Surface and Maritime Transportation
Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge Gao ID: GAO-02-775 August 30, 2002The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems include roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and ports and waterways. One of the major goals of these systems is to provide and enhance mobility, that is, the free flow of passengers and goods. Mobility provides people with access to goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses with access to materials, markets and people; and promotes the movement of personnel and material to meet national defense needs. During the past decade, total public sector spending increased for public roads and transit, remained constant for waterways, and decreased for rail. Passenger and freight travel are expected to increase over the next 10 years, according to Department of Transportation projections. Passenger vehicle travel on public roads is expected to grow by 24.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. Passenger travel on transit systems is expected to increase by 17.2 percent over the same period. Amtrak has estimated that intercity passenger rail ridership will increase by 25.9 percent from 2001 to 2010. The key factors behind increases in passenger travel, and the modes travelers choose, are expected to be population growth, the aging of the population, and rising affluence. According to GAO's expert panelists and other sources, with increasing passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime transportation systems face a number of challenges that involve ensuring continued mobility while maintaining a balance with other social goals, such as environmental preservation. These challenges include (1) preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system, (2) ensuring access to transportation for certain undeserved populations, and (3) addressing the transportation system's negative effects on the environment and communities. There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the nation, and GAO's expert panelists indicated that numerous approaches are needed to address these challenges. Strategies included are to (1) focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system rather than on specific modes and types of travel, (2) use a full range of tools to achieve desired mobility outcomes, and (3) provide more options for financing mobility improvements and consider additional sources of revenue.
GAO-02-775, Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-775
entitled 'Surface and Maritime Transportation: Developing Strategies
for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge' which was released on
September 30, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate:
August 2002:
SURFACE AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION:
Developing Strategies for Enhancing Mobility: A National Challenge:
GAO-02-775:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Trends in Public Expenditures for Surface and Maritime Transportation
Vary by Mode:
Passenger and Freight Travel Are Expected to Increase on All
Modes:
Key Mobility Challenges Include Growing Congestion, Limited Access to
the Transportation System for Certain Groups, and Effects on the
Environment and Communities:
Strategies for Addressing Mobility Challenges Include Focusing on
Systemwide Outcomes, Using a Full Range of Tools, and Providing Options
for Financing Surface and Maritime Transportation:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Expenditures for Capital, Operations, and Maintenance:
Appendix II: Travel Forecast Methodologies:
Appendix III: Factors Influencing Future Travel:
Appendix IV: Intelligent Transportation Systems:
Appendix V: Alternative Financing Methods:
Appendix VI: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgements:
Table:
Table 1: Projected Average Annual Growth Rates for Vehicle Miles
Traveled, 2000-2020:
Figures:
Figure 1: Total Public Sector Expenditures for Surface and Maritime
Transportation by Mode, Fiscal Years 1991-1999.:
Figure 2: Federal Government and State and Local Government Shares of
Expenditures
on Public Roads (in millions of 1999 dollars):
Figure 3: Federal Government and State and Local Government Shares of
Expenditures
on Public Transit (in millions of 1999 dollars):
Figure 4: Federal Government and State and Local Government Shares of
Expenditures
on Waterborne Transportation (in millions of 1999 dollars):
Figure 5: Historical and Projected Vehicle Miles Traveled for Passenger
Vehicles
on Public Roads, 1991-2010
Figure 6: Historical and Projected Passenger Miles Traveled on Transit,
1991-2010
Figure 7: Freight Tons (in Billions) in 1998 and Projected to 2010 for
Surface and
Maritime modes:
Figure 8: Purposes for Capital Outlays for Public Roads, Fiscal Years
1993 and 2000:
Figure 9: Federal Expenditures for Construction and Operations and
Maintenance of
Locks and Dams, Fiscal Years 1991-2000:
Abbreviations:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials:
APTA: American Public Transportation Association:
Corps of Engineers: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
GARVEE: Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle:
HOT: high occupancy toll:
HOV: high occupancy vehicle:
HPMS: Highway Performance Monitoring System:
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:
ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems:
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization:
NAS: National Academy of Sciences:
RABA: Revenue Aligned Budget Authority:
RRIF: Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program:
SIB: State Infrastructure Bank:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:
TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of
1998:
TRB: Transportation Research Board:
WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
Letter:
August 30, 2002:
The Honorable James Jeffords
Chairman
The Honorable Robert Smith
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:
The scope of the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems--
which primarily include roads, mass transit systems, railroads, and
ports and waterways[Footnote 1]--is vast. One of the major goals of
these systems is to provide and enhance mobility, that is, the free
flow of passengers and goods. Mobility provides people with access to
goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses with access
to materials, markets, and people; and promotes the movement of
personnel and material to meet national defense needs. Among the social
and economic benefits of enhanced mobility are improved economies and,
for some, better quality of life and access to job opportunities. In
2000, the surface and maritime transportation systems carried 2.7
trillion miles of travel by passenger vehicles and trucks, 8.7 billion
trips on public transit, 22.5 million trips on intercity passenger rail
(Amtrak), and in 1998, about 13.5 billion tons of freight on all modes.
While the U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems provide many
benefits, they have also generated some concerns about congestion and
the burden they impose on the nation‘s quality of life through wasted
energy, time, and money; increased pollution and threats to public
safety; barriers to transportation accessibility for certain population
groups; and the level of financial resources available to address
transportation problems. Several key pieces of legislation that
authorize funding for federal surface transportation programs will
expire soon. For example, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21)[Footnote 2]--which authorizes federal funding for
highways, mass transit, and a variety of other surface transportation
programs--expires in fiscal year 2003 and the Amtrak:
Reform and Accountability Act of 1997[Footnote 3] that authorizes
federal appropriations for Amtrak expires at the end of fiscal year
2002. In addition, the federal funding processes and mechanisms for the
maritime transportation system are currently under review by two
interagency groups.[Footnote 4] As the Congress considers reauthorizing
surface transportation legislation, it will weigh the structure,
nature, and level of federal investment it will provide in future years
to enhance mobility and support other surface and maritime
transportation activities.
Given the social and economic importance of the surface and maritime
transportation systems and to inform the Congress in its
reauthorization deliberations, you asked us to provide information on
the following questions:
1. What have been the trends over the past 10 years in surface and
maritime transportation expenditures made by the public sector?
2. What are the projected trends in the levels of passenger and freight
travel on surface and maritime transportation modes over the next 10
years and what are the key factors that influence those trends?
3. What key challenges in maintaining and improving mobility have
experts and other sources identified?
4. What are some key strategies for addressing the challenges?
In addressing the first two questions, we analyzed databases and other
information obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers).[Footnote 5]
We did not verify the accuracy of these data. In addressing the third
and fourth questions, we relied upon the results of two panels of
surface and maritime transportation experts that we convened in April
2002. The 22 experts were selected by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) and its Transportation Research Board with input from us; they
included a cross-section of representatives from all surface and
maritime modes and from various occupations involved in transportation
planning. We also reviewed reports prepared by federal agencies,
academics, and industry groups to address the third and fourth
questions. Appendix VI provides further information on our scope and
methodology.
In this report we discuss three types of travel that have important
distinctions: local passenger travel, intercity passenger travel, and
freight travel. Local travel includes commuting trips to and from work,
shopping trips, and other personal trips such as for school, social, or
recreational purposes. The main types of vehicles and modes of
transportation used for local trips include automobiles and mass
transit, including city buses, commuter rail, subways, and ferries.
Intercity passenger travel is different from local travel because it
represents longer distances traveled, and it occurs on some different
modes of transportation, primarily automobile, air service, intercity
bus, and intercity rail. Freight generally moves by trucks on public
roads; by barges and various cargo ships on the inland, intra-coastal,
coastal, and Great Lakes waterways; by trains on rail on private right-
of-way; and by airplane. The choice of mode is influenced by the type,
weight, and value of goods being shipped; available modes of
transportation in the region; and cost, speed, and other service
requirements.
Results in Brief:
During the past decade, total public sector spending (in 1999
dollars)[Footnote 6] increased for public roads and transit, remained
constant for waterways, and decreased for rail. Federal expenditures
for public roads have substantially increased since the passage of TEA-
21 in 1998--from $21.2 billion in 1998 to $26.9 billion in 2000, an
increase of 26.8 percent.[Footnote 7] Federal spending for transit
decreased slightly between 1991 and 1999 and then increased by 21.5
percent from $4.3 billion in 1999 to $5.2 billion in 2000. Federal
spending stayed constant for waterways and decreased for rail during
the period from 1991 to 2000. The state and local share of total public
sector expenditures stayed relatively constant during fiscal years 1991
through 1999[Footnote 8] for public roads, while modestly increasing
for other modes.
Passenger and freight travel are expected to increase over the next 10
years, according to DOT projections. Passenger vehicle travel on public
roads is expected to grow by 24.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. Passenger
travel on transit systems is expected to increase by 17.2 percent over
the same period. Amtrak has estimated that intercity passenger rail
ridership will increase by 25.9 percent from 2001 to 2010. Preliminary
estimates by DOT indicate that tons of freight moved on all surface and
maritime modes--truck, rail, and water--are expected to increase by 43
percent from 1998 through 2010, with the largest increase expected to
be in the truck sector. The key factors behind increases in passenger
travel, and the modes travelers choose, are expected to be population
growth, the aging of the population, and rising affluence. For freight
movements, economic growth, increasing international trade, and the
increasing value of cargo shipped may affect future travel levels and
the modes used to move freight. However, several factors in the
forecast methodologies limit their ability to capture the effects of
changes in travel levels on the surface and maritime transportation
systems. In particular, the key assumption underlying most of the
national travel projections that we obtained is that capacity will
increase as levels of travel increase; therefore, the projections are
not limited by possible future constraints on capacity such as
increasing congestion.
According to our expert panelists and other sources, with increasing
passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime transportation
systems face a number of challenges that involve ensuring continued
mobility while maintaining a balance with other social goals, such as
environmental preservation. These challenges include:
* Preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system.
Increasing travel has already been leading to increasing levels of
congestion at bottlenecks and peak travel times in some areas.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute,[Footnote 9] the
average amount of time that roadways were congested increased from
about 4.5 hours per day in 1982 to about 7 hours in 2000 in 75
metropolitan areas that were studied. Freight mobility is affected by
increasing congestion within specific heavily used corridors and at
specific bottlenecks that tend to involve intermodal connections, such
as border crossings, and road and rail connections at major seaports
and within metropolitan areas. For example, one panelist said that
railroads are beginning to experience more severe capacity constraints
in areas where commuter and intercity passenger rail services share
tracks with freight railroads.
* Ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved
populations, including some elderly, poor, and rural populations that
have restricted mobility. Policies and patterns of development that
encourage automobile dependence and favor provision of transit services
with inflexible routes and schedules--such as subway or bus--may
disadvantage these groups by limiting their access to needed services
and/or jobs.
* Addressing the transportation system‘s negative effects on the
environment and communities. Increasing travel can lead to degradation
of air quality and other negative externalities. Passenger and freight
vehicle emissions contribute to air and water pollution, particularly
in congested areas, and the accompanying noise is also a form of
pollution.
There is no one solution for the mobility challenges facing the nation,
and our expert panelists indicated that numerous approaches are needed
to address these challenges. From these discussions, we believe that
the wide range of approaches discussed can be clustered into three key
strategies that may aid transportation decisionmakers at all levels of
government in addressing mobility challenges. These strategies include
the following:
1. Focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system
rather than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired
mobility outcomes. This strategy involves shifting the focus of
transportation agencies at the federal, state, and local level from
their current emphasis on single modes to consider performance outcomes
of all modes in addressing mobility challenges, as well as recognizing
interactions across modes, between passenger and freight traffic, and
between public and private interests. This strategy offers promise to
better target the specific mobility challenges identified above.
2. Use a full range of tools to achieve desired mobility outcomes. This
strategy, which calls for using various tools--such as new
construction, corrective and preventive maintenance, rehabilitation,
operations and system management, and pricing--to address complex
mobility challenges, offers promise to be more effective than placing
emphasis on any one technique. For example, building new infrastructure
can ease congestion in bottlenecks but is not always a viable solution
due to cost, land, regulatory, or administrative constraints. Also,
performing needed maintenance on existing transportation systems can
improve the speed and reliability of passenger and freight travel,
while instituting tolls or fees during peak travel times may lead
people to schedule recreational trips or move freight during less
congested times or by alternate routes.
3. Provide more options for financing mobility improvements and
consider additional sources of revenue. This strategy--which involves
providing options for targeting the financing of transportation
projects to achieve desired mobility outcomes and to address
transportation systems that face the greatest challenges--suggests the
value of identifying more options for raising and distributing funds
for surface and maritime transportation.
Background:
The U.S. surface and maritime transportation systems facilitate
mobility through an extensive network of infrastructure and operators,
as well as through the vehicles and vessels that permit passengers and
freight to move within the systems. The systems include 3.9 million
miles of public roads, 121,000 miles of major private railroad
networks, and 25,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways. They
also include over 500 major urban public transit operators in addition
to numerous private transit operators, and more than 300 ports on the
coasts, Great Lakes, and inland waterways.
Maintaining the transportation system is critical to sustaining
America‘s economic growth. Efficient mobility systems are essential
facilitators of economic development--cities could not exist and global
trade could not occur without systems to transport people and goods.
DOT has adopted improved mobility--to ’shape an accessible, affordable,
reliable transportation system for all people, goods, and regions“--as
one of its strategic goals. To achieve this goal, it has identified
several desired outcomes, including (1) improving the physical
condition of the transportation system, (2) reducing transportation
time from origin to destination, (3) increasing the reliability of trip
times, (4) increasing access to transportation systems, and (5)
reducing the cost of transportation services.
The relative roles, responsibilities, and revenue sources of each
sector involved in surface and maritime transportation activities--
including the federal government, other levels of government, and the
private sector--vary across modes. For public roads, ownership is
divided among federal, state, and local governments--over 77 percent of
the roads are owned by local governments; 20 percent are owned by the
states, including most of the Interstate Highway System; and 3 percent
are owned by the federal government.[Footnote 10] While the federal
government owns few roads, it has played a major role in funding the
nation‘s highways. For example, from 1954 through 2001, the federal
government invested over $370 billion (in constant 2001 dollars) in the
Interstate Highway System.
With the completion of the interstate system in the 1980s--and
continuing with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)[Footnote 11] and its successor
legislation, TEA-21, in 1998--the federal government shifted its focus
toward preserving and enhancing the capacity of the system. Under the
Federal Aid Highway Program, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
provides funds to states to construct, improve, and maintain the
interstate highway system and other parts of the U.S. road network and
to replace and rehabilitate bridges. TEA-21 established, among other
things, a mechanism for ensuring that the level of federal highway
program funds distributed to the states would be more closely linked
than before to the highway user tax receipts credited to the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund. These user taxes include excise
taxes on motor fuels (gasoline, gasohol, diesel, and special fuels) and
truck-related taxes on truck tires, sales of trucks and trailers, and
the use of heavy vehicles. FHWA distributes highway program funds to
the states through annual apportionments according to statutory
formulas that consider a variety of factors including vehicles miles
traveled on the interstate system, motor fuel usage by each state‘s
highway users, and other factors. The federal share for project funding
is usually 80 percent but can vary among programs, road types, and
states. State and local governments then ’match“ federal funds with
funds from other sources, such as state or local revenues.
While the federal government‘s primary role has been to provide capital
funding for the interstate system and other highway projects, state and
local governments provide the bulk of the funding for public roads in
the United States and are responsible for operating and maintaining all
nonfederal roads including the interstate system. The sources of state
highway revenues include user charges, such as taxes on motor fuels and
motor vehicles and tolls; proceeds of bond issues; General Fund
appropriations; and other taxes and investment income. The sources of
local highway revenues include many of the user charges and other
sources used by state governments, as well as property taxes and
assessments.
The U.S. transit system includes a variety of multiple-occupancy
vehicle services designed to transport passengers on local and regional
routes. Capital funding for transit came from the following sources in
2000: 47 percent of the total came from the federal government, 27
percent from transit agencies and other nongovernmental sources, 15
percent from local governments, and 11 percent from states. In that
same year, the sources of operating funds for transit included
passenger fares (36 percent of operating funds); state governments (20
percent); local governments (22 percent); other funds directly
generated by transit agencies and local governments through taxes,
advertising, and other sources (17 percent); and the federal government
(5 percent).
