclemilesoftravel
percapita,whereashigher-densityregionslikeNewEnglandandtheMid-AtlanticstateshavelessVMTpercapita,butaresubjecttomorecongestionduetothedensityofpopulationandtraffic.Furthermore,thehigher-densityregionsofNewEnglandandtheMid-Atlanticstateshavesignificantlymoretransittripspercapita,andarethereforelikelytobemoresensitivetothecostsofdeficienttransit.
rural regions are affected more by the routing effects of deficient interstates, and by funding shortfalls in demand response transit systems.
source EDRGroupanalysisusing2010USDOTHighwayEconomicRequirementsSystemforStates(HERS-ST)and2008HighwayPerformanceMonitoringSystem(HPMS)data,.PopulationprojectionsarebasedonWoodsandPooledata.
24 American Society of Civil Engineers
diVersion of traffic due to congestion5urbaninterstatecapacitieshavenotkeptpacewithdemand
inurbanareas,andspeedsonu.s.interstatesinurbanareas
in2010were10milesperhourlessthantheywouldbeifthe
systemwerebuilttominimumtolerableengineeringstandards
forprojectedtrafficlevels.15in2020this‘speeddeficit’will
growto13milesperhourand16milesperhourin2040.
BecauseofsignificantlydeterioratinginterstatespeedsthroughAmerica’smajorcities,increas-inglevelsofinterstatetrafficarerelyingonlower-levelarterials,inbothurbanandruralareastoaccessthenation’stradecenters.16Theurbanandruralarterialroutesabsorbingthemajorityofthistrafficfromadeficienturbaninterstatesystemtypicallyhavelowerdesignspeedsandstandardsthantheinterstates,andaresubjecttohighercrashratesandothercosts.In2010,itisestimatedthat18%ofurbaninterstatetrafficwasdivertedtolowerclassi-fiedsystems,and6%ofruralinterstatetrafficwasdiverted.
Figure4showsthatwhilecongestionandVMTgrowthareincreasinglyconcentratedinurbanareas—thecostsandperformanceimpli-cationsofthesedeficienciesareaffectingruralandoutlyingareasaswell,andoftenresultinsignificantlyhigherVMTandvehiclehoursoftravel(VHT),especiallyfortrucksandtrans-continentalmovesthanwouldotherwisebethecase.Theseprojectedchangesdrawattentiontothesufficiencyandperformanceofarterials,
andevennonurbanarterials(shownassmallerlinesinthebackgroundinFigure6),mostofwhichareabsorbingsomeshareoftheintercitytrafficthatisshowntobedivertedwhenurbaninterstateandfreewayspeedsareaffectedbycongestion.Thus,theroutingeffectsofdeficienciesintheinterstatesystemcannotbeisolatedtoonlyurbanareaswheredeficienciesoccurbutalsoaffectallthediffer-entregionsoftheU.S.,bothurbanandrural.
Figure4doesnotshowtrafficgrowthovertime,butinsteadshowsthechangeinrout-ingthatoccursduetourbanbottlenecksontheinterstatesystem.Atcurrentfundinglev-els,thereassignmentofinterstatetraffictolowerclassifiedsystemscreatesanadditional360millionurbanVHTand104millionruralVHTin2010,andwillincreaseto22bil-lionurbanVHTand6billionruralVHTin2020,and34billionurbanVHTand6billionruralVHTby2040.Mostoftheroutesgain-ingtrafficarestatearterialrouteswithlowercapacities,designspeeds,anddesignstan-dardsthantherouteslosingtraffic.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 25
Figure4★Patternofreassignmentsfromcongestedinterstates,2010–2040
source: CalculationsbyEDRGroupusingsynthesisofthreesources:HERS-ST,forthemagnitudeofspeedeffectsdeficienciesondifferenturbanandruralfunctionalsystems;FAF3,whichprovidesnetworkandbaselinetruckrouting;andfinallyCUBEVoyager,whichenablesustoseehowthedeficienciesfoundbyHERSaffecttheroutingsshownbyFAF.
Blue:Highwaysthatwillbeavoidedallorinpartduetoextremecongestionred:Roadsthatabsorbtrafficdivertedfromcongested(red)highways.
