http://www.reason.org/ps360.pdf to obtain color graphs which did not transfer onto the blog
June 2007. In any case, most graphs are described in the text.
16th AnnuAl RepoRt on the peRfoRmAnce
of StAte highwAy SyStemS (1984-2005)
By David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E., and Ravi K. Karanam
Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D.
POLICY
STUDY
360
Reason Foundation
Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, ap-
plying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free
markets, and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to
influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists, and opin-
ion leaders.
Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice,
competition, and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human
dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer-reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge, and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals and voluntary institutions to flourish.
Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organization as
defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is supported by volun-
tary contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations. The views
are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its
trustees.
Copyright © 2007 Reason Foundation. All rights reserved.
R e a s o n F o u n d a t i o n
16th Annual Report on the Performance
of State Highway Systems (1984-2005)
By David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. and Ravi K. Karanam
Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Ph.D.
This is the 16th annual report in a series on the condition and performance of the U.S. state-owned
road system. The report is supported this year by Reason Foundation, a public policy research
institution. The views expressed in the report are solely those of the authors. Copyright 2007 by the
authors. Permission to copy and reproduce by electronic or paper means with appropriate credit is
given.
R e a s o n F o u n d a t i o n
Table of Contents
Overview ... . 1
Cost-Effectiveness Rankings of the States ... .. 4
Trends in Performance Indicators: ... ... 7
System Extent ... . 8
Resources ... .. 10
System Performance ... . 15
Individual State Results... ... 27
Alabama ... . 27
Alaska ... . 27
Arizona ... .. 27
Arkansas ... . 28
California ... .. 28
Colorado ... 28
Connecticut ... . 28
Delaware ... .. 29
Florida... . 29
Georgia ... .. 29
Hawaii ... 30
Idaho ... .. 30
Illinois ... . 30
Indiana... 31
Iowa... . 31
Kansas ... . 31
Kentucky ... 31
Louisiana ... 32
Maine ... . 32
Maryland... 32
Massachusetts... .. 33
Michigan ... 33
Minnesota ... . 33
Mississippi ... . 33
Missouri ... . 34
Montana ... 34
Nebraska ... 34
Nevada ... .. 35
New Hampshire ... . 35
New Jersey ... 35
New Mexico ... 36
New York ... .. 36
North Carolina ... 36
North Dakota ... .. 36
Ohio ... 37
Oklahoma ... . 37
Oregon ... .. 37
Pennsylvania ... 38
Rhode Island ... 38
South Carolina ... 38
South Dakota ... .. 38
Tennessee ... . 39
Texas ... .. 39
Utah... . 39
Vermont ... . 40
Virginia... 40
Washington ... .. 40
West Virginia ... 40
Wisconsin ... . 41
Wyoming ... .. 41
About the Authors... . 42
Related Reason Studies ... .. 43
Endnotes... ... 44
Tables and Figures
Table 1A: Expenditures and Performance of State-Owned Highways, 1998-2005... . 2
Table 1B: State Ranks ... . 5
Table 2: State-Controlled Highway Mileage ... . 8
Table 3: State Highway Agency Mileage ... ... 9
Table 4: Receipts per State-Controlled Mile... .. 10
Table 5: Capital & Bridge Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile ... .. 11
Table 6: Maintenance Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile ... . 12
Table 7: Administrative Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile ... . 13
Table 8: Total Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile ... . 14
Table 9: Rural Interstate Condition ... ... 15
Table 10: Urban Interstate Condition ... .. 17
Table 11: Rural Arterial Condition ... . 19
Table 12: Urban Interstate Congestion ... ... 21
Table 13: Deficient Bridges ... .. 23
Table 14: Fatality Rates ... .. 24
Table 15: Rural Narrow Lanes ... . 26
Figure 1: Trends in U.S. Highway Performance Indicators... .. 1
Figure 2: Overall Rank... . 6
Figure 3: Rural Interstate: Poor Condition Rank ... ... 16
Figure 4: Urban Interstate: Poor Condition Rank ... . 18
Figure 5: Rural Arterial Condition: Poor Condition Rank... .. 20
Figure 6: Urban Interstate Congestion Rank ... ... 22
Figure 7: Fatality Rates ... . 25
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 1
P a r t 1
Overview
he states reversed the 2004 declines in highway condition by spending federal funds approved
by Congress in 2005 for improved pavements, bridge repairs, and congestion relief. The
nation's continuing trend of generally improving highway performance from 1998 to 2003 was reestablished in 2005.
Federal highway funds increased about 13 percent between 2004 and 2005, as the states saw the first full year of additional funds from the new federal highway program. Capital and bridge expenditures increased 12 percent and maintenance expenditures increased 11 percent.
Administrative costs were flat.
Figure 1: Trends in U.S. Highway Performance Indicators
1.4 .