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial assistance
to states and local transit operators to develop new transit systems
and improve, maintain, and operate existing systems. This assistance
includes (1) formula grants to provide capital and operating assistance
to urbanized and nonurbanized areas and to organizations that provide
specialized transit services to the elderly and disabled persons; (2)
competitive capital investment grants for constructing new fixed
guideway[Footnote 12] systems and extensions to existing ones,
modernizing fixed guideway systems, and investing in buses and bus-
related facilities; (3) assistance for transit planning and research;
and (4) grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations to
connect low-income persons and welfare recipients to jobs and support
services. Funding for federal transit programs is generally provided on
an 80 percent/20 percent federal to local match basis. Federal support
for transit projects comes from the Highway Trust Fund‘s highway and
transit accounts and from the General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury.[Footnote 13]
The respective roles of the public and private sector and the revenue
sources vary for passenger as compared with freight railroads. With
regard to passengers, the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created
Amtrak to provide intercity passenger rail service because existing
railroads found such service unprofitable. Since its founding, Amtrak
has rebuilt rail equipment and benefited from significant public
investment in track and stations, especially in the Northeast corridor,
which runs between Boston, Mass., and Washington, D.C. The federal
government, through the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), has
provided Amtrak with $39 billion (in 2000 dollars)[Footnote 14] for
capital and operating expenses from 1971 through 2002. Federal payments
are a significant revenue source for Amtrak‘s capital budget,[Footnote
15] but not its operating budget. In fiscal year 2001, for example, the
sources of Amtrak‘s capital funding were private sector debt financing
(59 percent of total revenues), the federal government (36 percent),
and state and local transportation agencies (5 percent). In that same
year, the sources of funding for Amtrak‘s operating budget were
passenger fares
(59 percent of total revenues), other business activities and commuter
railroads (34 percent), and the federal government and state
governments (7 percent).[Footnote 16] The role of the federal
government in providing financial support to Amtrak is currently under
review amid concerns about the corporation‘s financial viability and
discussions about the future direction of federal policy toward
intercity rail service.
With regard to freight, the private sector owns, operates, and provides
almost all of the financing for freight railroads. Since the 1970s, the
railroad industry has experienced many changes including deregulation
and industry consolidation. Currently, the federal government plays a
relatively small role in financing freight railroad infrastructure by
offering some credit assistance to state and local governments and
railroads for capital improvements.
The U.S. maritime transportation system primarily consists of
waterways, ports, the intermodal connections (e.g., inland rail and
roadways) that permit passengers and cargo to reach marine facilities,
and the vessels and vehicles that move cargo and people within the
system. The maritime infrastructure is owned and operated by an
aggregation of state and local agencies and private companies, with
some federal funding provided by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast
Guard, and DOT‘s Maritime Administration. The Corps of Engineers
provides funding for projects to deepen or otherwise improve navigation
channels, maintain existing waterways, and construct and rehabilitate
inland waterway infrastructure, primarily locks and dams. Funding for
channel operations and maintenance generally comes from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund supported by a tax on imports, domestic
commodities, and other types of port usage. The costs of deepening
federal channels are shared by the federal government and nonfederal
entities. The Inland Waterways Trust Fund, supported by a fuel tax,
funds one-half of the inland and intra-coastal capital investments.
Coast Guard funding promotes (1) mobility by providing aids to
navigation, icebreaking services, bridge administration, and traffic
management activities; (2) security through law enforcement and border
control activities; and (3) safety through programs for prevention,
response, and investigation. DOT‘s Maritime Administration provides
loan guarantees for the construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning
of eligible export vessels and for shipyard modernization and
improvement. It also subsidizes the operating costs of some companies
that provide maritime services and provides technical assistance to
state and local port authorities, terminal operators, the private
maritime industry, and others on a variety of topics (e.g., port,
intermodal, and advanced cargo handling technologies; environmental
compliance; and planning, management, and operations of ports).
Trends in Public Expenditures for Surface and Maritime Transportation
Vary by Mode:
Public Sector Expenditures:
Public sector spending (in 1999 dollars) has increased for public roads
and transit between fiscal years 1991 and 1999, but stayed constant for
waterways and decreased for rail, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Total Public Sector Expenditures for Surface and Maritime
Transportation by Mode, Fiscal Years 1991-1999:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (2002), Government Transportation Financial Statistics
(Preliminary Data), Washington, D.C.
[End of Figure]
Total public sector spending for public roads increased by 18.4 percent
between fiscal years 1991 and 1999,[Footnote 17] from $80.6 billion to
$95.5 billion (in 1999 dollars).[Footnote 18] Of those totals, the
relative shares contributed by the federal government and by state and
local governments remained constant from 1991 to 1999, as shown in
figure 2. Contributions from state and local governments‘ own funds--
that is, independent of federal grants to state and local governments-
-were approximately 75 percent, with the federal government
contributing the remaining 25 percent.[Footnote 19]
Figure 2: Federal Government and State and Local Government Shares of
Expenditures on Public Roads (in millions of 1999 dollars):
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (2002), Government Transportation Financial Statistics
(Preliminary Data), Washington, D.C.
[End of Figure]
The increases in total public spending for roads reflect federal
programmatic spending increases resulting from ISTEA in 1992 and TEA-21
in 1998, as well as increases in total state and local spending. In
particular, since the passage of TEA-21, the federal government‘s
contribution to total public expenditures on roads increased by 26.8
percent (in 1999 dollars) from $21.2 billion in fiscal year 1998 to
$26.9 billion in fiscal year 2000, the latest year for which federal
expenditure data are available. Although data on federal expenditures
are not currently available for fiscal years after 2000, federal
appropriations for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 reached $32.1 billion and
$33.3 billion, respectively.[Footnote 20] Federal funding increases in
those years largely resulted from adjustments required by the Revenue
Aligned:
Budget Authority (RABA) provisions in TEA-21.[Footnote 21] Since TEA-
21, the federal government has shifted its focus toward preserving and
enhancing the capacity of public roads, while state and local
government expenditures have been focused on maintaining and operating
public roads. Appendix I contains additional information on the levels
of capital investment and maintenance spending by the public sector.
Total public spending for transit increased by 14.8 percent between
fiscal years 1991 and 1999 to just over $29 billion (in 1999 dollars).
This mainly reflects increases in state and local expenditures, as
federal expenditures for transit actually decreased slightly over this
period to $4.3 billion in 1999. In fiscal year 2000, however, federal
spending on transit increased by 21.5 percent from $4.3 billion to $5.2
billion (in 1999 dollars). Although federal data on expenditures are
not currently available for fiscal years after 2000, appropriations for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 reached $6.3 billion and $6.8 billion,
respectively. State and local expenditures, independent of federal
grants, increased to over $24 billion in 1999, accounting for over 85
percent of total public sector expenditures for transit, a share that
has increased somewhat since 1991, as shown in figure 3.
Figure 3: Federal Government and State and Local Government Shares of
Expenditures on Public Transit (in millions of 1999 dollars):
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (2002), Government Transportation Financial Statistics
(Preliminary Data), Washington, D.C.
[End of Figure]
Public sector spending on ports and waterways has remained between $7.2
and $7.9 billion (in 1999 dollars), between fiscal years 1991 and 1999.
This spending pattern reflects fairly steady levels of federal spending
by the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and the Maritime
Administration for water transportation expenditures. Expenditures by
the Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard comprise the bulk of federal
spending for water transportation, and have remained at about $1.5
billion and $2 billion (in 1999 dollars) per year, respectively. State
and local expenditures, however, increased by 27.7 percent, from $2.4
billion in fiscal year 1991 to $3.1 billion in fiscal year 1999, and
accounted for about 41 percent of total public water transportation
expenditures in fiscal year 1999, having grown from about 34 percent of
the total in fiscal year 1991, as shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Federal Government and State and Local Government Shares of
Expenditures on Waterborne Transportation (in millions of 1999
dollars):
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (2002), Government Transportation Financial Statistics
(Preliminary Data), Washington, D.C.
[End of Figure]
The public sector‘s role in the funding of freight railroads is limited
since the private sector owns, operates, and provides almost all of the
financing for freight railroads. In addition, since public sector
expenditures for commuter rail and subways are considered public
transit expenditures, public expenditures discussed here for passenger
rail are limited to funding for Amtrak. Federal support for Amtrak has
fluctuated somewhat throughout the 1990s, but has dropped off
substantially in recent years, with fiscal years 2001 and 2002
appropriations of $520 and $521 million, respectively. Sufficient data
are not currently available to characterize trends in state and local
governments‘ spending for intercity passenger rail.[Footnote 22]
Private Sector Expenditures:
The private sector plays an important role in the provision of
transportation services in each mode. For example, while the private
sector does not invest heavily in providing roads, it purchases and
operates most of the vehicles for use on publicly provided roads. For
freight rail, the private sector owns and operates most of the tracks
as well as the freight trains that run on the tracks. In the maritime
sector, many ports on the inland waterways are privately owned, as are
freight vessels and towboats. Data on private sector expenditures on a
national level are limited. However, available data show that private
expenditures for transportation on roads, rail, and waterways rose
throughout the 1990s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis‘ Survey of Current Business,[Footnote 23] individuals and
businesses spent about $397 billion in 2000 for the purchase of new
cars, buses, trucks, and other motor vehicles, a 57-percent increase
from 1993 levels (in 2000 dollars). In addition to the purchase of
vehicles, the private sector also invests in and operates toll roads
and lanes; however, data on these investments are not currently
available on a national level. According to the Survey of Current
Business, freight railroads and other businesses spent over $11 billion
for railroad infrastructure and rail cars in 2000, a 66-percent
increase from 1991 (in 2000 dollars). In addition, private sector
investment on ships and boats more than doubled between 1991 and 2000,
to about $3.7 billion (in 2000 dollars). However, private investment in
waterways also includes port facilities for loading and unloading ships
and for warehousing goods. Data on these investments are also currently
not available on a national level.
Passenger and Freight Travel Are Expected to Increase on All Modes:
Federal projections show passenger and freight travel increasing over
the next 10 years on all modes,[Footnote 24] due to population growth,
increasing affluence, economic growth, and other factors. Passenger
vehicle travel on public roads is expected to grow by 24.7 percent from
2000 to 2010. Passenger travel on transit systems is expected to
increase by 17.2 percent over the same period. Intercity passenger rail
ridership is expected to increase by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.
Finally, preliminary estimates by DOT also indicate that tons of
freight moved on all surface and maritime modes--truck, rail, and
water--are expected to increase by about 43 percent from 1998 through
2010, with the largest increase expected to be in tons moved by truck.
However, several factors in the forecast methodologies limit their
ability to capture the effects of changes in travel levels on the
surface and maritime transportation systems as a whole (see app. II for
more information about the travel forecast methodologies). For example,
a key assumption underlying most of the national travel projections we
obtained is that capacity will increase as levels of travel increase;
that is, the projections are not limited by possible future constraints
on capacity such as increasing congestion. On the other hand, if
capacity does not increase, future travel levels may be lower than
projected.[Footnote 25] In addition, differences in travel measurements
hinder direct comparisons between modes and types of travel. For
example, intercity highway travel is not differentiated from local
travel in FHWA‘s projections of travel on public roads, so projections
of intercity highway travel cannot be directly compared to intercity
passenger travel projections for other modes, such as rail. For freight
travel, FHWA produces projections of future tonnage shipped on each
mode; however, tonnage is only one measure of freight travel and does
not capture important aspects of freight mobility, such as the
distances over which freight moves or the value of the freight being
moved.
Travel on Public Roads Is Projected to Grow Fairly Steadily:
As shown in figure 5, vehicle miles traveled for passenger vehicles on
public roads are projected to grow fairly steadily through 2010, by
24.7 percent over the 10-year period from 2000 through 2010, with an
average annual increase of 2.2 percent. This is similar to the actual
average annual rate of growth from 1991 to 2000, which was 2.5 percent.
At the projected rate of growth, vehicle miles traveled would reach 3.2
trillion by 2010. The 20-year annual growth rate forecasts produced by
individual states ranged from a low of 0.39 percent for Maine to a high
of 3.43 percent for Utah.[Footnote 26] (See app. II for more detailed
information on state forecasts.):
Figure 5: Historical and Projected Vehicle Miles Traveled for Passenger
Vehicles on Public Roads, 1991-2010:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Automobiles include all passenger cars plus motorcycles. Light
trucks are defined as other 2-axle 4-tire vehicles (such as vans,
pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles). Buses include commercial
buses, school buses, and buses owned by federal, state, or local
governments.
Source: Federal Highway Administration.
[End of Figure]
In addition to passenger vehicles, trucks carrying freight contribute
to the overall levels of travel on public roads. Vehicle miles traveled
by freight trucks are also projected to increase by 2010, but such
traffic makes up a relatively small share of total vehicle miles
traveled. According to forecasts by FHWA, freight truck vehicle miles
are expected to grow by 32.5 percent from 2000 to 2010, but will
constitute less than 10 percent of total vehicle miles traveled
nationwide in 2010. However, within certain corridors, trucks may
account for a more substantial portion of total traffic. The projected
average annual growth rate for truck travel is 2.9 percent for 2000 to
2010, compared to an actual average annual growth rate of 3.9 percent
from 1991 to 2000. We discuss freight travel in more detail later in
this report, after the discussion of passenger travel.
Transit Travel Is Projected to Increase:
For transit, FTA projects that the growth in passenger miles traveled
between 2000 and 2010 will average 1.6 percent annually, for a total
growth of 17.2 percent. Actual growth from 1991 through 2000 averaged
2.1 percent annually. (See fig. 6.) At the projected growth rate,
annual passenger miles traveled on the nation‘s transit systems would
be approximately 52.9 billion by 2010. The transit forecast is a
national weighted average and the individual forecasts upon which it is
based vary widely by metropolitan area. For example, transit forecasts
for specific urbanized areas range from a -0.05 percent average annual
decrease in Philadelphia to a 3.56 percent average annual increase in
San Diego.
Figure 6: Historical and Projected Passenger Miles Traveled on Transit,
1991-2010:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Types of transit included in this figure are: automated guideway
(guided, fully automated vehicle), cable car, commuter rail, demand
response (vehicle operating in response to calls from passengers),
ferryboat, heavy rail, inclined plane (vehicle operating up and down
slope on rail via a cable mechanism), light rail, bus, monorail, public
trolley, and vanpool.
Sources: For 1991-2000: National Transit Database; for 2001-2010: GAO‘s
calculations based on the Federal Transit Administration‘s annual
growth rate projection.
[End of Figure]
Intercity Passenger Travel Is Projected to Increase:
Both DOT and Amtrak project future increases in intercity passenger
travel. Although automobiles dominate intercity travel, FHWA‘s
projections of vehicle miles traveled do not separately report long-
distance travel in cars on public roads. After automobiles, airplanes
and intercity buses are the next most used modes and intercity
passenger rail is the least used.[Footnote 27] However, we do not
report on air travel since it is outside the scope of this report, or
on bus travel, because while FHWA projected increases in the number of
miles traveled by all types of buses, we were unable to obtain specific
projections of intercity ridership on buses. For intercity passenger
rail, Amtrak predicts a cumulative increase in total ridership of 25.9
percent from 23.5 million passengers in 2001 to 29.6 million passengers
in 2010, a contrast with the relatively flat ridership of recent years,
which has remained between 20 and 23 million passengers per year (see
app. II for further details about Amtrak‘s projections).[Footnote 28]
Factors Expected to Affect Future Passenger Travel Include Population
Growth, Increasing Affluence, and Improved Communications:
According to FHWA, FTA, and many of our panelists, a number of factors
are likely to influence not only the amount of travel that will occur
in the future, but also the modes travelers choose. First, the U.S.
Census Bureau predicts that the country‘s population will reach almost
300 million by 2010, which will result in more travelers on all modes.
This population growth, and the areas in which it is expected to occur,
could have a variety of effects on mode choices. In particular, the
population growth that is expected in suburban areas could lead to a
larger increase in travel by private vehicles than by transit because
suburban areas generally have lower population densities than inner
cities, and also have more dispersed travel patterns, making them
harder to serve through conventional public transit. Rural areas are
also expected to experience high rates of population growth and persons
living there, like suburban residents, are more reliant on private
vehicles and are not easily served by conventional public transit.
While these demographic trends tend to decrease transit‘s share of
total passenger travel as compared to travel by private vehicle, the
overall growth in population is expected to result in absolute
increases in the level of travel on transit systems as well as by
private vehicle. Another important factor that could affect mode choice
is that the population aged 85 and over will increase 30 percent by
2010, according to data from the Census Bureau. The aging of the
population might increase the market for demand-responsive transit
services[Footnote 29] and improved road safety features, such as
enhanced signage.
Second, DOT officials and our panelists believed that the increasing
affluence of the U.S. population would play a key role in future
travel, both in overall levels and in the modes travelers choose. They
noted that, as income rises, people tend to take more and longer trips,
private vehicle ownership tends to increase, and public transit use
generally decreases. Third, communication technology could affect local
and intercity travel, but the direction and extent of the effect is
uncertain. For example, telecommuting and videoconferencing are
becoming more common, but are not expected to significantly replace
face-to-face meetings unless the technology improves substantially.
