• What to do about highways that split neighborhoods
• FHWA has not approved EV charging on Interstates
• A new half-trillion dollar passenger rail proposal
• Utah’s plan to replace fuel taxes
• Getting serious about Interstate reconstruction
• How smart was “Smart Columbus”?
• Dueling studies on high U.S. rail transit costs
• News notes
• Quotable quotes

What to Do About Highways That Split Neighborhoods

Many transportation experts are concerned by congressional and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) efforts to deem expressways that were built 50 years ago through low-income areas in cities as civil rights and environmental justice issues. The U.S. Department of Transportation has intervened in Texas DOT’s planned $7 billion widening of I-45 in Houston, and both the Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan and the House’s surface transportation reauthorization bill include funding for “reconnecting communities.”

Many years ago I read Robert Caro’s massive biography of Robert Moses, The Power Broker, and gained an appreciation for why “freeway revolts” broke out in the 1970s over planned urban Interstates, some of which ended up being cancelled. And despite being an advocate for better highways, I do have concerns over the massive property takes proposed by TxDOT for the I-45 project. And even the Transportation Research Board (TRB) special committee report on the future of the Interstates suggested that some urban segments could be candidates for removal, while also calling for adding some new Interstate corridors and selectively widening many long-distance routes.

What would be a sensible approach to existing urban freeways that divided low-income neighborhoods 50 years ago? Here are some points to keep in mind.

• The urban Interstates built through low-income areas were not part of the original plan, which was strictly inter-city. When the 1955 bill to create the Interstate program failed in Congress due to lack of support from urban members, the federal Bureau of Public Roads created a set of conceptual plans for urban Interstates, called the Yellow Book. Mayors and legislators were then keen on the prospect of 90% federally funded urban expressways, so the 1956 version of the Interstates plan passed almost unanimously.
• Low-income areas were generally selected because the land values were lower, limiting the cost of acquiring the right of way via eminent domain. Many of these areas were multi-ethnic immigrant communities; this was before much of the move to the suburbs from many such neighborhoods. There may well have been a racial and/or ethnic elements to the selection process in some cases, but the right-of-way (ROW) decisions appear to have been based mostly on engineering and fiscal considerations. Another factor was widespread support at that time for so-called “slum clearance” and redevelopment.
• Although we have no definitive data on who lived in bisected communities then, it seems likely that most of those whose lives were affected have either died or moved elsewhere. There is no way to re-create the former neighborhoods with their former residents. And recent in-depth articles on such former neighborhoods in New Orleans and Syracuse, for example, found many current residents concerned about gentrification if the aging freeways there were removed.

Any proposed remediation must consider both the residents of the affected area and the impact of replacing a limited-access expressway with local streets on overall metro area traffic flows. The Congress for a New Urbanism has touted a handful of “freeway removals” as big successes, claiming that former freeway traffic just melted away. Actually, nearly all the cases these groups cite are stubs—short portions of freeways that were planned but never built. Examples include the Park Freeway in Milwaukee and the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. They never carried much traffic, so replacement surface streets sufficed. But that does not mean tearing out a freeway that is an integral part of a metro area’s multi-modal (bus, car, and truck) highway system could be done without major impacts on traffic over the whole system. Any significant facility modification must be based on its current importance to the whole community, including its neighbors but also freight impacts in terms of ports, factories, etc. and impacts on interstate commerce.

In short, any proposed freeway removal requires careful analysis of actual neighborhood impacts as well as metro-area traffic impacts. And each situation is likely to be different from the others. I addressed this subject in Chapter 10 of my book, Rethinking America’s Highways. Here are some examples of solutions adopted in various large metro areas.

Decks and Lids: Removing aging elevated freeways and replacing them with below-grade freeways, covered over by decks or lids, is a solution adopted both overseas and in U.S. metro areas, including Dallas, Duluth, Phoenix, and Seattle. Currently under way in Denver is the reconstruction of I-70 between downtown and the Denver International Airport. The elevated section has been torn down and is being replaced by depressed lanes decked over with a park that will link the formerly divided communities on either side. The cost of this project is $1.2 billion.

Tunnels: Two major urban areas, Boston and Seattle, replaced aging elevated freeways with tunnels. Both projects maintained previous traffic flows on critically important links while opening up the surface area to new development. Both of these projects experienced large cost overruns, with Boston’s huge Big Dig ending up at $14.8 billion and the Seattle tunnel at $3.3 billion. Neither was carried out as a design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) public-private partnership (P3), unlike the Port of Miami tunnel which was delivered on-budget ($863 million) and nearly on-time, so tunnels should not be ruled out.

Widening Within the Existing Footprint: When the decision was made to add express toll lanes to the congested LBJ Freeway in Dallas, TxDOT faced a dilemma. During a previous widening, it had made a commitment to the city that this would be the last widening of the LBJ’s footprint. TxDOT’s RFP therefore suggested that the new lanes be added in a tunnel beneath the freeway. But the winning P3 proposal called for depressing the new lanes below the median and rebuilding the regular lanes cantilevered over the express lanes. The project cost was $2.6 billion, and it has been a big success. Note: it strikes me that something like this could be applied to the I-45 project in Houston, reducing or eliminating the need to expand its footprint and condemn 600 private homes, 486 units of public housing, 344 businesses, five churches, and two schools.

Rebuilding Better: In Miami, construction is about halfway complete on rebuilding a major interchange between north-south I-95, the east-west Dolphin expressway on the west and the I-395 causeway to Miami Beach on the east. The original 1960s construction cut a low-income minority community in half. Since this interchange is vital to numerous traffic flows, the key was to rebuild the interchange better. That is being done by replacing the ugly elevated east-west segment with a much higher signature bridge and an expansive park underneath. You can read a description and watch a video of this project. The project cost is $818 million.

Again, there are solutions that can reconnect communities and preserve regionwide mobility, but they are often costly. In some cases, these options may well be worth pursuing.

» return to top

FHWA Has Not Approved EV Charging at Interstate Rest Areas

In the May issue of this newsletter, I cheered an announcement from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that it was changing its interpretation of the 1960 law that prohibits commercial services at rest areas on non-tolled Interstate highways. FHWA’s announcement stated that under its Clean Energy and Connectivity (CEC) initiative, there would be two alternative paths for approving electric vehicle (EV) charging at such rest areas.

One path was for the EV charging to be “accommodated as a utility.” Under this approach, commercial activity restrictions would not apply unless the project qualified as an “automotive service station,” which is explicitly forbidden by the statute. The other path would consider a CEC project as an “alternative use of the right of way.” Under this approach, EV charging would be permitted as an “acceptable alternative use” of Interstate ROW if it complies with federal property management regulations.

However, a sharp-eyed former FHWA chief counsel emailed me to point out that I (along with the EV charging community) had been snookered. After reading the FHWA announcement more carefully than I had, he emailed the following:

“I think FHWA may have given with one hand and taken with the other. Based on the 4/27/21 memo, if using ‘accommodation as a utility,’ CEC projects are not subject to 23 USC 111 [the commercial activity ban] unless they are subject to 23 USC 111 (see first sentence on p. 3 of the memo). If using ‘alternative use of the ROW,’ CEC projects must comply with 23 US 111. If only Truth in Advertising applied to federal guidance!”

Two days later, my informant emailed again, to report “I did confirm with FHWA counsel that the ROW memo does not do anything re: 23 USC 111. No real commercialization is still the law of the land.”

Needless to say, this news sped through the electric vehicle charging community and seems to have led to the formation of an ad-hoc coalition favoring not just EV charging but full repeal of the 1960 ban on commercial services at Interstate rest areas. This may sound surprising, but there is a clear rationale for taking the broader perspective. For example, I am told that a leading EV charging provider opposes locating chargers at current rest areas—even if this were legal—because they are seen by many travelers as dangerous places at night, with no security and no other services, unlike turnpike service plazas. So legalizing only electric vehicle charging is unlikely to draw in private providers and would risk potential federal EV charging funds being wasted on chargers that would get little use.

The “INVEST in America” surface transportation reauthorization bill that recently passed the House does include (in Section 1211) repeal of the commercial services ban as it applies to EV charging, “fringe and corridor” parking facilities, and park & ride lots—but not any other commercial services such as restaurants and other shopping. So there is still a lot of work for the new coalition to do.

» return to top

A New High-Speed Rail Proposal That Dwarfs California’s

If you live in the Northeast, how would you like a train going 200 miles per hour that would get you from Boston to New York in a bit over 90 minutes? It would have tunnels under part of Long Island and under Long Island Sound. And best of all, it would be part of a region-wide passenger rail network spanning New England. And all for $105 billion, just a bit more than the likely $98 billion cost of California’s still unfunded Los Angeles-to-San Francisco high-speed rail (HSR) project. If this sounds too good to be true, read on.

The project is called the North Atlantic Rail (NAR) project and it is being promoted in Congress by Rep. Annie Kuster (D-NH) and Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH). Several weeks ago I was contacted by Michael Graham of InsideSources.com and invited to tape a podcast about this project. To to be able to comment intelligently, I spent most of a day reviewing the text and maps on the North Atlantic Rail website and also collecting recent unit cost data on various forms of passenger rail. That’s because the NAR proposal includes three forms of passenger rail: a new main high-speed New York-to-Boston corridor with those tunnels (Penn Station-Jamaica-Ronkonkoma-New Haven-Hartford-Providence-Boston); a set of Amtrak upgrades called a high performance inter-city network; and some new regional rail lines.

To get a ballpark estimate of the cost of this plan, I used the North Atlantic Rail “Early Action Projects” map, which includes the high-speed rail route, the Amtrak upgrades, and the earliest regional links to the Amtrak line—New Haven-Pittsfield, Springfield-Brattleboro, and Boston-Beverly). For the high-speed rail mainline, I used the cost per mile estimated in an Amtrak study several years ago: $1.3 billion per mile, for all-new right of way (as in the NAR plan). For the upgraded Amtrak lines, I drew on average unit costs from the Obama-era grants for such projects: $3 million per mile. And since the type of passenger rail intended for the initial regional rail projects was not specified, I used Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data for recent light rail lines at $105 million per mile. So here is how the early action projects penciled out:

That’s a bit more than NAR’s estimate of $105 billion. And this is before adjusting these costs for typical rail megaproject cost overruns. In his well-known database of 258 global highway and rail megaprojects, Bent Flyvbjerg (Oxford University) and colleagues found that the average passenger rail project cost over-run was 45%. So if we apply this factor to the total I estimated above, the likely actual cost is more like $538 billion. That’s the cost, which presumably would come from federal taxpayers since there is no prospect of such a rail project generating revenues sufficient to cover debt service on construction bonds. So what are the offsetting benefits?

Faster travel times are always put forth for fast rail projects, but people can already fly from Boston-to-New York in less than an hour and a half via airlines whose airports and air traffic control system are almost entirely supported by user taxes, not by general taxpayers. (Rail proponents typically argue including time spent in airport security and at the airport would make rail’s times somewhat more competitive.) High-speed rail is also touted as a much greener mode than car, bus, or airline but those findings depend a great deal on how many passenger miles each mode carrier and their average load factors. In terms of CO2 emissions, a much cited 2010 study of the carbon footprint of the California high-speed rail project by Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath of UC Berkeley estimated that the carbon emissions from the project’s construction phase (all that concrete and steel) would take 71 years to be offset by potential savings from trips shifted from highways and air travel. Moreover, studies like that assumed that petroleum-fuel cars would continue in operation for the next 70 years, when the likely reality is that electric vehicles could already make up half or more of the U.S. vehicle fleet by 2050.

One other argument high-speed rail proponents are fond of is that passenger rail is discriminated against in federal subsidies. The numbers used to support this point to highway grants of up to 90% of some project costs and urban transit grants of up to 50% of project costs—all compared to the small annual sums Amtrak gets from the federal till. What is ignored in this comparison is that federal highway user tax revenue (until recent annual general-fund bailouts of the Highway Trust Fund) covered slightly more than federal highway spending. And, as noted above, commercial aviation gets almost zero federal subsidies. But Amtrak passengers pay no federal ticket tax like airline passengers do, and no federal fuel taxes like motorists and truckers pay. In fact, a recent update of a U.S. DOT study estimating the actual federal subsidy by mode (federal spending minus the mode’s user taxes) found the following:

These numbers show the nonsensical nature of periodic calls for creation of a federal Passenger Rail Trust Fund, to pay for expanded Amtrak and high-speed rail projects. What some rail supporters want is what transit got in 1982: a guaranteed percentage each year of federal highway user tax revenues. There is already a huge loss of public trust in the Highway Trust Fund, since it no longer adheres to the users-pay/users-benefit principle. Extracting even more highway user tax revenue for non-highway purposes would take these diversions to a new level, leaving even less funding for highway maintenance and repair.

Note: This information about the cost of the rail proposal in this section is incorrect. Please see an update and correction here.

» return to top

Assessing Utah’s Plan to Replace Gas Taxes
By Baruch Feigenbaum

Oregon was the first state to begin studying mileage based user fees (MBUFs) in 2001. Ten years later, the state began testing the technology and five years after that it implemented a permanent program open to 5,000 drivers. Over the last 10 years, six other states and two multi-state coalitions began testing mileage based user fees. Over the last five years Utah began studying mileage-based user fees and it recently implemented an MBUF for electric vehicles only. But last month, Utah unveiled the first proposal in the country that would require all automobile drivers to pay MBUFs by 2031. Unfortunately, being first is not always best, and Utah could learn a lot from Oregon.

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has long been one of the premier state transportation departments, winning awards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and placing in the top 20 in Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report every year. The state has a culture of good governance where political leaders engage in consensus building instead of confrontation. But that does not mean Utah’s approach to mileage-based user fees is best or its conversion will be easy.

Due to the gas tax’s declining purchasing power, Utah is expecting to fall behind on highway construction and maintenance. The state’s population has grown almost 20% over the past decade and it needs more infrastructure to accommodate that growth. But while the costs to build and maintain roads grow at 7% per year, gas tax revenue has grown at 1% per year. Over the next 30 years, UDOT projects that gas tax revenue will cover only 85% of the projects in Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan. 

UDOT examined two MBUF scenarios. Scenario A, which has a very aggressive timeline and uses manual odometer readings to report miles driven—likely when vehicle registration is renewed. Utah-registered vehicles with a fuel-efficiency rating over 20 miles per gallon (mpg) would pay the fee starting in 2024. Less fuel-efficient vehicles would be enrolled over the following seven years.

Scenario B, which uses the same technology, has a less aggressive timeline. In 2024, vehicles with fuel efficiency ratings over 30 miles per gallon would pay the mileage fee, with less fuel-efficient vehicles added in two-year increments. Scenario B also offers real-time technology-based features such as trip planning and monthly payment options as opposed to paying one large fee at vehicle registration renewal.

While Scenario A brings in $182 million more, Scenario B’s slower rollout is likely to improve public opinion of MBUFs. Further, paying a lump sum and annual registration fee at the same time could create equity problems. Out-of-state drivers and commercial vehicles would continue paying a gas tax.

I’m glad to see Utah adopting such an aggressive mileage-based user fees timeline. But I have a few concerns about the state’s approach.

First, it is critically important that UDOT refund all of the state gas tax to those paying MBUFs. Fears of double taxation are one of the primary obstacles to public support for mileage-based user fees. When a legislator asked how the state would ensure that people charged by the mile don’t also pay a gas tax, UDOT said it was unsure and that it would be up to the legislature to solve. One approach is to give fuel tax credits to participants, but it is unclear how much those tax credits might provide. Right now, it sounds as if only some of the gas tax revenue would be refunded by Utah. The transition to a MBUF system is intended to replace gas taxes, not supplement them.  If motorists perceive the change as a revenue grab, public support will plummet.

Second, the Utah system is one-size-fits-all. It is never ideal to force taxpayers to make a change while giving them only one option. The proposal does not offer a choice of technology. In contrast, Oregon offers drivers the choice of using an odometer reading, a GPS mileage based system without time of day features, and a GPS-mileage based system with time of day features.

The Utah system features one payment option, an annual payment. The Oregon system features pay as you go, post-pay, and quarterly payment options. It’s unclear who will operate the Utah system, but it could be the state. This would be a mistake, since pilot project participants in other states indicate that they are more likely to trust the private sector than the government with their personal information. Oregon has several private operators, including Azuga and Emovis, which handles the back office services of the state-run option as well.

In addition, the gold standard mileage-based user fee is a location-based GPS system that monitors the vehicle’s movement in real time. But given understandable privacy concerns drivers may have with the government potentially knowing their location, having a simple odometer reading is important for customers who do not feel comfortable with a GPS-based system. In Oregon, these customers are charged a slightly higher mileage rate. But for Utah not to offer a location-based system is stunning because a location-based GPS system is what allows some of the largest benefits of MBUFs. The system can charge variable rates to manage congestion, much as tolls do on over 60 priced express lanes around the country, including on I-15 in Utah. Current technology cannot offer this pricing option outside of freeways. The rate could also vary based on type of roadway, with Interstates and primary arterials having higher rates and local streets having the lowest rates. Currently, drivers pay the same gas tax regardless of how much they use each type of roadway.

Such varying rates help solve policy problems. Residents in rural areas pay less because, while they may travel further to work, they travel on roads that are less congested and less expensive to maintain. Lower-income residents typically travel in older less fuel-efficient vehicles, paying a higher share of gas taxes. Mileage-based user fees would reduce what they pay and allow for vouchers based on the number of miles driven where needed.

Finally, there is no mention of heavy-duty vehicles. The Utah plan is right to leave them towards the end, but heavy-duty vehicles need to start paying by the mile as well. Electric trucks are on the horizon, and given that trucks wear out roads much faster than cars, there is no reason that they should get a free pass.

» return to top

Getting Serious About Interstate Reconstruction

A number of environmentally-focused organizations, including Transportation for America, have emphasized America’s huge backlog of deferred transportation maintenance, arguing that a key element of any new infrastructure plan (and the pending reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program) should be a commitment to “fix it first,” i.e., to focus on rebuilding the infrastructure that already exists (though they somehow make an exception for transit and high-speed rail). And President Joe Biden’s infrastructure slogan is “build back better.”