26 American Society of Civil Engineers
tHe national Modal funding gaP6
theunitedstatescarriesabacklogof$3trillioninunfunded
surfacetransportationneeds,includinga$2.2trillionbacklog
forhighwaysandbridgesand$86billioninunfundedtransit
capitalinfrastructureneeds.17thisbacklogdoesnotincludethe
costofprovidingaccesstotransittothesignificantnumberof
americanswhodonotcurrentlyhaveaccesstofixedroutetransit
and/ordemandresponsetransit.approximately15%oftransit
revenuemilesoccurringin2010areonvehicleswithastateof
goodrepairof“fair”or“poor.”inaddition,31%ofpassenger
carvehiclemilesoftraveloccurredonroadwayswithlessthan
minimumtolerablepavementconditionsand18%ofpassenger
cartripsoccurredoncongestedroads.18By2040,theproportion
oftransitrevenuemilesoccurringonlessthan“good”vehicles
willriseto33%,andthe18%ofpassengercarVMttraveled
incongestedconditionswillriseto36%.table10andFigure5
summarizethepercentageofvehicleorrevenuemiles,bymode
subjecttodeficienciestoday,andhowthesedeficienciesare
expectedtocarryintothefuture.19
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 27
Figure5★DevelopmentofDeficienciesbyMode
source EDRGroupanalysisusing2010USDOTHighwayEconomicRequirementsSystemforStates(HERS-ST)and2008HPMSdata.
2010
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
B
A
Demand-Response Transit
Bus Transit (Fixed Route)
Rail Transit
Trucks (Capacity)
Passenger Cars (Capacity)
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%2020
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
B
A
Demand-Response Transit
Bus Transit (Fixed Route)
Rail Transit
Trucks (Capacity)
Passenger Cars (Capacity)
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
B
A
Demand-Response Transit
Bus Transit (Fixed Route)
Rail Transit
Trucks (Capacity)
Passenger Cars (Capacity)
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%n%ofVMTSufficientInfrastructure
n%ofVMTDeficientInfrastructure
2040
28 American Society of Civil Engineers
DeficienciesbyModeattoday’sFundinglevels % oF vmT suFFicienT % oF vmT DeFicienT
year vehicle Type inFrasTrucTure inFrasTrucTure
2010 Passenger Cars (capacity/congestion) 82% 18%
Trucks (capacity/congestion) 82% 18%
Rail Transit 89% 11%
Bus Transit (fixed route) 84% 16%
Demand-Response Transit 84% 16%
2020 Passenger Cars (capacity/congestion) 76% 24%
Trucks (capacity/congestion) 76% 24%
Rail Transit 90% 10%
Bus Transit (fixed route) 77% 23%
Demand-Response Transit 28% 72%
2040 Passenger Cars (capacity/congestion) 64% 36%
Trucks (capacity/congestion) 64% 36%
Rail Transit 84% 16%
Bus Transit (fixed route) 70% 30%
Demand-Response Transit 32% 68%
source EDRGroupanalysisusing2010USDOTHighwayEconomicRequirementsSystemforStates(HERS-ST)and2008HighwayPerformanceMonitoringSystem(HPMS)data.
Table10★DevelopmentofDeficienciesbyMode
Itshouldbenotedthatinthecaseoftransit,deficienciesmaycompoundamongmodes,withfixed-routetransitbusordemandresponsevehiclesalsooperatingincongestedconditionsondeficientpavements.
Becauseoftoday’sbacklog,in201016.2%oftransitbusVMToccurredinsuboptimalcondi-tions(andthisisexpectedtoincreaseto30%in2040),16%ofdemand-responsebusVMTare
ondeficientvehiclestoday(expectedtoincreaseto68%in2040),7%oflightrailVMTareondeficientvehiclestoday(expectedtoincreaseto22%in2040),and11.2%ofotherrailvehiclesaredeficient(expectedtoincreaseto15.8%in2040).Table9showsthepercentageoftran-sitVMTcarriedondeficientinfrastructurein2010andpercentagesexpectedforanticipateddemandsin2020and2040.Table11and
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 29
year TransiT Type % suFFicienT % DeFicienT
2010 Bus Transit (fixed route) 84% 16%
Demand Response (para-transit) 84% 16%
Light Rail 93% 7%
Other Rail 89% 11%
2020 Bus Transit (fixed route) 77% 23%
Demand Response (para-transit) 28% 72%
Light Rail 86% 14%
Other Rail 90% 10%
2040 Bus Transit (fixed route) 70% 30%
Demand Response (para-transit) 32% 68%
Light Rail 78% 22%
Other Rail 84% 16%
source EDRGroupanalysisusingUSDOTTransitEconomicRequirementsModel(TERMS)and2010NationalTransitDatabase.