Finally, changes in the price (or perceived price), condition, and
reliability of one modal choice as compared to another are also likely
to affect levels of travel and mode choices. For example, changes in
the petroleum market that affect fuel prices, or changes in government
policy that affect the cost of driving or transit prices could result
in shifts between personal vehicles and transit; however, it is
difficult to predict the extent to which these changes would occur.
Also, if road congestion increases, there could be a shift to transit
or a decrease in overall travel. See appendix III for a more detailed
discussion of these factors.
The Amount of Freight Moved Is Expected to Increase to 19.3 Billion
Tons by 2010:
Trucks move the majority of freight tonnage and are expected to
continue moving the bulk of freight into the future. FHWA‘s preliminary
forecasts[Footnote 30] of international and domestic freight tonnage
across all surface and maritime modes project that total freight moved
will increase 43 percent, from 13.5 billion tons in 1998 to 19.3
billion tons in 2010. According to the forecasts, by 2010, 14.8 billion
tons are projected to move by truck, a 47.6-percent increase; 3 billion
tons by rail, a 31.8-percent increase; and 1.5 billion tons by water, a
26.6-percent increase, as shown in figure 7.[Footnote 31] Trucks are
expected to remain the dominant mode, in terms of tonnage, because
production of the commodities that typically move by truck, such as
manufactured goods, is expected to grow faster than the main
commodities moved by rail or on water, such as coal and grain.
Figure 7: Freight Tons (in billions) in 1998 and Projected to 2010A for
Surface and MaritimeB Modes:
[See PDF for image]
AThese forecasts are still in draft.
[B] FHWA‘s maritime freight projections do not include international
trade of bulk products and some inland domestic bulk shipments.
Source: Federal Highway Administration.
[End of Figure]
Tonnage is only one measure of freight travel and does not capture
important aspects of freight mobility, such as the distances over which
freight moves or the value of the freight being moved. Ton-
miles[Footnote 32] measure the amount of freight moved as well as the
distance over which it moves, and historically, rail has been the
dominant mode in terms of ton-miles for domestic freight. In 1998, the
base year of FHWA‘s projections, domestic rail ton-miles totaled over
1.4 trillion, while intercity truck ton-miles totaled just over one
trillion, and domestic ton-miles on the waterways totaled 672.8
billion. Air is the dominant mode in terms of value per ton according:
to DOT‘s Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000,[Footnote 33] at
$51,000 per ton (in 1997 dollars). However, in terms of total value,
trucks are the dominant mode. According to the Annual Report, trucks
moved nearly
$5 trillion (in 1997 dollars) in domestic goods, as opposed to $320
billion by rail and less than $100 billion by inland waterway.
International freight is an increasingly important aspect of the U.S.
economy. For international freight, water is the dominant mode in terms
of tonnage. According to a DOT report, more than 95 percent of all
overseas products and materials that enter or leave the country move
through ports and waterways.[Footnote 34] More specifically,
containers, which generally carry manufactured commodities such as
consumer goods and electrical equipment and can be easily transferred
to rail or truck, dominate in terms of value, accounting for 55 percent
of total imports and exports, while only accounting for 12 percent of
foreign tonnage. Containers are the fastest growing segment of the
maritime sector. While FHWA predicts that total maritime freight
tonnage will grow by 26.6 percent, the Corps of Engineers projects that
volumes of freight moving in containers will increase by nearly 70
percent by 2010. In addition, ships designed to carry containers are
the fastest growing segment of the maritime shipping fleet and are also
increasing in size. Although freight vessels designed to carry bulk
freight (e.g., coal, grain, or oil) are the largest sector of the
freight vessel fleet, the number of containerships is increasing by 8.8
percent annually, which is double the growth rate of any other type of
vessel according to the Corps of Engineers. Also, most of the overall
capacity of the containership fleet is now found in larger
containerships, with a capacity of more than 3,000 twenty-foot
containers, and ships with capacities of three times that amount are
currently on order.
Factors Expected to Affect Freight Travel Include Increasing
International Trade and Economic Growth:
According to reports by the Transportation Research Board and the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics,[Footnote 35] increasing
international trade and economic growth are expected to influence
volumes of future freight travel. In addition, the increasing value of
cargo shipped and changes in policies affecting certain commodities can
affect overall levels of freight traffic as well as the choice of mode
for that traffic. The North American Free Trade Agreement has
contributed to the increases in tonnage of imports by rail (24-percent
increase) and by truck (20-percent increase), from Mexico and Canada
between 1996 and 2000, while expanding trade with the Pacific Rim has
increased maritime traffic at west coast container ports. With
increasing affluence, economic growth often results in a greater volume
of goods produced and consumed, leading to more freight moved,
particularly higher-value cargo. In addition, the increasing value of
cargo affects the modes on which that cargo is shipped. High-value
cargo, such as electronics and office equipment, tends to be shipped by
air or truck, while rail and barges generally carry lower-value bulk
items like coal and grains. Changes in environmental regulations and
other policies also affect the amount, cost, and mode choice for moving
freight. For example, a change in demand for coal due to stricter
environmental controls could affect rail and water transportation, the
primary modes for shipping coal. See appendix III for a more detailed
discussion of the factors that influence freight travel.
Key Mobility Challenges Include Growing Congestion, Limited Access to
the Transportation System for Certain Groups, and Effects on the
Environment and Communities:
To identify key mobility challenges and the strategies for addressing
those challenges that are discussed later in this report, we relied
upon the results of two panels of surface and maritime transportation
experts that we convened in April 2002, as well as reports prepared by
federal and other government agencies, academics, and industry groups.
According to our expert panelists and other sources, with increasing
passenger and freight travel, the surface and maritime transportation
systems face a number of challenges that involve ensuring continued
mobility while maintaining a balance with other social goals, such as
environmental preservation. Ensuring continued mobility involves
preventing congestion from overwhelming the transportation system and
ensuring access to transportation for certain underserved populations.
In particular, more travel can lead to growing congestion at
bottlenecks and at peak travel times on public roads, transit systems,
freight rail lines, and at freight hubs such as ports and borders where
freight is transferred from one mode to another. In addition,
settlement patterns and dependence on the automobile limit access to
transportation systems for some elderly people and low-income
households, and in rural areas where populations are expected to
expand. Increasing travel levels can also negatively affect the
environment and communities by increasing the levels of air, water, and
noise pollution.
Congestion Is Growing at Bottlenecks and at Peak Travel Times:
Many panelists explained that congestion is generally growing for
passenger and freight travel and will continue to increase at localized
bottlenecks (places where the capacity of the transportation system is
most limited), at peak travel times, and on all surface and maritime
transportation modes to some extent. However, panelists pointed out
that transportation systems as a whole have excess capacity and that
communities may have different views on what constitutes congestion.
Residents of small cities and towns may perceive significant congestion
on their streets that may be considered insignificant to residents in
major metropolitan areas. In addition, because of the relative nature
of congestion, its severity is difficult to determine or to measure and
while one measure may be appropriate for some situations, it may be
inadequate for describing others.
Congestion in Passenger Travel and on Freight Networks:
For local urban travel, a study by the Texas Transportation
Institute[Footnote 36] showed that the amount of traffic experiencing
congestion in peak travel periods doubled from 33 percent in 1982 to 66
percent in 2000 in the 75 metropolitan areas studied. In addition, the
average time per day that roads were congested increased over this
period, from about 4.5 hours in 1982 to about 7 hours in 2000.
Increased road congestion can also affect public bus and other transit
systems that operate on roads. Some transit systems are also
experiencing increasing rail congestion at peak travel times. For
example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority‘s (WMATA)
recent studies on crowding found that rail travel demand has reached
and, in some cases, exceeded scheduled capacity--an average of 140
passengers per car--during the peak morning and afternoon hours. Of the
more than 200 peak morning rail trips that WMATA observed over a recent
6-month period, on average, 15 percent were considered ’uncomfortably
crowded“ (125 to 149 passengers per car) and 8 percent had ’crush
loads“ (150 or more passengers per car).[Footnote 37]
In addition to local travel, concerns have been raised about how
intercity and tourist travel interacts with local traffic in
metropolitan areas and in smaller towns and rural areas, and how this
interaction will evolve in the future. According to a report sponsored
by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Mobility
2001,[Footnote 38] capacity problems for intercity travelers are
generally not severe outside of large cities, except in certain heavily
traveled corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, which links
Washington, D.C., New York, and Boston. However, at the beginning and
end of trips, intercity bus and automobile traffic contribute to and
suffer from urban congestion. In addition, the study said that
intercity travel may constitute a substantial proportion of total
traffic passing through smaller towns and rural areas. Also, according
to a GAO survey of all states, state officials are increasingly
concerned about traffic volumes on interstate highways in rural areas,
and high levels of rural congestion are expected in 18 states within
10 years.[Footnote 39]
Congestion is also expected to increase on major freight transportation
networks at specific bottlenecks, particularly where intermodal
connections occur, and at peak travel times, according to the
panelists. They expressed concern regarding interactions between
freight and passenger travel and how increases in both types of travel
will affect mobility in the future. Trucks contribute to congestion in
metropolitan areas where they generally move on the same roads and
highways as personal vehicles, particularly during peak periods of
congestion. In addition, high demand for freight, particularly freight
moved on trucks, exists in metropolitan areas where overall congestion
tends to be the worst.
With international trade an increasing part of the economy and with
larger containerships being built, some panelists indicated that more
pressure will be placed on the already congested road and rail
connections to major U.S. seaports and at the border crossings with
Canada and Mexico. For example, according to a DOT report,[Footnote 40]
more than one-half of the ports responding to a 1997 survey of port
access issues identified traffic impediments on local truck routes as
the major infrastructure problem.
According to one panelist from the freight rail industry, there is
ample capacity on most of the freight rail network. However, railroads
are beginning to experience more severe capacity constraints in
particular heavily used corridors, such as the Northeast corridor, and
within major metropolitan areas, especially where commuter and
intercity passenger rail services share tracks with freight railroads.
Capacity constraints at these bottlenecks are expected to worsen in the
future. The panelist explained that congestion on some freight rail
segments where the tracks are also used for passenger rail service--for
which there is growing demand--reduces the ability of freight railroads
to expand service on the existing tracks to meet the growing demand for
freight movements on those segments.
On the inland waterways, according to two panelists from that industry,
there is sufficient capacity on most of the inland waterway network,
although congestion is increasing at small, aging, and increasingly
unreliable locks. According to the Corps of Engineers, the number of
hours that locks were unavailable due to lock failures increased in
recent years, from about 35,000 hours in 1991 to 55,000 hours in 1999,
occurring primarily on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers. In
addition, according to a Corps of Engineers analysis of congestion on
the inland waterways, with expected growth in freight travel, 15 locks
would exceed 80 percent of their capacity by 2020, as compared to 4
that had reached that level in 1999.
Other Systemic Factors Contributing to Congestion:
According to our expert panelists, while increasing passenger and
freight travel contribute to increasing congestion at bottlenecks and
at peak travel times, other systemic factors contribute to congestion,
including barriers to building enough capacity to accommodate growing
levels of travel, challenges to effectively managing and operating
transportation systems, and barriers in effectively managing how, and
the extent to which, transportation systems are used.
At bottlenecks and at peak travel times, there is insufficient capacity
to accommodate the levels of traffic attempting to use the
infrastructure. One reason for the insufficient capacity is that
transportation infrastructure, which is generally publicly provided
(with the major exception of freight railroads), can take a long time
to plan and build, and it may not be possible to build fast enough to
keep pace with increasing and shifting travel patterns. In addition,
constructing new capacity is often costly and can conflict with other
social goals such as environmental preservation and community
maintenance. As a result, approval of projects to build new capacity,
which requires environmental impact statements and community outreach,
generally takes a long time, if it is obtained at all.
In addition, a number of panelists indicated that funding and planning
rigidities in the public institutions responsible for providing
transportation infrastructure tend to promote one mode of
transportation, rather than a set of balanced transportation choices.
Focus on a single mode can result in difficulties dealing effectively
with congestion. For example, as suburban expressways enable community
developments to grow and move farther out from city centers, jobs and
goods follow these developments. This results in increasing passenger
and freight travel on the expressways, and a shifting of traffic flows
that may not easily be accommodated by existing transportation choices.
One panelist indicated that suburban expressways are among the least
reliable in terms of travel times because, if congestion occurs, there
are fewer feasible alternative routes or modes of transportation. In
addition, some bottlenecks occur where modes connect, because funding
is generally mode-specific, and congestion at these intermodal
connections is not easily addressed. According to FHWA, public sector
funding programs are generally focused on a primary mode of
transportation, such as highways, or a primary purpose, such as
improving air quality. This means that intermodal projects may require
a broader range of funding than might be available under a single
program.
Panelists also noted that the types of congestion problems that are
expected to worsen in the future involve interactions between long-
distance and local traffic and between passengers and freight, and
existing institutions may not have the capacity or the authority to
address them. For example, some local bottlenecks may hinder traffic
that has regional or national significance, such as national freight
flows from major coastal ports, or can affect the economies and traffic
in more than one state. Current state and local planning organizations
may have difficulty considering all the costs and benefits related to
national or international traffic flows that affect other jurisdictions
as well as their own.
The concept of capacity is broader than just the physical
characteristics of the transportation network (e.g., the number of
lane-miles of road). The capacity of transportation systems is also
determined by how well they are managed and operated (particularly
publicly owned and operated systems), and how the use of those systems
is managed. Many factors related to the management and operation of
transportation systems can contribute to increasing congestion. Many
panelists said that congestion on highways was in part due to poor
management of traffic flows on the connectors between highways and poor
management in clearing roads that are blocked due to accidents,
inclement weather, or construction. For example, in the 75 metropolitan
areas studied by the Texas Transportation Institute, 54 percent of
annual vehicle delays in 2000 were due to incidents such as breakdowns
or crashes. In addition, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported
that, nationwide, significant delays are caused by work zones on
highways; poorly timed traffic signals; and snow, ice, and
fog.[Footnote 41]
In addition, according to a number of panelists, congestion on
transportation systems is also in part due to inefficient pricing of
the infrastructure because users--whether they are drivers on a highway
or barge operators moving through a lock--do not pay the full costs
they impose on the system and on other users for their use of the
system. They further argued that if travelers and freight carriers had
to pay a higher cost for using transportation systems during peak
periods to reflect the full costs they impose, they would have an
incentive to avoid or reschedule some trips and to load vehicles more
fully, resulting in less congestion.
Effects of Congestion:
Congestion affects travel times and the reliability of transportation
systems. As discussed earlier in this report, the Texas Transportation
Institute found that 66 percent of peak period travel on roadways was
congested in 2000, compared to 33 percent in 1982 in the 75
metropolitan areas studied. According to the study, this means that two
of every three vehicles experience congestion in their morning or
evening commute. In the aggregate, congestion results in thousands of
hours of delay every day, which can translate into costs such as lost
productivity and increased fuel consumption. In addition, a decrease in
travel reliability imposes costs on the traveler in terms of arriving
late to work or for other appointments, and in raising the cost of
moving goods resulting in higher prices for consumers.
Some panelists noted that congestion, in some sense, reflects full use
of transportation infrastructure, and is therefore not a problem. In
addition, they explained that travelers adjust to congestion and adapt
their travel routes and times, as well as housing and work choices, to
avoid congestion. For example, according to the Transportation
Statistics Annual Report 2000, median commute times increased about 2
minutes between 1985 and 1999, despite increases in the percentage of
people driving to work alone and the average commuting distance. For
freight travel, one panelist made a similar argument, citing that
transportation costs related to managing business operations have
decreased as a percentage of gross national product, indicating that
producers and manufacturers adjust to transportation supply, by
switching modes or altering delivery schedules to avoid delays and
resulting cost increases.
However, the Mobility 2001 report describes these adaptations by
individuals and businesses as economic inefficiencies that can be very
costly. According to the report, increasing congestion can cause
avoidance of a substantial number of trips resulting in a corresponding
loss of the benefits of those trips. In addition to negative economic
effects, travelers‘ adaptation to congested conditions can also have a
number of negative social effects on other people. For example,
according to researchers from the Texas Transportation Institute,
traffic cutting through neighborhoods to avoid congestion can cause
community disruptions and ’road rage“ can be partly attributed to
increasing congestion.
Certain Underserved Groups Have Limited Access to Transportation:
The FHWA and FTA‘s 1999 Conditions and Performance report[Footnote 42]
states that significant accessibility[Footnote 43] barriers persist for
some elderly people and low-income households. In addition, several
panelists stated that rural populations also face accessibility
difficulties.