You would think, therefore, that the aging of America’s most important public-sector surface transportation infrastructure—the Interstate Highway System—would be at or near the head of the line for being built back better. Yet the only explicit mention of the aging Interstates is the proposal discussed above to potentially remove portions of urban Interstates. Congress is seriously at fault on this, for ignoring the major study of the Interstate system’s future that it asked for in the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, and which the Transportation Research Board delivered in December 2018. I’m sure members of Congress were shocked at the report’s estimate of the cost of rebuilding and modernizing the Interstates: about $1 trillion over the next two decades. Yet on an annual basis, that seems like small change in this age of multi-trillion-dollar new-spending proposals.

Into the breach comes transportation research nonprofit TRIP with a very timely report: “America’s Interstate Highway System at 65.” The executive summary alone should be required reading for every member of Congress and every staff member in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. This 48,482-mile system includes 2.6% of all highway lane-miles but handles 26% of vehicle miles of travel. Last month, June, was the 65th anniversary of President Dwight Eisenhower signing the legislation that created dedicated highway user taxes and the federal Highway Trust Fund to build the system on a users-pay/users-benefit system.

The TRIP report updates some of the data found in the 2018 TRB study. For example, it provides tables showing which states have what fractions of Interstates in poor condition. No, they are not “crumbling,” but Hawaii leads the states with 23% of its Interstates in “poor” condition and 11 more with 5 to 9% in poor condition. Interstate bridges in poor or structurally deficient conditions are worst in West Virginia (13%) and Rhode Island (12%), and another eight states (including Michigan, Massachusetts, and New York) have between 5% and 8% of their Interstate bridges in that dismal shape. Eighteen states have between 50% and 87% of their urban Interstates defined as “congested,” with California leading the pack at 87% of its urban Interstate miles. Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report examines similar bridge, pavement, and traffic congestion data and ranks states on their performance and cost-effectiveness. 

TRIP also reports that the most recent U.S. DOT Conditions and Performance Report (released in 2019 but based on 2014 data) found that the backlog of Interstate improvements that can pass DOT’s benefit/cost test totaled $123 billion, which included $54 billion for pavement conditions, $37 billion for bridges, and $33 billion for needed lane additions. But DOT’s methodology has never considered a major need identified by the TRB special committee report: to replace aging sub-pavement and rebuild a large fraction of the overall system. That’s why the TRB report’s estimate of needed investment reached the $1 trillion level. And the TRB report did not include an estimate of redesigning and rebuilding the 50 to 100 bottleneck intersections across the country, nearly all of which are on urban Interstates. A recent report by ARTBA’s chief economist Alison Premo Black estimated that these bottlenecks cost trucking companies $42 billion worth of delays in 2019.

In my recent Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, I suggested that if Congress won’t include major Interstate reconstruction and modernization projects, in either a one-time infrastructure bill or the coming surface transportation reauthorization bill, then the least it could do is give states the tools to start doing the job themselves.

A growing number of states are doing studies on toll-financing the reconstruction and modernization of their Interstates, yet the House reauthorization bill (the Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act, or the INVEST in America Act) would abolish the one federal program devoted to this process, the Interstate Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP). It has never been used due to a built-in flaw. Besides being open to only three states, it would allow each to rebuild only one Interstate using tolls. As we saw when North Carolina tried to do this for its aging I-95, those who use that highway protested mightily against being the only state where residents were being singled out to pay tolls to finance Insterstate reconstruction. Instead of abolishing ISRRPP, it should be liberalized: opened to all 50 states and to any participating state setting forth a phased program to toll-finance the rebuilding and modernizing all its Interstates. (Note: Reason Foundation has drafted legislative language to implement this alternative, available on request.)

Thanks to TRIP for reminding us of the need to invest in our aging Interstates, and shame on Congress and U.S. DOT for ignoring this critically important need.

» return to top

Smart Columbus and the Limits of Smart Cities
By Marc Scribner

May 2021 marked the end of a five-year, federally funded Smart City Challenge experiment in Columbus, Ohio. The final report on the Smart Columbus Demonstration Program was released in June, and documents the challenges faced by the city to integrate new technologies and practices in a field dominated by marketing hype. Taken together, the results of the Smart City Challenge are very modest and suggest a much more cautious and selective approach is needed to harness new urban transportation technologies and practices in a way that adds value to communities.

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation created the Smart City Challenge, which asked mid-sized cities to propose “ideas for an integrated, first-of-its-kind smart transportation system that would use data, applications, and technology to help people and goods move more quickly, cheaply, and efficiently.” The Department held out $40 million to the winning city. After 78 cities applied, DOT narrowed that down to seven finalists, with Columbus being announced the winner in June 2016 and entering into a formal agreement with DOT in August of that year.

Columbus had initially proposed 15 projects. However, after one year, the Smart Columbus Program was reorganized, and the number of projects was cut to nine. In 2019, that fell to eight, as Truck Platooning was removed, with managers citing technological limitations and complications with the private partner. The final eight projects evaluated during the demonstration program were:

• Smart Columbus Operating System, a data exchange and analytics platform;
• Connected Vehicle Environment, made up of more than 1,000 vehicles and 85 enabled intersections;
• Multimodal Trip Planning Application, a smartphone app called Pivot that centralized payment and booking over multiple modes, including ride-hailing and scooter-sharing;
• Mobility Assistance for People with Cognitive Disabilities, a smartphone app called WayFinder by AbleLink for the elderly and people with cognitive disabilities to help them navigate the city’s bus transit system;
• Prenatal Trip Assistance, a program for pregnant women to schedule transportation to medical appointments;
• Smart Mobility Hubs, six locations with interactive kiosks and space for multimodal transportation staging;
• Event Parking Management, improvements to the city’s ParkColumbus app allowing for better parking facility reservation integration and improved routing during large events; and
• Connected Electric Autonomous Vehicles, two mixed-traffic corridor demonstrations of low-speed automated shuttles.

The Smart Columbus Operating System was the most expensive project, costing $15.9 million. Smart Columbus managers were able to fold existing and new data into this new platform, increasing access for various participating agencies as well as open more data for independent analysis. The city plans to continue maintaining the platform, at least for the near-term, with surveys finding more than 70% of users were satisfied with the Smart Columbus Operating System.

Other projects showed less promising results. The Connected Vehicle Environment cost $11.3 million. While more than 1,000 vehicles participated, only approximately one-third of those were private vehicles. The system relied on an early connected vehicle protocol known as Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC), which is likely to be phased out of America’s airwaves by the Federal Communications Commission. Of the transit, freight, public safety, and private vehicle participants, 40% would not recommend the Connected Vehicle Environment.

The city spent $2.3 million developing the Pivot multimodal trip planning smartphone app. It was publicly deployed in December 2020 during the pandemic. By the end of March 2021, only 1,103 people had downloaded it to book 447 trips—or a cost of more than $2,000 per download or $5,000 per reserved trip. The city plans to maintain this app, which should improve cost-per-download and cost-per-trip metrics over time, but it remains to be seen what problem Pivot really solves. Smartphones themselves, by allowing users to operate multiple reservation apps and payment systems, already offer a centralized platform that Pivot is designed to create.

The Mobility Assistance for People with Cognitive Disabilities cost $494,000. It was used by just 31 travelers (along with 27 caregivers) to complete 82 trips over a full year, at an annualized per traveler cost of nearly $16,000 or $6,000 per trip. The few participants were generally satisfied, but Smart Columbus managers have not yet decided whether to or how to maintain a similar project into the future.

The city spent $1.3 million on Prenatal Trip Assistance. This project saw higher utilization than others, with 143 participants making 1,158 trips over 1.5 years. Still, this amounted to a $9,000 cost per participant or $1,100 per trip. Participants were satisfied with the project, but evaluators were unable to detect any positive health outcomes.

The $1.3 million spent on six Smart Mobility Hubs managed to facilitate just 1,084 bike-share trips during eight months, at a cost of $1,200 per bike trip. The $1.3 million spent on upgrading the ParkColumbus app may break even in the future if it generates greater parking net income for the city. One of the two Connected Electric Autonomous Vehicle deployment demonstrations was cut short after just two weeks when a passenger was injured. But even during operation, the shuttles were frequently stopped or slowed by precipitation, car exhaust during cold months, and sun glare. The service was relaunched in July 2020 as a food panty delivery service during the pandemic, which distributed 129,528 meals during its eight months of operation.

Taken together, the results of the Smart Columbus Demonstration Program are underwhelming. The benefits that did materialize were primarily in the form of lessons learned. Mobility for actual residents was barely impacted at all. While new transportation technologies offer a great deal of promise to improve the safety and efficiency of America’s transportation networks, most of these technologies are not ripe for deployment. Rather than pursue grandiose visions of smart cities, policymakers ought to focus on core responsibilities such as infrastructure state of good repair and access to proven transportation options. These conventional actions may not garner as much buzz, but they are much more likely to improve the lives of residents.

» return to top

Assessing Dueling Studies on the High Costs of U.S. Rail Transit Projects
By Baruch Feigenbaum

One of the challenges of building new infrastructure in the U.S. is very high construction costs. This is certainly a problem for roadways but the problem is especially bad for rail transit lines.

Yet whether those high costs are all that different from the costs of building similar projects across the rest of the world is up for debate. Two different think tanks—the Eno Center for Transportation and the Marron Institute at New York University—have compiled data on rail transit projects and reached two different conclusions. According to Eno, except for tunneling, U.S. rail projects are largely in line with or less costly than those around the world. According to the Marron Institute, U.S. rail projects are twice as expensive as rail projects around the world. Who is correct? The answer lies in which projects are included.

The Eno database includes 171 projects. Countries surveyed are limited to the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. According to Eno, U.S. costs average $162 million per kilometer compared to $138 million per kilometer for non-U.S. projects.

The Marron Transit Cost database includes 577 projects. Countries on all six of the inhabited continents are included. Average worldwide rail transit construction costs are below $300 million a kilometer, while in the U.S. they are more than $500 million a kilometer.

Eno limited its findings to the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia because of comparable political culture, government structures, and infrastructure development. Certainly, it is challenging to compare the U.S. to the Philippines or Uzbekistan, but a better comparison would be developed countries and developing countries. Eno managed to leave out many developed Asian countries including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that manage to build rail projects for far less than the worldwide average.

Eno includes 24 U.S. projects, compared with Marron’s 13 US projects. Eno includes more light rail projects, which are likely to be less costly to build than heavy rail projects. However, most of these projects were begun in the 1990s and 2000s. While some of these projects took more than 10 years to complete, important work including land acquisition and pre-engineering was completed before the project began. As transportation construction costs have exceeded inflation for the past 17 years, including projects from these earlier decades is problematic.

The majority of projects in the Eno database are light rail, and the majority of new U.S. rail lines are light rail.  The average cost of a light rail project receiving a Federal Transit Administration capital investment grant (CIG) in 2021 is more than twice the cost of a light rail project in Eno’s database. By one metric, between 1980 and 2020 the costs of light rail projects have increased by 700%. By including so many older projects, the Eno database gives the impression that light rail projects constructed today will be far cheaper than their actual cost.

Eno’s report has several takeaways. One Eno takeaway that I found curious is that light rail is not always cheaper than heavy rail. The rule of thumb has been that light rail is 25% less expensive per mile to build than heavy rail. In Eno’s database, light rail seems more expensive because several of the lines have heavy-rail-like characteristics, such as a separated right-of-way (Los Angeles Green Line). Additionally, streetcars, which are considered light rail in the National Transit Database, are not included in Eno’s database.

Both reports agree that the U.S. pays a premium for tunneled projects. According to Eno, projects that are more than 80% below ground cost $756 million per mile, which is more than three times the $215 million for non-U.S. projects. Marron found that five New York City heavy rail projects averaged $3.6 billion per mile, while eight other U.S. heavy rail projects averaged $872 million per mile.

While Marron’s Transit Costs database is more up-to-date and therefore more useful for examining proposed projects, it has two major weaknesses. It includes fewer U.S. projects and thus has a smaller sample size for U.S. interests. I think the more up-to-date, smaller sample size is preferable to a larger sample size that includes older projects with costs not relevant to today’s projects. But neither option is ideal. Additionally, the database does not distinguish between heavy rail and light rail. The two types of rail are different and separating projects out by type would make apples to apples comparisons easier.

The databases have other strengths and weaknesses. The Eno approach is helpful for researchers analyzing past projects. It can answer questions such as why did it cost more to build a light rail line in Dallas than Houston. By including a large number of U.S. projects it might also spotlight some case studies. But since Marron’s includes more recent projects and many more countries, I am more intrigued its database. And I’m hoping transportation researchers can start better answering the next question: how do we reduce these project costs? There are many reasons for the high costs: land acquisition costs, environmental reviews, special-interest delay tactics, public employee unions and special work rules, etc. How much does each of the factors add to the costs in the United States? And how have other countries better kept these costs in line?

Reducing rail transit construction costs is important for the few places in the U.S., such as New York City, in which new rail lines make sense. For everywhere else, the escalating costs of rail projects are one more reason to invest in bus rapid transit (BRT) instead. Mass transit agencies can build BRT for one-third to one-ninth of the cost of light rail lines. These bus lines have the same short headways, premium features, and land-use benefits as light-rail. BRT is the better, more cost-effective transit choice for most U.S. regions. 

» return to top

News Notes

Georgia Launches First Revenue-Risk P3 Projects
Georgia DOT recently announced that the next links in its expanding express toll lanes (ETL) network will be procured as a toll-financed design-build-finance-operate-maintain public-private partnership (P3) project. This procurement model is now planned for three ETL projects on I-285, known locally as the Perimeter (around central Atlanta): I-285 Eastside, I-285 Top End, and I-285 Westside. The shift also include changing the plan from one ETL each way to two, and using barrier separation rather than pavement striping. The projects will be procured and managed jointly by GDOT and the State Road & Tollway Authority (SRTA).

Troubled Italy Toll Road Concession Gets New Owners
A consortium of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners, Macquarie Asset Management, and state-owned CDP Equity (a sovereign wealth fund) are buying 88.06% of Autostrade per l’Italia, for $10.9 billion. Autostrade is Italy’s largest P3 toll road company but suffered public and political opprobrium after the tragic 2018 collapse of a major bridge on its toll road in Genoa (caused by failures in design, inspection, and government oversight). CDP will own 51% of the joint venture, with Blackstone and Macquarie each holding 24.5%. Autostrade’s credit rating is expected to be improved following the sale.

MPO Blocks Maryland Express Toll Lanes Project
The Washington (DC) Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board voted last month not to include Maryland’s huge express toll lanes project in its long-range transportation plan, specifically the upcoming air quality analysis of that plan. A project must be part of such a plan in order to get a federal Record of Decision, allowing it to proceed. This may be a temporary setback, and hearings are being held by the Maryland legislature regarding the project’s future. The Maryland project has strong support on the Virginia side of the Potomac, partly because it includes replacement of the bottleneck American Legion Bridge as well as eventually completing the express toll lanes network on the Maryland portion of the I-495 Beltway.

Express Toll Lanes Moving Forward in Sacramento
Officials in Sacramento and Yolo County have received an $86 million federal grant to begin planning and design of the region’s first express toll lanes, to be added to congested I-80, the only major highway between state capitol Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. ETLs have been under consideration by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments for several years. The project would add one priced lane each way on 17 miles of I-80.

Connecticut Enacts Truck Weight-Distance Charge
After years of studies of potential toll-financed reconstruction of its major highways, without gaining legislative approval, the Connecticut Legislature approved a heavy-trucks Highway User Fee, to begin in January 2023. Not a toll, the new tax would be based on vehicle gross weight and miles driven. Truck operators are supposed to apply to the state for a permit and report their annual mileage to state tax officials. There is both opposition and skepticism within the trucking industry over the plan’s workability and projected revenues. Like Rhode Island’s truck-only tolls, the Connecticut truck fee will likely face trucking industry litigation.

New Border Toll Road for San Diego
Caltrans, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and Mexican government officials signed an agreement on June 28 for development of a new port of entry linked to a new four-lane toll road (SR 11) to connect the entry port to the state highway system. It will be California’s first new toll road since the SR 125 project 15 years ago, also in San Diego County.

Boring Company Tunnels Open in Las Vegas
Operations began the second week of June on the 1.5 mile tunnel loop developed and operated by the Boring Company beneath the Las Vegas Convention Center. The tunnel’s capacity is stated as 4,400 vehicles per hour at a speed of 35 mph. Users travel in Tesla electric cars among the three stations in the sprawling convention center. The company says the cost of building the loop was $48.7 million. It hopes to expand the tunnel to hotels and casinos on the Strip and to the nearby McCarran International Airport.

Kansas Express Toll Lanes Approved
Both the Kansas Turnpike and the State Finance Council gave unanimous approval to the Overland Park City Council’s requested project to add express toll lanes to congested U.S. 69.  The project will add one ETL each way between 103rd and 151st Streets. Once the new lanes are operational several years from now, Kansas will be the 12th state with ETLs in operation.

Dedicated Truck Lanes Planned for New Toll Bridge
The 5-mile, $4.5 billion Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit, MI and Windsor, ON will include a number of advanced features, including dedicated truck lanes, traveler information systems, and an on-site weather monitoring station, project officials told the Detroit Free Press last month. The project is under construction with completion scheduled for late 2024.

Texas Central Signs $16 Billion Construction Contract
The privately financed start-up railroad company aiming to build a high-speed passenger rail system linking Houston and Dallas, last month announced that it has signed a $16 billion contact with Webuild, the Italian construction company that recently acquired U.S. company Lane Construction. No financing plan has been disclosed by Texas Central, which told ENR that it is “wholly focused on securing permanent funding, followed by the start of physical construction.”

Brightline West Announces, then Delays, New Bond Offerings
Two weeks after the company that plans to build a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Victorville, CA applied for $200 million in tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs) from the state of California, the company withdrew the request, saying it would wait until 2022; it said the same thing to the agency in Nevada that can authorize PABs. Earlier that month, California Treasurer Fiona Ma sent a letter to leaders of the Senate Commerce and House Transportation & Infrastructure committees urging federal policy changes that would enable private passenger rail companies to better compete with public agencies. Included was easier access to Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) loans.

Bestpass Expands to Alabama
The company that provides consolidated toll management services for trucking fleets, Bestpass, announced in June that its toll coverage now extends to Alabama. Toll roads and bridges there have been developed and are operated by American Roads, using the 6C protocol. Bestpass works with each of the several electronic tolling protocols around the country and offers a 48-state transponder that is compatible with all the protocols.