. 1.2
Worse
. 1.0
Better
. 0.8
. 0.6
. 0.4
. 0.2
0
1998 1999
Urban Interstate Congestion
Narrow lanes
Fatality Rate
Urban Interstate Pavement Condition Deficient Bridges
Rural Interstate Pavement Condition
Rural Arterial Pavement Condition
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2 Reason Foundation
The states converted the additional funding into improved performance. The percent of roads in
poor condition fell sharply for both the interstate and rural primary roads. Increasingly, the
remaining serious pavement condition problems are confined to just a few states. The percentage of bridges rated deficient also improved slightly. The states also held their ground on congestion and narrow lanes. But accident rates crept up slightly.
Substantial as it is, this progress was offset slightly by several troublesome problems. The
condition of secondary and local roads continues to worsen. Over one half of urban interstates
remain congested, and the states’ ability to deal with congestion seems to be slowing. And one
quarter of the nation’s bridges are still rated ‘deficient’; at the current improvement rate it will take 50 years to eliminate bridge deficiencies. Highway fatalities have edged up, increasing the fatality rate slightly. And sharp increases in highway construction costs in 2005-2006 mean that fewer repairs can be made from the same dollars.
This 16th annual study tracks the performance of the state-owned roads from 1984 to 2005. Twelve indicators—covering the states’ highway revenues and expenditures, pavement and bridge
condition, congestion, accident rates, and narrow lanes—make up each state’s overall rating. The
study is based on spending and performance data submitted to the federal government by the state
highway agencies.
Table 1A: Expenditures and Performance of State-Owned Highways, 1998-2005
Statistic 1998 2004 2005 Percent Change,
04-05
Total Revenues, All Sources, $B $67.80 $90.68 $102.71 13.27
Total Expenditures, $B $66.40 $87.69 $98.91 12.80
Expenditures, Capital/Bridges, $B $36.30 $47.74 $50.31 5.38
Expenditures, Maintenance, $B $11.40 $14.29 $15.94 11.55
Expenditures, Administration, $B $4.70 $6.32 $6.36 0.63
Highway Construction Price Index 126.9 154.4 175.4 13.6
Rural Interstate, Percent Poor Condition 3.25 2.02 1.73 -15.84
Urban Interstate, Percent Poor Condition 8.69 7.13 5.97 -16.27
Rural Primary, Percent Poor Condition 1.42 0.94 0.85 -9.57
Urban Interstate, Percent Congested 45.90 51.60 51.85 0.48
Bridges, Percent Deficient 29 25.03 24.53 -2.12
Fatality Rate per 100 Million Miles Driven 1.58 1.440 1.453 0.69
Rural Primary, Percent Narrow Lanes 11.04 10.72 10.72 -0.19
Bold =Worsened
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 3
The study also found wide variations among the states in road performance. Just six states (New
York, Alabama, California, Utah, Alaska and Michigan) have over 60 percent of the poor rural
interstate mileage in the country. And four states (California, Minnesota, New Jersey and North
Carolina) have more than 70 percent of their urban interstates congested. The states also vary
widely by fatality rates. Massachusetts reported the lowest rate, Montana the highest.
Congress passed new highway legislation in August 2005. The federal bill increased highway
funding by about 40 percent over 1998 levels. Congress did not address fundamental reforms in
how road projects are financed, so the action averted a looming drop in highway performance. But there is still cause for concern about the lack of progress in reducing congestion. It is simply
unacceptable for half of urban interstates to be congested. We need to spend our dollars on real
problems, not frills. States need to re-think their priorities and focus more on congestion reduction and mobility provision.
4 Reason Foundation
P a r t 2
Cost-Effectiveness Rankings of the
States
his report continues its annual ranking of the state highway systems on costs versus
effectiveness. Since the states have different budgets, system sizes and traffic, comparative
performance depends on both system quality and on resources available. To determine relative performance, state highway budgets (per mile of responsibility) are compared with system
performance, state by state. States ranked high typically have good-condition systems along with relatively thin budgets.1
The following table shows the results for 2005. For 2005, the top three states in overall costeffectiveness—North Dakota, South Carolina and Kansas—are followed by New Mexico, Montana, Georgia, Wyoming, Oregon, Nevada and Idaho.
Several states improved their rankings sharply from 2004:
Missouri jumped from 28th to 17th after sharp improvements in its pavement condition. Nevada moved up 12 positions from 21st to 9th.
Indiana moved up from 23rd to 14th.