Elderly Persons:
According to the Conditions and Performance report, the elderly have
different mobility challenges than other populations because they are
less likely to have drivers‘ licenses, have more serious health
problems, and may require special services and facilities. According to
1995 data, 45 percent of women and 16 percent of men over age 75 did
not have drivers‘ licenses, which may limit their ability to travel by
car. Many of the elderly also may have difficulty using public
transportation due to physical ailments. People who cannot drive
themselves tend to rely on family, other caregivers, or friends to
drive them, or find alternative means of transportation. As a result,
according to the 1999 Conditions and Performance report and a 1998
report about mobility for older drivers,[Footnote 44] they experience
increased waiting times, uncertainty, and inconvenience, and they are
required to do more advance trip planning. These factors can lead to
fewer trips taken for necessary business and for recreation, as well as
restrictions on times and places that health care can be obtained.
Access to more flexible, demand-responsive forms of transit could
enhance the mobility of the elderly, particularly in rural areas, which
are difficult to serve through transit systems; however, some barriers
to providing these types of services exist. For example, according to
one of our panelists, some paratransit[Footnote 45] services are not
permitted to carry able-bodied people, even if those people are on the
route and are willing to pay for the service. As the elderly population
increases over the next 10 years, issues pertaining to access are
expected to become more prominent in society.
Low-Income Households:
Lower income levels can also be a significant barrier to transportation
access. The cost of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining a car is
prohibitive to some households, and 26 percent of low-income households
do not own a car, compared with 4 percent of other households,
according to the 1999 Conditions and Performance report. Among all low-
income households, about 8 percent of trips are made in cars that are
owned by others as compared to 1 percent for other income groups.
Furthermore, the same uncertainties and inconveniences apply to this
group as to the elderly regarding relying on others for transportation.
Transportation access is important for employment opportunities to help
increase income, yet this access is not always available. This is
because growth in employment opportunities tends to occur in the
suburbs and outlying areas, while many low-income populations are
concentrated in the inner cities or in rural areas. In case studies of
access to jobs for low-income populations, FTA researchers found that
transportation barriers to job access included gaps in transit service,
lack of knowledge of where transit services are provided, and high
transportation costs resulting from multiple transfers and long
distances traveled.[Footnote 46] Another problem they noted was the
difficulty in coordinating certain types of work shifts with the
availability of public transportation service. Without sufficient
access to jobs, families face more obstacles to achieving the goal of
independence from government assistance. Limited transportation access
can also reduce opportunities for affordable housing and restrict
choices for shopping and other services.
Rural Populations:
Rural populations, which according to the 2000 Census grew by 10
percent over the last 10 years, also face access problems. Access to
some form of transportation is necessary to connect rural populations
to jobs and other amenities in city centers or, increasingly, in the
suburbs. The Mobility 2001 report states that automobiles offer greater
flexibility in schedule and choice of destinations than other modes of
transportation, and often also provide shorter travel times with lower
out-of-pocket costs. The report also notes that conventional transit
systems are best equipped to serve high levels of travel demand that is
concentrated in a relatively limited area or along well-defined
corridors, such as inner cities and corridors between those areas and
suburbs. Trips by rural residents tend to be long due to low population
densities and the relative isolation of small communities. Therefore,
transportation can be a challenge to provide in rural areas, especially
for persons without access to private automobiles. A report prepared
for the FTA in 2001[Footnote 47] found that 1 in 13 rural residents
lives in a household without a personal vehicle. In addition, the
elderly made 31 percent of all rural transit trips in 2000 and persons
with disabilities made 23 percent. However, according to a report by
the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility,[Footnote 48] while
almost 60 percent of all nonmetropolitan counties had some public
transportation services in 2000, many of these operations were small
and offered services to limited geographic areas during limited times.
Transportation‘s Effects on the Environment and Communities Are a
Growing Concern:
While ISTEA and TEA-21 provided funds aimed at mitigating adverse
effects of transportation, concerns persist about such effects on the
environment and communities. As a result of the negative consequences
of transportation, tradeoffs must be made between facilitating
increased mobility and giving due regard to environmental and other
social goals. For example, transportation vehicles are major sources of
local, urban, and regional air pollution because they depend on fossil
fuels to operate. Emissions from vehicles include sulfur dioxide, lead,
carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and
nitrous oxides. In addition, the emission of greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are increasing and
greenhouse gases have been linked to reduction in atmospheric ozone and
climate changes. According to Mobility 2001, improved technologies can
help reduce per-vehicle emissions, but the increasing numbers of
vehicles traveling and the total miles traveled may offset these gains.
In addition, congested conditions on highways tend to exacerbate the
problem because extra fuel is consumed due to increased acceleration,
deceleration, and idling. Vehicle emissions in congested areas can
trigger respiratory and other illnesses, and runoff from impervious
surfaces can carry lawn chemicals and other pollutants into lakes,
streams, and rivers, thus threatening aquatic environments.[Footnote
49]
Freight transportation also has significant environmental effects.
Trucks are significant contributors to air pollution. According to the
American Trucking Association, trucks were responsible for 18.5 percent
of nitrous oxide emissions and 27.5 percent of other particulate
emissions from mobile sources in the United States. The Mobility 2001
report states that freight trains also contribute to emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide, although generally at
levels considerably lower than trucks. In addition, while large
shipping vessels are more energy efficient than trucks or trains, they
are also major sources of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and diesel
particulate emissions. According to the International Maritime
Organization, ocean shipping is responsible for 22 percent of the
wastes dumped into the sea on an annual basis. Barges moving freight on
the inland waterway system are among the most energy efficient forms of
freight transportation, contributing relatively lower amounts of
noxious emissions compared with trucks and freight trains, according to
the Corps of Engineers. However, the dredging and damming required to
make rivers and harbors navigable can cause significant disruption to
ecosystems.
Noise pollution is another factor exacerbated by increasing levels of
transportation. While FHWA, FTA, and many cities have established
criteria for different land uses close to highways and rail lines to
protect against physically damaging noise levels, average noise levels
caused by road traffic in some areas can still have adverse
consequences on people‘s hearing. In addition, several studies have
found that residential property values decrease as average noise levels
rise above a certain threshold. Freight also contributes to noise
pollution. According to Mobility 2001, shipping is the largest source
of low-frequency, underwater noise, which may have adverse effects on
marine life, although these effects are not yet fully understood. These
noise levels are particularly serious on highly trafficked shipping
routes. In addition, dredging also contributes to noise pollution.
Growing awareness of the environmental and social costs of
transportation projects is making it more difficult to pursue major
transportation improvements. According to a number of panelists, the
difficulty in quantifying and measuring the costs and benefits of
increased mobility also hinders the ability of transportation planners
to make a strong case to local decisionmakers for mobility
improvements. In addition, transportation planning and funding is mode-
specific and oriented toward passenger travel, which hinders
transportation planners‘ ability to recognize systemwide and multi-
modal strategies for addressing mobility needs and other social
concerns.
Strategies for Addressing Mobility Challenges Include Focusing on
Systemwide Outcomes, Using a Full Range of Tools, and Providing Options
for Financing Surface and Maritime Transportation:
The panelists presented numerous approaches for addressing the types of
challenges discussed throughout this report, but they emphasized that
no single strategy would be sufficient. From these discussions and our
other research, we have identified three key strategies that may aid
transportation decisionmakers at all levels of government in addressing
mobility challenges and the institutional barriers that contribute to
them. These strategies include the following:
1. Focus on the entire surface and maritime transportation system
rather than on specific modes or types of travel to achieve desired
mobility outcomes. A systemwide approach to transportation planning and
funding, as opposed to focus on a single mode or type of travel, could
improve focus on outcomes related to customer or community needs.
2. Use a full range of tools to achieve those desired outcomes.
Controlling congestion and improving access will require a strategic
mix of construction, corrective and preventive maintenance,
rehabilitation, operations and system management, and managing system
use through pricing and other techniques.
3. Provide more options for financing mobility improvements and
consider additional sources of revenue. Targeting financing to
transportation projects that will achieve desired mobility outcomes
might require more options for raising and distributing funds for
surface and maritime transportation. However, using revenue sources
that are not directly tied to the use of transportation systems could
allow decisionmakers to bypass transportation planning requirements
which, in turn, could limit the ability of transportation agencies to
focus on and achieve desired outcomes.
Focus on the Entire Surface and Maritime Transportation System Rather
Than on Specific Modes or Types of Travel to Achieve Desired Mobility
Outcomes:
Some panelists said that mobility should be viewed on a systemwide
basis across all modes and types of travel. Addressing the types of
mobility challenges discussed earlier in this report can require a
scope beyond a local jurisdiction or a state line and across more than
one mode or type of travel. For example, congestion challenges often
occur where modes connect or should connect--such as ports or freight
hubs where freight is transferred from one mode to another, or airports
that passengers need to access by car, bus, or rail. These connections
require coordination of more than one mode of transportation and
cooperation among multiple transportation providers and planners, such
as port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations
(MPO),[Footnote 50] and private freight railroads. Some panelists
therefore advocated shifting the focus of government transportation
agencies at the federal, state, and local levels to consider all modes
and types of travel in addressing mobility challenges--as opposed to
focusing on a specific mode or type of travel in planning and
implementing mobility improvements.
Some panelists said that current transportation planning institutions,
such as state transportation departments, MPOs, or Corps of Engineers
regional offices, may not have sufficient expertise, or in some cases,
authority to effectively identify and implement mobility improvements
across modes or types of travel. They suggested that transportation
planning by all entities focus more closely on regional issues and
highlighted the importance of cooperation and coordination among modal
agencies at the federal, state, and local level, between public and
private transportation providers, and between transportation planning
organizations and other government and community agencies to address
transportation issues. For example, several panelists said that the
Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles is a good example of successful
cooperation and coordination among agencies. This corridor is designed
to improve freight mobility for cargo coming into the ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach and out to the rest of the country. Planning,
financing, and building this corridor required cooperation among
private railroads, the local port authorities, the cities of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, community groups along the entire corridor, the
state of California, and the federal government.
Several panelists said that a greater understanding of the full life-
cycle costs and benefits of various mobility improvements is needed to
take a more systemwide approach to transportation planning and funding.
The panelists said the cost-benefit frameworks that transportation
agencies currently use to evaluate various transportation projects
could be more comprehensive in considering a wider array of social and
economic costs and benefits, recognizing transportation systems‘ links
to each other and to other social and financial systems.
Many panelists advocated a systemwide, rather than mode-specific,
approach to transportation planning and funding that could also improve
focus on outcomes that users and communities desire from the
transportation system. For example, one panelist described a
performance oriented funding system, in which the federal government
would first define certain national interests of the transportation
system--such as maintaining the entire interstate highway system or
identifying freight corridors of importance to the national economy--
then set national performance standards for those systems that states
and localities must meet. Federal funds would be distributed to those
entities that are addressing national interests and meeting the
established standards. Any federal funds remaining after meeting the
performance standards could then be used for whatever transportation
purpose the state or locality deems most appropriate to achieve state
or local mobility goals. Another panelist expanded the notion of
setting national performance standards to include a recognition of the
interactions between transportation goals and local economic
development and quality of life goals, and to allow localities to
modify national performance goals given local conditions. For example,
a national performance standard, such as average speeds of 45 miles per
hour for highways, might be unattainable for some locations given local
conditions, and might run contrary to other local goals related to
economic development.
Some panelists described several other types of systems that could
focus on outcomes. For example, one panelist suggested a system in
which federal support would reward those states or localities that
apply federal money to gain efficiencies in their transportation
systems, or tie transportation projects to land use and other local
policies to achieve community and environmental goals, as well as
mobility goals. Another panelist described a system in which different
federal matching criteria for different types of expenditures might
reflect federal priorities. For example, if infrastructure preservation
became a higher national priority than building new capacity, matching
requirements could be changed to a 50 percent federal share for
building new physical capacity and an 80 percent federal share for
preservation. Other panelists suggested that requiring state and local
governments to pay for a larger share of transportation projects might
provide them with incentives to invest in more cost-effective projects.
If cost savings resulted, these entities might have more funds
available to address other mobility challenges. Some of the panelists
suggested reducing the federal match for projects in all modes to give
states and localities more fiscal responsibility for projects they are
planning. Other panelists also suggested that federal matching
requirements should be equal for all modes to avoid creating incentives
to pursue projects in one mode that might be less effective than
projects in other modes.
Use a Full Range of Tools to Address Mobility Challenges:
Many panelists emphasized that using a range of various tools to
address mobility challenges may help control congestion and improve
access. This involves a strategic mix of construction, corrective and
preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, operations and system
management, and managing system use through pricing or other
techniques. Many of the panelists said that no one type of technique
would be sufficient to address mobility challenges. Although these
techniques are currently in use, panelists indicated that planners
should more consistently consider a full range of techniques.
Build New Infrastructure:
Building additional infrastructure is perhaps the most familiar
technique for addressing congestion and improving access to surface and
maritime transportation. Several panelists expressed the view that
although there is a lot of unused capacity in the transportation
system, certain bottlenecks and key corridors require new
infrastructure. However, building new infrastructure cannot completely
eliminate congestion. For example, according to the Texas
Transportation Institute, it would require at least twice the level of
current road expansion to keep traffic congestion levels constant, if
that were the only strategy pursued. In addition, while adding lanes
may be a useful tool to deal with highway congestion for states with
relatively low population densities, this option may not be as useful
or possible for states with relatively high population densities--
particularly in urban areas, where the ability to add lanes is limited
due to a shortage of available space. Furthermore, investments in
additional transportation capacity can stimulate increases in travel
demand, sometimes leading to congestion and slower travel speeds on the
new or improved infrastructure.
Increase Infrastructure Maintenance and Rehabilitation:
Other panelists said that an emphasis on enhancing capacity from
existing infrastructure through increased corrective and preventive
maintenance and rehabilitation is an important supplement to, and
sometimes a substitute for, building new infrastructure. In 1999, the
President‘s Commission to Study Capital Budgeting reported that,
because infrastructure maintenance requires more rapid budgetary
spending than new construction and has a lower visibility, it is less
likely to be funded at a sufficient level.[Footnote 51] However, one
panelist said that for public roads, every dollar spent on preventive
maintenance when the roads are in good condition saves $4 to $5 over
what would have to be spent to maintain roads in fair condition or $10
to maintain roads once they are in poor condition. Maintaining and
rehabilitating transportation systems can improve the speed and
reliability of passenger and freight travel, thereby optimizing capital
investments.
Improve Management and Operations:
Better management and operation of existing surface and maritime
transportation infrastructure is another technique for enhancing
mobility advocated by some panelists. Improving management and
operations may allow the existing transportation system to accommodate
additional travel without having to add new infrastructure. For
example, the Texas Transportation Institute reported that coordinating
traffic signal timing with changing traffic conditions could improve
flow on congested roadways. In addition, according to an FHWA survey,
better management of work zones--which includes accelerating
construction activities to minimize their effects on the public,
coordinating planned and ongoing construction activities, and using
more durable construction materials--can reduce traffic delays caused
by work zones and improve traveler satisfaction.[Footnote 52] Also,
according to one panelist, automating the operation of locks and dams
on the inland waterways could reduce congestion at these bottlenecks.
Another panelist, in an article that he authored, noted that shifting
the focus of transportation planning from building capital facilities
to an ’operations mindset“ will require a cultural shift in many
transportation institutions, particularly in the public sector, so that
the organizational structure, hierarchy, and rewards and incentives are
all focused on improving transportation management and
operations.[Footnote 53] He also commented on the need to improve
performance measures related to operations and management so that both
the quality and the reliability of transportation services are
measured.
Several panelists suggested that contracting out a greater portion of
operations and maintenance activities could allow public transportation
agencies to focus their attention on improving overall management and
developing policies to address mobility challenges. This practice could
involve outsourcing operations and maintenance to private entities
through competitive bidding, as is currently done for roads in the
United Kingdom. In addition, by relieving public agencies of these
functions, contracting could reduce the cost of operating
transportation infrastructure and improve the level of service for each
dollar invested for publicly owned transportation systems, according to
one panelist.
Developing comprehensive strategies for reducing congestion caused by
incidents is another way to improve management and operation of surface
and maritime transportation modes. According to the Texas
Transportation Institute, incidents such as traffic accidents and
breakdowns cause significant delays on roadways. One panelist said that
some local jurisdictions are developing common protocols for handling
incidents that affect more than one mode and transportation agency,
such as state transportation departments and state and local law
enforcement, resulting in improved communications and coordination
among police, firefighters, medical personnel, and operators of
transportation systems. Examples of improvements to incident management
include employing roving crews to quickly move accidents and other
impediments off of roads and rail and implementing technological
improvements that can help barges on the inland waterways navigate
locks in inclement weather, thereby reducing delays on that system.