Florida Cabinet Approves Extension of MDX Toll Road
A 14-mile north-south extension of the east-west Dolphin Expressway to serve the Kendall area of Miami-Dade County received the Cabinet’s approval, in a 3-1 vote, to proceed with the next step in developing the project, which is bitterly opposed by environmentalists. Opponents claim the expressway would be built “in the Everglades,” rather than just a few hundred feet beyond the county’s existing Urban Growth Boundary. The Cabinet rejected a 2020 administrative law judge’s ruling against the project.

Spain Announces Plan to Toll All Major Highways
In exchange for EU recovery funds, the Spanish government has agreed to turn all government-managed highways into toll roads by 2024, according to a May 5th report in Catalan News. The aim is to ensure that users themselves pay for the highways they drive on. This is reportedly one of the conditions the EU is demanding from member states in exchange for the European recovery funds. Spain has a huge highway network, including some 12,000 km of high-capacity roads. A number of those highways are already toll roads, some of them operating under long-term P3 concessions.

Elaine Chao Joins the Board of Start-up Truck Automation Company
Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao has joined the board of Embark, a developer of software for automated trucks. Embark Trucks is one of the latest companies to go public via a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), raising $5.2 billion. Rather than developing automated trucks itself, Embark’s business plan calls for developing and selling automation software to existing original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of trucks.

Highways Predominate in $905 Million INFRA Grants
At the end of June, U.S. DOT announced the recipients of 24 grants under its INFRA program, totaling $905 million. Of the projects listed in the DOT’s announcement, 15 were highway or bridge projects, six were for port projects, two for railroads, and one for ITS (traffic signal improvements). Of the five largest grants, four were for improvements to Interstate highways, ranging from $50 million to $86 million.

Revising the Federal Highway Grants Formula
Since 2005, despite large changes in population and vehicle miles of travel (VMT), the congressional formula for dividing highway user tax revenue among the states has been unchanged. This is short-changing fast-growing states such as Arizona, Florida, and Texas. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have introduced the Highway Modernization Formula Act to develop a new, data-based formula for highways and bridges. Since this is essentially a zero-sum game, it’s likely that losing states would outnumber winning states.

Adaptive Cruise Control May Pose Risks
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety several months ago released the results of a study which found that drivers using adaptive cruise control (ACC) were more likely to set their desired speed above the speed limit due to their perception that ACC would protect them from collisions. But that increased speed, the researchers found, resulted in a 10% higher risk of a fatal crash than manual drivers experience. The study was small, involving only 40 ACC drivers in the Boston area, and the crash-risk increase was estimated based on statistical analysis.

» return to top

Quotable Quotes

“Any car manufacturer who decides today that their future depends on car sharing or cars-on-demand, and who begins to wind down their sales, service and parts business to meet this future will not be around in ten years. I began writing The Dispatcher almost eight years ago with the message that driverless vehicles would not be the future of the car industry by 2020. As we have seen, it wasn’t then and won’t be for a very long time. I’m saying now that the future of the car industry will not be based on delivering mobility to people living in big cities. It will be based on delivering vehicles that people will drive or be driven in, just like they are today, until people can figure out a way of moving by the force of their own will rather than by an external force.”
—Michael L. Sena, “The Future of Mobility Is Slowly Coming Into Focus,” The Dispatcher, June 2021

“Today, state and local leaders are incentivized to ignore maintenance (which is typically not visible to the public), so they can spend those funds elsewhere. Yet poor maintenance practices damage the long-term quality of infrastructure and result in a maintenance backlog that must be met by future taxpayers. Not surprisingly, delaying maintenance also markedly increases overall life-cycle costs. As Larry Summers neatly summarized: ‘Prevention is cheaper than cure. Waiting for the road or bridge to collapse is much more expensive than buttressing the bridge before it collapses.’ In addition, estimates show that investing in maintenance pays off considerably with a 25 to 40 percent economic rate of return, potentially more in some cases.”
—D.J. Gribbin, “On Paving the Way for Funding and Financing Infrastructure Investments,” Testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Jan. 29, 2020

“This [millennial] demographic has long resisted many of the traditional generational norms, things like home ownership. But the pandemic has shocked this generation and accelerated their embrace of these types of activities. There continues to be a net migration out of urban areas largely driven by the millennial segment.”
—Hal Lawton, in Cathy Morrow Roberson, “Rockin’ the Suburbs,” The Journal of Commerce, June 21, 2021

“Since Amtrak’s ‘Connects Us’ map (published yesterday in response to Biden’s plan) includes a proposed route from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, I looked up bus and airline schedules. As near as I can tell, there are several dozen buses a day run by four different companies and several dozen planes a day run by eight different airlines between the two cities. Bus fares start at $20 and plane fares start at $20—not a misprint. The fastest buses take 5 hours 10 minutes. Planes take 70 to 80 minutes. When Amtrak last ran trains on that route, they took 6 hours 50 minutes. Amtrak simply won’t be able to compete. If Amtrak can’t compete on that route, how will it compete anywhere else? The bus industry needs to do a better job of letting people know that buses are often faster, with lower fares, and emit less than half as many grams of CO2 per passenger mile as trains.”
—Randal O’Toole, email to transportation colleagues, April 1, 2021

» return to top

The post Surface Transportation News: Highways Splitting Neighborhoods, Replacing Fuel Taxes, a High-Speed Rail Proposal and More appeared first on Reason Foundation.

• Annual Highway Report on state highways’ performance
• Replacing obsolete Interstate bridges
• How to establish the safety of automated vehicles
• Trucks and mileage-based user fees
• New approaches to HOT lane occupancy enforcement
• Toll agency politicized in Houston
• Some concerns about electric vehicles
• News Notes
• Quotable Quote

Annual Highway Report Analyzes State Highway Systems’ Performance
By Baruch Feigenbaum

Reason Foundation recently released its 25th Annual Highway Report, a yearly evaluation of the conditions and cost-effectiveness of state highway systems. The report uses data reported by states to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as a condition of receiving their federal highway funding. The FHWA data are supplemented with bridge data from Better Bridges magazine and congestion data from INRIX. The report compares each state’s highway spending against its highway system’s performance to provide policymakers and taxpayers with an assessment of value-for-money spent.

Continuing a national trend over the last 20 years, the overall state highway system performance improved slightly. Most of the trouble spots are concentrated in the lowest-scoring 10 states, which have a disproportionate share of the highway problems and reduce the overall system performance.

This year’s Annual Highway Report examines 13 categories; four categories measure state spending and nine measure performance. Across the country overall, seven of the nine performance categories improved: Rural Interstate Pavement Condition, Rural Arterial Pavement Condition, Urban Arterial Pavement Condition, Structurally Deficient Bridges, Fatality Rate, Rural Fatality Rate, and Urban Fatality Rate. The two performance categories where conditions worsened: Urban Interstate Pavement Condition and Urbanized Area Congestion. Unfortunately, this increase in system performance comes at a substantial cost. Capital and Bridge Disbursements increased by 8 percent, Maintenance Disbursements by 14 percent, Administrative Disbursements by 8 percent, with Total Disbursements up by 9 percent.

For this newsletter’s audience, it’s particularly important to note that the report is a measurement of the roadways that each state owns and operates, not a ranking of the state departments of transportation. We also made one methodological change in this year’s report worth noting. Instead of calculating disbursement rankings using lane-miles, we used an average of centerline-miles, lane-miles, and vehicle-miles traveled per lane-mile. Centerline-miles are the length of the highway system (a five-mile road equals five centerline-miles). Lane-miles are the length of the highway system multiplied by the number of lanes on a highway (a five-mile road with two lanes equals 10 lane-miles while a five-mile road with six lanes equals 30 lane-miles). Vehicle-miles traveled per lane-mile are the total amount of miles traveled on the state highway system divided by the lane-miles in the state (100,000 vehicle-miles traveled per year divided by 200 lane-miles of roadway equals 500 vehicle-miles traveled per lane). We made this change in an ongoing effort to be fairer to all the states. While a centerline-miles ranking may favor rural, less-populated states, a vehicle-miles traveled per lane-mile ranking may favor urban, more-populated states. Therefore, we believe a composite measure can help provide a more accurate, richer dataset.

Generally speaking, this change had a modest effect on the report’s overall rankings. Eleven states saw a movement of 10 positions or more in the rankings. Arkansas, Mississippi, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Iowa improved dramatically in the overall rankings—by 23, 17, 16, 14, and 11 positions, respectively. In contrast, Wyoming, Maine, Virginia, West Virginia, Oregon, and Vermont saw their rankings worsen by 25, 21, 19, 17, 16, and 11 positions, respectively.

For the past three editions of the Annual Highway Report, North Dakota has been the top-performing state in the study’s overall performance and cost-effectiveness rankings. But the state’s overall ranking is not a function of placing number one in any particular category. Rather, North Dakota ranks first overall because it scores in the top 30 in nearly all—12 of the report’s 13—categories. And it ranks in the bottom 10 states in only one category—Structurally Deficient Bridges. Its next-worst rankings are 28th in Urban Arterial Pavement Condition and in Rural Fatality Rate. Solid performance in nearly every category is what drives North Dakota’s overall ranking.

A far more-populous state, Missouri, ranks second overall in the report. Missouri also benefits from consistency across the board. Missouri does not rank in the bottom 10 in any of the 13 categories. Its worst ranking is 33rd in Structurally Deficient Bridges. Missouri shows that a more highly populated state (18th largest), with a large state highway system (7th largest by mileage), can rank highly in the report’s overall rankings and can serve as a model for other large states looking at lower rankings.

The worst-performing state is once again New Jersey, which ranks well in only two categories. The state ranks 3rd in Overall Fatality Rate and 4th in Rural Fatality Rate. But New Jersey is last in the overall rankings because of its poor performance in a large number of categories. The state has the highest Total Disbursements, Capital/Bridge Disbursements per Mile, and Maintenance Disbursements per Mile. It also ranks in the bottom five in Administrative Disbursements Per Mile and Rural Arterial Pavement Condition. In short, New Jersey spends far more money on its roads than the average state for a small state highway system that performs worse than average.

We frequently hear that it is unrealistic for New Jersey to have the same performance as North Dakota. But states such as New Jersey could focus on improving pavement conditions and reducing traffic congestion. It ranks in the bottom 10 in three different pavement condition categories, for example. Improving pavement conditions would help its rankings. Or, New Jersey could choose to focus on efficiency and reducing its spending somewhat, which would also significantly help its rankings. Reducing the state’s per-mile expenditures to levels that are comparable with states with similar geographic characteristics, such as Maryland, would help.

While it may be unrealistic for the worst-performing states to become top-ranked states quickly, they can make tangible progress on road conditions, deficient bridges, traffic congestion, and improve in ways that take them closer to average performance- and spending-levels for similar states.

States that rank poorly can also learn from other nearby states. Each state has strengths and weaknesses. For example, Georgia has long been an expert at maintaining high-quality urban Interstate pavement at an affordable cost. In contrast, Arkansas struggles at maintaining high-quality pavement. Thus, Arkansas officials might consider looking at the rankings and speaking with Georgia’s transportation officials about how they maintain their pavement quality. Transportation departments can use the report to see which states are succeeding in various categories and take the best practices from a variety of places.

» return to top

Replacing Obsolete Interstate Bridges Via Toll Financing

Replacing obsolete bridges on major Interstate highways is once again under discussion in several places, including in Alabama (I-10), Kentucky (I-71 and I-75), Louisiana (I-10), and Oregon (I-5). The circumstances differ in each state, and tolling is at various stages of discussion.

Most recently in the national news has been the closure of the Brent Spence Bridge, which conveys I-71 and I-75 across the Ohio River between Cincinnati and Covington, KY. On Nov. 11, two trucks collided on the bridge, damaging both levels (including melting concrete pavement on the lower deck). The bridge has been closed since then for repairs and is supposed to reopen before Christmas.

Opened in 1963 with a design target of 80,000 vehicles/day, it carried nearly double that amount last year. Discussions of a toll-financed replacement (like the two new bridges across the Ohio River between Louisville and southern Indiana) has been going on for over a decade, but tolling has been repeatedly stymied by die-hard opposition from Kentucky legislators from the Covington area. The current bridge closure has focused new attention on the bridge’s obsolescence and the need to replace it—with toll financing being one of the most viable approaches. It’s conceivable that some kind of frequent-user toll discount could pass muster as both legally- and politically-feasible.

Frequent-user discounts may also be a key to reviving plans that were abandoned last year for replacing the obsolete Mobile River Bridge which serves both long-distance and commuter traffic on I-10, crossing the Mobile River in Alabama. A $2 billion project that was expected to have a $6 toll each way failed to gain political support from either metropolitan planning authority (MPO) on the two sides of the river. But the Alabama Department of Transportation (DOT) is willing to try again. It was invited to make a presentation to the eastern shore MPO in January, and several Baldwin County commissioners made supportive comments at the MPO’s November meeting. County commission member (and MPO board member) Joe Davis said that the need for the replacement bridge has not gone away, and it’s time to restart the discussions. Davis said, “We are talking about bringing up the same purpose, and we are looking for new circumstances. I’m not opposed to a toll as long as the locals have a free option,” which was not provided in the previous ALDOT plan.

As reported in last month’s newsletter, Louisiana DOTD hopes to build on its success in a partially toll-financed public-private partnership (P3) project (to replace the obsolete Belle Chasse Bridge and Tunnel near New Orleans) by going forward with a similar approach to replacing the much larger Calcasieu River Bridge on I-10. LaDOTD leadership understands both toll finance and revenue-based P3 concessions, and the private sector will likely respond positively to a request for qualifications for the project next year.

Finally, a Nov. 24 Portland news story, “Tolls Are a ‘Given’ for New I-5 Bridge as Lawmakers Talk Replacement,” highlighted the issue in Oregon. Replacing that obsolete bridge has been debated for more than a decade, and because it involves both Oregon and Washington state lawmakers, a previous bridge replacement plan was scrapped in 2014. One big factor in that failure was Oregon’s insistence that the bridge design include light rail tracks in both directions, significantly increasing the bridge’s size and cost. Express toll lanes and bus rapid transit would provide a much lower-cost (and more flexible) mass transit component. There is still no design for this new attempt, but cost estimates based on adjusting the 2014 plan put the cost at between $3.2 and $4.8 billion. Like the other Interstate bridges in this story, the I-5 bridge serves both local (commuter) and long-distance travel.

» return to top

RAND Study: How to Establish Automated Vehicle Safety
By Marc Scribner

An October report published by RAND Corporation (“Safe Enough: Approaches to Assessing Acceptable Safety for Automated Vehicles,” Oct. 29) provides a thorough overview of the various methods of establishing automated vehicle (AV) safety. The report is a product of both a literature review and a series of interviews with AV experts and stakeholders. The conclusions largely reflect the facts that these technologies are novel, rapidly evolving, and poorly understood by those not involved in their technical development. If there is one major takeaway most relevant for policymakers, it is that it’s premature to proceed with detailed and prescriptive public regulations. Only as safety evidence is accrued under developers’ varied approaches to safety will imposing minimum regulatory requirements on AVs, like those that currently apply to conventional motor vehicles, become appropriate.

The report divides approaches to assessing AV safety into three categories. The first is safety as a measurement, a quantitative, data-driven approach that relies on leading and/or lagging measures. Lagging measures, such as average crash rates, are commonly used today for conventional vehicles, but given the novelty of AVs, lagging measures do not yet exist for them. In contrast, leading measures can rely on data measuring “roadmanship,” a new concept for evaluating how an AV is adhering to the rules of the road, executing “reasonable behavior on the road,” and “contributing to the harmonious flow of traffic, not impeding traffic.” An example leading measure mentioned by interviewees is an AV’s near-miss rate.

The second approach is safety as a process, a qualitative approach focused on compliance with rules or norms. These could be formal, such as complying with technical standards or regulations, or informal, such as ensuring a developer has adopted a robust culture of safety within its organization.

Finally, there is safety as a threshold, where an AV’s performance is shown to meet a safety measurement or a safety process. One challenge here is in deciding whether a safety threshold should be based on human driving performance, the potential performance of automated driving system technology, or some absolute safety goal such as Vision Zero’s zero crash fatality ideal.

These three approaches to assessing AV safety—measurement, process, and threshold—are not suggested to be stand-alone. Rather, say the RAND report authors, “these approaches complement, support, and interact with each other.” For instance, evidence collected on safety measures and processes could be used to support a determination of meeting a safety threshold. Similarly, processes and measurements can build on one another as processes are refined and checked against measurements. The report provides examples of how these safety approaches can work together to communicate to the public about AV safety, such as an AV’s fatal crash rate (measure) is lower than that of the average human driver (threshold).

While understanding how to make the safety case for AVs is vitally important for future deployment and public acceptance, it is worth noting that most of the measures, processes, and thresholds remain under development. As such, rather than prescribing detailed rules for AV developers and operators at this time, the RAND report’s authors recommend that the federal government undertake research in two areas: human driver data and safety assessment options. The former is to allow more comparisons between technology capabilities and real-world behavior, and the latter is to expand the toolset available to regulators, which has traditionally centered on lagging measures and regulatory process compliance.

As for competently regulating AVs safety similar to how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues and enforces Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for conventional vehicles, the report suggests the near-term prospects are slim. In a footnote, the RAND authors note that interviewees “observed that a certain amount of penetration of the fleet (perhaps 20 to 30 percent) is needed before there are enough data to do the analysis required for regulation.”

In addition, the interaction between software engineering and mechanical engineering is very new to regulators, and this interaction in automated driving systems is far more complex than anything seen in advanced driver assistance systems available on the market today.

Fortunately, savvy regulators appear to understand this challenge, with one government official interviewed in the RAND report saying, “A premature imposition of operational standards could be counterproductive or ineffective. . . . It is better to not establish performance measures up front—it is better if that happens through a sort of evolutionary process.”

Some political activists demand strict AV regulation today, despite the growing expert consensus that detailed rulemakings are inappropriate given the state of technological development and understanding. It is certain that regulators and their overseers in the legislative branch will face ongoing pressure to blindly regulate automated vehicles, actions that would threaten technological progress and the potential safety and mobility benefits of automated vehicles. The question is, will regulators continue to reject these misguided demands from activists or bow to political pressure?