TransiT Type vehicle Type 2010 2020 2040
Bus Passenger Bus $49 $398 $659
Rail Passenger Rail $41 $171 $370
totals $90 $568 $1,029
source EDRGroupusingTransportationEconomicImpactSystem(TREDIS),2011.note Totalsmaynotaddduetorounding
Table12★totalcostsDuetoDeficientandDeterioratinginfrastructure (billions of 2010 dollars)
Table11★transitModeBreakdownofPercentVMtoperatingonDeficiencies overtimeGivencurrentFundinglevels
30 American Society of Civil Engineers
Figure5showhowthedeficienciesfortran-sitmodesareexpectedtoincreasefrom2010to2040,assumingtoday’sfundinglevels.Itshouldbenotedthatthedeficiencyofdemandresponsefleetswillrisedisproportionatelyastheagingpopulationplacesincreasingdemandonparatransitservicesforthenondrivingpop-ulation.Thisisespeciallyimportantforthenation’seconomy,astheabilityofthisrapidlygrowingsegmentofthepopulationtopartici-pateinconsumerandlabormarketswillbeadverselyaffectedifdemand-responseser-vicesarenotsufficienttokeeppacewithrisingdemand.
Regardlessofthetypeoftransit,defi-cienttransitfleetsaremoresusceptibletointerruptionsinservice,costinghouseholdsandbusinessestimeandreliabilitydueto
unanticipateddelaywheninterruptionsoccur.In2010,thereweremorethan430interruptionsperrevenuemileonpassengerbusservices,57interruptionsperrevenuemileondemand-responseservices,349interruptionspermileonlightrail,and123interruptionspermileonotherrailservices.Astransitfleetsbecomeincreasinglydeficientrelativetodemand,inter-ruptionsandtheircostsareexpectedtoimposeanincreasingburdenontheeconomy,espe-ciallyinthegrowingdemand-responsetransitsector,whichservesnondriving(andoftennonurban)populationswithfeweralterna-tivetransportationoptions.Inadditiontomorelikelyinterruptions,deficienttransitvehiclesarealsolessfuelandenergyefficient,resultinginincreasedoperatingcostspermile,placingaddi-tionalcostontheAmericaneconomy.
Overall,deficienciesinbustransit(fixed-routeanddemand-response)areestimatedtohaveimposed$49billionincostontheAmeri-caneconomyin2010.Itisanticipatedthatby2020,thepresentvalueofcumulativebustran-sitdeficiencycostswillnear$400billion,andwillreachnearly$680billionby2040.Defi-cienciesinrailtransitvehiclesareestimatedtohaveimposedmorethan$41billionincoststotheU.S.economyin2010,andcumulativelywillhaveexceeded$170billionby2020andwillhavereachednearly$370billionby2040.Table12showshowtheoveralleconomiccostsoftransitdeficiencieswillincreaseintheU.S.economyto2040.
as transit f leets become increasingly deficient relative to demand, interruptions and their costs are expected to impose an increasing burden on the economy, especially in the growing demand-response transit sector, which serves nondriving (and often nonurban) populations with fewer alternative transportation options.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 31
supporTeD by currenT
year oF neeD ToTal neeD FunDing level % FunDeD
Cumulative to 2020 $68 $59 87%
Cumulative to 2040 $172 $126 73%
averageannual $5.7 $4.2 75%
source EDRGroupanalysisusing2010USDOTHighwayEconomicRequirementsSystemforStates(HERS-ST)(FiscallyConstrained)and2008HighwayPerformanceMonitoringSystem(HPMS)data.