Increase Investment in Technology:
Several panelists also suggested that increasing public sector
investment in technologies--known as Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS)--that are designed to enhance the safety, efficiency, and
effectiveness of the transportation network, can serve as a way of
increasing capacity and mobility without making major capital
investments. DOT‘s ITS program has two major areas of emphasis: (1)
deploying and integrating intelligent infrastructure and (2) testing
and evaluating intelligent vehicles. ITS includes technologies that
improve traffic flow by adjusting signals, facilitating traffic flow at
toll plazas, alerting emergency management services to the locations of
crashes, increasing the efficiency of transit fare payment systems, and
other actions. Appendix IV describes the different systems that are
part of DOT‘s ITS program.
Other technological improvements suggested by panelists included
increasing information available to users of the transportation system
to help people avoid congested areas and to improve customer
satisfaction with the system. For example, up-to-the-minute traffic
updates posted on electronic road signs or over the Internet help give
drivers the information necessary to make choices about when and where
to travel. It was suggested that the federal government could play a
key role in facilitating the development and sharing of such
innovations through training programs and research centers, such as the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the Transit Cooperative
Research Program, and possible similar programs for waterborne
transportation. However, panelists cautioned that the federal
government might need to deal with some barriers to investing in
technology development and implementation. One panelist said that there
are few incentives for agencies to take risks on new technologies. If
an agency improves its efficiency, it may result in the agency
receiving reduced funding rather than being able to reinvest the
savings.
Use Demand Management Techniques:
Finally, another approach to reducing congestion without making major
capital investments is to use demand management techniques to reduce
the number of vehicles traveling at the most congested times and on the
most congested routes. For public roads, demand management generally
means reducing the number of cars traveling on particularly congested
routes toward downtown during the morning commuting period and away
from downtown during the late afternoon commuting period. One panelist,
in a book that he authored, said that ’the most effective means of
reducing peak-hour congestion would be to persuade solo drivers to
share
vehicles.“[Footnote 54]
One type of demand management for travel on public roads is to make
greater use of pricing incentives. In particular, many economists have
proposed using congestion pricing that involves charging surcharges or
tolls to drivers who choose to travel during peak periods when their
use of the roads increases congestion. Economists generally believe
that such surcharges or tolls enhance economic efficiency by making
drivers take into account the external costs they impose on others in
deciding when and where to drive. These costs include congestion, as
well as pollution and other external effects. The goal of congestion
pricing would be to charge a toll for travel during congested periods
that would make the cost (including the toll) that a driver pays for
such a trip equal or close to the total cost of that trip, including
external costs. These surcharges could help reduce congestion by
providing incentives for travelers to share rides, use transit, travel
at less congested (generally off-peak) times and on less congested
routes, or make other adjustments--and at the same time, generate more
revenues that can be targeted to alleviating congestion in those
specific corridors. According to a report issued by the Transportation
Research Board, technologies that are currently used at some toll
facilities to automatically charge users could also be used to
electronically collect congestion surcharges without establishing
additional toll booths that would cause delays.[Footnote 55] Peak-
period pricing also has applicability for other modes of
transportation. Amtrak and some transit systems use peak-period
pricing, which gives travelers incentives to make their trips at less
congested times.
In addition to pricing incentives, other demand management techniques
that encourage ride-sharing can be useful in reducing congestion. Ride-
sharing can be encouraged by establishing carpool and vanpool staging
areas, providing free or preferred parking for carpools and vanpools,
subsidizing transit fares, and designating certain highway lanes as
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes that can only be used by vehicles
with a specified number of people in them (two or more). HOV lanes can
provide an incentive for sharing rides because they reduce the travel
time for a group traveling together relative to the time required to
travel alone. This incentive is likely to be particularly strong when
the regular lanes are heavily congested. Several panelists also
recommended use of high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, which combine
pricing techniques with the HOV concept. Experiments with HOT lanes,
which allow lower occupancy vehicles or solo drivers to pay a fee to
use HOV lanes during peak traffic periods, are currently taking place
in California. HOT lanes can provide motorists with a choice: if they
are in a hurry, they may elect to pay to have less delay and an
improved level of service compared to the regular lanes. When HOT lanes
run parallel to regular lanes, congestion in regular lanes may be
reduced more than would be achieved by HOV lanes.
Demand management techniques on roads, particularly those involving
pricing, often provoke strong political opposition. Several panelists
said that instituting charges to use roads that have been available
’free“ is particularly unpopular because many travelers believe that
they have already paid for the roads through gasoline and other taxes
and should not have to pay ’twice.“ Other concerns about congestion
pricing include equity issues because of the potentially regressive
nature of these charges (i.e., the surcharges constitute a larger
portion of the earnings of lower income households and therefore impose
a greater financial burden on them).[Footnote 56] In addition, some
people find the concept of restricting lanes or roads to people who pay
to use them to be elitist because that approach allows people who can
afford to pay the tolls to avoid congestion that others must endure.
Several of the panelists suggested that tolls might become more
acceptable to the public if they were applied to new roads or lanes as
a demonstration project so that the tolls‘ effectiveness in reducing
congestion and increasing commuter choices could be evaluated.
Provide Options for Financing Mobility Improvements and Consider
Additional Sources of Revenue:
Several panelists indicated that targeting the financing of
transportation to achieving desired mobility outcomes, and addressing
those segments of transportation systems that are most congested, would
require more options for financing surface and maritime transportation
projects than are currently available, and might also require more
sources of revenue in the future.
Increase Funding Flexibility:
According to many panelists, the current system of financing surface
and maritime transportation projects limits options for addressing
mobility challenges. For example, several panelists said that separate
funding for each mode at the federal, state, and local level can make
it difficult to consider possible efficient and effective ways for
enhancing mobility, and providing more flexibility in funding across
modes could help address this limitation. In addition, some panelists
argued that ’earmarking“ or designation by the Congress of federal
funds for particular transportation projects bypasses traditional
planning processes used to identify the highest priority projects, thus
potentially limiting transportation agencies‘ options for addressing
the most severe mobility challenges. According to one panelist,
bypassing transportation planning processes can also result in logical
connections or interconnections between projects being overlooked.
Expand Support for Alternative Financing Mechanisms:
Several panelists acknowledged that the public sector could expand its
financial support for alternative financing mechanisms to access new
sources of capital and stimulate additional investment in surface and
maritime transportation infrastructure. These mechanisms include both
newly emerging and existing financing techniques such as providing
credit assistance to state and local governments for capital projects
and using tax policy to provide incentives to the private sector for
investing in surface and maritime transportation infrastructure (see
app. V for a description of alternative financing methods). The
panelists emphasized, however, that these mechanisms currently provide
only a small portion of the total funding that is needed for capital
investment and are not, by themselves, a major strategy for addressing
mobility challenges. Furthermore, they cautioned that some of these
mechanisms, such as Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles,[Footnote 57]
could create difficulties for state and local agencies to address
future transportation problems, because agencies would be reliant on
future federal revenues to repay the bonds.
Consider New Revenue Sources:
Many panelists stated that a possible future shortage of revenues
presents a fundamental limitation to addressing mobility
challenges.[Footnote 58] Some panelists said that, because of the
increasing use of alternative fuels, revenues from the gas tax are
expected to decrease in the future, possibly hindering the public
sector‘s ability to finance future transportation projects. In
addition, one panelist explained that MPOs are required to produce
financially constrained long-range plans, and the plans in the
panelist‘s organization indicate that future projections of revenue do
not cover the rising costs of planned transportation projects.
One method of raising revenue is for counties and other regional
authorities to impose sales taxes for funding transportation projects.
A number of counties have already passed such taxes and more are being
considered nationwide. However, several panelists expressed concerns
that this method might not be the best option for addressing mobility
challenges. For example, one panelist stated that moving away from
transportation user charges to sales taxes that are not directly tied
to the use of transportation systems weakens the ties between
transportation planning and finance. Counties and other authorities may
be able to bypass traditional state and metropolitan planning processes
because these sales taxes provide them with their own sources of
funding for transportation.
A number of panelists suggested increasing current federal fuel taxes
to raise additional revenue for surface transportation projects. In
contrast, other panelists argued that the federal gas tax could be
reduced. They said that, under the current system, states are receiving
most of the revenue raised by the federal gas tax within their state
lines and therefore there is little need for the federal government to
be involved in collecting this revenue, except for projects that affect
more than one state or are of national significance. However, other
panelists said that this might lead to a decrease in gas tax revenues
available for transportation, because states may have incentives to use
this revenue for purposes other than transportation or may not collect
as much as is currently collected.
Given that freight tonnage moved across all modes is expected to
increase by 43 percent during the period from 1998 to 2010, new or
increased taxes or other fees imposed on the freight sector could also
help fund mobility improvements. For example, one panelist from the
rail industry suggested modeling more projects on the Alameda Corridor
in Los Angeles, where private rail freight carriers pay a fee to use
infrastructure built with public financing. Another way to raise
revenue for funding mobility improvements would be to increase taxes on
freight trucking. According to FHWA, heavy trucks (weighing over 55,000
pounds) cause a disproportionate amount of damage to the nation‘s
highways and have not paid a corresponding share for the cost of
pavement damage they cause. This situation will only be compounded by
the large expected increases in freight tonnage moved by truck over the
next 10 years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that raising
the ceiling on the tax paid by heavy vehicles to $1,900 could generate
about $100 million per year.[Footnote 59]
Another revenue raising strategy includes dedicating more of the
revenues from taxes on alternative fuels, such as gasohol, to the
Highway Trust Fund rather than to the U.S. Treasury‘s General Fund, as
currently happens. Finally, panelists also said that pricing
strategies, mentioned earlier in this report as a tool to reduce
congestion, are also possible additional sources of revenue for
transportation purposes.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided DOT, the Corps of Engineers, and Amtrak with draft copies
of this report for their review and comment. We obtained oral comments
from officials at DOT and the Corps of Engineers. These officials
generally agreed with the report and provided technical comments that
we incorporated as appropriate. In addition, officials from the Federal
Railroad Administration within DOT commented that the report was timely
and would be vital to the dialogue that occurs as the Congress
considers the reauthorization of surface transportation legislation.
Amtrak had no comments on the report.
Our work was primarily performed at the headquarters of DOT and the
Corps of Engineers (see app. VI for a detailed description of our scope
and methodology). We conducted our work from September 2001 through
August 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to the congressional committees with responsibilities for
surface and maritime transportation programs; DOT officials, including
the Secretary of Transportation, the administrators of the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and Maritime Administration, the Director of
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the Commandant of the U.S.
Coast Guard; the Commander and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; the President of Amtrak, and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others on
request. This report will also be available on our home page at no
charge at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
heckerj@gao.gov or Kate Siggerud at siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively,
we can be reached at (202) 512-2834. GAO contacts and acknowledgments
are listed in appendix VII.
JayEtta Z. Hecker
Director
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by JayEtta Z. Hecker:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Expenditures for Capital, Operations, and Maintenance:
Comparing the proportion of public spending devoted to various purposes
across modes is difficult due to differences in the level of public
sector involvement and in the definition of what constitutes capital
versus operations and maintenance expenses in each mode. For example,
the operation of public roads is essentially a function of private
citizens operating their own vehicles, while operations for mass
transit includes spending for bus drivers and subway operators, among
other items. In addition, maintenance expenditures can differ greatly
from one mode to another in their definition and scope. For example,
maintenance for a public road involves activities such as patching,
filling potholes, and fixing signage, while maintenance for channels
and harbors involves routine dredging of built up sediment and disposal
or storage of the dredged material. Given these significant differences
in scope, different modes classify and report on maintenance expenses
in different ways.
For public roads, capital expenditures (which includes new
construction, resurfacing, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction of roads) constituted about one-half of total annual
public sector expenditures over the last 10 years, with small increases
in recent years. Of total capital expenditures in fiscal year 2000, 52
percent was used for system preservation, such as resurfacing and
rehabilitation, while 40 percent was used for construction of new roads
and bridges and other system expansions. These percentages have
fluctuated somewhat throughout the 1990s. However, as shown in figure
8, the percentage of capital outlays spent on system preservation
expenses increased from 45 percent to 52 percent between fiscal years
1993 and 2000, while construction of new roads and bridges and other
system expansions declined from 49 percent
to 40 percent over the same period.
Figure 8: Purposes for Capital Outlays for Public Roads, Fiscal Years
1993 and 2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Federal Highway Administration.
[End of Figure]
For transit, capital expenditures accounted for about 26 percent of
total annual public sector expenditures in 1999. The federal government
spends more heavily on capital than on operations for transit. The
federal share of capital expenditures fluctuated throughout the 1990s
but in fiscal year 2000 stood at about 50 percent, the same as it was
in fiscal year 1991. The federal share of total operating expenses
declined from about 5 percent in fiscal year 1991 to about 2 percent in
fiscal year 2000.[Footnote 60]
Federal government support to Amtrak for operating expenses and capital
expenditures has fluctuated throughout the 1990s. Annual operating
grants fluctuated between $300 and $600 million and capital grants
between $300 and $500 million. In addition to these grants, the
Taxpayer Relief Act of:
1997[Footnote 61] provided Amtrak with $2.2 billion for capital and
operating purposes in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Federal support
declined in fiscal years 2000 and 2001, however, with the federal
government providing grants to Amtrak of $571 and $521 million,
respectively.
For water transportation, spending by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps of Engineers) for construction of locks and dams for inland
waterway navigation[Footnote 62] fell while expenditures for operations
and maintenance remained at around $350 to $400 million, as shown in
figure 9.
Figure 9: Federal Expenditures for Construction and Operations and
Maintenance of Locks and Dams, Fiscal Years 1991-2000:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (2002), Government Transportation Financial Statistics
(Preliminary Data), Washington, D.C.
[End of Figure]
By contrast, Corps of Engineers expenditures for the construction,
operations, and maintenance of federal channels and harbors have
increased over the past decade. During fiscal years 1991 through 2000,
construction expenditures increased from $112 million to $252 million
(in 2000 dollars), while operations and maintenance expenditures
increased from $631 million to $671 million (in 2000 dollars). In
addition to the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard and the
Maritime Administration also spend significant amounts for water
transportation, although these agencies have limited responsibility for
construction or maintenance of water transportation infrastructure.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Travel Forecast Methodologies:
Demographic factors and economic growth are the primary variables
influencing national travel projections for both passenger and freight
travel. However, the key assumption underlying most of these travel
projections is that the capacity of the transportation system is
unconstrained; that is, capacity is assumed to expand as needed in
order to accommodate future traffic flows.[Footnote 63] As a result,
national travel projections need to be used carefully in evaluating how
capacity improvements or increasing congestion in one mode of
transportation might affect travel across other modes and the entire
transportation system.
Passenger Travel on Public Roads:
Future travel growth will be influenced by demographic factors. A
travel forecast study conducted for the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) used economic and demographic variables such as per capita
income and population to project a 24.7 percent national cumulative
increase in vehicle miles traveled for passenger vehicles on public
roads between 2000 and 2010. The study estimated that for every 1-
percent increase in per capita income or population, vehicle miles
traveled would increase nearly 1 percent.[Footnote 64]
This forecast is unconstrained, however, in that it does not consider
whether increased congestion or fiscal constraints will allow travel to
grow at the rates projected. In part to deal with this limitation, FHWA
uses another model to forecast a range of future vehicle miles traveled
based on differing levels of investment. These projections recognize
that if additional road capacity is provided, more travel is expected
to occur than if the capacity additions are not provided. If congestion
on a facility increases, some travelers will respond by shifting to
alternate modes or routes, or will forgo some trips entirely. These
projections are not available at this time but will be included in the
U.S. Department of Transportation‘s (DOT) 2002 report to Congress
entitled Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance.
While it is clear that travelers choose between modes of travel for
reasons of convenience and cost, among other things, none of the FHWA
travel forecasts consider the effects of changes in levels of travel on
other modes, such as transit or rail. FHWA officials said that they
would like to have a data system that projects intermodal travel, but
for now such a system does not exist. The models also cannot reflect
the impact of major shocks on the system, such as natural disasters or
the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
Passenger Travel on Transit:
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) makes national-level forecasts
for growth in transit passenger miles traveled by collecting 15-to 25-
year forecasts developed by metropolitan planning organizations
(MPO)[Footnote 65] in the 33 largest metropolitan areas in the
country.[Footnote 66] FTA calculates a national weighted average using
the MPO forecasts and regional averages.[Footnote 67] MPOs create their
forecasts as part of their long-range planning process.[Footnote 68]
Unlike the first forecast for road travel discussed above, the 1999
Conditions and Performance report[Footnote 69] stated that the MPO
forecasts for vehicle miles traveled and passenger miles traveled
incorporate the effects of actions that the MPOs are proposing to shape
demand in their areas to attain air quality and other developmental
goals. The MPO plans may include transit expansion, congestion pricing,
parking constraints, capacity limits, and other local policy options.