» return to top

What We’ve Learned About Trucks and Mileage-Based User Fees

About a decade ago I debated the tax policy official of the American Trucking Associations (ATA) on the subject of transitioning U.S. motor vehicles from per-gallon fuel taxes to per-mile charges. He was strongly opposed. First, he saw no need for such a change, since projections of diesel fuel use at that time showed continuing upward growth. But more fundamentally, he equated per-mile charges with two things ATA historically opposed: tolls and weight-distance taxes. I did not change his mind that day, but I hope I got the ATA audience to start thinking about this eventually needed transition.

The good news is that in the last few years, the trucking industry has shown an increased willingness to consider the subject. Trucking companies participated in a California road user charge pilot project several years ago, and last year 60 trucks from four trucking companies took part in a large Multi-State Truck Pilot project carried out by The Eastern Transportation Coalition (formerly the I-95 Corridor Coalition).  Last month, I attended a webinar on the subject and downloaded the impressive July 2020 final report on this project.

The most important lesson learned from this trial is that “trucks are not simply big cars.” In other words, trucking is a complex, multi-faceted industry, with many types of vehicles and a number of quite different market niches (such as truckload, less-than-truckload, specialty (tank, flatbed, etc.), drayage, etc.) and different types of operators: for-hire fleets, private fleets (e.g., Walmart), owner-operators, etc. In addition, there are institutions in place for trucking that may actually make it easier to convert this segment of motor vehicles to mileage-based user fees (MBUF).

One of the most important institutions is the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA). Agreed to by the lower 48 states and 10 Canadian provinces, it serves cross-border trucking by providing a way to divide up fuel taxes paid by trucks among the jurisdictions they drove through. Trucking companies register with the state of their headquarters and need only file a single quarterly fuel tax return in that jurisdiction. IFTA gets data on the number of miles these trucks drive in each jurisdiction and the amount of fuel purchased in each, so it can carry out its clearinghouse function and divvy up the fuel tax revenue appropriately. In principle, this would provide a way to calculate rebates of fuel taxes during the transition to mileage-based user fees (MBUFs), so that the trucking company would end up paying the MBUF instead of the state fuel tax.

Actually doing this would be more complicated. First, only certain categories of interstate trucks must sign up with IFTA today, so IFTA’s scope would have to be expanded. Second, it would be more practical if the reporting were changed to monthly rather than quarterly. Third, IFTA is not set up to return funds to individual companies; today it only redistributes fuel tax monies among states. But the fact that such an organization already exists and is well-regarded by the trucking industry is very positive.

One problem that surfaced in the truck pilot project was the difficulty in making the hypothetical per-mile charge revenue-neutral with current fuel taxes. How much fuel a truck uses (and hence how much fuel tax it pays) depends on its gross weight, age and condition, terrain (steep grades vs. flatland), etc. The pilot used the average miles per gallon (mpg) of each participating truck fleet to estimate its fuel taxes paid, but used a per-mile charge for each state aimed at revenue-neutrality. But due to the differences in average mpg among the companies, those with fuel-guzzlers ended up with a rebate smaller than their tax while those with newer, more fuel-efficient engines came out ahead. This was somehow deemed unfair, but I see no practical way that a per-mile charge could (or should) be tailored to individual fleets—any more than fuel tax rates or toll rates are.

Besides educating the MBUF community on the complexity of trucking and the existence of useful institutions such as IFTA, the truck pilot broke new ground with the trucking industry itself. The Coalition created a Motor Carrier Working Group with broad industry representation. According to the report (p. 3-2 and 3-3) the group agreed that:

• “MBUF should be assessed because transportation revenue is not keeping up with infrastructure needs”;
• “MBUF is considered a more attractive future option compared with tolling”;
• “Dedicating MBUF revenue to transportation will help with motor carrier support.”

The group understandably expressed concerns about potentially high administrative/collection costs, transparent rate-setting, new layers of complexity, etc.  But the fact that such a group now exists is a very positive sign, compared to the situation a decade ago.

More good news is that the coalition is launching a larger phase two trucking pilot, with 200 commercial vehicles (mostly big rig Class 7 and Class 8) that will include more states and be six months in duration. I’m sure a lot more will be learned from this additional pilot project.

» return to top

New Approaches to Managed Lane Occupancy Enforcement
By Baruch Feigenbaum

There are now more than 60 variably-priced managed lanes projects in operation around the country. In the gold standard—express toll lanes—all vehicles pay a toll except buses and registered vanpools. In these lanes, enforcement is easy because all automobiles that don’t pay tolls are violators.

However, many priced managed lanes projects offer discounts or free passage to carpools. Some charge tolls only during peak periods. While these policies can make the roadway more challenging to use for the customer, these policies were put in place because the lanes were converted from HOV lanes or for other political or policy reasons.

One of the most challenging aspects of priced managed lanes is therefore occupancy enforcement. DOTs, MPOs, and the private sector are working on solutions. Four technologies were spotlighted at an IBTTA/TRB webinar last month—three focused on enforcement and one based on verification.

Transurban has modified its enforcement system for the I-95, I-395, and I-495 toll lanes in Northern Virginia. Currently, customers can switch their transponder settings between carpool and solo. Unfortunately, many customers leave their transponder in the carpool setting even when they are traveling alone. While the system accurately identifies violators, state police can pull over only two out of every thousand violators. Additionally, the beacons that spot potential violators are in set locations and violators know the locations.

Transurban has recently implemented four steps to improve enforcement. For its top violators, it uses repeat-violator beacons that flash a different color, which has increased compliance by 80 percent. It has added mobile beacons that can be moved to various locations. Transurban sends email notifications that have increased compliance by another 1 percent. And it has added enforcement signs that have increased compliance by 3 percent. Toll violators can also choose to enroll in the toll correction program. In this program, customers in the high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane that rode alone and “forgot” to switch their transponders can pay the toll but not any extra fees.

Los Angeles Metro has installed an infrared camera system for its I-10 and I-110 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. During peak periods, three or more-person vehicles travel free of charge. During off-peak periods, vehicles need only two people to use them free of charge. Before adding cameras, the violation rate was as high as 30 percent. In 2015, when the cameras were added they accurately detected violators 85 percent of the time. Today, that number is closer to 90 percent, and in the next few years, L.A. Metro expects the accuracy to reach 95 percent.

The program is not without its costs. Operations and maintenance cost $11 million per year. The cameras are placed in a two-lane cross-section on I-110 and a one-lane cross-section on I-10. The cameras take pictures from the front and the side to double-check accuracy. A Metro staffer must examine every photo to make sure any potential violation is genuine.

Utah DOT has a one-lane per direction 72-centerline mile express lane system on I-15. It features a switchable transponder, but those who carpool don’t have to have one. Enforcement was not a priority for the Utah Highway Patrol, with an annual budget of only $100,000.

To increase enforcement, UDOT is taking a two-pronged approach. First, all express lane users will be required to have a transponder (as is increasingly the practice on HOT lanes nationwide). Currently, many drivers violate the policy by traveling solo without a transponder. Second, UDOT is starting a Ride Flag pilot program that matches cell phone occupants at the start and end of the trip. Drivers who make a minimum of eight trips per month are eligible. The system takes a photo of all occupants at the start and end of the trip. Currently, tolls are waived for the pilot. There is some opposition to requiring carpoolers to have a transponder. But other drivers want the ability to switch from solo-mode to HOV-mode mid-trip as they pick up passengers.

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) takes a different approach, stressing occupancy verification, not enforcement. It puts the burden of proof on the occupants to demonstrate that they are a carpool. Per Texas law, the system cannot be used to register a violation or collect revenue. Carpools get a 50 percent discount during peak periods. Within the next few years, the HOT lane network will be 120 centerline miles.

Under the old enforcement structure, there were a number of challenges. Drivers of a carpool had to register 15 minutes before they used the lanes. Enforcement costs were $2 million per year. Police were able to pull over only two to three vehicles in an hour. District attorneys refused to take violators to court because it was not considered a moving violation. And the actual HOV violation rate was between 30 and 50 percent.

With NCTCOG’s new system, from Go Carma, drivers download the app and enter their transponder and license plate numbers. Passengers are also required to download the app so the system knows that they are part of a carpool. Since January 2020, there have been 35,000 users representing 30,000 vehicles. The overall program satisfaction rate is 83 percent. Violating the user agreement comes down to paying the correct toll. The average violation rate is 2.7 percent. Nearly 99 percent of violators change their behavior after receiving up to four warnings. If they don’t, they are suspended from using the lanes, but the suspension rate is so far less than 1 percent.

NCTCOG and GoCarma have spent the last two years working to ensure seamless integration with Cintra (the concession operator), Transcore (TXDOT’s back-office integrator), and the North Texas Tollway Authority, which manages the metro area’s electronic tolling.

While all four systems are an improvement over manual enforcement, Go Carma’s system appears to be the best approach at this time. The system uses smartphone technology and does not require any guessing on vehicle occupancy on the part of law enforcement personnel or costly staff time examining occupant photos. In addition, it is not punitive, so customers cannot complain that the system seems to be primarily about revenue generation.

The market has provided several different approaches to dealing with HOT lane cheating and it will be interesting to see if one emerges as the clearly most cost-effective approach.

» return to top

Toll Agency Politicized in Houston

Back in September, the governing body in Harris County, Texas—the Commissioners Court—voted 3-2 to take over the respected Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA). They created a government corporation that will divert toll revenues to things like flood control and help to pay for deepening the Houston Ship Channel. This political move undercuts the widely followed principle of most U.S. tolling: users-pay/users-benefit. Harris County will receive a $300 million lump sum from HCTRA, followed by $90 million a year indefinitely.

Another part of the deal calls for refinancing HCTRA’s $2.7 billion worth of toll revenue bonds to take advantage of today’s historically low-interest rates, with estimated savings of $60 million per year. That’s a move HCTRA could have made on its own, in the interest of delivering better value to its toll-paying customers. And its well-managed counterpart in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metro area—the North Texas Tollway Authority—the same month announced its own debt refinancing, but without any revenue diversions.

The Houston change was decidedly political, with the three Democratic commissioners voting in favor while the two Republicans voting against it. One of the Republicans, Steve Radack, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle saying, “This is a money grab. They are going to use it to pay for things that are normally paid for via property taxes.” Also opposing the takeover was David Hagy, executive director of the American Council of Engineering Companies, who supported the sensible refinancing but not the county’s money grab. And the Transportation Advocacy Group urged the Commissioners to at least use the diverted funds for transportation purposes.

I wonder how the rating agencies will view this politicization. HCTRA’s current bond indenture, as well as state law, limits the use of surplus revenues to non-toll roads, streets, and highways, according to a Q&A provided by the Harris County budget office. If that’s true, there might be grounds for bondholder litigation.

Moreover, while short-term thinking would say this is only a small amount of revenue diversion, the real danger is that it sets a precedent and provides no safeguards against future raids on HCTRA’s toll revenues. Transportation professionals know what has happened to the Pennsylvania Turnpike when that state’s legislature imposed Act 44 mandating that the Turnpike divert $450 million per year to the state DOT for transit subsidies. The Turnpike has had to significantly increase its bonded indebtedness, and enact large annual toll rate increases to meet the new debt service. That same fate could await HCTRA’s toll payers the next time Harris County faces budget shortfalls.

» return to top

Some Concerns About Vehicle Electrification

There is considerable momentum behind the idea that since transportation is a major source of CO2 emissions, the answer is to convert cars and trucks to electric power, via either battery packs or hydrogen fuel cells. But there is a large caveat to this prescription. Recharging huge numbers of electric vehicle battery packs or producing huge volumes of hydrogen will require a vast expansion of electricity generation. That’s obvious for battery recharging, but it’s also essential for hydrogen fuel cells because the known methods for producing hydrogen are themselves dependent on large amounts of energy, usually electric power.

A long article in The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 26 looked at California’s ambitious plans to phase out fossil-fueled vehicles over the next 15 years. Its headline conveys the challenge: “California Wants Cars to Run on Electricity. It’s Going to Need a Much Bigger Grid.” And the idea that this can be done entirely via solar cells and wind farms is simply not credible. Already, California’s electricity grid runs short of juice in late afternoons and early evenings when the sun is fading and the winds may not blow. The idea that EVs themselves can feed power into the grid at those times is silly. There is no known way they can do this while moving, and to think that once people get their EV home and plugged in they will allow it to be drained overnight to feed the grid—rather than itself drawing power from the grid to be recharged for the next day’s driving—is very naive.

A problem I have not seen addressed previously is the inefficiency of the energy currently used to generate electricity for the utilities that supply the grid. Michael Sena, the editor-publisher of the excellent transportation and technology newsletter The Dispatcher, addresses this problem in the lead article in its Dec. 2020 issue: “The Vehicle Fuel Debate Has Been Hijacked.” Drawing on findings by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Sena argues that simply converting vehicles to electric propulsion will shift the CO2 emissions problem to the expanded electric power system. No one seriously thinks that solar and wind will displace all the sources of “baseload” power, which must continue to be a large part of the expanded electricity system. Fossil fuel electricity generation uses only 30 to 42 percent of the energy inherent in the fuels burned; the rest is simply waste heat. Sena cites the large increases in energy conversion efficiency that are possible if conventional steam turbine systems were replaced by combined-cycle systems. And if I remember correctly my thermodynamics classes at MIT, he’s right.

But it’s not clear that replacing all current electric utility systems with combined cycle systems is the best way forward. There are two other sources of baseload power that emit zero CO2 and are too often neglected by policymakers these days: hydroelectric and nuclear. The “green” agenda of most environmental groups want to tear down dams and close down nuclear power—both policies that California has embraced. Since the EV future desired by the incoming Biden administration and the leaders of a growing number of states requires a large expansion of electricity generation—including a large expansion of dependable baseload power—it is irresponsible not to consider the most cost-effective ways of expanding baseload power. My guess is that expanding zero-emission nuclear will end up as more viable than replacing all steam-turbine systems with combined-cycle systems, especially since the latter still depend on fossil fuels.

» return to top

News Notes

How Much Did Last Decade’s High-Speed Rail Funding Accomplish?
That’s the subject of a just-released Reason Foundation policy study, by demographer and transportation analyst Wendell Cox. It reviews the results of projects accounting for 80 percent of the federal funding provided under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program enacted by Congress in 2009. The relatively poor results constitute a warning flag for president-elect Joe Biden’s promised “rail revolution.”

Elizabeth River Crossing Sells for High Multiple  
On Nov. 9, the long-term toll concession for the Elizabeth River Crossing (ERC) project in Virginia was acquired by a consortium of toll-road company Abertis and Manulife Investment Management. The value of the deal was $2.38 billion, with Abertis and Manulife providing 50 percent of the price as an equity investment. The sellers are Macquarie Infrastructure Partners II and Skanska AB. The deal valued the ERC concession at 39.7 times its 2019 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) of $60 million. The original concession was financed via $272 million in equity plus tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs) and a TIFIA loan, both of which will continue to be paid back out of toll revenues.

West Connex Concession Offered for Sale
The cash-strapped New South Wales (NSW) government announced on Nov. 6 that it will sell the remaining 49 percent of the 33-km WestConnex toll motorway in the Sydney metro area. The majority 51 percent stake was purchased by Transurban in 2018 for $6.76 billion, and observers expect that company to be among the leading bidders for the other 49 percent. In keeping with its policy of asset recycling, the NSW government plans to use the proceeds for additional transportation infrastructure in the metro area. A financial analyst quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald estimated that the 2020 decline in traffic volume would not affect the sale price, “given the long-term nature of the investment.”

Pennsylvania DOT to Use Toll-Based P3s for Major Bridge Upgrades
PennDOT last month announced a Major Bridge P3 program, under which it will seek private-sector proposals to reconstruct and rehabilitate major bridges financed via tolls. The tolls will be all-electronic, using the E-ZPass system that exists throughout the Northeast and Midwest. The Tribune-Democrat reported, “Key lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say they support a move by a state public-private partnership that would allow tolling of traffic on major bridges.” This response likely reflects the success of PennDOT’s prior Rapid Bridge Replacement P3, though that project, focusing on smaller bridges, did not involve tolling.

Colorado May Use Toll-Financed P3 for Widening I-70 Bottleneck
A much-needed $700 million project to widen a six-mile four-lane section of I-70 is beyond Colorado DOT’s current resources. So its High-Performance Transportation Enterprise is looking into the possibility of private investment. The alternatives for this difficult section are either a tunnel or an elevated viaduct. The sections of I-70 east and west of this bottleneck are both six-laned. The existing four-lane section includes two bridges that have “long-term maintenance problems.” I-70’s capacity for the bottleneck section drops by 2,400 vehicles per hour, resulting in “paralyzing traffic” on the way from Denver to mountain ski resorts.

Megaprojects Are in Question Post-Covid-19 in Japan and the UK
In Japan, reductions in rail ridership, as well as falling population, have generated calls to reconsider the $84 billion maglev project, the Linear Chuo Shinkansen between Tokyo and Nagoya. The cost is so high because 90 percent of the 178-mile route is planned as tunnels. The original opening date was 2027, but costs and decreased ridership may lead to its cancellation. In the United Kingdom, the HS2 line between London and Birmingham is also under fire, now that its cost is estimated to be well over $100 billion. Critics within the Treasury, the House of Lords, and some former cabinet members have said the project’s traffic projections post-COVID-19 look shaky, and the cost is now three times its original estimate.

Transportation Ballot Measures Pass, But Some Were Not Offered
The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) reported that over 300 transportation ballot measures were voted on last month, and 94 percent of them passed, authorizing $14 billion of additional spending. But four years earlier, measures worth $207 billion were on that November’s ballot, of which 74 percent passed. Large measures in the San Francisco Bay Area and several other California metro areas were put on hold due to the pandemic. Among those voted down was a $5 billion measure in Portland, Oregon.

P3 Express Toll Lanes Open in Houston
The SH 288 express toll lanes opened to traffic on Nov. 16. The $1 billion project was developed under a 49-year revenue-risk toll concession. The consortium includes ACS Infrastructure, InfraRed Infrastructure Fund, and several other firms comprising Blueridge Transportation Group. The project added two express lanes each way along a 10.3-mile section of SH 288, from the Harris County line to U.S. 59 in Houston. The project included two major interchanges, 16 new flyover ramps, and new direct connectors to several key destinations.