Maintenanceneedsareacriticalaspectofhighwayinvestmentrequirements,andareexpectedtoincreaseovertime.Unmetmaintenanceneedsspeedupthedeteriora-tionofinfrastructureandmaybringaboutthecostsandadverseeconomicimpactsgiveninthisreportonafastertimetable,andwithmagnitudesexacerbatedbeyondwhatisincludedintheformaleconomicanaly-sisofunmetcapitalimprovementneeds.Unmetmaintenanceneedsalsooftenpres-entthemselvesasurgentneeds,anddivertinvestmentfrommorelong-terminvest-mentsofthetypethatwouldultimatelyberequiredtoovercomemanyofthecostsandadverseimpactsexploredinthisreport.
Wheninfrastructuremaintenance,repairs,andimprovementsarenotfullyfunded,short-term“band-aid”solutionsareoftenimplementedtoenabletheinfrastructuretocontinuefunctioningatlessthanminimumtolerableconditions.Whentheseshort-termsolutionsareimplemented,inadditiontotheusercostofoperatingthedeficientinfrastruc-ture,thecostofoperatingandmaintainingtheinfrastructureisgreaterthanitwouldbeiftheinfrastructurewereinpropercondition.Table13givesanestimateofhowmainte-nanceneedsmaydevelopovertime,andhowunmetneedsmayincreaseiftoday’sfundinglevelsdonotchange.
Table13 ★MaintenanceneedsinBillionsofconstant2010Dollars (assumingcurrentcapitalinvestmentlevels)
iMPlications of Maintenance funding (and a funding gaP)7
32 American Society of Civil Engineers
conclusions and furtHer researcH8
ThecostofcontinuingtofundimprovementsforAmerica’ssurfacetransportationsystematcurrentlevelsproducesamountingbur-denofdeficiency,whichshiftseconomiccoststothenextgenerationofAmericanhouse-holdsandbusinesses.Thisburdentakestheformofhighercostsofdoingbusiness,feweropportunitiesforfirmstoinvest,andlessdis-posableincomeforfamilies.TheburdenalsocompromisesAmerica’scompetitivepositionintheworld’seconomyandleadstoloweroverallprofitabilityformostbusinesssectors.Althoughtoday’sfundinglevelshavebeen
effectiveingraduallyimprovinghighwaypavementandbridgeconditions,themount-ingcostsimposedbydeficienttransitandurbancongestionwillcontinuetoaccruelongintothefuture.Furthermore,today’sfundinglevelsdonotaccountforimportantdemo-graphicshifts.From2010to2040,theU.S.populationisexpectedtogrowbyone-third,andtheproportionofAmericansage75yearsandolderisexpectedtonearlydouble.Thisagingpopulationwillincreasinglydependondemand-responsetransitsystems.ProjecteddemographicshiftsareshowninTable14.
populaTion percenTage 0F householDs civilian jobs
year (millions) populaTion 75+ (millions) (millions)
2010 310 6% 118 142
2020 341 7% 131 162
2040 406 11% 157 190
sources Thetotalnumberjobsiscalculatedfromvarioussources,withtheBureauofLaborStatisticsbeingtheprimarysource.PopulationdatawereobtainedfromtheU.S.Census,andthepopulationprojectionsareguidedbytheprojectionsoftheSocialSecurityAdministration.AggregatedbytheInforumResearchUnitoftheUniversityofMaryland.
Table14★u.s.Demographicchange,2010–2040
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 33
Theanalysispresentedinthisreportrepresentsageneral,“sketch-level”understandingofhowdifferenttypesofsurfacetransportationinfra-structuredeficienciesaffecttheU.S.economy,andwillcontinuetodosointhefuture.Althoughthereisaclearadverseimpactofdoingnothingbeyond“businessasusual”toaddressAmeri-ca’ssubstantialbacklogofhighway,transit,andrailtransportationneeds,thereareopportuni-tiesforsignificantlymoreresearchthatcanlendgreaterunderstandingtotheissuesraisedinthisreport.Akeyareaforfutureresearchisdevel-opingbestpracticesforstate-levelplanningandprogrammingeffortstoincorporateforward-lookingassetmanagementandperformancebenchmarkingtoolsliketheFHWAHighwayEconomicRequirementsforStates(HERS-ST,highways),NationalBridgeInvestmentAnalysisSystem(NBIAS,bridges),andtheFTATransitEconomicRequirementsModel(TERM,transit)usedinthisreportinconjunctionwitheconomicimpactandtrademodelsofthetypealsousedinthisanalysis.Thisreportisintendedtohighlightnotonlyhowinfrastructuredeficienciesimposecostsontheeconomy,butalsohowthesecostsrelatetotheproductivityandcompetitivenessofindustriesaswellastheprosperityofhouse-holds.Furtherresearchinbestpracticesforconsistentlyincorporatingthisrelationshipasaregularpartoftransportationplanningandpro-grammingisencouragedtobuildontheworkofthisreport.