MPO forecasts also have to consider funding availability.
Intercity Passenger Travel:
Amtrak provided us with systemwide forecasts of ridership, which are
based on assumed annual economic growth of between 1 and 1.5 percent,
fare increases equal to the national inflation rate, and projected
ridership increases on particular routes, including new or changing
service on certain routes scheduled to come on line over the forecast
period. For short-distance routes, Amtrak uses a model that estimates
total travel over a route by any mode, based on economic and
demographic growth. The model then estimates travel on each mode
competing in the corridor based on cost and service factors in each
mode. For long distance routes, Amtrak uses a different model that
projects future rail ridership using variables
that have been determined to influence past rail ridership, such as
population, employment, travel time for rail, and level of service for
rail. This model does not consider conditions on other competing modes.
Freight Travel Across Modes:
In forecasting growth in national freight travel, models developed by
FHWA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) use
growth in trade and the economy as key factors driving freight travel.
Projected growth in each particular mode is determined by growth in the
production of the specific mix of commodities that historically are
shipped on that mode. Therefore, any projected shift in freight
movement from one mode to another is due to projected changes in the
mix of commodities, or projected changes in where goods are produced
and consumed.
Because current or future conditions and the capacity of the freight
transportation system cannot be factored into the national forecasts, a
number of factors--including growing congestion, as well as the
benefits of specific projects that might relieve congestion--are not
considered in the projections.[Footnote 70] In addition, future trends
in other factors that affect shippers‘ choices of freight modes--such
as relative cost, time, or reliability--are not easily quantifiable and
are also linked to each system‘s capacity and the congestion on each
system. As such, these factors are not included in FHWA‘s or Corps of
Engineers‘ national forecasting models.
Underlying the commodity forecasts used by FHWA and the Corps of
Engineers are a number of standard macro-economic assumptions
concerning primarily supply side factors, such as changes in the size
of the labor force and real growth in exports due to trade
liberalization. Changes in border, airport, and seaport security since
September 11 may affect assumptions that are imbedded in these
commodity forecasts. For example, increased delays and inspections at
the border or at a port may create problems for shippers to meet just-
in-time requirements, possibly resulting in a short-term shift to an
alternative mode, or a limiting of trade.
Although current national freight forecasts are not capacity-
constrained, FHWA is developing a ’Freight Analysis Framework“ to
provide alternative analyses, assessing certain capacity limitations.
The main impediment to developing this capability is determining
capacity on each mode. There are commonly accepted measures of road
capacity that are being incorporated, but rail and waterway capacity is
not as easily measured.
State Forecasts of Vehicle Miles Traveled:
FHWA provided us with state-level forecasts of total vehicle miles
traveled on public roads from 2000 to 2010, derived from data in the
Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) sample data set.[Footnote
71] This data set contains state-reported data on average annual daily
traffic for approximately 113,000 road segments nationwide. For each
sample section, HPMS includes measures of average annual daily traffic
for the reporting year and estimates of future traffic for a specified
forecast year, which is generally 18 to 25 years after the reporting
year. It should be noted that the HPMS sample data do not include
sections on any roads classified as local roads or rural minor
collectors.
Because the individual HPMS segment forecasts come from the states, we
do not know exactly what models were used to develop them. According to
officials at FHWA, the only national guidance comes from the HPMS Field
Manual, which says that future average annual daily traffic should come
from a technically supportable state procedure or data from MPOs or
other local sources. The manual also says that HPMS forecasts for
urbanized areas should be consistent with those developed by the MPO at
the functional system and urbanized area level.
Table 1: Projected Average Annual Growth Rates for Vehicle Miles
Traveled, 2000-2020:
State: Alabama; Rural: 2.94; Urban: 3.18; State total: 3.06.
State: Alaska; Rural: 2.34; Urban: 2.12; State total: 2.23.
State: Arizona; Rural: 1.60; Urban: 1.42; State total: 1.48.
State: Arkansas; Rural: 2.54; Urban: 2.23; State total: 2.43.
State: California; Rural: 3.09; Urban: 2.25; State total: 2.42.
State: Colorado; Rural: 2.22; Urban: 1.94; State total: 2.05.
State: Connecticut; Rural: 1.71; Urban: 1.28; State total: 1.38.
State: Delaware; Rural: 1.33; Urban: 0.86; State total: 1.05.
State: District of Columbia; Rural: N/A; Urban: 1.69; State total:
1.69.
State: Florida; Rural: 1.85; Urban: 1.63; State total: 1.69.
State: Georgia; Rural: 0.60; Urban: 0.86; State total: 0.75.
State: Hawaii; Rural: 1.62; Urban: 1.46; State total: 1.51.
State: Idaho; Rural: 3.07; Urban: 3.08; State total: 3.08.
State: Illinois; Rural: 1.17; Urban: 1.36; State total: 1.30.
State: Indiana; Rural: 3.07; Urban: 2.69; State total: 2.88.
State: Iowa; Rural: 1.95; Urban: 2.24; State total: 2.06.
State: Kansas; Rural: 1.88; Urban: 2.14; State total: 2.00.
State: Kentucky; Rural: 2.90; Urban: 2.12; State total: 2.55.
State: Louisiana; Rural: 1.93; Urban: 1.73; State total: 1.84.
State: Maine; Rural: 0.31; Urban: 0.58; State total: 0.39.
State: Maryland; Rural: 2.82; Urban: 2.56; State total: 2.64.
State: Massachusetts; Rural: 1.02; Urban: 1.06; State total: 1.05.
State: Michigan; Rural: 2.22; Urban: 1.63; State total: 1.86.
State: Minnesota; Rural: 2.23; Urban: 2.09; State total: 2.16.
State: Mississippi; Rural: 2.77; Urban: 2.71; State total: 2.75.
State: Missouri; Rural: 1.67; Urban: 1.96; State total: 1.82.
State: Montana; Rural: 2.49; Urban: 2.75; State total: 2.55.
State: Nebraska; Rural: 2.48; Urban: 2.08; State total: 2.33.
State: Nevada; Rural: 2.16; Urban: 2.08; State total: 2.11.
State: New Hampshire; Rural: 2.10; Urban: 2.24; State total: 2.16.
State: New Jersey; Rural: 1.77; Urban: 1.25; State total: 1.36.
State: New Mexico; Rural: 2.29; Urban: 1.28; State total: 1.93.
State: New York; Rural: 1.76; Urban: 1.83; State total: 1.81.
State: North Carolina; Rural: 2.68; Urban: 2.64; State total: 2.66.
State: North Dakota; Rural: 1.76; Urban: 2.31; State total: 1.90.
State: Ohio; Rural: 1.64; Urban: 1.23; State total: 1.39.
State: Oklahoma; Rural: 2.21; Urban: 2.32; State total: 2.26.
State: Oregon; Rural: 2.19; Urban: 1.91; State total: 2.06.
State: Pennsylvania; Rural: 2.90; Urban: 2.49; State total: 2.66.
State: Rhode Island; Rural: 1.28; Urban: 1.09; State total: 1.12.
State: South Carolina; Rural: 2.44; Urban: 2.28; State total: 2.38.
State: South Dakota; Rural: 1.47; Urban: 1.48; State total: 1.47.
State: Tennessee; Rural: 2.18; Urban: 2.37; State total: 2.29.
State: Texas; Rural: 2.63; Urban: 2.27; State total: 2.40.
State: Utah; Rural: 3.25; Urban: 3.54; State total: 3.43.
State: Vermont; Rural: 1.62; Urban: 1.04; State total: 1.48.
State: Virginia; Rural: 2.60; Urban: 2.01; State total: 2.27.
State: Washington; Rural: 1.80; Urban: 2.03; State total: 1.96.
State: West Virginia; Rural: 2.80; Urban: 2.32; State total: 2.67.
State: Wisconsin; Rural: 2.21; Urban: 2.21; State total: 2.21.
State: Wyoming; Rural: 2.07; Urban: 1.06; State total: 1.83.
State: Puerto Rico; Rural: 2.30; Urban: 1.67; State total: 1.83.
State: Total; Rural: 2.27; Urban: 1.97; State total: 2.09.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, as reported by states in the
Highway Performance Monitoring System database.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Factors Influencing Future Travel:
Local and Intercity Travel:
For both local and intercity passenger travel, population growth is
expected to be one of the key factors driving overall travel levels.
Where that growth will occur will likely have a large effect on travel
patterns and mode choices. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the
U.S. population will grow to almost 300 million by 2010.[Footnote 72]
Although this represents a slower growth rate than in the past, it
would still add approximately 18.4 million people to the 2000
population, and will likely also substantially increase the number of
vehicles on public roads as well as the number of passengers on transit
and intercity rail.
The Census Bureau reported that since 1990, the greatest population
growth has been in the South and West. According to one panelist, these
regions‘ metropolitan areas traditionally have lower central city
densities and higher suburban densities than the Midwest and East.
These areas are therefore harder to serve through transit than
metropolitan areas with higher population densities, where transit can
be more feasible. However, according to some transportation experts, it
may not be possible to build new transit infrastructure in these areas
due to environmental or other concerns. The population growth that is
expected in suburban areas could lead to a larger increase in travel by
private vehicles than by transit because suburban areas generally have
lower population densities than inner cities, and also have more
dispersed travel patterns, making them less easy to serve through
conventional public transit. Although overall population growth will
likely be greatest in suburban parts of metropolitan areas, high rates
of growth are also predicted for rural areas. As is the case in
suburbs, these rural areas are difficult to serve with anything but
private automobiles because of low population densities and
geographical dispersion of travel patterns, so travel by private
vehicle may increase. Immigration patterns are also expected to
contribute to changes in travel levels, but the extent will depend on
immigration policies. For example, according to a senior researcher
with the American Public Transportation Association, higher rates of
immigration tend to increase transit use.
In addition to overall population growth, another demographic trend
that will likely affect mode choices is the aging of the population.
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of people
aged 55 and over is projected to increase 26 percent between 2001 and
2010. The most rapidly growing broad age group is expected to be the
population aged 85 and older, which is projected to increase 30 percent
by 2010. According to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal
Transit Administration‘s 1999 Conditions and Performance
report,[Footnote 73] the elderly have different mobility issues than
the nonelderly because they are less likely to have drivers‘ licenses,
have more serious health problems, and may require special services and
facilities. According to a report prepared for the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (Mobility 2001),[Footnote 74] cars
driven by the elderly will constitute an increasing proportion of
traffic, especially in the suburbs and rural areas, where many elderly
people tend to reside. Increases in the number of older drivers can
pose safety problems, in that the elderly have a higher rate of crashes
per mile driven than younger drivers, and that rate rises significantly
after age 85. The Mobility 2001 report also says that the driver
fatality rate of drivers over 75 years of age is higher than any other
age group except teenagers. Growth of the elderly population may
therefore increase the importance of providing demand-responsive
transit services[Footnote 75] and improving signs on public roads to
make them clearer and more visible.
Along with population growth, the increasing affluence of the U.S.
population is expected to play a key role in local and intercity
passenger travel levels and in the modes travelers choose. The 1999
Conditions and Performance report states that rates of vehicle
ownership are lower in low-income households, leading those households
to rely more on transit systems. According to Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) officials and Mobility 2001, transit use--
particularly use of buses--generally decreases as income increases.
Increasing affluence also influences intercity travel levels. The 1999
Conditions and Performance report says that people with high incomes
take approximately 30 percent more trips than people with low incomes,
and the trips tend to be longer. Long-distance travel for business and
recreation increases with income. Also, as income increases, travel by
faster modes, such as car and air, increases, and travel by intercity
bus tends to decrease.
Several participants in our surface and maritime transportation panels
(see app. VI) also indicated that improvements in communication
technology will likely affect the amount and mode of intercity travel,
but the direction and extent of the effect is uncertain. One panelist
said that there is no additional cost to communicating over greater
distances, so communications will replace travel to some extent,
particularly as technologies improve. However, two other panelists said
that communication technology might increase travel by making the
benefit of travel more certain. For example, the Internet can provide
people with current and extensive information about vacation
destinations, potentially increasing the desire to travel. According to
Mobility 2001, it is unclear whether telecommunications technology will
substitute for the physical transportation of people and goods.
Telecommuting and teleconferencing are becoming more common, but
technological improvements would have to be significant before they can
substitute for actual presence at work or in face-to-face meetings. In
addition, while home-based workers do not have to commute, they tend to
travel approximately the same amount as traditional workers, but differ
in how their travel is distributed among trip purposes.
The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, are
expected to have some effect on passenger travel levels and choices
about which mode to use, but U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
officials and participants in the panels did not believe the long-term
changes would be significant, provided that no more attacks occur.
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration
officials speculated that increased delays in air travel due to
stricter security procedures might shift some travel from air to other
modes, such as car or rail, although they expected this effect to be
negligible in the long term unless additional incidents occur.
Finally, changes in the price (or perceived price), condition, and
reliability of one modal choice as compared with another are also
likely to affect levels of travel and mode choices. For example,
changes in the petroleum market that affect fuel prices, or changes in
government policy that affect the cost of driving or transit prices,
could result in shifts between personal vehicles and transit; however,
it is difficult to predict the extent to which these changes will
occur. According to Mobility 2001, automobiles offer greater
flexibility in schedule and choice of destinations than other modes of
transportation, and often also provide shorter travel times with lower
out-of-pocket costs. However, if heavy and unpredictable road
congestion causes large variations in automobile travel time, there
could be a shift to transit or a decrease in overall travel.
Freight Travel:
According to several reports by DOT and transportation research
organizations, increasing international trade, economic growth, the
increasing value of cargo shipped, and changes in policies affecting
certain commodities are expected to influence future volumes of freight
travel and the choice of mode by which freight is shipped.
Increasing international trade and national trade policies are expected
to affect commodity flows, volumes, and mode choice.[Footnote 76]
According to the Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000,[Footnote
77] the globalization of businesses can shift production of goods sold
in the United States to locations outside of the country, increasing
total ton-miles[Footnote 78] and changing the average length of haul of
shipments. This shift in production could also affect freight mode
choice, with more commodities being shipped by multiple modes as
distances increase. According to Mobility 2001, truck transportation
tends to be cheaper, faster, and more energy efficient than rail and
barges for shipping high-value cargo. However, as distances increase,
rail and intermodal transportation (linking rail and truck travel)
become more cost-efficient options. Various trade policies also affect
freight flows and volumes. For example, the North American Free Trade
Agreement has contributed to the increased volume of trade moving on
rail and highways. According to data from the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics‘ Transborder Surface Freight Database, between 1996 and
2000, tonnage of imports by rail from Mexico and Canada increased by
about 25 percent, and imports by truck increased 20 percent. In the
maritime sector, expanding trade with the Pacific Rim increased traffic
at west coast container ports.
According to the Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000, economic
growth results in a greater volume of goods produced and consumed,
leading to more freight moved. As the economy grows, disposable income
per capita increases and individual purchasing power rises, which can
cause businesses to ship more freight per capita. According to the
report, freight ton-miles per capita increased more than 30 percent,
from 10,600 in 1975 to 14,000 in 1999.
The increasing value of cargo and the continuing shift toward a more
service-oriented economy and more time-sensitive shipments has affected
the volume of freight shipments and the choice of modes on which
freight is shipped. According to the Transportation Statistics Annual
Report 2000, there is a continuing shift toward production of high-
value, low-weight products, which leads to changes in freight travel
levels and mode choice. For example, it takes more ton-miles to ship
$1,000 worth of steel than it does to ship $1,000 worth of cell phones.
High-value cargo, such as electronics and office equipment, tends to be
shipped by air or truck, while rail and barges generally carry lower-
value bulk items, such as coal and grain.[Footnote 79] According to
Mobility 2001, the growth of e-commerce and just-in-time inventory
practices depend upon the ability to deliver goods quickly and
efficiently. A report prepared for the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program[Footnote 80] states that the effects of just-in-time
inventory practices are to increase the number of individual shipments,
decrease their length of haul, and increase the importance of on-time
delivery. Both reports indicate that such practices may shift some
freight from slower modes, such as rail, to faster modes, such as truck
or air. In addition, the Mobility 2001 report states that as the demand
for specialized goods and services grows, the demand for smaller, more
specialized trucks increases. Items ordered from catalogs or on-line
retailers are often delivered by specialized trucks.