Three Bidding for Second Concession in Chile
The original concession that built the Ruta 5 toll road from Talca to Chillan will expire this year, so competition is underway for a new concessionaire. Last month, three teams were short-listed, headed by Cintra, China Railway Construction, and Sacyr. The winner will be required to invest $806 million in improvements, including a 55 km bypass and widening a 30 km section. It will also upgrade the tolling system to electronic tolling.

Cline Avenue Bridge’s Last Segment Installed
The toll-financed bridge in East Chicago, Indiana, reached a milestone last month, as the last precast section was hoisted into place, completing the bridge deck. The project replaces an obsolete bridge that was closed in 2009. The bridge is a project of United Bridge Partners, which has financed it based on projected toll revenues. Construction began in June 2017 and the bridge will open sometime this winter.

Georgia Working on E-ZPass Interoperability
The State Road & Tollway Authority, which has already made its Peach Pass transponder system interoperable with toll roads in Florida and North Carolina, has a new milestone in its sights: joining E-ZPass. The current schedule calls for finalizing the arrangements with E-ZPass by the end of 2021. That will mean that nearly all toll roads and bridges east of the Mississippi will be accessible via any of the various state-issued transponders, and motorists will receive a single invoice or statement of all their toll transactions.

Honolulu Scraps P3 for Over-Budget Rail Project
With its cost now ballooned to $11 billion (twice the 2012 estimate), Honolulu’s mayor and city council abandoned support for a planned availability-payment P3 to complete the partly built system into downtown Honolulu. They requested a one-year extension of the Federal Transit Administration’s grant deadline, by which time the city must demonstrate a plan to actually finish the project. With support for the P3 now gone, the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit (HART) announced plans for a design-build procurement instead.

$1.3 Billion P3 Project in Atlanta
Georgia DOT has short-listed three teams to bid on its $1.3 billion express toll lanes project for SR 400. The teams are led by ACS/Itinera, John Laing/Acciona, and Meridiam. The project includes adding two buffer-separated express toll lanes each way on 16 miles of SR 400 north of I-285. The 35-year concession calls for the winning bidder to design, build, finance, and maintain the new lanes over a 35-year operating period. The new lanes will become part of an evolving Georgia Express Lanes network in the Atlanta metro area.

Split Tolling Ended on Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
A fad from pre-electronic tolling days was one-way tolling on major bridges, applied enthusiastically to the toll bridges in the New York and San Francisco metro areas. The idea was to save money on toll collectors, with toll booths at only one end rather than both. Of course, to the extent that tolls (especially variable tolls) control congestion, that effect would be lost in the non-tolled direction. And in the New York area at least, truckers and others figured out ways to avoid paying tolls by taking advantage of the non-tolled directions, which often put trucks on routes through areas where they would not normally go. This anachronism ended on Dec. 1, at least on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge between Staten Island and Brooklyn. From now on, electronic tolling will prevail in both directions.

UK Adopts Cashless Tolling for New Tunnel
The $2.4 billion Lower Thames Crossing will be equipped with free-flow, all-electronic tolling, according to current plans by Highways England. The mega-project will build the UK’s longest highway tunnel, at 2.6 miles. The project is intended to relieve congestion at the Dartford Crossing, nearly doubling the capacity across the Thames River. Another stage of the project will widen the roadways approaching these two crossings. The Lower Thames Crossing will use tunnel boring machines to create the planned twin tubes. Work is scheduled to begin in 2022.

Washington State Tunnel Wins National Award
The Grand Prize winner in the 13th annual America’s Transportation Awards competition is Washington State DOT for its $3.3 billion two-mile SR 99 Tunnel Project. It replaced an obsolete SR 99 viaduct along the waterfront. The competition is sponsored by AASHTO, AAA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Correction
Last month’s issue included a News Note about an important new UCLA policy paper on 100 years of efforts to combat highway congestion in the Los Angeles metro area. Several readers had trouble finding the paper online, so here is the best link to use.

» return to top

Quotable Quote

“This [post-COVID-19] prospective future no doubt would come as a disappointment to Urban Triumphalists, who insist the value of cities is due to economies of agglomeration resulting from face-to-face interaction. . . . While historically in-person contact has driven economies of agglomeration, and ‘why be in cities but to be near other people,’ the question remains: Must it always be so? Mega-cities were largely non-existent in the pre-Industrial Revolution period when the economies of agglomeration were often outweighed by the diseconomies. Cities will not be abandoned quickly; transitions are long, but we may be nearing ‘peak city.’ This shift undermines all the place-based strategies that economic development organizations have been promoting for decades.”
—David Levinson, “The New Normal: Mobility and Activity in the ‘After Times’,” Transportist, Nov. 3, 2020

» return to top

The post Surface Transportation News: Annual Highway Report Rankings, Concerns About Electric Vehicles, and More appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Of the nation’s most populous states, Ohio (ranked 13^th overall), North Carolina (14^th)—which manages the largest state-owned highway system, and Texas (18^th)—with the second-largest amount of state mileage, are doing the best job of combining road performance and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, New York (ranked 44^th overall), California (43^rd), and Florida (40^th) are in the bottom 10 overall.

The 25^th Annual Highway Report finds the general quality and safety of the nation’s highways has incrementally improved as spending on state-owned roads increased by 9 percent, up to $151.8 billion, since the previous report.  Of the Annual Highway Report’s nine categories focused on performance, including structurally deficient bridges and traffic congestion, the country made incremental progress in seven of them.

However, the pavement condition of the nation’s urban Interstate system worsened slightly. Over a quarter of the urban Interstate mileage in poor condition is in just three states: California, New York, and, perhaps surprisingly, Wyoming.

The study also finds drivers in 11 states spent more than 50 hours per year in traffic congestion, with commuters in the three most-congested states—Delaware, Illinois, and Massachusetts—spending over 100 hours per year in traffic congestion in 2019.

Most states—35 out of 50 —reduced their overall traffic fatality rates. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey reported the overall lowest fatality rates while South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arizona had the highest fatality rates.

In the report’s spending categories, Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Dakota, and Tennessee reported the lowest expenditures per mile. New Jersey, Massachusetts, Alaska, Delaware, and Maryland had the highest costs most per-mile. In total, the 50 states disbursed $151.8 billion for state-owned roads, a 9.2 percent increase from $139 billion in 2016, the previous data available.

The condition of the nation’s bridges improved slightly in 2019. Of the 613,517 highway bridges reported, 46,771 (7.6 percent) were rated deficient. The best rankings go to three states where less than two percent of their bridges are structurally deficient: Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. Meanwhile, Rhode Island reported a whopping 23 percent of its bridges as structurally deficient.

Five states made double-digit improvements in their overall performance and cost-effectiveness rankings:  Arkansas improved from 32^nd to 9^th  overall; Mississippi moved from 25^th to 8^th; Wisconsin went from 38^th to 22^nd; South Carolina jumped from 20^th to 6^th; and Iowa improved from 31^st to 20^th overall.

25th Annual Highway Report Overall Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Rankings

Click a state name for detailed information about its results.

“Although it is tempting to ascribe these ratings to geography or population, a more careful review suggests that numerous factors, including terrain, climate, truck traffic volumes, urbanization and congestion, system age, budget priorities, and management and maintenance practices all significantly impact state highway performance,” says Baruch Feigenbaum, lead author of the report and managing director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation. “The states with the three largest highway systems—North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia—all rank in the top 21 this year. Meanwhile, states with the smallest amount of mileage to manage, like Hawaii, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, are some of the worst-performing states. Prioritizing maintenance, targeting and fixing problem areas, and reducing bottlenecks are among the successful strategies states can use to improve their quality and efficiency.”

Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of state-controlled highways in 13 categories, including pavement condition, traffic congestion, structurally deficient bridges, traffic fatalities, and spending (capital, maintenance, administrative, overall) per mile.  The Annual Highway Report is based on spending and performance data submitted by state highway agencies to the federal government for 2018 as well as 2019 urban congestion data from INRIX and bridge condition data from the Better Roads inventory for 2019.

25th Annual Highway Report: Each State’s Highway Performance Ranking By Category

Editor’s Note (Jan. 12, 2021): The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified an “error in the 2018 HM-64 Highway Statistics table” that it is still in the process of correcting. This FHWA error in the 2018 HM-64 table negatively impacted Wyoming’s pavement condition figures and rankings in the 25h Annual Highway Report. And, as a result, the FHWA data error would have also played a role in Wyoming’s overall ranking falling from 11th overall in the previous report to 36th overall in the 25th Annual Highway Report. 

The post 25th Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Unfortunately, a recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) survey of state departments of transportation (DOTs) officials found that only five or six states systematically use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate transportation projects. FHWA’s survey found that state DOTs also use life-cycle cost analysis and multifactorial scoring systems to make decisions on whether to fund a project. Most state DOTs do not include measurements of transportation projects’ effects on emissions or freight. There are also problems with the accuracy of state estimates of traffic demand.

Two states, North Carolina and Virginia, have the most objective selection processes. Prior to 2013, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) used a transportation project funding assessment model that failed to measure costs of design, construction, regulatory compliance, and operations and maintenance. In 2013, the North Carolina Legislature adopted the Strategic Transportation Investments Act, which established a Strategic Mobility Formula that allocates transportation project funding on the basis of how the projects perform on different criteria.

The Strategic Mobility Formula gives the following weights to these evaluative categories:

1. The needs of the state’s 14 transportation divisions (30 percent);
2. regional impact (30 percent); and
3. statewide impact (40 percent).

Since implementing this, North Carolina has been able to dedicate more resources to capital and bridge spending while maintaining top-25 rankings in all four of the Annual Highway Report’s pavement condition categories without increasing taxes. 

Similarly, prior to 2014, Virginia used a multi-criteria evaluation system that used qualitative factors (such as, local and regional support) to determine whether to fund a project. This system failed to include quantitative metrics such as cost-benefit analysis. In 2014, to address this problem, the Virginia Legislature adopted the HB 2 Prioritization Process for Project Selection, which instituted a method for quantitatively scoring prospective transportation projects before they were reviewed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). (In Virginia, the CTB allocates funds for transportation projects).

HB 2 created Smart Scale, which uses 10 criteria to measure project effectiveness. The criteria are weighted as follows:

1. The reduction of congestion (35 percent);
2. project readiness (25 percent);
3. service deficiencies (5 percent);
4. reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (5 percent);
5. improvements in transportation safety (5 percent);
6. increased connections between activity centers (5 percent);
7. increased regional and modal integration (5 percent);
8. improved bicycle and pedestrian travel options (5 percent);
9. improved management of existing operations (5 percent); and
10. cost-sharing with other entities (5 percent).

I have some minor concerns with the Virginia model. By examining benefits on a regional or local level as opposed to a statewide level, the system risks prioritizing small projects over large projects. For example, a bicycle project could score better than highway capacity or expansion of the Blue Line/Orange Line/Silver Line Metrorail tunnel under the Potomac.

I also don’t think the current system weighs safety highly enough. Regardless, it is a major improvement over the previous process, which disbursed funding over so many projects that there was seldom enough money to build any major projects. And, similar to North Carolina, Virginia maintains top 25 rankings in all four pavement categories, although urban traffic congestion is a major problem in several areas of the state. 

Not all quantitative scoring processes work well. FHWA cited the cost-benefit methodology of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the cost-efficiency methodology of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) as examples of methodological shortcomings of state DOT evaluation processes.

Caltrans formulated the Cal-B/C methodology to evaluate the costs and benefits of transportation projects on the basis of:

1. Time savings for travelers;
2. vehicle operating cost savings;
3. safety cost savings;
4. lowered air pollution emissions;
5. construction costs; and 
6. operations and maintenance costs.

However, CalTrans’ methodology has a major problem — In calculating travel time savings, it does not include travel demand network data. As a result, this skews the analysis inputs, making the conclusion of the cost-benefit analysis inaccurate.

Similarly problematic, the WSDOT’s cost-efficiency evaluation only uses travel time savings to estimate users’ benefits, which potentially ignores other benefits including safety and redundancy. 

Almost every state could benefit from a quantitative review process, including states viewed as effective and innovative. Recently, an audit of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) found that the agency does not have a formal cost-benefit analysis process. Auditors found that GDOT’s initial project selection process is not transparent and includes very few objective criteria. Further, the $2 billion project to build truck lanes on I-75 between I-475, north of Macon, and Henry County in the southeast Atlanta suburbs, was approved without any cost-benefit analysis. To its credit, GDOT has refined its scoring method and revised scoring criteria to meet objective goals. 

GDOT ranks first or second in delivering projects on-time and under-budget. The state’s pavement condition ranks relatively high. And much of the criticism of the agency has come from the Southern Environmental Law Center, a group that opposes nearly every type of roadway project.

Further, developing an accurate scoring system for state transportation projects is daunting and challenging. Implementing a system with major flaws, as has happened in California and Washington, would be a step backward for many states. Yet, as North Carolina and Virginia have shown, it is possible to adopt an effective, accurate system that improves a state’s process and infrastructure. In addition to improving project selection, developing an effective cost-benefit analysis system can make it easier for transportation departments to generate support from both elected officials and taxpayers, which is critical to building and maintaining an effective transportation system. 

The post States Using Cost-Benefit Analysis Have More Efficient Transportation Systems appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This is the 24th year of our Annual Highway Report, and Florida came in 40th. That’s definitely not where any of us wants the state to rank on something as important as transportation performance and cost-effectiveness. But if we look at some of the factors that lead to this result, we can see where the challenges lie.

On the positive side, Florida does very well on the pavement condition of state highways. And compared to most other states, Florida’s maintenance of roads and bridges, in both cities and rural areas, is outstanding.

Unfortunately, that high performance comes at a high price. On overall expenditures per state-controlled lane-mile of highway, Florida comes in at 49th. In most of the spending categories, Florida tends to spend three to five times as much money as other states. To be fair, Floridians get good road conditions and sound bridges from that, but there are other states in the top 10 on road conditions that spend far less than Florida does to get there. So a great area for Florida leaders and the Florida Department of Transportation to focus on would be figuring out ways to be more cost-effective. That is not always easy, but there are some states worth looking at. Alabama and Tennessee, for example, have pretty good road conditions at a fraction of what Florida spends, so there might be something to learn from them.

Florida ranks 42nd in overall fatality rate on state highways, which, for those of us who drive here and have loved ones who drive here, is terrible to see. But it is hard to see what more the state government could do, and especially the department of transportation, to improve this ranking, in part, because Florida is one of the most tourist-laden states in the country with many foreign and unfamiliar drivers navigating the roads. Our economy depends on them, so we don’t want to discourage them from driving. But the state should continue its already strenuous efforts to encourage safer driving behaviors.

There’s not a lot about the way the roads are built or maintained that could make a big difference on road safety. Florida has an extremely high rate of pedestrian/auto accidents but reports there is blame on both sides. Pedestrians struck by cars are typically crossing outside of a crosswalk or in unsafe conditions. Drivers for their part are typically speeding and/or distracted when they strike a pedestrian. You can’t really design a road to improve those factors much, with some exceptions. There have been some interesting experiments and using different kinds of signs and flashing signals to mark crosswalks, but again that affects people who are crossing at the crosswalk.

Separating pedestrians and bicyclists from auto traffic would be effective but costly. Likewise, making sure there are sufficient crosswalks commensurate with pedestrian traffic would help a lot as well. But the bottom line is that most of the problem is with the drivers and pedestrians involved in the accident, and it’s they who have to change.

Finally, Florida ranks 40th on urban area congestion. Florida is growing rapidly, and the transportation system needs to accommodate that growth. Decades of investing in public transit, pedestrian access and bicycle trails has appreciably increased the share of travel that happens on those modes. In Florida’s cities, at least 90 percent of all travel is still by car and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. So the only way to reduce urban traffic congestion is to increase capacity. That should be a combination of more managed lanes on the freeways, integrated with more-flexible bus rapid transit systems, improved intersection design and arterial expansion where necessary or possible. That could be costly and complicated, but so is congestion.

The bottom line for Florida’s highway performance is it’s doing very well in some areas but its good results come at a high price. The state has some challenges not entirely in its control, while ether are other areas where it can clearly take policy steps to help improve. The whole point of the Annual Highway Report is to highlight that kind of thing and show other states that might have some ideas worth borrowing. Let’s hope transportation planners in Florida are willing to do that.

This column was originally published in the Sarasota Observer.

The post Florida’s Highway Performance Shows Good Results at Very High Costs appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Based on data that each state submitted to the federal government, Reason Foundation’s 24th Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of state-owned roads in 13 categories, including the pavement condition on urban and rural Interstates, the percentage of structurally deficient bridges, number of traffic fatalities, how much states spend on administrative costs, and their total spending per mile of state-controlled roads.

If you’re looking for good news in the study, California’s overall highway fatality rate is relatively low, ranking 18th best in the country. And the state has a similar ranking, 19th best, in the percentage of structurally deficient bridges in use.

Beyond that, however, there’s not a lot to like about the state’s roads. California’s highway system ranks 43rd overall in cost-effectiveness and performance, which is actually one-spot worse than it did in the previous Annual Highway Report, where it ranked 42nd overall.

California’s spending numbers are on the high side and it could certainly benefit from streamlining in ways that would reduce its overhead and administrative costs but, in terms of examining total costs per mile, it has done a better job than states like New Jersey, New York, Florida and Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, California’s highway conditions and performance significantly lag its neighbors and other West Coast states. Arizona (ranks 29th), Nevada (ranks 27th), Oregon (12th), and Utah (9th) are all far ahead of California in the rankings. And the state doesn’t fare much better in comparisons to America’s other highly-populated states. California, 43rd overall, significantly trails Texas (23rd), which has the largest state highway system in the country. Virginia has the third-largest highway system, larger than California’s, and it manages to rank second overall in performance and cost-effectiveness. Meanwhile, California also trails Ohio (18th), Georgia (26th), Illinois (28th), Pennsylvania (35th), and Florida (40th), among others.