Montana moved up from 13th to 5th.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 5
Table 1B: State Ranks
2005 Overall Cost- State 1998 Overall Cost- 2004 Overall Cost- Change, 2004-2005
Effectiveness Rank Effectiveness Rating Effectiveness Rank
1 North Dakota 1 1 0
2 South Carolina 4 2 0
3 Kansas 11 6 3
4 New Mexico 31 4 0
5 Montana 3 13 8
6 Georgia 6 3 -3
7 Wyoming 2 9 2
8 Oregon 8 5 -3
9 Nevada 13 21 12
10 Idaho 5 7 -3
11 South Dakota 15 14 3
12 Kentucky 9 10 -2
13 Minnesota 32 12 -1
14 Indiana 23 23 9
15 Texas 7 8 -7
16 Ohio 28 17 1
17 Missouri 14 28 11
18 Virginia 18 11 -7
19 Nebraska 17 16 -3
20 Tennessee 26 19 -1
21 Utah 30 27 6
22 Wisconsin 29 18 -4
23 Maine 12 22 -1
24 Oklahoma 27 20 -4
25 Mississippi 19 26 1
26 West Virginia 22 15 -11
27 Arizona 20 29 2
28 Arkansas 47 33 5
29 Colorado 45 36 7
30 Louisiana 39 34 4
31 North Carolina 35 30 -1
32 Washington 24 38 6
33 Illinois 36 32 -1
34 New Hampshire 16 25 -9
35 Iowa 25 31 -4
36 Pennsylvania 33 35 -1
37 Vermont 34 24 -13
38 Maryland 37 43 5
39 Connecticut 41 40 1
40 Delaware 38 37 -3
41 Florida 40 41 0
42 Michigan 42 39 -3
43 Alabama 10 42 -1
44 California 44 45 1
45 Massachusetts 49 48 3
46 Hawaii 46 44 -2
47 Rhode Island 43 47 0
48 New York 48 49 1
49 Alaska 21 46 -3
50 New Jersey 50 50 0
6 Reason Foundation
On the other hand, several states lost ground between 2004 and 2005: Vermont slipped from 24th to 37th.
New Hampshire slipped from 25th to 34th.
West Virginia slipped form 15th to 26th.
Figure 2: Overall Rank
Detailed data and trends in rankings for each of the states are shown in the attached tables:
Go to reason.org/ps360.shtml for Overall State Ranks and
Comparative Performance of State Highway Systems
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 7
P a r t 3
Trends in Performance Indicators
etails on the trends of performance measures follow. Selected system condition measures are
also shown in the attached maps.
8 Reason Foundation
System Extent
State-Controlled Miles.
State-controlled miles include the State Highway
Systems, state-agency toll roads, some ferry services,
and state-owned systems serving universities and
state parks. Nationwide, about 812,871 miles are
under state control (Table 2, State-Controlled
Highway Mileage), about 2000 more than in 2004.
The smallest state-owned road systems continue to
be Hawaii (975 miles) and Rhode Island (1,102
miles); the largest in Texas (79,651 miles) and North
Carolina (79,779 miles). North Carolina has replaced
Texas as the state with largest state-owned system.
Table 2: State-Controlled Highway
Mileage
Rank State Mileage
1 North Carolina 79,779
2 Texas 79,651
3 Virginia 57,884
4 Pennsylvania 43,283
5 South Carolina 41,582
6 West Virginia 34,051
7 Missouri 32,464
8 Kentucky 27,753
9 Ohio 22,461
10 Georgia 18,274
11 California 18,230
12 Washington 17,836
13 Louisiana 16,696
14 Illinois 16,521
15 Arkansas 16,444
16 New York 15,707
17 Tennessee 14,163
18 Oklahoma 13,389
19 Minnesota 13,182
20 New Mexico 12,205
21 Oregon 12,065
22 Florida 12,040
23 Wisconsin 11,794
24 Indiana 11,183
25 Alabama 11,124
26 Mississippi 10,948
27 Montana 10,789
28 Kansas 10,548
29 Colorado 10,343
30 Nebraska 10,256
31 Michigan 9,735
32 Iowa 9,266
33 Maine 8,684
34 South Dakota 8,038
35 North Dakota 7,405
36 Wyoming 7,404
37 Arizona 6,959
38 Alaska 6,420
39 Nevada 5,922
40 Utah 5,868
41 Maryland 5,277
42 Delaware 5,243
43 Idaho 4,957
44 New Hampshire 4,004
45 Connecticut 3,960
46 Massachusetts 3,257
47 New Jersey 2,906
48 Vermont 2,844
49 Rhode Island 1,102
50 Hawaii 975
Total 812,871
Mean 16,257
State Highway Agency Mileage.