Anotherareaforfutureresearchpertainstodeterminingthetrulyefficientlevelofinvest-mentinsurfacetransportationinfrastructure.Althoughthisreportestablishesthedegreeandmannerinwhichdeficientsurfacetrans-portationassetsweakenthenationaleconomy,moreresearchisneededtoestablishbreak-evenfundinglevelsatwhichtheseadverseeco-nomicimpactsoutweightheeffectsofincurringimprovementcostsassociatedwithtranspor-tationinvestment.Furthermore,theanalysisleadingtothisreportsuggeststhatresearchon
theefficiencyofprioritizingtransportationinvest-mentaroundprojectsofnationalor(multistate)regionalsignificancemayprovideleveragetomini-mizetheongoingimpactofunmetneeds.
Thisreporthasestablishedthattransporta-tiondeficiencies,andtheircosts,haveasignificantimpactonexports,productivity,andthecompeti-tivenessofindustries.Thefindingsoninternationalcompetitivenesspointtoapotentialemergingareaofresearchintothecomparativeeconomicadvan-tagesofinfrastructuresufficiencyintheglobaltradeenvironment.FurtherresearchneedstobeconductedintohowmajorU.S.tradingpart-nersandinternationalcompetitorsmeasureandbenchmarktransportationperformance,andthecomparativeefficienciesofforeignsurfacetrans-portationsystemsrelativetotheU.S.mayaffectindustrialcompetitivenessandthetermsoftrade.
ThefindingsofthisstudyalsosuggestthemeritoffutureresearchontheroleandsufficiencyoftheInterstateHighwaySystem,andspecificallyintheimpactofurbancapacitydeficienciesonnationalintrastatetrafficflows.Thefindingsleadingtothisreportsuggestthatcapacitydeficienciesonurbaninterstateswillbealeadingdriveroftransporta-tioncostintheU.S.economyto2040,andalsocanhavetrafficassignmenteffectsplacingdemandsonurbanarterialandruralfacilities.Understand-ingthetruenationaltransportationperformanceandeconomicimpactsofdeterioratinglevelsofser-viceonurbaninterstatesandfreewaysiscriticalforappropriatelyrespondingtodifficultinvestmentchoicesfortheU.S.surfacetransportationsystem.
Finally,thefindingsregardingtransitsuffi-ciencypointstoaneedformoreresearchintotheadequacyoftoday’sdemand-responsefleetsforagrowingnondrivingpopulation.Althoughconsid-erableresearchhasbeendoneontransportationalternativesforthissegmentofthepopulation,furtherresearchisneededintothesystem-leveleconomicimpactsofdifferentlevelsmobilityanddemand-responsetransitsufficiency,aswellaseconomicandperformancetrade-offswheninvest-mentchoicesariseforthistypeoftransit.
34 American Society of Civil Engineers
sources and methodsAlthoughthereisnosinglemodelordatasourceaccountingforallthefindingsinthisreport,theeconomicanalysisrepresentsahigh-levelsyn-thesisoftheUniversityofMaryland’sLIFT/INFORUMglobaltradeandeconomicimpactmodel,withausercostanalysisbasedontheTransportationEconomicDevelopmentInfor-mationSystem(TREDIS),whichwasdevelopedbyEDRGroupandiscurrentlybeingusedin40U.S.statesandCanadianprovinces.
Thebasisforestablishingfuturetransporta-tionconditionsunderpresenttrendsinvestmentscenarioswasbasedonwidelyacceptedmodelsoftransportationsufficiency,costs,conditionsandperformance,andbuttressedbyaliteraturereview.