The state is really hurt by ranking 48th out of 50 in urban traffic congestion. California’s large population, with its booming cities that are filled with people using their cars, has made the state’s traffic jams infamous. The long-term answer to that gridlock in Southern California is a region-wide network of toll lanes operating like the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, which offer people congestion-free lanes and provide a sustainable revenue stream to maintain them. Similarly, the I-10 and I-110 toll lanes and lanes under construction on I-15 and I-405 promise to offer congestion relief for drivers willing to pay a variable toll. Ideally, over time, Southern California would develop a network of managed lanes connecting the major freeways in Los Angeles, Orange County, Palmdale, Riverside, and San Bernardino.

In the interim, California could still significantly improve its overall ranking and road performance by reducing the number of fatalities on rural highways, where it ranks 47th out 50. It could also dedicate itself to improving its pavement quality and condition on urban arterial roads (ranks 49th out 50), urban Interstate pavement condition (ranks 47th), and rural Interstate pavement (ranks 45th). 

Given the amount of money California spends on its highways already, improving those poor pavement conditions are a realistic and achievable goal. Gov. Newsom, the state legislature and Caltrans would need to prioritize maintenance and publicly commit to significantly reducing the potholes, rough spots, and other pavement problems plaguing the state. It’s an effort that could yield rapid benefits to drivers and the economy. And with smoother, safer roads, California would start to make up ground on its neighbors and competitors. 

This column was originally published in the Orange County Register.

The post California Should Focus on Congestion and Pavement Condition to Improve State’s Highways appeared first on Reason Foundation.

“In looking at the nation’s highway system as a whole, there was a decades-long trend of incremental improvement in most key categories, but the overall condition of the highway system has worsened in recent years,” says Baruch Feigenbaum, lead author of the Annual Highway Report and assistant director of transportation at Reason Foundation. “This year we see some improvement on structurally deficient bridges, but pavement conditions on rural and urban highways are declining, the rise in traffic fatalities is worrying, and we aren’t making needed progress on traffic congestion in our major cities.”

The 24th Annual Highway Report, based on data that states submitted to the federal government, ranks each state’s highway system in 13 categories, including traffic fatalities, pavement condition, congestion, spending per mile, administrative costs and more. This edition of the Annual Highway Report uses state-submitted highway data from 2016, the most recent year with complete figures currently available, along with traffic congestion and bridge data from 2017.

North Dakota ranks first in the Annual Highway Report’s overall performance and cost-effectiveness rankings of state highway systems for the second year in a row. North Dakota’s rural and urban Interstate pavement conditions both rank in the top 10 and the state has kept its per-mile costs down.  Virginia jumps an impressive 25 spots in the rankings—from 27th overall in the previous report—into second-place in performance and cost-effectiveness.  Missouri, Maine and Kentucky round out the top five states.

The state highway systems in New Jersey (50th), Alaska (49th), Rhode Island (48th), Hawaii (47th), Massachusetts (46th) and New York (45th) rank at the bottom of the nation in overall performance and cost-effectiveness. Despite spending more money per mile than any other state, New Jersey has the worst urban traffic congestion and among the worst urban Interstate pavement conditions in the country.

Overall Rankings, 24th Annual Highway Report
(Click on states for their detailed rankings and information)

OVERALL STATE RANKINGS - Highway Report 2019

The study finds pavement conditions on both urban Interstates and rural Interstates are deteriorating, with the percentage of urban Interstate mileage in poor condition increasing in 29 of 50 states. One-third, 33 percent, of the nation’s urban Interstate mileage in poor condition is concentrated in just five states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, and New York.

It’s not just urban Interstates with the rougher pavement, however, the Annual Highway Report finds the percentage of rural arterial principal roads in poor condition at its worst levels since 2000.

Similarly, the study’s three traffic fatality categories —overall, urban and rural—all show more fatalities in 2016 than in any year since 2007.

The most positive news is on bridges, where 39 states lowered the percentage of bridges deemed structurally deficient. Unfortunately, 18 percent or more of bridges remain structurally deficient in these five states: Iowa, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

Traffic congestion remains about the same from the previous report, with Americans spending an average of 35 hours a year stuck in traffic. Drivers in New Jersey, New York, California, Georgia and Massachusetts experience the longest delays due to urban traffic congestion in their metro regions.

The Annual Highway Report finds states disbursed about $139 billion for state-controlled highways and arterials in 2016, a four percent decrease from approximately $145 billion spent in 2015.

“Some may point to the slight decrease in overall state highway spending in 2016 as a cause of the lack of improvement in key highway metrics, but 21 states made overall progress in 2016. Examining the 10-year average of state overall performance data indicates that the national system performance problems are largely concentrated in the bottom 10 states,” Feigenbaum says. “Towards the bottom of the rankings, you have highly populated states, like last-place New Jersey, along with Massachusetts, New York, and California to a lesser extent, that are spending a lot but often failing to keep up with traffic congestion and road maintenance. There are also a few very problematic low-population states like Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii and Alaska, which contribute an outsized share of the nation’s structurally deficient bridges, poor pavement conditions, and high administrative costs—money that doesn’t make it to roads.”

New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut spent the most on their highways on a per-mile basis, with each state spending more than $200,000 per mile of highway it controls. In contrast, Missouri, which ranks third overall in performance and cost-effectiveness, did so while spending just $23,534 per mile of highway it controls.

Massachusetts ranks low in the overall rankings but shows the nation’s lowest traffic fatality rate, while South Carolina reports the highest.

Executive Summary From 24th Annual Highway Report

Full Study: 24th Annual Highway Report

24th Annual Highway Report’s State-by-State Summaries

Previous Editions of the Annual Highway Report

Overall Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Rankings
24th Annual Highway Report (PDF)

Click a state name for detailed information about its results.

Each State’s Highway Performance Rankings in Each Category

The post 24th Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Overall Highway Performance Rank - Highway Report 2017

Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report ranks the performance of state highway systems in 11 categories, including spending per mile, pavement conditions, deficient bridges, traffic congestion, and fatality rates.

North Dakota was the top-ranked state on performance and cost-effectiveness thanks to excellent scores on urban Interstate pavement condition (3rd overall), rural Interstate pavement condition (4th), urbanized area traffic congestion (4th), and maintenance disbursements per mile (3rd).  Kansas, South Dakota, Nebraska and South Carolina were the other states in top five of the overall rankings.

New Jersey ranked last, 50th, in overall performance and cost-effectiveness due to having the worst urban traffic congestion and spending the most per mile — $2 million per mile of state-controlled highway, more than double what Florida, the next highest state, spent per mile. Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii and Connecticut were also in the bottom five of the overall rankings.

This edition of the study is based on spending and performance data that state highway agencies submitted to the federal government for the year 2015, the most recent year with complete data available. The overall rankings are:

Overall Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Rankings
23rd Annual Highway Report (PDF)

Click a state name for detailed information about its results.

Massachusetts had the lowest fatality rate. Wyoming had the least traffic congestion. And Alaska had the worst pavement condition. Here is how the states performed in each category:

Each State’s Highway Performance Rankings in Each Category

Nearly half of the states (23 of 50) made progress compared to the previous report. Two states, Iowa and Delaware, improved their overall rankings by double digits, while six states had overall rankings that worsened by 10 or more spots:

• Iowa improved 25 positions, from 40^th to 15^th in the overall rankings, as the state’s per mile spending increased somewhat but mileage in poor condition (on urban and rural Interstates and rural arterials) improved considerably.
• Delaware improved 18 spots, from 37^th to 19^th overall, as per mile spending decreased while mileage in poor condition (on urban Interstates and rural arterials) still improved.
• Wisconsin fell 10 spots, from 28^th to 38^th, as per mile spending increased even as mileage in poor condition (on urban and rural Interstates) worsened.
• West Virginia fell 11 spots, from 25^th to 36^th, as the condition of its bridges worsened, as did the condition of its rural Interstates and arterials.
• New Mexico fell 13 spots, from 11^th to 24^th, as urban area congestion worsened and narrow rural arterial lane mileage increased.
• Oklahoma fell 16 spots, from 17^th to 33^rd, as per mile spending increased even as mileage in poor condition (on urban and rural Interstates and rural arterials) worsened considerably.
• Ohio fell 17 spots, from 9^th to 26^th, as per mile spending increased but the state’s road conditions worsened. Additionally, Ohio’s percentage of bridges in deficient condition jumped considerably as this year’s totals included functionally obsolete bridges, whereas in the last assessment, this information was not provided.
• Maine fell 18 spots, from 5^th to 23^rd, as per mile spending increased even as the state’s road conditions (particularly urban Interstates) worsened.

A 10-year average of state overall performance data indicates that a few states are finding it difficult to improve and major system performance problems seem to be concentrated in these states. For example:

• Over half, 53 percent, of the rural Interstate mileage in poor condition is in just eight states: Alaska, Colorado, New York, Wisconsin, Indiana, Texas, California and Washington.
• Over half, 54 percent, of the urban Interstate mileage in poor condition is in just eight states: California, New York, Texas, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
• Almost half, 49 percent, of the rural primary mileage in poor condition is in just eight states: California, Alaska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Texas, Minnesota, Oklahoma and South Dakota.
• Automobile commuters in nine states (New Jersey, California, New York, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Washington and Virginia) spend more than the national average of 35 hours annually stuck in peak-hour traffic congestion.
• Although a majority of states saw bridge conditions improve, overall national bridge conditions are worsening, with seven states (Rhode Island, Hawaii, New York, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut) now reporting more than one-third of their bridges as deficient.
• After decades of improvement, fatality rates are increasing and seven states (South Carolina, Montana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, Wyoming and Louisiana) now have fatality rates greater than 1.5 per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled.
• Four states (West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Vermont) report that more than one-third of their rural principal arterial systems have lanes considered narrow.

The post 23rd Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The study finds the worst-performing, least cost-effective highway systems are in Alaska, New Jersey, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report tracks the performance of state-owned highway systems in 11 categories, including highway spending, pavement and bridge condition, traffic congestion, and fatality rates. The study is based on spending and performance data that state highway agencies submitted to the federal government for 2013, the most recent year with complete data available.

The numbers show a widening performance gap emerging. Most states are making some small progress with their state highway systems but a group of states are struggling and failing to improve.

Nationally, pavement conditions in several categories worsened slightly, with the amount of urban Interstate pavement, rural Interstate pavement and rural arterial pavement in poor condition all increasing marginally. The Annual Highway Report finds that some of the nation’s worst highway problems are concentrated in a few states. For example, almost half, 48 percent, of the country’s urban Interstate pavement in poor condition can be found in just five states: California, Louisiana, Michigan, New York and Texas. Likewise, half of the rural Interstate pavement in poor condition can be found in five states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Indiana and Washington.

On the positive side, the percentage of deficient bridges across the country are decreasing. However, six states – Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island – report that more than one-third of their bridges are still deficient or functionally obsolete.

Reducing traffic fatalities has been a long-term success story and just four states – Montana, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia – reported fatality rates greater than 1.5 per 100 million vehicle-miles travelled.

Due to changes in the Federal Highway Administration’s reporting methods, traffic congestion figures in the new report aren’t comparable to previous editions. Reason Foundation’s latest Annual Highway Report finds commuters in more than 40 states, including such unexpected places such as Idaho and North Dakota, now waste at least 20 hours a year stuck in traffic. Drivers in more than 20 states suffer annual congestion delays of at least 40 hours per year, meaning they lose the equivalent of a full workweek each year to traffic jams. And traffic congestion is so bad in eight states – California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington – that it causes over 50 hours of delay annually per auto commuter in those states.

Some states significantly improved in the report’s overall cost-effectiveness rankings this year. Maine jumped from 16th into the top five. Utah made the biggest gains, moving from from 29th in the previous edition to 13th overall. And Idaho improved 14 spots, from 30th to 16th.

In contrast, Wyoming, the top ranked state in the previous report, dropped to 8th due to middle-of-the-road rankings in urban Interstate pavement condition (32nd), rural arterial pavement condition (30th), and deficient bridges (30th). Iowa plummeted from 18th in the previous report to 40th overall due in part to poor rankings in rural arterial pavement condition (48th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (46th). And Wisconsin fell 13 spots, from 15th to 28th overall.

The size of state highway systems varies tremendously. The smallest systems are in Hawaii (1,016 state-controlled miles) and Rhode Island (1,139 miles). The largest state highway systems belong to Texas (80,490 state-controlled miles) and North Carolina (80,453 miles).

In total, the 50 states disbursed about $131.2 billion for state-owned roads in 2013, which was just under the $132.1 billion spent in 2012. Total state spending on maintenance, capital and bridge disbursements, and administrative costs all decreased slightly in 2013.

There is large variance in the amount of money states spend on their highways. South Carolina and West Virginia spent less than $37,000 per state-controlled mile. In contrast, according to data the state submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), New Jersey spent $2,186,447 per mile in 2013 on state highways, far more than the next highest state – Florida, which spent $741,292 per mile.

State highway administrative costs, usually thought of as office costs, also differ significantly from state to state. On average, states spent $10,000 on administrative costs for each mile of road they control. The lowest administrative spending was in Kentucky, at just $1,107 per mile. In contrast, Connecticut spent $83,282 and Hawaii spent $77,962 per mile on administrative costs.

The overall performance and cost-effectiveness rankings in Reason Foundation’s 22nd Annual Highway Report:

1 South Carolina
2 South Dakota
3 Kansas
4 Nebraska
5 Maine
6 Montana
7 North Dakota
8 Wyoming
9 Ohio
10 Mississippi
11 New Mexico
12 Missouri
13 Utah
14 Kentucky
15 North Carolina
16 Idaho
17 Oklahoma
18 Tennessee
19 Texas
20 Alabama
21 Georgia
22 Nevada
23 Oregon
24 Arizona
25 West Virginia
26 New Hampshire
27 Minnesota
28 Wisconsin
29 Illinois
30 Virginia
31 Michigan
32 Florida
33 Arkansas
34 Louisiana
35 Colorado
36 Indiana
37 Delaware
38 Maryland
39 Pennsylvania
40 Iowa
41 Vermont
42 California
43 Washington
44 Connecticut
45 New York
46 Massachusetts
47 Rhode Island
48 Hawaii
49 New Jersey
50 Alaska Additional information about each state’s performance is available at:
https://reason.org/policy-study/21st-annual-highway-report-states/
/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/22nd_annual_highway_report.pdf (.pdf)

Attachments

• highway_report_state_by_state_summaries.pdf

The post 22nd Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation’s/Hartgen Group’s Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of each state’s roadway network. All of our data is reported by that state to the United States Department of Transportation and audited for accuracy. While states that perform poorly tend to complain that the report is biased against high population or dense states, high performing states include the more populated/denser (Georgia, Ohio, Texas) and the less populated /less dense (Nebraska, South Carolina, Wyoming) rank highly.

The state of New Jersey consistently has one of the worst state highway networks in the country. New Jersey spends more per centerline mile than any other state and the condition of its roads is awful. New Jersey ranks poorly on disbursements, 50th on Capital and Bridge, 50th on Maintenance and 48th on Administrative. But it also ranks poorly in almost every other category. It is 46th in Rural Arterial Pavement Condition, 46th in Urban Interstate Pavement Condition, 41st in Freeway Congestion, 36th in Deficient Bridges, and 31st in Rural Interstate Pavement Condition. The only categories in which it ranks above average are Fatality Rate, 5th (lowest), and Narrow Bridges, 19th.

States that spend a lot per capita will not rank near the bottom if their road networks are in good condition. Further, states that spend very little per capita will not rank near the top if their road networks are in poor condition. A state’s ranking is determined by both the condition of its pavement and its spending level. Many states that rank poorly actually spend very little money. Alaska ranks 16th in overall disbursements yet ranks 49th overall in system quality. Louisiana ranks 25th in overall disbursements yet ranks 40th in overall quality. Arkansas ranks 9th in overall disbursements but ranks 35th in system quality. All three states rank far below average despite spending less than average because their system quality (pavement condition, congestion, safety) is way below par. The best performing states have long been the states with the best system quality and the lowest costs.

But when you have an agenda, why let facts get in the way? New Jersey’s powerful construction unions have decided that there is not enough construction work in the state. And they want taxpayers to pony up the money so more workers are needed and the unions become stronger. But that’s not what’s good for taxpayers. And it’s not what the data suggests New Jersey needs to do.

Late last month the Engineers Labor-Employer Cooperative (ELEC) contracted with Peter Phillips, a labor economist at the University of Utah, to write a study refuting the Annual Highway Report. Phillips’ study had some interesting conclusions that seem to stem from a misunderstanding of our methods.

The ELEC report makes two major mistakes:

• First, it fails to mention that New Jersey spends 50% of its roadway funding on debt. New Jersey has borrowed heavily over the years and now must make enormous interest payments. It is not the taxpayers fault that New Jersey officials have made poor investment decisions for 25 years.
• Second, it assumes that the Highway Report tracks only capital spending. But the report actually tracks all types of spending (maintenance, operations, miscellaneous). These two mistakes significantly affect the data.

Further the ELEC paper makes a number of other assumptions that are just plain wrong:

• The ELEC report focuses mainly on critiquing our metric of centerline miles versus lane-miles. It claims that lane-miles are the more accurate metric. But building roadways has numerous costs beyond actually laying asphalt. Preliminary Engineering is required on all projects. Right-of way acquisition and miscellaneous costs such as movement of utility wires are present in projects of all sizes. Centerline-miles is the more commonly used metric.

• Even using lane-miles, New Jersey’s spending ranks among the highest in the country. New Jersey ranks poorly in total spending regardless of metric.

• The ELEC report says several times that it is wrong to compare one-lane country roads to turnpikes. We agree and we never make those comparisons. We only measure state-controlled roads. One-lane roads are primarily locally-controlled while turnpikes are funded by tolling and do not need gas tax revenue, unlike most other state roadways. Our report compares state-controlled miles to state-controlled miles. We do not measure county-roads, city-roads or local roads.

• The ELEC report correctly points out that it is more expensive to build roadways in urban areas than rural areas. But, it is rarely 12 times more expensive to build a roadway in an urban area than in a rural area. Further South Carolina, a low-cost state, has both urban and rural areas. Costs to build roadways in rural areas of New Jersey should be comparable to the costs to build roadways in rural areas of South Carolina. But they are not, and if the ELEC report was really concerned about an accurate apples to apples comparison, that is what it would measure.