About 775,860 miles are the responsibility
of the 50 state highway agencies (Table 3,
State Highway Agency Mileage). In most
states these are generally the Interstates and
other major U.S.-numbered and state-
numbered roads, but a few states also
manage major portions of the rural road
system. A few states (New Jersey, Florida,
California, and Massachusetts) manage
significantly wider roads.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 9
Table 3: State Highway Agency Mileage
Rank State Miles Lane miles Ratio
1 West Virginia 33,987 69,955 2.06
2 Alaska 5,659 11,658 2.06
3 Maine 8,548 18,136 2.12
4 North Carolina 79,031 168,655 2.13
5 Virginia 57,860 125,165 2.16
6 South Carolina 41,391 89,543 2.16
7 Delaware 5,243 11,502 2.19
8 Pennsylvania 39,890 88,320 2.21
9 Kentucky 27,510 60,971 2.22
10 New Hampshire 3,975 8,819 2.22
11 Arkansas 16,444 36,665 2.23
12 Missouri 32,464 72,645 2.24
13 Nebraska 9,975 22,440 2.25
14 Montana 10,789 24,480 2.27
15 North Dakota 7,382 16,832 2.28
16 Vermont 2,634 6,045 2.29
17 Louisiana 16,693 38,447 2.30
18 South Dakota 7,873 18,135 2.30
19 Kansas 10,370 23,917 2.31
20 Wyoming 6,757 15,590 2.31
21 Texas 79,648 190,570 2.39
22 Nevada 5,399 13,072 2.42
23 Oregon 7,532 18,239 2.42
24 Idaho 4,957 12,041 2.43
25 Oklahoma 12,285 29,936 2.44
26 New Mexico 11,990 29,291 2.44
27 Minnesota 11,871 29,086 2.45
28 Mississippi 10,896 26,756 2.46
29 Wisconsin 11,782 29,325 2.49
30 Colorado 9,106 22,942 2.52
31 Indiana 11,183 28,317 2.53
32 Ohio 19,292 48,857 2.53
33 New York 15,033 38,084 2.53
34 Alabama 10,955 28,067 2.56
35 Iowa 8,895 22,837 2.57
36 Illinois 16,103 41,833 2.60
37 Tennessee 13,817 35,941 2.60
38 Hawaii 928 2,415 2.60
39 Utah 5,858 15,260 2.60
40 Washington 7,045 18,367 2.61
41 Georgia 17,930 47,003 2.62
42 Rhode Island 1,102 2,898 2.63
43 Connecticut 3,717 9,777 2.63
44 Arizona 6,800 18,503 2.72
45 Michigan 9,698 27,567 2.84
46 Maryland 5,140 14,621 2.84
47 Massachusetts 2,849 8,756 3.07
48 California 15,213 50,559 3.32
49 Florida 12,040 41,477 3.44
50 New Jersey 2,321 8,486 3.66
Total 775,860 1,838,803
Mean 15,517.2 36,776
10 Reason Foundation
Resources
Receipts for State-Administered Roads.
The states obtain their road funds primarily
from state-imposed road user fuel taxes and
fees, the federal government, general funds,
tolls, bonds and other financial initiatives. In
2005 the states received about $102.71
billion for state-administered roads, up
sharply 13.3 percent from 2004 (Table 4,
Receipts per State-Controlled Mile). This
reflects the first full year of SAFETEA-LU
funding. Since 1984, per-mile receipts for
state-owned roads have increased about
218.7 percent. In 2005, receipts per mile of
responsibility averaged $126,354, and
ranged from a low of $36,890 per mile of
responsibility for South Carolina to a high of
$2,370,630 for New Jersey.
Table 4: Receipts per State-Controlled Mile
Rank State Receipts / mile
1 South Carolina $36,890
2 North Dakota $42,199
3 West Virginia $42,804
4 North Carolina $43,715
5 Montana $46,948
6 Missouri $50,099
7 South Dakota $53,079
8 Virginia $55,063
9 Arkansas $55,320
10 New Mexico $56,765
11 Wyoming $58,822
12 Nebraska $61,427
13 Maine $67,954
14 Oklahoma $71,894
15 Kentucky $75,688
16 Louisiana $79,773
17 Mississippi $83,296
18 Kansas $83,832
19 Idaho $85,571
20 Vermont $89,492
21 Alaska $93,028
22 Iowa $94,827
23 Georgia $95,933
24 Oregon $98,766
25 New Hampshire $103,380
26 Minnesota $104,546
27 Tennessee $106,015
28 Washington $107,373
29 Texas $108,820
30 Pennsylvania $111,874
31 Alabama $112,652
32 Ohio $117,624
33 Indiana $126,436
34 Utah $135,117
35 Nevada $143,812
36 Wisconsin $148,768
37 Colorado $150,818
38 Delaware $203,616
39 Michigan $240,272
40 Illinois $249,760
41 Arizona $265,039
42 Maryland $274,984
43 Connecticut $344,347
44 Rhode Island $365,624
45 California $397,951
46 Hawaii $533,169
47 New York $600,702
48 Florida $621,822
49 Massachusetts $753,892
50 New Jersey $2,370,630
Mean $126,354
Capital and Bridge Disbursements.
Capital and bridge disbursements for state-
owned roads totaled $50.309 billion in 2005,
about 5.4 percent higher than in 2004 (Table 5,
Capital and Bridge Disbursements per State-
Controlled Mile). This again reflects the “surge”
forward due to financing from SAFETEA-LU.