Policies affecting particular commodities can have a large impact on
the freight industry. For example, policies concerning greenhouse gas
emissions can affect the amount of coal mined and shipped. Because coal
is a primary good shipped by rail and water, reduction in coal mining
would have a significant effect on tonnage for those modes. Changes in
the type of coal mined as a result of environmental policies--such as
an increase in mining of low-sulfur coal--can also affect the regional
patterns of shipments, resulting in greater ton-miles of coal shipped.
Also, increasing emissions controls and clean fuel requirements may
raise the cost of operating trucks and result in a shift of freight
from truck to rail or barge. For example, according to Mobility 2001,
recently released rules from the Environmental Protection Agency
implementing more stringent controls for emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles are predicted to increase the purchase price of a truck by
$803. Other environmental regulations also affect the cost of shipping
freight, as when controls on the disposal of material dredged from
navigation channels increase the costs of expanding those channels.
Policies regarding cargo security may also affect the flow of goods
into and out of the United States. For example, several of our
panelists indicated that implementing stricter security measures will
increase the cost of shipping freight as companies invest in the
personnel and technology required. Tighter security measures could also
increase time necessary to clear cargo through Customs or other
inspection stations.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Intelligent Transportation Systems:
The U.S. Department of Transportation‘s (DOT) program of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) offers technology-based systems intended
to improve the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the surface
transportation system. The ITS program applies proven and emerging
technologies--drawn from computer hardware and software systems,
telecommunications, navigation, and other systems--to surface
transportation. DOT‘s ITS program has two areas of emphasis: (1)
deploying and integrating intelligent infrastructure and (2) testing
and evaluating intelligent vehicles. Under the first area of emphasis,
the intelligent infrastructure program is composed of the family of
technologies that can enhance operations in three types of
infrastructure: (1) infrastructure in metropolitan areas, (2)
infrastructure in rural areas, and (3) commercial vehicles. Under the
ITS program, DOT provides grants to states to support ITS activities.
In practice, the Congress has designated the locations and amounts of
funding for ITS. DOT solicits the specific projects to be funded and
ensures that those projects meet criteria established in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Metropolitan intelligent transportation systems focus on deployment and
integration of technologies in urban and suburban geographic areas to
improve mobility. These systems include:
* Arterial management systems that automate the process of adjusting
signals to optimize traffic flow along arterial roadways;
* Freeway management systems that provide information to motorists and
detect problems whose resolution will increase capacity and minimize
congestion resulting from accidents;
* Transit management systems that enable new ways of monitoring and
maintaining transit fleets to increase operational efficiencies through
advanced vehicle locating devices, equipment monitoring systems, and
fleet management;
* Incident management systems that enable authorities to identify and
respond to vehicle crashes or breakdowns with the most appropriate and
timely emergency services, thereby minimizing recovery times;
* Electronic toll collection systems that provide drivers and
transportation agencies with convenient and reliable automated
transactions to improve traffic flow at toll plazas and increase the
operational efficiency of toll collection;
* Electronic fare payment systems that use electronic communication,
data processing, and data storage techniques in the process of fare
collection and in subsequent recordkeeping and funds transfer;
* Highway-rail intersection systems that coordinate traffic signal
operations and train movement and notify drivers of approaching trains
using in-vehicle warning systems;
* Emergency management systems that enhance coordination to ensure the
nearest and most appropriate emergency service units respond to a
crash;
* Regional multimodal traveler information systems that provide road
and transit information to travelers to enhance the effectiveness of
trip planning and en-route alternatives;
* Information management systems that provide for the archiving of data
generated by ITS devices to support planning and operations; and:
* Integrated systems that are designed to deliver the optimal mix of
services in response to transportation system demands.
Rural Intelligent Transportation Systems are designed to deploy high
potential technologies in rural environments to satisfy the needs of a
diverse population of users and operators. DOT has established seven
categories of rural intelligent transportation projects. They are as
follows:
* Surface Transportation Weather and Winter Mobility - technologies
that alert drivers to hazardous conditions and dangers, including wide-
area information dissemination of site-specific safety advisories and
warnings;
* Emergency Services - systems that improve emergency response to
serious crashes in rural areas, including technologies that
automatically mobilize the closest police, ambulances, or fire fighters
in cases of collisions of other emergencies;
* Statewide/Regional Traveler Information Infrastructure - system
components that provide information to travelers who are unfamiliar
with the local rural area and the operators of transportation services;
* Rural Crash Prevention - technologies and systems that are directed
at preventing crashes before they occur, as well as reducing crash
severity;
* Rural Transit Mobility - services designed to improve the efficiency
of rural transit services and their accessibility to rural residents;
* Rural Traffic Management - services designed to identify and
implement multi-jurisdictional coordination, mobile facilities, and
simple solutions for small communities and operations in areas where
utilities may not be available; and:
* Highway Operations and Maintenance - systems designed to leverage
technologies that improve the ability of highway workers to maintain
and operate rural roads.
The Commercial Vehicle ITS program focuses on applying technologies to
improve the safety and productivity of commercial vehicles and drivers,
reduce commercial vehicles‘ operations costs, and facilitate regulatory
processes for the trucking industry and government agencies. This is
primarily accomplished through the Commercial Vehicle Information
Systems and Networks--a program that links existing federal, state, and
motor carrier information systems so that all entities can share
information and communicate with each other in a more timely and
accurate manner.
The second area of emphasis in DOT‘s ITS program--testing and
evaluating intelligent vehicles--is designed to foster improvements in
the safety and mobility of vehicles. This component of the ITS program
is meant to promote traffic safety by expediting the commercial
availability of advanced vehicle control and safety systems in four
classes of vehicles: (1) light vehicles, including passenger cars,
light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles; (2) commercial
vehicles, including heavy trucks and interstate buses; (3) transit
vehicles, including all nonrail vehicles operated by transit agencies;
and (4) specialty vehicles, including those used for emergency
response, law enforcement, and highway maintenance.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Alternative Financing Methods:
Transportation officials at all levels of government recognize that
funding from traditional sources (i.e., state revenues and federal aid)
does not always keep pace with demands for new, expanded, or improved
surface and maritime transportation infrastructure. Accordingly, the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has supported a broad spectrum
of emerging or established alternative financing mechanisms that can be
used to augment traditional funding sources, access new sources of
capital and operating funds, and enable transportation providers to
proceed with major projects sooner than they might otherwise. These
mechanisms fall into several broad categories: (1) allowing states to
pay debt financing costs with future anticipated federal highway funds,
(2) providing federal credit assistance, and (3) establishing financing
institutions at the state level. In addition, state, local, and
regional governments engage in public/private partnerships to tap
private sector resources for investment in transportation capital
projects. The federal government helps subsidize public/private
partnerships by providing them with tax exemptions.
The federal government allows states to tap into Federal-aid highway
funds to repay debt-financing costs associated with highway projects
through the use of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE). Under
this program, states can pledge a share of future obligations of
federal highway funds toward repayment of bond-related expenses,
including a portion of the principal and interest payments, insurance
costs, and other costs. A project must be approved by DOT‘s Federal
Highway Administration to be eligible for this type of assistance.
The federal government also provides credit assistance in the form of
loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for a variety of surface
and maritime transportation programs, as follows:
* Under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of
1998 (TIFIA), the federal government provides direct loans, loan
guarantees, and lines of credit aimed at leveraging federal funds to
attract nonfederal coinvestment in infrastructure improvements. This
program is designed to provide financing for highway, mass transit,
rail, airport, and intermodal projects, including expansions of multi-
state highway trade corridors; major rehabilitation and replacement of
transit vehicles, facilities, and equipment; border crossing
infrastructure; and other investments with regional and national
benefits.
* Under the Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
(RRIF), established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) in 1998, the federal government is authorized to
provide direct loans and loan guarantees for railroad capital
improvements. This type of credit assistance is made available to state
and local governments, government-sponsored authorities, railroads,
corporations, or joint ventures that include at least one railroad.
However, as of June 2002, no loans or loan guarantees had been granted
under this program.
* Under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, known as the
Federal Ship Financing Guarantees Program, the federal government
provides for a full faith and credit guarantee of debt obligations
issued by (1) U.S. or foreign shipowners for the purpose of financing
or refinancing U.S. or eligible export vessels that are constructed,
reconstructed, or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards; and (2) U.S.
shipyards for the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding
technology.
A third way that the federal government helps transportation providers
finance capital projects is by supporting State Infrastructure Banks
(SIB). SIBs are investment funds established at the state or regional
level that can make loans and provide other types of credit assistance
to public and private transportation project sponsors. Under this
program, the federal government allows states to use federal grants as
’seed“ funds to finance capital investments in highway and transit
construction projects. The federal government currently supports SIBs
in 39 states.
In addition to these alternative financing mechanisms directly
supported by the federal government, state, local, and regional
governments sometimes engage in public/private partnerships to tap
private sector resources for investment in transportation capital
projects. The federal government also helps subsidize public/private
partnerships by providing them with tax subsidies. One such subsidy is
specifically targeted towards investment in ground transportation
facilities--the tax exemption for interest earned on state and local
bonds that are used to finance high-speed rail facilities and
government-owned docks, wharves, and other facilities. In addition, a
Department of the Treasury study indicates that the rates of tax
depreciation
allowed for railroads, railroad equipment, ships, and boats are likely
to
provide some subsidy to investors in those assets.[Footnote 81]
Partnerships between state and local governments and the private sector
are formed for the purpose of sharing the risks, financing costs, and
benefits of transportation projects. Such partnerships can be used to
minimize cost by improving project quality, maintaining risk-
management, improving efficiency, spurring innovation, and accessing
expertise that may not be available within the agency. These
partnerships can take many forms; some examples include:
* Partnerships formed to develop, finance, build, and operate new toll
roads and other roadways;
* Joint development of transit assets whereby land and facilities that
are owned by transit agencies are sold or leased to private firms and
the proceeds are used for capital investment in, and operations of,
transit systems;
* ’Turnkey“ contracts for transit construction projects whereby the
contractor (1) accepts a lower price for the delivered product if the
project is delayed or (2) receives a higher profit if the project is
delivered earlier or under budget; and:
* Cross-border leases that permit foreign investors to own assets used
in the United States, lease them to an American entity, and receive tax
benefits under the laws of their home country. This financing mechanism
offers an ’up front“ cost savings to transit agencies that are
acquiring vehicles or other assets from a foreign firm.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Scope and Methodology:
Our work covered major modes of surface and maritime transportation for
passengers and freight, including public roads, public transit,
railways, and ports and inland waterways. To determine trends in public
expenditures for surface and maritime transportation over the past 10
years, we relied on U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) reports and
databases that document annual spending levels in each mode of
transportation. We analyzed trends in total public sector and federal
expenditures across modes during the 10-year period covering fiscal
years 1991 through 2000, and we compared the proportion of public
expenditures devoted to capital activities versus operating and
maintaining the existing infrastructure during that same time period.
We adjusted the expenditure data to account for inflation using
separate indexes for expenditures made by the federal government and
state and local governments. We used price indexes from the Department
of Commerce‘s Bureau of Economic Analysis‘ National Income and Products
Accounts.
To determine projected levels of freight and passenger travel over the
next 10 years, we identified projections made by DOT‘s modal
administrations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Amtrak for the
period covering calendar years 2001 through 2010. We interviewed
officials responsible for the projections and reviewed available
documentation to identify the methodology used in preparing the
projections and the key factors driving them. We also obtained data on
past levels of freight and passenger travel, covering fiscal years 1991
through 2000, from DOT‘s modal administrations, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and Amtrak. We analyzed the factors driving the trends for
three types of travel--local, intercity, and freight--that have
important distinctions in the types of vehicles and modes used for the
travel.
To identify mobility challenges and strategies for addressing those
challenges, we primarily relied upon expert opinion, as well as a
review of pertinent literature. In particular, we convened two panels
of surface and maritime transportation experts to identify mobility
issues and gather views about alternative strategies for addressing the
issues and challenges to implementing those strategies. We contracted
with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its Transportation
Research Board (TRB) to provide technical assistance in identifying and
scheduling the two panels that were held on April 1 and 3, 2002. TRB
officials selected a total of 22 panelists with input from us,
including a cross-section of representatives from all surface and
maritime modes and from various occupations involved in transportation
planning. In keeping with NAS policy, the panelists were invited to
provide their individual views and the panels were not designed to
build consensus on any of the issues discussed. We analyzed the content
of all of the comments made by the panelists to identify common themes
about key mobility challenges and strategies for addressing those
challenges. Where applicable, we also identified the opposing points of
view about the challenges and strategies.
The names and backgrounds of the panelists are as follows. We also note
that two of the panelists served as moderators for the sessions, Dr.
Joseph M. Sussman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dr.
Damian J. Kulash of the Eno Foundation, Inc.
* Benjamin J. Allen is Interim Vice President for External Affairs and
Distinguished Professor of Business at Iowa State University. Dr. Allen
serves on the editorial boards of the Transportation Journal and
Transport Logistics, and he is currently Chair of the Committee for the
Study of Freight Capacity for the Next Century at TRB. His expertise
includes transportation regulation, resource allocation, income
distribution, and managerial decisionmaking and his research has been
published in numerous transportation journals.
* Daniel Brand is Vice President of Charles River Associates, Inc., in
Boston, Mass. Mr. Brand has served as Undersecretary of the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Associate Professor of City
Planning at Harvard University, and Senior Lecturer in the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology‘s Civil Engineering Department.
Mr. Brand edited Urban Transportation Innovation, coedited Urban Travel
Demand Forecasting, and is the author of numerous monographs and
articles on transportation.
* Jon E. Burkhardt is the Senior Study Director at Westat, Inc., in
Rockville, Md. His expertise is in the transit needs of rural and small
urban areas, in particular, the needs of the elderly population in such
areas. He has directed studies on the ways in which advanced technology
can aid rural public transit systems, the mobility challenges for older
persons, and the economic impacts of rural public transportation.
* Sarah C. Campbell is the President of TransManagement, Inc., in
Washington, D.C., where she advises transportation agencies at all
levels of government, nonprofit organizations, and private foundations
on transportation issues. Ms. Campbell is currently a member of the
Executive Committee of the TRB. She was a founding director of the
Surface Transportation Policy Project and currently serves as chairman
of its board of directors.
* Christina S. Casgar is the Executive Director of the Foundation for
Intermodal Research and Education in Greenbelt, Md. Ms. Casgar‘s
expertise is in transportation and logistics policies of federal,
state, and local levels of government, particularly in issues involving
port authorities. She has also worked with the TRB as an industry
investigator to identify key issues and areas of research regarding the
motor carrier industry.
* Anthony Downs is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Mr.
Downs‘s research interests are in the areas of democracy, demographics,
housing, metropolitan policy, real estate, real estate finance, ’smart
growth,“ suburban sprawl, and urban policy. He is the author of New
Visions for Metropolitan America (1994), Stuck in Traffic: Coping with
Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion (1992), and several policy briefs
published by the Brookings Institution.
* Thomas R. Hickey served until recently as the General Manager of the
Port Authority Transit Corporation in Lindenwold, N.J. Mr. Hickey has
23 years of public transit experience, and he is a nationally
recognized authority in the field of passenger rail operations and the
design of intermodal facilities.
* Ronald F. Kirby is the Director of Transportation Planning at the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Dr. Kirby is
responsible for conducting long-range planning of the highway and
public transportation system in the Washington, D.C., region, assessing
the air quality implications of transportation plans and programs,
implementing a regional ridesharing program, and participating in
airport systems planning in the region. Prior to joining the Council of
Governments, he conducted transportation studies for the Urban
Institute and the World Bank.
* Damian J. Kulash is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., in Washington, D.C. Dr. Kulash
established a series of forums at the Foundation addressing major
issues affecting all transportation modes including economic returns on
transportation investment, coordination of intermodal freight
operations in Europe and the United States, and development of a U.S.
transportation strategy that is compatible with national global climate
change objectives. He has published numerous articles in transportation
journals and directed studies at the Congressional Budget Office and
the TRB.
* Charles A. Lave is a Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the
University of California, Irvine where he served as Chair of the
Economics Department. Dr. Lave has been a visiting scholar at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, and he
served on the Board of Directors of the National Bureau of Economic
Research from 1991 through 1997. He has published numerous articles on
transportation pricing and other topics.
* Stephen Lockwood is Vice President of Parsons Corporation, an
international firm that provides transportation planning, design,
construction, engineering, and project management services. Mr.
Lockwood is also a consultant to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and other transportation organizations. Prior to
joining Parsons, he served as Associate Administrator for Policy at
FHWA.
* Timothy J. Lomax is a Research Engineer at the Texas Transportation
Institute at Texas A&M University. Dr. Lomax has published extensively
on urban mobility issues and he developed a methodology used to assess
congestion levels and costs in major cities throughout the United
States. He is currently conducting research, funded by nine state
transportation departments, to improve mobility measuring
capabilities.