Highwayneedsandanticipatedfuturedefi-ciencies(andperformancelevels)atdifferentfundinglevelsarebasedonanapplicationof2010HERS-STusing2008HPMSdatafromeachofthe50statesusingthedefaultminimumtolerableconditions,unitcosts,runspecifi-cations,andparametersprovidedwiththeHERS-STsoftware.HERS-STdefaultparam-eterswereadjustedtoassumesystemexpansionneedswouldnotexceedamaximumof16lanes(representedinthefullyfundedorsufficientbasecase),andno“high-costlanes”highwaywideningwouldbeconsideredasaneedincaseswheretheHPMSsamplehadconsideredwiden-inginfeasible.Insuchcases,preservationneedswereassumedtoaccrue,butwideningwasnotcountedasamongtheneeds.
Consequently,theanalysisassumesthatsomelevelofcongestionwilloccur,evenwithafullyfundedsystemandthefullyfundedbasecasedoesnotassume“free-flow”conditions.Inaddition,whendevelopingthetransportationanalysisforthisreport,wedeliberatelyavoidedincludingcostsofcatastrophessimilartotheI-35bridgecollapse.Inotherwords,weassumedthatinfrastructurefailureresultsincongestionsandvehiclecosts,butnotnational-leveltragedies.Overall,thisapproachisconsistentwithavoid-inga“gold-plated”infrastructureinvestmentscenario,andisconsistentwiththeASCE Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.Furthermore,thetrafficgrowthratesinstateHPMSfileswerecontrollednottoexceedmaximumannualhis-toricratesofgrowthordeclineforanygivenfunctionalclassificationofroadinanygivenstate.FuturevolumesinHERS-STwerealsoadjustedbyfunctionalclassificationbasedonaCUBEVoyagerassignmentofnationalpassen-gercarandtrucktrafficontheFreightAnalysisFramework(FAF)networktoaccountforpoten-tialreassignmentduetocongestedspeedsonurbanfacilitiesfoundbyHERS-ST.
★|about tHe studY
The basis for establishing future transportation conditions under present trends investment scenarios was based on widely accepted models of transportation sufficiency, costs, conditions and performance, and buttressed by a literature review.
Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 35
Bridgeneedsandusercostsarebasedonesti-matesofstructurallydeficientorfunctionallyobsoletebridgesfoundbyananalysisofthe2010nationalbridgeinventoryusingtheNationalBridgeInvestmentAnalysisSystem(NBIAS),thelatestandmostcomprehensivebridgemodelusedbytheFHWA.Theusercostsforbridgedeficien-ciesarebasedonapplyingtofutureyearstherateofbridgerestrictionsperdeficient/obsoletebridgeinthe2010nationalbridgeinventorywiththeaveragebridgedetourbyfunctionalclassifi-cationfromtheNBIA’scostmatrix.
Transitneedsandusercostsarebasedoncur-rentdeficiencylevelsbyassettypefoundinaninitialrunoftheFTA’sTERM,projectedfor-wardinproportiontothedifferencebetweenfutureconstrainedandunconstrainedfuturetransitcapitalinvestmentneedsfoundbyTERM,andappliedtorevenuemilesbyassettypeforeachBEAregion.Theserviceinterrup-tionsperdeficientrevenuemile(foreachregionandassettype)arebasedonthe2010nationaltransitdatabase,andareappliedtodeficiencylevelsassociatedwithfuturetransitinvestmentshortfalls.
Theoverallneedsanddeficienciesfoundbythevariousmodelsused(HERS-ST,TERM,NBIAS,andCUBE)werecomparedagainstthetrendsreportedinfederalhighwaystatistics,theUSDOT2008ConditionsandPerformancereport,andthe2007TransportationPolicyandRevenueCommissionreportforconsistencyandreasonableness,allowingfordifferentdatayearsandsources.Theanalysispresentedinthisreportisintendedtodescribetheimplicationsofunmetneedsinnationaleconomicterms,andisnotofferedasasubstituteformorespecificnational,state,ormetropolitan-levelanalysisofneedsanddeficienciesforplanningandprogrammingpurposes.
36 American Society of Civil Engineers
1.StateofGoodRepairforTransitisdefinedbytheFederalTransitAdministrationas“Assetmeetscertainperformancelevelsatacertainpercentageoftime(e.g.,safetyincidents,servicereliability,andcurrentindustrystandards).”