Since 1984, per-mile capital and bridge
disbursements have increased about 209.4
percent. Capital and bridge disbursements
averaged $61,891, up 5.4 percent from 2004. On
a per-mile basis, 2005 capital and bridge
disbursements ranged from a low of $17,935 in
South Carolina to a high of $599,979 in New
Jersey.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 11
Table 5: Capital & Bridge Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile
Rank State Disbursements/mile
1 South Carolina $17,935
2 Virginia $19,297
3 West Virginia $19,778
4 New Hampshire $21,350
5 New Mexico $24,049
6 North Carolina $26,013
7 Missouri $28,979
8 Maine $29,542
9 Kentucky $30,546
10 Montana $33,438
11 Oklahoma $35,719
12 Wyoming $36,132
13 Nebraska $37,695
14 North Dakota $38,431
15 Arkansas $38,853
16 South Dakota $40,046
17 Vermont $43,798
18 Pennsylvania $49,030
19 Mississippi $51,202
20 Iowa $57,083
21 Louisiana $57,649
22 Colorado $58,392
23 Alaska $58,975
24 Oregon $59,961
25 Washington $62,734
26 Tennessee $63,348
27 Georgia $63,433
28 Idaho $64,862
29 Minnesota $64,971
30 Kansas $67,029
31 Delaware $68,231
32 Ohio $70,710
33 Texas $71,457
34 Indiana $74,421
35 Alabama $77,516
36 Wisconsin $80,287
37 Utah $81,573
38 Nevada $87,716
39 Illinois $117,654
40 Arizona $124,426
41 Michigan $135,271
42 Connecticut $140,322
43 New York $147,011
44 California $157,164
45 Rhode Island $167,735
46 Maryland $186,348
47 Hawaii $214,810
48 Florida $337,530
49 Massachusetts $353,552
50 New Jersey $599,979
Mean $61,891
12 Reason Foundation
Maintenance Disbursements.
Maintenance disbursements increased sharply,
11.5 percent from 2004 to 2005 to $15.94
billion, and accounted for about 16.1 percent of
total disbursements (Table 6, Maintenance
Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile).
Since 1984 per-mile maintenance
disbursements have increased about 165.3
percent. On a per-mile basis 2005 maintenance
disbursements per mile of responsibility
averaged about $19,615. The lowest per-mile
maintenance disbursement was $5,077 in North
Dakota, the highest $153,845 in New Jersey.
Table 6: Maintenance Disbursements per
State-Controlled Mile
Rank State Disbursements/mile
1 North Dakota $5,077
2 Montana $5,973
3 West Virginia $6,673
4 South Dakota $6,983
5 South Carolina $7,297
6 Mississippi $8,454
7 Kentucky $8,864
8 Oregon $9,048
9 Nebraska $9,891
10 North Carolina $9,933
11 Arkansas $10,092
12 Georgia $10,123
13 Idaho $11,678
14 Wyoming $11,895
15 Iowa $13,382
16 Alabama $13,435
17 Oklahoma $13,685
18 Kansas $13,833
19 New Mexico $14,094
20 Wisconsin $14,155
21 Missouri $14,333
22 Nevada $14,693
23 Arizona $15,170
24 Tennessee $16,955
25 Utah $17,271
26 Texas $17,657
27 Virginia $18,282
28 Maine $18,831
29 Vermont $18,981
30 Ohio $19,203
31 Washington $20,129
32 Louisiana $21,319
33 Delaware $22,193
34 Alaska $25,512
35 Minnesota $26,084
36 Michigan $27,481
37 Pennsylvania $28,060
38 Illinois $29,497
39 Hawaii $32,291
40 Colorado $32,419
41 New Hampshire $34,034
42 Connecticut $37,668
43 Indiana $37,884
44 California $43,448
45 Maryland $51,132
46 Massachusetts $52,779
47 New York $71,744
48 Rhode Island $74,506
49 Florida $90,410
50 New Jersey $153,845
Mean $19,615
Administrative Disbursements.