* James R. McCarville is the Executive Director of the Port of
Pittsburgh Commission. He also serves as the President of the trade
association, Inland Rivers‘ Ports and Terminals, Inc., and is a member
of the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council, a group
sponsored by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. Mr. McCarville
previously served as a consultant to the governments of Brazil,
Uruguay, and Mexico on matters of port organization, operational
efficiency, and privatization.
* James W. McClellan is Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning at
the Norfolk Southern Corporation in Norfolk, Va., where he previously
held positions in corporate planning and development. Prior to joining
Norfolk Southern, he served in various marketing and planning positions
with the New York Central Railroad, DOT‘s Federal Railroad
Administration, and the Association of American Railroads.
* Michael D. Meyer is a Professor in the School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology and
was the Chair of the school from 1995 to 2000. He previously served as
Director of Transportation Planning for the state of Massachusetts. Dr.
Meyer‘s expertise includes transportation planning, public works
economics and finance, public policy analysis, and environmental impact
assessments. He has written over 120 technical articles and has
authored or co-authored numerous texts on transportation planning and
policy.
* William W. Millar is President of the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA). Prior to joining APTA, he was executive director of
the Port Authority of Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, Pa. Mr. Millar is
a nationally recognized leader in public transit and has served on or
as Chair of the executive committees of TRB, the Transit Development
Corporation, APTA, and the Pennsylvania Association of Municipal
Transportation Authorities.
* Alan E. Pisarski is an independent transportation consultant in Falls
Church, Va., providing services to public and private sector clients in
the United States and abroad in the areas of transport policy, travel
behavior, and data analysis and development. He has served as an
advisor to numerous transportation and statistics agencies and
transportation trade associations. He has also conducted surface
transportation reviews for AASHTO and FHWA.
* Craig E. Philip is President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Ingram Barge Company in Nashville, Tenn. He has served in various
professional and senior management capacities in the maritime, rail,
and intermodal industries and has held adjunct faculty positions at
Princeton University and Vanderbilt University. Dr. Philip serves on
the Executive Committee of the American Waterways Operators
Association, the Marine Transportation System National Advisory
Council, and the National Academy of Sciences‘ Marine Board, and he is
immediate past Chairman of the National Waterways Conference.
* Arlee T. Reno is a consultant with Cambridge Systematics in
Washington, D.C. Mr. Reno has expertise in performance-based planning
and measurement, multimodal investment analysis, urban transportation
costs, alternative tax sources, and revenue forecasting for highway
agencies. He has conducted reviews for the FHWA, AASHTO, and numerous
state transportation agencies.
* Joseph M. Sussman is the JR East Professor in the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering and the Engineering Systems Division at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Sussman is the author of
Introduction to Transportation Systems (2000) and specializes in
transportation systems and institutions, regional strategic
transportation planning, intercity freight and passenger rail,
intelligent transportation systems, simulation and risk assessment
methods, and complex systems and he has authored numerous publications
in those areas. He has served as Chair of TRB committees and as the
Chairman of its Executive Committee in 1994, and he serves on the Board
of Directors of ITS America and ITS Massachusetts.
* Louis S. Thompson is a Railways Advisor for the World Bank where he
consults on all of the Bank‘s railway lending activities. Prior to
joining the Bank, Mr. Thompson held a number of senior positions in
DOT‘s Federal Railroad Administration, including Acting Associate
Administrator for Policy, Associate Administrator for Passenger and
Freight Services, Associate Administrator for Intercity Services, and
Director of the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project. He has also
served as an economics and engineering consultant.
* Martin Wachs is the Director of the Institute of Transportation
Studies at the University of California, Berkeley and he holds faculty
appointments in the departments of City and Regional Planning and Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the university. Dr. Wachs has
published extensively in the areas of transportation planning and
policy, especially as related to elderly populations, fare and subsidy
policies, crime in public transit, ethics, and forecasting. He
currently serves as Chairman of the TRB and has served on various
transportation committees for the state of California.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
JayEtta Z. Hecker (202) 512-2834
Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above, Christine Bonham, Jay Cherlow, Helen
DeSaulniers, Colin Fallon, Rita Grieco, Brandon Haller, David Hooper,
Jessica Lucas, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Jobenia Odum, and Andrew Von Ah of
GAO, as well as the experts identified in appendix VI, made key
contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] In this report, we define the surface transportation system as
highways, mass transit systems, and railroads; and the maritime
transportation system as ports, inland waterways, and the intermodal
connections leading to them. Pipelines were not part of our review.
[2] P.L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998).
[3] P.L. 105-134 (Dec. 2, 1997).
[4] The two groups are the Interagency Committee on the Marine
Transportation System and the Marine Transportation System National
Advisory Council.
[5] The DOT data on expenditures included spending by the U.S. Coast
Guard and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation for
transportation.
[6] We adjusted the expenditure data to account for inflation using
separate indexes for expenditures made by the federal government or
state and local governments. We used price indexes from the U.S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis‘ National Income and Products Accounts.
[7] Throughout this report, the percentage calculations are based on
amounts that have not been rounded.
[8] Data on state and local expenditures are only available through
fiscal year 1999, while federal expenditures data are available through
fiscal year 2000.
[9] David Shrank and Tim Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College
Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute, June 2002).
[10] These include roads in national forests and parks and on military
and Indian reservations.
[11] P.L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
[12] Fixed guideway systems use and occupy a separate right-of-way for
the exclusive use of public transportation services. They include fixed
rail, exclusive lanes for buses and other high-occupancy vehicles, and
other systems.
[13] The General Fund contains receipts that are not earmarked by law
for a specific purpose, such as almost all income tax receipts.
[14] In nominal dollars, the Congress provided Amtrak with about $25
billion from 1971 through 2002.
[15] Amtrak‘s capital revenues are used to acquire property, plant, and
equipment.
[16] In addition, Amtrak used a portion of its federal capital funding
to pay for operating expenses related to overhauling equipment.
[17] As of May 2002, state and local government expenditures were not
available for fiscal years after 1999. Therefore, total public sector
expenditures are only reported through fiscal year 1999. Federal
expenditure data are available for fiscal year 2000, but only
appropriations data are available for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
[18] Throughout this report, the percentage calculations are based on
amounts that have not been rounded.
[19] State and local governments‘ highway expenditures reported by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics are slightly lower than those
reported in the FHWA‘s Highway Statistics, because data from the FHWA
include outlays for activities--such as law enforcement and patrols and
policing of streets and highways--not included in the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics‘ data.
[20] Appropriations are not directly comparable to expenditures.
Appropriations provide the authority to make obligations, which
eventually turn into expenditures. However, those expenditures might
not be made in the same fiscal year as the appropriations.
[21] Under the RABA provision, the annual spending levels that are
guaranteed for most federal highway programs are to be adjusted upward
or downward during each fiscal year if the receipt levels in the
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund increase or decrease from
those projected in TEA-21.
[22] However, Amtrak estimates that states will contribute $223 million
to Amtrak routes and infrastructure in 2002.
[23] Data were compiled from issues of the survey released between 1994
and 2001 (tables B-4, B-5, B-6, 5.6, and 5.8) and were adjusted for
inflation using separate indexes from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis‘
National Income and Products Accounts for individual expenditures on
new vehicles or business expenditures on transportation equipment. The
survey data do not include overall private investment in transit
systems.
[24] The projections used in this report were developed by the DOT
modal administrations, the Corps of Engineers, and Amtrak. We did not
verify the data used in making projections, and we do not endorse the
projections as accurate.
[25] Other factors also influence travel but were not always included
in travel projections. For example, growth in miles driven on public
roads is influenced by shifts in population to less populated
residential areas, transit ridership is affected by levels of
immigration, and freight travel is affected by technological
innovations that improve transportation efficiency, but the influence
of these factors is not taken into account. In addition, investments in
additional transportation capacity can stimulate corresponding
increases in travel demand. Consequently, these national travel
projections need to be used carefully in evaluating how capacity
improvements or other changes in one mode of transportation might
affect travel across other modes and the transportation system as a
whole.
[26] FHWA provided us with forecasts for total (passenger and freight)
vehicle miles traveled from individual states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico (see app. II). These project future travel
through 2020 rather than through 2010.
[27] In 2000, the latest year for which comparable data are available,
domestic airlines carried about 657 million passengers, intercity buses
carried about 359 million passengers, and Amtrak carried about 22.5
million passengers.
[28] The national Amtrak ridership statistics, however, mask some
regional trends. Combined ridership in the Northeast corridor and on
the West Coast has grown by about 2 million passengers since 1994,
while ridership on the rest of the intercity passenger rail system has
generally decreased.
[29] According to the American Public Transportation Association,
demand response modes are passenger cars, vans, or buses with fewer
than 25 seats operating in response to calls from passengers or their
agents to the transit operator, who then dispatches a vehicle to pick
up the passengers and transport them to their destinations.
[30] Numerous projections of freight travel have been produced for
particular modes, corridors, or commodities. For example, the Corps of
Engineers has produced projections for tons moving on the inland
waterways, while the Latin America Trade and Transportation Study
contains projections of trade patterns between the United States and
Latin America. For this report, we relied on projections produced by
FHWA, because these are the only projections that predict national
freight travel on all modes.
[31] Some freight may be moved by more than one mode before reaching
its destination, such as moving by rail for one segment of the trip,
then by truck to its final destination. This may result in tons being
counted on more than one mode in FHWA‘s projections. In addition,
FHWA‘s maritime freight projections do not include international trade
of bulk products and some inland domestic bulk shipments.
[32] Ton-miles are calculated by multiplying the total number of tons
moved by the total miles traveled.
[33] Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics
Annual Report 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2001).
[34] An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, September 1999).
[35] ’Characteristics and Changes in Freight Transportation Demand: A
Guidebook for Planners and Policy Analysts,“ prepared for the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 8-30 Phase II
(Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, June 19, 1995).
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual
Report 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
2001).
[36] David Shrank and Tim Lomax, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College
Station, TX: Texas Transportation Institute, June 2002).
[37] U.S. General Accounting Office, Mass Transit: Many Management
Successes at WMATA, but Capital Planning Could Be Enhanced, GAO-01-744
(July 2, 2001).
[38] Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River
Associates, Inc., Mobility 2001: World Mobility at the End of the
Twentieth Century and Its Sustainability, (World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, August 2001).
[39] U.S. General Accounting Office, Status of the Interstate Highway
System, GAO-02-571 (May 31, 2002).
[40] An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, September 1999).
[41] Several sources of nonrecurring delays were not considered in this
study, including special events, rain, rail crossings, and toll booths.
S.M. Chin, O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. Hwang, and R. Gibson,
Temporary Losses of Capacity Study and Impacts on Performance, Report
No. ORNL/TM-2002/3 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May
2002).
[42] Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration,
1999 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions
and Performance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
2000).
[43] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics‘ Annual Report 2000
defines accessibility as a measure of the relative ease with which
people and businesses can reach a variety of locations.
[44] Jon E. Burkhardt, Arlene M. Berger, Michael Creedon, and Adam T.
McGavock, Mobility and Independence: Changes and Challenges for Older
Drivers (July 1998). This report was developed under a cooperative
agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),
under the auspices of the Joint DHHS/DOT Coordinating Council on Access
and Mobility.
[45] Paratransit is a service where individuals who are unable to use
the regular transit system independently (because of a physical or
mental impairment) are picked up and dropped off at their destinations.
[46] Federal Transit Administration, Access to Jobs: Planning Case
Studies (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, September
2001).
[47] Community Transportation Association of America, Status of Rural
Public Transportation-2000 (April 2001).
[48] Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines
for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation Services
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Dec. 20, 2000).
[49] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection:
Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and
Water Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001).
[50] MPOs are organizations of city, county, state, and federal
officials that provide a regional forum for transportation planning.
[51] Report of the President‘s Commission to Study Capital Budgeting,
President‘s Commission to Study Capital Budgeting (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, February 1999).
[52] Federal Highway Administration, Moving Ahead: The American Public
Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in Communities, FHWA OP-01-017
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, February 2001).
[53] Joseph M. Sussman, ’Transitions in the World of Transportation: A
Systems View,“ Transportation Quarterly 56 (2002): 21-22.
[54] Anthony Downs, Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic
Congestion (The Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C.: 1992) p.64.
[55] National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Curbing
Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion (Washington,
D.C.: 1994).
[56] Proponents of congestion pricing, however, such as the Committee
for Study of Urban Transportation Congestion Pricing of the
Transportation Research Board, have noted that all income groups can
benefit if there is an appropriate distribution of the revenues
obtained through congestion pricing.
[57] Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles allow states to pay debt
financing costs with future anticipated federal highway funds.
[58] However, one panelist believed that increased spending on
transportation would never alleviate congestion and that such spending
increases would reduce the funds available for dealing with other
problems.
[59] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Financing: Factors
Affecting Highway Trust Fund Revenues, GAO-02-667T (Washington, D.C.:
May 9, 2002).
[60] Because some capital funds from the federal Urbanized Area Formula
program were used to pay for operating expenses, the 2 percent
operating expense figure may be somewhat understated and the 50 percent
capital expenditure figure may be somewhat overstated.
[61] P.L. 105-34 (Aug. 5, 1997).
[62] Locks and dams serve other purposes in addition to navigation,
including irrigation, flood control, and recreation.
[63] The exception is the national projection of passenger miles
traveled on transit, which is actually an aggregate of local
projections that are capacity-constrained and may consider interactions
among modes.
[64] A separate model was developed for buses, using population growth
as the independent variable.
[65] MPOs are organizations of city, county, state, and federal
officials that provide a regional forum for transportation planning.
[66] According to FTA, the 33 metropolitan areas account for
approximately 90 percent of the nation‘s transit use, so they should
provide a reasonable approximation of national-level forecasts.
[67] There is no forecast for New York City, so FTA substituted the
average growth rate for the other major east coast cities, which is
1.32 percent.
[68] Methodologies used by the MPOs to derive their forecasts vary,
although officials at FTA told us that there are two common types. One
type uses a standard four-step modeling process involving data on how
many trips people make, where people are going, the modal split of
trips, and actual routes. The second type is econometric, in which
regional forecast data on income and demographics are fed into a model
to derive travel projections.
[69] Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration,
1999 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions
and Performance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
2000).
[70] Local freight travel forecasts done by the Corps of Engineers‘
district offices for use in specific project feasibility studies do
consider possible diversion to other alternative modes as a result of
increasing congestion.
[71] HPMS also includes data from the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico.
[72] These projections have not yet been updated with data from the
2000 Census.
[73] Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration,
1999 Status of the Nation‘s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions
and Performance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
2000).
[74] Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River
Associates, Inc., Mobility 2001: World Mobility at the End of the
Twentieth Century and Its Sustainability (World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, August 2001).
[75] According to the American Public Transportation Association,
demand response modes are passenger cars, vans, or buses with fewer
than 25 seats operating in response to calls from passengers or their
agents to the transit operator, who then dispatches a vehicle to pick
up the passengers and transport them to their destinations.
[76] The U.S. economy has become increasingly integrated with the
global economy, as domestic and foreign companies manage worldwide
production and distribution systems. For example, auto manufacturers
may locate their factories and warehouses in separate countries or
continents from their retail outlets. See Characteristics and Changes
in Freight Transportation Demand: A Guidebook for Planners and Policy
Analysts, prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Project 8-30 Phase II (Washington, D.C.: Transportation
Research Board, June 19, 1995).
[77] Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics
Annual Report 2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2001).
[78] Ton-miles are calculated by multiplying the tons of commerce being
moved by the number of miles moved.
[79] The Mobility 2001 report states that inland waterways can move
very large shipments of grain or lumber with a minimal expenditure of
energy. For example, on the lower Mississippi River, 40 or more 10-ton
barges can be lashed together into a single tow for movement down the
river. Rail is also cost-efficient for shipping low-value bulk
commodities long distances. However, because both of these modes are
slower than truck travel on highways, and are limited to fixed
waterways or tracks, trucks are more often used for transporting high-
value goods and for local deliveries. Ocean shipping is the dominant
mode for overseas freight tonnage because extremely large ships
operating with small crews can move great tonnages vast distances at
minimal costs.
[80] ’Characteristics and Changes in Freight Transportation Demand: A
Guidebook for Planners and Policy Analysts,“ prepared for the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 8-30 Phase II
(Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, June 19, 1995).
[81] A subsidy is provided when the tax deductions that investors are
permitted to claim for depreciation of assets are larger (in present
value terms) than the amount of true economic depreciation of those
assets. Although economic depreciation is difficult to estimate, the
Department of the Treasury study suggests that tax depreciation exceeds
economic depreciation for certain transportation assets. (See
Department of the Treasury, Report to the Congress on Depreciation
Recovery Periods and Methods, July 2000.)
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