• The ELEC critique is that more traffic means that highways have to be built to a higher standard. That’s true but here’s the thing: New Jersey roads seldom have the highest traffic counts in the country. Let’s examine a busy urban expressway stretch in Georgia, I-75/I-85 through downtown Atlanta, with one in New Jersey, I-78 west of Newark. I-75/I-85 has 6 lanes in each direction and a total of 342,000 vehicles per day (measured in average annual daily traffic (AADT)). That’s an average of 28,500 vehicles per lane per day. I-78 near Newark and Elizabeth has 5 lanes in each direction and a total traffic count of 171,852. That’s an average of 17,185 vehicles per day. The 28,500 in Atlanta obviously exceeds the 17,185 near Newark. Yet despite spending more money on less used roads, New Jersey’s urban freeways rank 46th in pavement condition, while Georgia’s rank 4th. Many states, including those that spend less per mile than New Jersey have high traffic segments. Not only do other states spend less per lane-mile, but their systems are in much better shape.

• Another ELEC critique is that New Jersey’s roads are more complex than other states. The ELEC study provides no support for this point. Some of the most complex projects are being built in states such as Georgia (24th in disbursements), North Carolina (3rd in disbursements) and Texas (23rd in disbursements). So apparently some states can build complex projects cost-effectively. New Jersey may be dense, but it is neither in the top 10 for population nor quickly growing. In fact most of the more complicated projects in New Jersey are on the Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike, both of which are funded by toll revenue not gas taxes.

New Jersey residents should take note of this study for what it is: an attempt to justify taking more money from New Jersey taxpayers.

The post New Jersey Construction Union Tries to Convince Taxpayers that More Expensive, Poor-quality Roads are a Bargain appeared first on Reason Foundation.

The Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of state-owned roads in numerous categories, including pavement condition on urban and rural Interstates, urban traffic congestion, deficient bridges, unsafe narrow lanes, traffic fatalities, total spending and administrative costs.

With a proposed increase to the state gas tax putting New Jersey’s roads under new scrutiny, Jamie Fox, commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, recently commented on the Annual Highway Report. Mr. Fox wrote, “Without the benefit of having the numbers the Reason Foundation used to base its calculations, there is no way to independently review its findings.”

That’s strange. Our Annual Highway Report is based on data that New Jersey, and other states, provide themselves to the federal government. And we’ve readily shared the report’s data with state transportation departments and members of the media across the country. The full Annual Highway Report is here (.pdf). Many of the tables we used are publicly available on the Federal Highway Administration’s website. Some of the key tables are HM-10 (mileage), SF-3 (Revenues for State-Administered Highways) and SF-4 (Disbursements for State-Administered Highways).

Mr. Fox also wrote, “NJDOT has jurisdiction over only 6 percent of the entire roadway network in the state.” That’s right, and the Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report ranks New Jersey based only on the roads the state actually controls. And that should be even more worrying to New Jersey’s taxpayers: Despite the small size of the state-controlled highway system, New Jersey still has big trouble taking care of it. The state ranks near the bottom in poor pavement condition – 46th in urban Interstate pavement condition, 46th in rural primary road pavement condition – and 36th in deficient bridges.

New Jersey’s state government controls just over 3,300 miles of highway. Texas and North Carolina, for comparison, each control more than 20 times as much – over 80,000 miles of highway each. Texas ranks 11th in overall highway performance and cost-effectiveness, while North Carolina ranks 20th, and New Jersey ranks 48th.

Mr. Fox takes issue with how the state’s transportation spending is reported:

New Jersey gives out nearly $330 million a year in local transportation aid to counties and municipalities. This helps local government take care of local roads without having to raise property taxes. The Reason Foundation counts the spending we give to local government but doesn’t count all the miles of local roads that are repaired or built.

Like it does for county and municipal aid, the Reason Foundation also counts the investments made to maintain and run New Jersey Transit as part of our highway spending but gives the state no benefit for that spending. New Jersey is the only state that operates a statewide transit system, so including transit expenditures into highway construction costs is both inaccurate and unfair.

The report’s spending totals are pulled directly from numbers the state of New Jersey provided to the Federal Highway Administration under the category of “Disbursements For State-Administered Highways – 2012.” This federal table, used in our report, shows the breakdown that New Jersey provided for its spending on “capital outlays for roads and bridges; maintenance and highway services; administration research and planning; highway law enforcement and safety; interest; bond retirement; reserves for highway work; and reserves for debt service.”

None of those categories include “local transportation aid” or “statewide transit system.” If the state is claiming it mistakenly included local aid and mass transit spending in clearly defined state highway categories, New Jersey should correct the data it provided to FHWA.

Mr. Fox makes another claim:

The Reason Foundation uses a centerline mile as its denominator. A centerline mile measures the total length of a given road from Point A to Point B, but it doesn’t measure how many actual lanes of highway are going from Point A to Point B.

When was the last time you were on a single-lane highway in New Jersey? There are some, but not many. When we spend money to maintain or build a multiple lane highway, the Reason Foundation acts as if all that spending is to construct a single lane of highway, not the multiple lanes that are actually built.

Lane-miles are part of the report’s calculations. In fact, lane miles are inherent in calculating many of the report’s rankings, including traffic congestion and pavement condition. The Annual Highway Report clearly states: “The average number of lanes per mile is 2.40 lanes, but a few states (New Jersey, Florida, California and Massachusetts) manage significantly wider roads, averaging more than 3.0 lanes per mile.” The report goes on to detail the miles, lane miles and the average number of lanes for all 50 states. These factors are then used to adjust our figures to account for wider roads in some states, like New Jersey. So if New Jersey’s big spending were resulting in smoother pavement and less traffic congestion across many lanes, the state’s overall ranking and its rankings in those individual categories would be better. Instead, New Jersey ranks 31st or worse in nine of the 11 categories, and 41st or worse in seven of 11 categories.

It is incorrect, but let’s test the claim anyway – if the spending per mile metric is punishing New Jersey for having highways that are six or eight lanes wide, as Mr. Fox alleges, then it would make sense that other states with wide highways would suffer too. But that is not the case. California, home to many of the busiest and widest highways in the country, spends $500,000 per mile. New Jersey spends four times that – $2 million per mile. New Jersey spends three times as much as Massachusetts ($675,000 per mile), three-and-a-half times more than Florida ($572,000 per mile), four times as much as New York ($462,000 per mile), and 12 times more than Texas ($157,000 per mile), which is home to six of the 20 most populous cities in America.

Mr. Fox apparently agrees with us regarding the relatively poor condition of the state’s roads, since he makes no comments regarding our data on road conditions like pavement condition and congestion. He does mention other possible causes of the state’s poor road conditions, including age, truck traffic and harsh winters. But somehow, other states with heavy traffic, harsh winters and old systems manage to beat New Jersey.

The Annual Highway Report has been published for over 20 years. It gives taxpayers an idea of how much bang they are getting for their transportation bucks. Over those two decades we’ve seen the states that rank highest tend to produce good road conditions at relatively low costs. States ranked in the middle of the pack can be average across all categories, or, they overcome spending more than the national average by producing good road conditions with that spending. Wisconsin and Oklahoma, for example, both increased their spending and rocketed up 16 spots in the report’s overall rankings by using that spending to better their pavement conditions.

Meanwhile, there’s no escaping the conclusion that New Jersey spends a lot of money on its state-administered highways and delivers poor performance in return. The key question now is what will New Jersey do about it?

David Hartgen is senior fellow at Reason Foundation, president of The Hartgen Group and emeritus transportation professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Baruch Feigenbaum is a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation. They are co-authors of the latest Annual Highway Report.

The post New Jersey Tries to Make Excuses for Expensive State Highways in Poor Condition appeared first on Reason Foundation.

But DOT does not seem that interested in actual highway needs. Of the 72 projects that received funding, 26 are classified as “road” projects by the DOT. But the real goal of six of these “road” projects is to improve walkability and bike access, known as “complete streets,” instead of repairing crumbling infrastructure. “Complete streets” is the idea that roads should be designed with more room for bike access and safe pedestrian crossings. The goal of “complete streets” is to revitalize neighborhoods and city centers by making them more accessible by foot or bike. While the idea sounds appealing and makes for great photographs, should federal funds go towards these local projects compared with regional or national projects? Our answer is that federal funds should support national priorities especially today when the existing surface transportation system is outdated and at or beyond capacity in many areas. And we are not alone. The Bipartisan Policy Center has called for federal action to support national transportation goals, not for the DOT to pick its favorite local projects to fund.

Let’s take a closer look at these “complete streets” projects. The 2014 TIGER grants fund eight such projects at a total cost of $106,605,327, as seen in the table below. Seven of the projects are misclassified; six are counted as “road” projects and the TIGER grant in Los Angeles is labeled as supporting “transit.” But these projects do little to build or maintain road and transit systems. The Eastside Access Improvements project in Los Angeles uses federal funding to plant trees, install street furniture, widen sidewalks and make other aesthetic improvements. Apparently, the DOT thinks installing street furniture will do more to increase transit use than operating more transit vehicles.

The Dahlonega, Georgia project, which may be the most egregious, is using $5 million in federal funding to revitalize the downtown area, which is neither a national nor a regional transportation priority. This revitalization consists of building sidewalks for streets with limited vehicular traffic. Another project that might have had a more widespread impact has gone unfunded in order to increase accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists in downtown Dahlonega, an urban area with fewer than 6,000 people. When the government allocates funds, it is a zero-sum game.

The following table presents each of the “complete streets” projects.

Even in urban areas “complete streets” still provide limited benefits beyond the immediate community. In Connecticut, a state whose highway performance and cost-effectiveness ranks 44th out of the 50 states in Reason Foundation’s latest Annual Highway Report, TIGER funds paid for over 70 percent of the Waterbury Active Transportation and Economic Resurgence (WATER) Project. The project is another downtown revitalization scheme that involves building a trail along the Naugatuck River, reconstructing local streets into “complete streets” and making bike and pedestrian transportation improvements. Again, not only is this project not a “road” project, its primary purpose is making downtown more accessible. Furthermore, the resurgence of downtowns has not necessarily been the result of conscious planning, but instead an organic process.

Communities around the country may find “complete streets” projects to be worthwhile investments. However, TIGER funding should not be used for projects with such locally concentrated benefits given the current pinch on federal transportation funding and the persistent need to upgrade many outdated roads and highways that are nationally and regionally important.

The “complete streets” projects have other issues; they rely more on federal funding than other TIGER projects already in the construction phase. The federal share of total costs for the “complete streets” projects is just over 48 percent, whereas the federal share for all other modes is only 42 percent. So while Smart Growth America may claim that each 2014 TIGER dollar leverages nearly three dollars in matching funds from other sources, but the “complete streets” projects that the organization highlights leverage only $1.14 from other sources.

What types of projects should DOT be funding instead? The New Route 47 Missouri River Bridge Project that replaces a 78 year-old bridge is a much better use of discretionary funding. And the Route 47 project also leverages non-federal funding, using the TIGER grant for only 18 percent of the total project cost.

To be fair, DOT must abide by some rules that discourage selection of the best projects. Congress requires that at least $120 million of this year’s TIGER funding be directed towards projects in rural areas. This requirement makes the selection process more challenging, because the most needed infrastructure projects tend to be located in cities or suburbs. However, there are some rural transportation projects of national significance. The most valuable of these projects makes improvements to federal or Interstate highways, not to revitalize city centers. For example, the TRI-Mississippi project repairs nearly 42 miles of roadway and replaces 18 bridges offering better transportation alternatives than some of the gravel roads and timber bridges that are currently being used.

The misclassification of “complete streets” projects is the latest example of the DOT obfuscating the purpose of TIGER projects. The Government Accountability Office has already reprimanded the department twicethis year. The DOT should not label these projects “road;” it should instead classify them as “bike/ pedestrian”, or better yet, should create a separate “local economic development” category of projects. This way taxpayers will know when federal funds are being misdirected into local boondoggles.

The post Tame This TIGER: DOT Discretionary Grant Program Functions as Earmarking appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Attachments

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Figure 1
• Figure 2
• Figure 3
• Figure 4
• Figure 5
• Figure 6
• Figure 7
• Figure 8
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachuetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Trends in Highway Performance 1998 to 2012
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Viginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

The post 21st Annual Highway Report Graphics appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Alabama

Alabama ranks 21st in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Alabama ranks 36th in fatality rate, 23rd in deficient bridges, 32nd in rural Interstate pavement condition, 35 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 16th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Alabama ranks 21st in total disbursements per mile and 32nd in administrative disbursements per mile.

Alabama’s best rankings are urban Interstate congestion (16th), rural arterial pavement condition (18th) and maintenance disbursements per mile (18th).

Alabama’s worst rankings are fatality rate (36th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (35th).

Alabama’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 25th largest system.

Alabama’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 21st

Overall Rank in 2011: 28th

Overall Rank in 2009: 27th

» return to top

Alaska

Alaska ranks 49th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Alaska ranks 29th in fatality rate, 26th in deficient bridges, 48th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 30 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 11th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Alaska ranks 16th in total disbursements per mile and 21st in administrative disbursements per mile.

Alaska’s best rankings are urban Interstate congestion (11th), capital bridge disbursements per mile (14th) and total disbursements per mile (16th).

Alaska’s worst rankings are rural arterial pavement condition (50th) and rural Interstate pavement condition (48th).

Alaska’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 36th largest system.

Alaska’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 49th

Overall Rank in 2011: 48th

Overall Rank in 2009: 50th

» return to top

Arizona

Arizona ranks 19th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Arizona ranks 37th in fatality rate, 2nd in deficient bridges, 26th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 8th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 38th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Arizona ranks 39th in total disbursements per mile and 35th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Arizona’s best rankings are narrow rural arterial lanes (1st), deficient bridges (2nd) and urban Interstate pavement condition (8 th).

Arizona’s worst rankings are total disbursements per mile (39th) and urban Interstate congestion (38th).

Arizona’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 38th largest system.

Arizona’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 19th

Overall Rank in 2011: 21st

Overall Rank in 2009: 23rd

» return to top

Arkansas

Arkansas ranks 35th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Arkansas ranks 46th in fatality rate, 18th in deficient bridges, 44th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 47 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 18th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Arkansas ranks 9th in total disbursements per mile and 3rd in administrative disbursements per mile.

Arkansas’s best rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (3rd), total disbursements per mile (9th) and maintenance disbursements per mile (10th).

Arkansas’s worst rankings are narrow rural arterial lanes (47th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (47th).

Arkansas’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 16th largest system.

Arkansas’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 35th

Overall Rank in 2011: 37th

Overall Rank in 2009: 36th

» return to top

California

California ranks 45th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

California ranks 9th in fatality rate, 1st in deficient bridges, 46th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 49 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 46th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, California ranks 46th in total disbursements per mile and 47th in administrative disbursements per mile.

California’s best rankings are deficient bridges (1st), fatality rate (9th) and narrow rural arterial lanes (33rd).

California’s worst rankings are maintenance disbursements per mile (49th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (49th).

California’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 11th largest system.

California’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 45th

Overall Rank in 2011: 46th

Overall Rank in 2009: 47th

» return to top

Colorado

Colorado ranks 33rd in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Colorado ranks 17th in fatality rate, 9th in deficient bridges, 43rd in rural Interstate pavement condition, 21 st in urban Interstate pavement condition and 37th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Colorado ranks 29th in total disbursements per mile and 37th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Colorado’s best rankings are deficient bridges (9th), fatality rate (17th) and rural arterial pavement condition (20th).

Colorado’s worst rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (43rd), maintenance disbursements per mile (37th), administrative disbursements per mile (37th) and urban Interstate congestion (37th).

Colorado’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 29th largest system.

Colorado’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 33rd

Overall Rank in 2011: 29th

Overall Rank in 2009: 41st

» return to top

Connecticut

Connecticut ranks 44th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Connecticut ranks 3rd in fatality rate, 45th in deficient bridges, 33rd in rural Interstate pavement condition, 33 rd in urban Interstate pavement condition and 23rd in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Connecticut ranks 44th in total disbursements per mile and 49th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Connecticut’s best rankings are fatality rate (3rd), narrow rural lanes (11th) and urban Interstate congestion (23rd).

Connecticut’s worst rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (49th) and deficient bridges (45th).

Connecticut’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 44th largest system.

Connecticut’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 44th

Overall Rank in 2011: 43th

Overall Rank in 2009: 44th

» return to top

Delaware

Delaware ranks 37th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Delaware ranks 30th in fatality rate, 20th in deficient bridges, 41st in urban Interstate pavement condition and 39 th in urban Interstate congestion. Delaware has no rural Interstate mileage.

On spending, Delaware ranks 40th in total disbursements per mile and 29th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Delaware’s best rankings are narrow rural arterial lanes (1st), deficient bridges (20th) and capital-bridge disbursements per mile (22nd).

Delaware’s worst rankings are maintenance disbursements per mile (44th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (41st).

Delaware’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 41st largest system.

Delaware’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 37th

Overall Rank in 2011: 35th

Overall Rank in 2009: 20th

» return to top

Florida

Florida ranks 31th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Florida ranks 32nd in fatality rate, 11th in deficient bridges, 10th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 16 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 50th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Florida ranks 48th in total disbursements per mile and 36th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Florida’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (10th), deficient bridges (11th), narrow rural arterial narrow lanes (12th) and rural arterial pavement condition (12th).

Florida’s worst rankings are urban Interstate congestion (50th) and capital and bridge disbursements per mile (49th).

Florida’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 20th largest system.

Florida’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 31st

Overall Rank in 2011: 33rd

Overall Rank in 2009: 37th

» return to top

Georgia

Georgia ranks 13th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Georgia ranks 23rd in fatality rate, 16th in deficient bridges, 1st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 4th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 44th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Georgia ranks 24th in total disbursements per mile and 39th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Georgia’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (1st), rural arterial pavement condition (2nd) and urban Interstate pavement condition (4th).

Georgia’s worst rankings are urban Interstate congestion (44th) and administrative disbursements per mile (39th).

Georgia’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 10th largest system.

Georgia’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 13th

Overall Rank in 2011: 11th

Overall Rank in 2009: 12th

» return to top

Hawaii

Hawaii ranks 50th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Hawaii ranks 31st in fatality rate, 46th in deficient bridges, 49th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 50 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 49th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Hawaii ranks 42nd in total disbursements per mile and 50th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Hawaii’s best rankings are fatality rate (31th), maintenance disbursements per mile (40th) and total disbursements per mile (42 nd).