Administrative disbursements increased slightly: they totaled $6.36 billion in 2005, about 0.63 percent higher than in 2004 (Table 7,
Administrative Disbursements per State-
Controlled Mile). Administrative costs
accounted for about 6.43 percent of total
disbursements, down from 7.21 percent in 2004. Since 1984, per-mile administrative
disbursements have increased about 199.4 percent. On a per-mile basis, 2005
administrative disbursements averaged $7,824, ranging from a low of $1,786 in North Dakota to a high of $68,352 in New Jersey.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 13
Table 7: Administrative Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile
Rank State Disbursements/mile
1 North Dakota $1,786
2 Arkansas $1,805
3 Missouri $1,989
4 South Carolina $2,061
5 West Virginia $2,356
6 Louisiana $2,837
7 Virginia $3,113
8 Maine $3,136
9 Texas $3,147
10 Montana $3,856
11 Mississippi $3,920
12 Kentucky $3,989
13 North Carolina $4,359
14 Nebraska $5,032
15 Idaho $5,135
16 Iowa $5,148
17 Indiana $5,428
18 Wyoming $5,585
19 South Dakota $5,840
20 Washington $5,971
21 Oregon $6,095
22 Kansas $6,326
23 Colorado $6,856
24 Oklahoma $6,952
25 Alaska $7,172
26 Pennsylvania $7,260
27 Ohio $7,523
28 Nevada $7,684
29 Minnesota $9,702
30 Maryland $10,408
31 Tennessee $10,580
32 New Hampshire $10,659
33 Michigan $10,757
34 Georgia $11,201
35 New Mexico $11,466
36 Alabama $11,621
37 Vermont $12,066
38 Wisconsin $13,184
39 Illinois $13,441
40 Connecticut $14,564
41 Utah $15,337
42 Florida $16,109
43 New York $18,687
44 Rhode Island $24,481
45 Arizona $26,962
46 Delaware $37,172
47 Hawaii $49,924
48 California $50,614
49 Massachusetts $60,807
50 New Jersey $68,352
Mean $7,824
14 Reason Foundation
Total Disbursements.
In total, the states disbursed about $98.905 billion
for state-owned roads in 2005, about 12.8 percent
higher than in 2004 (Table 8, Total
Disbursements per State-Controlled Mile). Since
1984, per-mile total disbursements have increased
about 227.3 percent. On a per-mile basis, 2005
disbursements averaged $121,674. The lowest
disbursement per mile was $31,262 in South
Carolina, the highest $2,360,450 in New Jersey.
Table 8: Total Disbursements per State-
Controlled Mile
Rank State Disbursements/mile
1 South Carolina $31,262
2 West Virginia $41,839
3 North Carolina $44,654
4 Montana $46,905
5 North Dakota $47,685
6 Missouri $52,452
7 Virginia $53,569
8 Kentucky $54,091
9 South Dakota $55,216
10 Arkansas $55,642
11 Wyoming $57,558
12 Nebraska $59,717
13 New Mexico $67,581
14 Maine $68,344
15 Oklahoma $70,984
16 Mississippi $74,617
17 Louisiana $83,061
18 Idaho $87,687
19 Iowa $87,886
20 New Hampshire $88,191
21 Vermont $91,719
22 Oregon $92,102
23 Tennessee $98,547
24 Alaska $99,819
25 Pennsylvania $100,558
26 Texas $106,221
27 Kansas $106,844
28 Georgia $109,005
29 Minnesota $110,066
30 Washington $110,094
31 Alabama $111,286
32 Ohio $122,839
33 Nevada $133,381
34 Colorado $135,251
35 Indiana $138,520
36 Utah $142,167
37 Wisconsin $153,700
38 Illinois $192,318
39 Delaware $210,522
40 Arizona $245,197
41 Michigan $252,879
42 Maryland $293,541
43 California $336,954
44 Connecticut $356,230
45 Rhode Island $361,106
46 Hawaii $491,498
47 New York $552,807
48 Florida $570,191
49 Massachusetts $893,236
50 New Jersey $2,360,450
Mean $121,674
System Performance
Rural Interstate Condition. In most
states road condition is measured
using special machines that determine
the roughness of road surfaces. (A
few states continue to use visual
ratings). About 1.73 percent of U.S.
rural interstates—532 miles out of
30,802—were reported in poor
condition in 2005 (Table 9, Rural
Interstate Condition, and Figure 3).
This has improved sharply from
2004, when 2.02 percent of rural
interstates were rated poor.
The amount of poor mileage varies widely. Twenty-two states reported no poor mileage, and six more
reported less than 1 percent poor
mileage. But four states reported
more than 5 percent poor mileage,
and two states (New York and
Alabama) reported more than 10
percent poor mileage. Just six states
(New York, Alabama, California,
Utah, Alaska and Michigan) have 60 percent of the poor rural interstate mileage in the country. On the other hand, several states made great
progress: Missouri, Pennsylvania and Louisiana made significant gains.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 15
Table 9: Rural Interstate Condition
Rank State % Poor
1 Arizona 0.00
1 Connecticut 0.00
1 Florida 0.00
1 Georgia 0.00
1 Hawaii 0.00
1 Indiana 0.00
1 Kansas 0.00
1 Kentucky 0.00
1 Massachusetts 0.00
1 North Dakota 0.00
1 New Mexico 0.00
1 Nevada 0.00
1 Oregon 0.00
1 Rhode Island 0.00
1 South Carolina 0.00
1 Virginia 0.00
1 Tennessee 0.00
1 South Dakota 0.00
1 Ohio 0.00
1 Maine 0.00
1 Minnesota 0.00
1 New Hampshire 0.00
23 Texas 0.09
24 Illinois 0.21
25 Idaho 0.38
26 Montana 0.53
27 Maryland 0.55
28 Missouri 0.63
29 Colorado 1.17
30 Oklahoma 1.17
31 Wyoming 1.34
32 Pennsylvania 1.40
33 Vermont 1.43
34 Louisiana 1.47
35 Iowa 2.07
36 Nebraska 2.12
37 West Virginia 2.27
38 Mississippi 2.27
39 Wisconsin 2.30
40 Arkansas 2.58
41 North Carolina 2.69
42 Washington 2.78
43 California 3.70
44 Utah 4.17
45 Alaska 4.24
46 Michigan 7.72
47 New Jersey 9.38
48 Alabama 12.52
49 New York 13.32
Delaware NA
Mean 1.73
16 Reason Foundation
Figure 3: Rural Interstate: Poor Condition Rank
Urban Interstate Condition.