2.FreeFlowConditionsarerelatedtohighwaycondi-tions,andisdefinedas:“Trafficflowsatorabovethepostedspeedlimitandallmotoristshavecompletemobil-itybetweenlanes.Theaveragespacingbetweenvehiclesisabout550feet(167m)or27carlengths.Motoristshaveahighlevelofphysicalandpsychologicalcomfort.Theeffectsofincidentsorpointbreakdownsareeasilyabsorbed.”—AmericanAssociationofStateofHighwayTransportationOfficialsGreenBook
3.AnalysisbyEDRGroupusingTREDIS(TransportationEconomicDevelopmentImpactSystem),andincludesbothon-the-jobtravelandpersonaltravel.
4.FederalHighwayAdministration,2007;andAmericanPublicTransportationAssociation,2009.
5.FederalHighwayAdministration,2007;andAmericanPublicTransportationAssociation,2009.
6.MinimumTolerableConditionsforhighwaysarecon-sideredasthenationaldefaultsprovidedbyU.S.DOTasdeficiencylevelsintheHERS-STsystem,eitherstructuralsufficiencyoralevelbetterthanfunctionalobsolescenceintheNBIASbridgemodel,andtransitsufficiencyrat-ingsbetterthan“marginal”intheFTATERMinvestmentmodel.
7.Inthisreport,“congestionmitigation”investmentsrefertoenhancementsofsurfacetransportationsystemthataddressexistingorexpectedfuturecongestion,andtherebysustainorimprovetheirperformance.Thiscanincludeanycombinationofchangesincapacity,operationsormodalfacilities.
8.Percentagesdonotincludebacklogoraccruingneedsonheavyrailservicesthatmayotherwisebeconsideredtransit
9.Reliabilityisthemeasureofthevariationoftraveltimebetweenanytwopoints.TheFederalHighwayAdminis-trationdefinesreliabilityas“consistencyordependabilityintraveltimes,asmeasuredfromday-to-dayand/oracrossdifferenttimesoftheday.”
10.Otherinstrumentsincludephotographicandphoto-copyingequipment,automaticenvironmentalcontrols,industrialprocessvariableinstruments,totalizingfluidmetersandcountingdevices,electricityandsignaltest-inginstruments,analyticallaboratory,instruments,watch,clock,andothermeasuringandcontrollingdevices,andlaboratoryapparatusandfurniture.
11.Includeshouseholdaudioandvideoequipment.
12.BasedondatafromtheEuropeanSurveyonWorkingConditionsandtheUSCensusBureau,andreportedinTheEconomist,April28,2011,theaveragedailyU.S.,com-mutetakesmoretimethancommutesintheNetherlands,Poland,Germany,Sweden,Spain,BritainandItaly,andisshorterthanHungaryandRomania.
13.SeeTransportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commis-sion,http://transportationfortomorrow.com/.ThestudywaspreparedtoaddressSection1909oftheSafeAccount-able,FlexibleandEfficientTransportationEquityAct—ALegacyforUsers(SAFETEA-LU).
14.PlanningFactor#8ofSAFETEA-LU(TheSafe,Accountable,Flexible,EfficientTransportationEquityAct:ALegacyforUsers)explicitlycallsforanemphasisonsystempreservation.Also,thefollowingtextfromtheVirginiastatewideplanispertinent:Atthenationallevel,AASHTOhasrecognizedtheimportanceofthisissuethroughactionssuchasadoptingtransportationassetmanagementasapriorityinitiative,formingtheAASHTOSubcommitteeonAssetManagementandpublishingtheTransportationAssetManagementGuidein2002.3Like-wise,theFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)hasformeditsOfficeofAsset
15.“Sufficient”interstatespeedsaredefinedspeedsthatwouldoccurifinterstatecapacitieswerebuilttominimumtolerableconditionsforpredictedtrafficlevels(asdefinedintheHERS-STsoftwaredefaults)exceptincaseswhere(1)wideningisdeemedinfeasibleintheHPMSsampleor(2)whenwideningwouldresultinmorethaneightlanesineachdirection.Inthesecases,interstatecongestioncostsareconsideredtobeeitherunavoidableorrepre-sentedasneedsaccruingonothermodes.Thisstudydoesnotadvocateaparticularmethodofresolvingdeficiencies,butmerelyassessesthecostandimpactofnotaddressingdeficienciesthatarenotcurrentlybeingaddressed.Forhighways,theminimaltolerableconditionisdefinedbytheFHWAwithacombinationofcapacityandsafetyfactors,includingvolumes,pavementconditions,curves,grades,andshoulderwidths.