Hawaii’s worst rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (50th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (50th).

Hawaii’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 50th largest system.

Hawaii’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 50th

Overall Rank in 2011: 49th

Overall Rank in 2009: 48th

» return to top

Idaho

Idaho ranks 30th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Idaho ranks 24th in fatality rate, 17th in deficient bridges, 42nd in rural Interstate pavement condition, 36th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 35th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Idaho ranks 17th in total disbursements per mile and 14th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Idaho’s best rankings are percent narrow rural lanes (13th), administrative disbursements per mile (14th), total disbursements per mile (17 th) and deficient bridges (17 th).

Idaho’s worst rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (42nd) and rural arterial pavement condition (42nd).

Idaho’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 43rd largest system.

Idaho’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 30th

Overall Rank in 2011: 8th

Overall Rank in 2009: 17th

» return to top

Illinois

Illinois ranks 27th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Illinois ranks 12th in fatality rate, 10th in deficient bridges, 1st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 3rd in urban Interstate pavement condition and 47th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Illinois ranks 38th in total disbursements per mile and 34th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Illinois’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (1st), urban Interstate pavement condition (3rd) and deficient bridges (10th).

Illinois’s worst rankings are urban Interstate congestion (47th) and capital-bridge disbursements per mile (43rd).

Illinois’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 13th largest system.

Illinois’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 27th

Overall Rank in 2011: 30th

Overall Rank in 2009: 34th

» return to top

Indiana

Indiana ranks 36th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Indiana ranks 14th in fatality rate, 24th in deficient bridges, 45th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 39 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 43rd in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Indiana ranks 33rd in total disbursements per mile and 20th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Indiana’s best rankings are fatality rate (14th), administrative disbursements per mile (20th) and deficient bridges (24th ).

Indiana’s worst rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (45th) and urban Interstate congestion (43rd).

Indiana’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 24th largest system.

Indiana’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 36th

Overall Rank in 2011: 41st

Overall Rank in 2009: 22nd

» return to top

Iowa

Iowa ranks 18th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Iowa ranks 26th in fatality rate, 35th in deficient bridges, 17th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 37th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 32nd in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Iowa ranks 20th in total disbursements per mile and 15th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Iowa’s best rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (15th), rural Interstate pavement condition (17th) and total disbursements per mile (20th).

Iowa’s worst rankings are rural arterial pavement condition (40th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (37th).

Iowa’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 31st largest system.

Iowa’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 18th

Overall Rank in 2011: 12th

Overall Rank in 2009: 33rd

» return to top

Kansas

Kansas ranks 5th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Kansas ranks 33rd in fatality rate, 15th in deficient bridges, 1st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 11th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 3rd in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Kansas ranks 27th in total disbursements per mile and 17th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Kansas’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (1st), urban Interstate congestion (3rd) and rural arterial pavement condition (5th).

Kansas’s worst rankings are fatality rate (33rd) and total disbursements per mile (27th).

Kansas’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 27th largest system.

Kansas’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 5th

Overall Rank in 2011: 3rd

Overall Rank in 2009: 2nd

» return to top

Kentucky

Kentucky ranks 10th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Kentucky ranks 45th in fatality rate, 42nd in deficient bridges, 22nd in rural Interstate pavement condition, 14 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 25th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Kentucky ranks 8th in total disbursements per mile and 1st in administrative disbursements per mile.

Kentucky’s best rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (1st), total disbursements per mile (8th) and capital-bridge disbursements per mile (11th).

Kentucky’s worst rankings are fatality rate (45th) and deficient bridges (42nd).

Kentucky’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 8th largest system.

Kentucky’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 10th

Overall Rank in 2011: 26th

Overall Rank in 2009: 14th

» return to top

Louisiana

Louisiana ranks 40th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Louisiana ranks 44th in fatality rate, 39th in deficient bridges, 41st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 48th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 19th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Louisiana ranks 25th in total disbursements per mile and 19th in administrative costs per mile.

Louisiana’s best rankings are maintenance disbursements per mile (8th), administrative disbursements per mile (19th) and urban Interstate congestion (19th).

Louisiana’s worst rankings are urban Interstate pavement condition (48th) fatality rate (44th) and rural arterial pavement condition (44th).

Louisiana’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 14th largest system.

Louisiana’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 40th

Overall Rank in 2011: 24th

Overall Rank in 2009: 35th

» return to top

Maine

Maine ranks 16th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Maine ranks 25th in fatality rate, 38th in deficient bridges, 14th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 7th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 17th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Maine ranks 13th in total disbursements per mile and 4th in administrative disbursements mile.

Maine’s best rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (4th), urban Interstate pavement condition (7th) and capital-bridge disbursements per mile (9th).

Maine’s worst rankings are narrow rural arterial lanes (45th) and deficient bridges (38th).

Maine’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 33rd largest system.

Maine’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 16th

Overall Rank in 2011: 18th

Overall Rank in 2009: 29th

» return to top

Maryland

Maryland ranks 39th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Maryland ranks 10th in fatality rate, 33rd in deficient bridges, 27th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 44 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 48th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Maryland ranks 45th in total disbursements per mile and 31st in administrative disbursements per mile.

Maryland’s best rankings are fatality rate (10th), narrow rural arterial lanes (14th) and rural arterial pavement condition (22 nd).

Maryland’s worst rankings are urban Interstate congestion (48th) and maintenance disbursements per mile (48th).

Maryland’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 42nd largest system.

Maryland’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 39th

Overall Rank in 2011: 38th

Overall Rank in 2009: 40th

» return to top

Massachusetts

Massachusetts ranks 46th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Massachusetts ranks 1st in fatality rate, 47th in deficient bridges, 39th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 34 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 28th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Massachusetts ranks 49th in total disbursements per mile and 48th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Massachusetts’s best rankings are fatality rate (1st), urban Interstate congestion (28th) and narrow rural arterial lanes (30th).

Massachusetts’s worst rankings are total disbursements per mile (49th), administrative disbursements per mile (48th) and capital bridge disbursements per mile (48th).

Massachusetts’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 46th largest system.

Massachusetts’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 46th

Overall Rank in 2011: 45th

Overall Rank in 2009: 43rd

» return to top

Michigan

Michigan ranks 32nd in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Michigan ranks 15th in fatality rate, 31st in deficient bridges, 40th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 38 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 26th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Michigan ranks 31st in total disbursements per mile and 22nd in administrative disbursements per mile.

Michigan’s best rankings are fatality rate (15th), rural arterial pavement condition (19th) and administrative disbursements per mile (22nd).

Michigan’s worst rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (40th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (38th).

Michigan’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 30th largest system.

Michigan’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 32nd

Overall Rank in 2011: 36th

Overall Rank in 2009: 30th

» return to top

Minnesota

Minnesota ranks 28th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Minnesota ranks 2nd in fatality rate, 5th in deficient bridges, 37th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 43 rd in urban Interstate pavement condition and 24th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Minnesota ranks 19th in total disbursements per mile and 26th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Minnesota’s best rankings are fatality rate (2nd), deficient bridges (5th) and narrow rural arterial lanes (6th).

Minnesota’s worst rankings are rural arterial pavement condition (43rd) and urban Interstate pavement condition (43rd)

Minnesota’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 18th largest system.

Minnesota’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 28th

Overall Rank in 2011: 31st

Overall Rank in 2009: 42nd

» return to top

Mississippi

Mississippi ranks 8th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Mississippi ranks 43rd in fatality rate, 21st in deficient bridges, 30th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 6 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 2nd in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Mississippi ranks 15th in total disbursements per mile and 16th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Mississippi’s best rankings are urban Interstate congestion (2nd), maintenance disbursements per mile (5th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (6th).

Mississippi’s worst rankings are fatality rate (43rd) and rural Interstate pavement condition (30th).

Mississippi’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 26th largest system.

Mississippi’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 8th

Overall Rank in 2011: 10th

Overall Rank in 2009: 10th

» return to top

Missouri

Missouri ranks 12th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Missouri ranks 27th in fatality rate, 34th in deficient bridges, 23rd in rural Interstate pavement condition, 24 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 4th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Missouri ranks 6th in total disbursements per mile and 2nd in administrative disbursements per mile.

Missouri’s best rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (2nd), urban Interstate congestion (4th) and capital-bridge disbursements per mile (5th).

Missouri’s worst rankings are narrow rural arterial lanes (39th) and deficient bridges (34th).

Missouri’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 7th largest system.

Missouri’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 12th

Overall Rank in 2011: 13th

Overall Rank in 2009: 8th

» return to top

Montana

Montana ranks 9th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Montana ranks 48th in fatality rate, 13th in deficient bridges, 28th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 18 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 7th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Montana ranks 10th in total disbursements per mile and 10th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Montana’s best rankings are urban Interstate congestion (7th), capital and bridge disbursements per mile (10th), administrative disbursements per mile (10th) and total disbursements per mile (10th).

Montana’s worst rankings are fatality rate (48th) and rural arterial pavement condition (37th).

Montana’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 23rd largest system.

Montana’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 9th

Overall Rank in 2011: 9th

Overall Rank in 2009: 5th

» return to top

Nebraska

Nebraska ranks 2nd in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Nebraska ranks 22nd in fatality rate, 28th in deficient bridges, 1st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 9 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 12th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Nebraska ranks 5th in total disbursements per mile and 5th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Nebraska’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (1st), administrative disbursements per mile, (5th) and total disbursements per mile (5th).

Nebraska’s worst rankings are rural arterial pavement condition (30th) and deficient bridges (28th).

Nebraska’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 28th largest system.

Nebraska’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 2nd

Overall Rank in 2011: 2nd

Overall Rank in 2009: 6th

» return to top

Nevada

Nevada ranks 24th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Nevada ranks 21st in fatality rate, 3rd in deficient bridges, 29th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 26th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 45th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Nevada ranks 35st in total disbursements per mile and 41st in administrative disbursements per mile.

Nevada’s best rankings are rural arterial pavement condition (3rd), deficient bridges (3rd) and fatality rate (21st).

Nevada’s worst rankings are urban Interstate congestion (45th) and administrative disbursements per mile (41st).

Nevada’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 40th largest system.

Nevada’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 24th

Overall Rank in 2011: 16th

Overall Rank in 2009: 16th

» return to top

New Hampshire

New Hampshire ranks 23rd in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

New Hampshire ranks 8th in fatality rate, 40th in deficient bridges, 35th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 1 st in urban Interstate pavement condition and 13th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, New Hampshire ranks 30th in total disbursements per mile and 42nd in administrative disbursements per mile.

New Hampshire’s best rankings are urban Interstate pavement condition (1st), rural arterial narrow lanes (1st) and fatality rate (8 th).

New Hampshire’s worst rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (42nd) and deficient bridges (40th).

New Hampshire’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 45th largest system.

New Hampshire’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 23rd

Overall Rank in 2011: 23rd

Overall Rank in 2009: 18th

» return to top

New Jersey

New Jersey ranks 48th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

New Jersey ranks 5th in fatality rate, 36th in deficient bridges, 31st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 46 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 41st in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, New Jersey ranks 50th in total disbursements per mile and 45th in administrative disbursements per mile.

New Jersey’s best rankings are fatality rate (5th), narrow rural arterial lanes (19th) and rural Interstate pavement condition (31st).

New Jersey’s worst rankings are total disbursements per mile (50th), maintenance disbursements per mile (50th) and capital-bridge disbursements per mile (50th).

New Jersey’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 47th largest system.

New Jersey’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 48th

Overall Rank in 2011: 47th

Overall Rank in 2009: 46th

» return to top

New Mexico

New Mexico ranks 7th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

New Mexico ranks 39th in fatality rate, 8th in deficient bridges, 11th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 12 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 10th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, New Mexico ranks 11th in total disbursements per mile and 40th in administrative disbursements per mile.

New Mexico’s best rankings are maintenance disbursements per mile (1st), capital-bridge disbursements per mile (6th) and rural arterial pavement condition (6th).

New Mexico’s worst rankings are administrative disbursements per mile (40th) and fatality rate (39th).

New Mexico’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 21th largest system.

New Mexico’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 7th

Overall Rank in 2011: 6th

Overall Rank in 2009: 4th

» return to top

New York

New York ranks 43rd in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

New York ranks 11th in fatality rate, 49th in deficient bridges, 38th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 45 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 36th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, New York ranks 43rd in total disbursements per mile and 38th in administrative disbursements per mile.

New York’s best rankings are fatality rate (11th), rural arterial pavement condition (28th) and urban Interstate congestion (36 th).

New York’s worst rankings are deficient bridges (49th) and maintenance disbursements per mile (47th).

New York’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 15th largest system.

New York’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 43rd

Overall Rank in 2011: 44th

Overall Rank in 2009: 45th

» return to top

North Carolina

North Carolina ranks 20th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

North Carolina ranks 28th in fatality rate, 43rd in deficient bridges, 34th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 22 nd in urban Interstate pavement condition and 22nd in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, North Carolina ranks 3rd in total disbursements per mile and 11th in administrative disbursements per mile.

North Carolina’s best rankings are total disbursements per mile (3rd), capital-bridge disbursements per mile (4th), and maintenance disbursements per mile (6th).

North Carolina’s worst rankings are deficient bridges (43rd) and narrow rural arterial lanes (40th).

North Carolina’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 2nd largest system.

North Carolina’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 20th

Overall Rank in 2011: 17th

Overall Rank in 2009: 19th

» return to top

North Dakota

North Dakota ranks 6th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

North Dakota ranks 47th in fatality rate, 19th in deficient bridges, 1st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 1 st in urban Interstate pavement condition and 15th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, North Dakota ranks 14th in total disbursements per mile and 7th in administrative disbursements per mile.

North Dakota’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (1st), urban Interstate pavement condition (1st) and maintenance disbursements per mile (2nd).

North Dakota’s worst rankings are fatality rate (47th) and capital-bridge disbursements per mile (25th).

North Dakota’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 37th largest system.

North Dakota’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 6th

Overall Rank in 2011: 7th

Overall Rank in 2009: 1st

» return to top

Ohio

Ohio ranks 14th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Ohio ranks 16th in fatality rate, 25th in deficient bridges, 18th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 29th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 14th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Ohio ranks 28th in total disbursements per mile and 28th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Ohio’s best rankings are rural arterial pavement condition (11th), urban Interstate congestion (14th) and fatality rate (16 th).

Ohio’s worst rankings are narrow rural arterial lanes (34th) and capital and bridge disbursements per mile (33rd).

Ohio’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 9th largest system.

Ohio’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 14th

Overall Rank in 2011: 19th

Overall Rank in 2009: 25th

» return to top

Oklahoma

Oklahoma ranks 22nd in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Oklahoma ranks 42nd in fatality rate,]30th in deficient bridges, 19th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 40 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 20th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Oklahoma ranks 22nd in total disbursements per mile and 27th in administrative costs per mile of state highway.

Oklahoma’s best rankings are maintenance disbursements per mile (16th), rural Interstate pavement condition (19th) and urban Interstate congestion (20th).

Oklahoma’s worst rankings are fatality rate (42nd) and urban Interstate pavement condition (40th).

Oklahoma’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 19th largest system.

Oklahoma’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 22nd

Overall Rank in 2011: 32nd

Overall Rank in 2009: 38th

» return to top

Oregon

Oregon ranks 26th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Oregon ranks 18th in fatality rate, 27th in deficient bridges, 25th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 31 st in urban Interstate pavement condition and 30th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Oregon ranks 32nd in total disbursements per mile and 33rd in administrative disbursements per mile.

Oregon’s best rankings are capital-bridge disbursements per mile (15th), narrow rural arterial lanes (18th) and fatality rate (18 th).

Oregon’s worst rankings are maintenance disbursements per mile (35th) and administrative disbursements per mile (33rd).

Oregon’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 34th largest system.

Oregon’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 26th

Overall Rank in 2011: 15th

Overall Rank in 2009: 13th

» return to top

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania ranks 41st in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Pennsylvania ranks 34th in fatality rate, 48th in deficient bridges, 20th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 23 rd in urban Interstate pavement condition and 33rd in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Pennsylvania ranks 26th in total disbursements per mile and 24th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Pennsylvania’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (20th), capital-bridge disbursements per mile (21st) and urban Interstate pavement condition (23rd).

Pennsylvania’s worst rankings are narrow rural arterial lanes (50th) and deficient bridges (48th).

Pennsylvania’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 5th largest system.

Pennsylvania’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 41st

Overall Rank in 2011: 40th

Overall Rank in 2009: 39th

» return to top

Rhode Island

Rhode Island ranks 47th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

Rhode Island ranks 7th in fatality rate, 50th in deficient bridges, 1st in rural Interstate pavement condition, 17 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 31st in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, Rhode Island ranks 47th in total disbursements per mile and 44th in administrative disbursements per mile.

Rhode Island’s best rankings are rural Interstate pavement condition (1st), fatality rate (7th) and urban Interstate pavement condition (17th).

Rhode Island’s worst rankings are deficient bridges (50th) and rural arterial pavement condition (48th).

Rhode Island’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 49th largest system.

Rhode Island’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 47th

Overall Rank in 2011: 50th

Overall Rank in 2009: 49th

» return to top

South Carolina

South Carolina ranks 4th in the nation in highway performance and cost-effectiveness in the Annual Highway Report by Reason Foundation.

South Carolina ranks 49th in fatality rate, 22nd in deficient bridges, 13th in rural Interstate pavement condition, 15 th in urban Interstate pavement condition and 29th in urban Interstate congestion.

On spending, South Carolina ranks 1st in total disbursements per mile and 6th in administrative disbursements per mile.

South Carolina’s best rankings are total disbursements per mile (1st), capital-bridge disbursements per mile (3rd) and maintenance disbursements per mile (4th).

South Carolina’s worst rankings are fatality rate (49th), urban Interstate congestion (29th) and narrow rural arterial lanes (29th).

South Carolina’s state-controlled highway mileage makes it the 4th largest system.

South Carolina’s Complete Results

Overall Rank in 2012: 4th

Overall Rank in 2011: 5th

Overall Rank in 2009: 7th