The urban interstates consist of major multi-lane interstates in and near urban areas. The condition of the urban interstate system also improved
sharply in 2005, to 5.97 percent poor from 7.13 percent poor in 2004 (Table 10, Urban Interstate Condition, and Figure 4).
The condition of the urban interstate also varies widely. Ten widely scattered states reported no poor urban interstate mileage, while four states (Iowa, Hawaii, Alabama, and New York)
reported more than 15 percent poor mileage.
But just five states (California, New York,
Michigan, Alabama and North Carolina) have
half of the poor-mileage urban interstate in the
country. Since 1998, the percentage of poor
urban interstate mileage has been reduced
about 31 percent.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 17
Table 10: Urban Interstate Condition
Rank State % Poor
1 Alaska 0.00
1 Arizona 0.00
1 Georgia 0.00
1 Kansas 0.00
1 North Dakota 0.00
1 New Hampshire 0.00
1 Oregon 0.00
1 Rhode Island 0.00
1 Utah 0.00
1 Vermont 0.00
11 Florida 0.14
12 South Carolina 0.38
13 Massachusetts 0.84
14 Ohio 1.41
15 Kentucky 1.44
16 South Dakota 1.45
17 Maine 1.47
18 Tennessee 1.69
19 Nevada 1.80
20 Indiana 1.90
21 Pennsylvania 2.38
22 Minnesota 2.56
23 New Mexico 2.58
24 Texas 2.60
25 Mississippi 3.59
26 Wisconsin 3.86
27 Connecticut 3.97
28 Virginia 4.03
29 West Virginia 4.40
30 Delaware 5.00
31 Missouri 5.53
32 Illinois 5.66
33 Arkansas 5.85
34 Washington 6.40
35 Colorado 7.04
36 Louisiana 7.59
37 Maryland 7.67
38 Idaho 9.78
39 North Carolina 9.96
40 Montana 11.67
41 Wyoming 12.22
42 Michigan 12.78
43 New Jersey 12.78
44 California 13.32
45 Nebraska 14.04
46 Oklahoma 14.11
47 New York 16.46
48 Iowa 16.99
49 Alabama 18.21
50 Hawaii 28.00
Mean 5.97
18 Reason Foundation
Figure 4: Urban Interstate: Poor Condition Rank
Rural Arterial Pavement Condition.
The condition of the major rural highways also improved sharply from 2004 to 2005. Overall, about 0.85 percent of the rural other principal arterial system—799 miles out of 94,216 were reported in poor condition (Table 11, Rural
Arterial Condition, and Figure 5). This
compares with 0.94 percent, or about 892
miles, in 2004. Since 1998, the percentage of poor rural primary mileage has decreased
significantly, more than one-third.
The states also vary widely in condition. Ten
states reported no poor rural primary mileage
in 2005, whereas two states (New Hampshire
and Alaska) reported large increases, from
about 0 percent to over 10 percent, from
2003 to 2004. Three other states (Vermont,
Rhode Island and New York) reported more
than 3 percent poor. Just six states (Alaska,
Iowa, New York, South Dakota, North
Carolina, and Mississippi) account for more
than half the poor rural primary mileage in
the country.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 19
Table 11: Rural Arterial Condition
Rank State % Poor
1 Arizona 0.00
1 Delaware 0.00
1 Florida 0.00
1 Georgia 0.00
1 Hawaii 0.00
1 Idaho 0.00
1 Kentucky 0.00
1 Massachusetts 0.00
1 Nevada 0.00
1 Utah 0.00
11 Kansas 0.03
12 Montana 0.04
13 Wyoming 0.05
14 South Carolina 0.08
15 Washington 0.10
16 New Mexico 0.11
17 Minnesota 0.14
18 Texas 0.15
19 Tennessee 0.17
20 Indiana 0.17
21 Maryland 0.23
22 Ohio 0.30
23 Wisconsin 0.34
24 Michigan 0.35
25 West Virginia 0.46
26 Arkansas 0.49
27 California 0.50
28 Pennsylvania 0.52
29 Alabama 0.56
30 Connecticut 0.61
31 Nebraska 0.67
32 Missouri 0.69
33 Illinois 0.75
34 Virginia 0.76
35 Oregon 0.79
36 New Jersey 0.81
37 North Dakota 1.02
38 Oklahoma 1.08
39 Colorado 1.21
40 Louisiana 1.55
41 North Carolina 1.66
42 Mississippi 1.75
43 South Dakota 2.34
44 Maine 2.41
45 Iowa 2.49
46 Vermont 3.75
47 New York 3.94
48 New Hampshire 4.19
49 Rhode Island 10.42
50 Alaska 25.35
Mean 0.85
20 Reason Foundation
Figure 5: Rural Arterial Condition: Poor Condition Rank
Urban Interstate Congestion.