16.Forexample,anurbanbottleneckonaninterstateinSt.LouisaffectsnotonlytrafficconditionsinSt.Louis,butwillaffectnationalandregionalroutingsofinter-citytruckandcartrafficthroughSt.Louisaswellastherout-ingbywhichcarsandtrucksenterandexitthecity.
17.ThesourceforthebacklogandaccruingtransitneedsisEDRGroup’ssynthesisofresultsfromtheTERMmodelappliedthe2010NationalTransitDatabase(NTD)withinthecontextofthe2007revenuecommissionanalysis.ThehighwaybacklogisbasedontheapplicationoftheHERS-STmodeltothe2010HPMSdatabase.
18.MinimumtolerablepavementconditionsandcongestedroadsaredefinedintermsofthedefaultvaluesoftheFHWAHERS-STeconomicrequirementssoftware.
19.DerivedfromneedsanalysisinUSDOTpubliclyavail-ablemodels:TransitEconomicRequirementModel,andfromHERS-ST,asruninMay,2011,appliedto2010HPMSandNTDdatabases.
★|endnotes
aBoUT eDR GRoUpEconomic Development Research Group, Inc. (EDR Group) is a consulting firm focusing specifically on applying state-of-the-art tools and techniques for evaluating economic development performance, impacts, and opportunities. The firm was started in 1996 by a core group of economists and plan-ners who are specialists in evaluating impacts of transportation infrastructure, services, and technol-ogy on economic development opportunities. Glen Weisbrod, president of EDR Group, was appointed by the National Academies to chair the TRB Committee on Transportation and Economic Development.
EDR Group provides both consulting advisory services and full-scale research projects for public and private agencies throughout North America as well as in Europe, Asia and Africa. The firm’s work focuses on three issues:
• Economic Impact Analysis
• Benefit / Cost Analysis
• Market / Strategy Analysis
The transportation work of EDR Group includes studies of the economic impacts of road, air, sea and railroad modes of travel, including economic benefits, development impacts and benefit/cost relationships. The firm’s work is organized into three areas: (1) general research on investment benefit and produc-tivity implications; (2) planning studies, including impact, opportunities, and benefit/cost assessment; and (3) evaluation, including cost-effectiveness implications.
Senior staff at EDR Group have conducted studies from coast to coast in both the U.S. and Canada, as well as studies in Japan, England, Scotland, Finland, Netherlands, India and South Africa. EDR Group is also nationally recognized for state-of-the-art analysis products, including the Transportation Economic Development Impact System (TREDIS).
Economic Development Research Group, Inc.2 Oliver Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02109www.edrgroup.com / [email protected]: 617-338-6775; fax: 617-338-1174
acKnoWLeDGmenTS For the opportunity to conduct this research, EDR Group wishes to thank Brian Pallasch, Jane Howell and Caroline Macheska of ASCE; and Allison Dickert, formerly of ASCE and ASCE’s Committee on America’s Infrastructure. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ron Horst, Doug Mead, and Jeffrey Werling of the University of Maryland Economics Department. The transportation analysis, which is the founda-tion of projected economic impact would not have been possible without Christopher Chang and Steve Sissell from the U.S. Department of Transportation, who provided inputs and data for the HERS and NBIAS models; Keith Gates of the Federal Transit Administration and Richard Laver of Booz Allen Hamilton, who provided results from the TERM model; David Hurst of Wilbur Smith Associates / CDM, for assistance in interpreting NBIAS; and Colby Brown of Citilabs, Inc., for assistance in acquiring and applying the FAF network to national traffic patterns.
World Headquarters1801 Alexander Bell DriveReston, Virginia 20191
Washington Office101 Constitution Avenue, NWSuite 375 EastWashington, DC 20001
202/789-7850202/789-7859 FAX
[email protected]/reportcard