There is no generally accepted definition of traffic congestion, but in reporting to the federal government the states use the
volume-to-capacity ratios that are
determined by Transportation Research
Board’s Highway Capacity Manual. The congestion measures for 2005 are not
totally comparable with earlier years, since most states increased the rated capacities of Urban Interstates based on the 1997 and 2000 Highway Capacity Manuals.
Nevertheless, the overall 2005 statistic— 51.85 percent congested—shows just a
slight worsening from 2004 (51.60 percent congested) (see Table 12, Urban Interstate Congestion, and Figure 6). For 2005, about 8,051 miles out of 15,528 urban interstate miles were rated as having
volume/capacity ratios greater than 0.70, the standard for mild congestion.2
The states vary widely in congestion
levels. Four rural states report no
congested urban interstates. But 17 states report more than half of urban interstates congested, and four states (California 83.3 percent, Minnesota 77.8 percent, New
Jersey 73.4 percent and North Carolina
72.5 percent) report more than 70 percent of urban Interstates congested.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 21
Table 12: Urban Interstate Congestion
Rank State % Congested
1 Montana 0.00
1 North Dakota 0.00
1 South Dakota 0.00
1 Wyoming 0.00
5 Maine 2.94
6 West Virginia 3.80
7 Vermont 5.00
8 Alaska 8.70
9 New Mexico 16.77
10 Kansas 24.77
11 Indiana 30.99
12 Mississippi 32.65
13 Idaho 34.07
14 Nebraska 34.48
15 Oklahoma 34.68
16 Hawaii 34.69
17 Wisconsin 36.88
18 Oregon 38.95
19 Iowa 39.87
20 Utah 42.52
21 Virginia 42.54
22 Colorado 42.75
23 Pennsylvania 43.17
24 Tennessee 43.96
25 Louisiana 45.74
26 Alabama 47.03
27 Nevada 47.32
28 Massachusetts 47.38
29 Arizona 47.87
30 Missouri 47.95
31 Illinois 48.64
32 Washington 49.33
33 South Carolina 49.37
34 New Hampshire 51.35
35 Georgia 52.46
36 Michigan 52.52
37 New York 53.39
38 Arkansas 54.79
39 Delaware 58.54
40 Florida 59.44
41 Texas 59.67
42 Ohio 59.95
43 Rhode Island 62.00
44 Connecticut 65.56
45 Kentucky 66.99
46 Maryland 68.58
47 North Carolina 72.47
48 New Jersey 73.35
49 Minnesota 77.78
50 California 83.33
Mean 51.85
22 Reason Foundation
Figure 6: Urban Interstate Congestion Rank
Deficient Bridges.
Federal law mandates the uniform inspection
of all bridges for structural and functional
adequacy at least every two years; bridges
rated ‘deficient’ are eligible for federal repair
dollars.
The condition of the nation's highway bridges
continued to improve from 2004 to 2005. Of
the 596,980 highway bridges in the current
National Bridge Inventory, 147,913—about
24.52 percent—were reported deficient for
2005 (Table 13, Deficient Bridges), a slight
improvement from 2004. In 1998 about 29.0
percent were rated deficient. However,
progress is slow; at the current rate of
improvement, it would take 50 years for the
percentage of deficient bridges to be
eliminated.
The states vary widely in the percentage of deficient bridges. Nevada reported the lowest percentage of deficient bridges, 3.89 percent, while Rhode Island reported the highest,
53.01 percent.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 23
Table 13: Deficient Bridges
Rank State % Deficient
1 Nevada 3.89
2 Arizona 5.50
3 Wyoming 12.37
4 Colorado 12.96
5 Minnesota 13.16
6 Wisconsin 15.93
7 Delaware 16.55
8 Utah 17.55
9 Illinois 17.56
10 California 17.59
11 Florida 18.33
12 New Mexico 18.43
13 Idaho 18.91
14 Tennessee 19.26
15 Georgia 20.35
16 Texas 20.56
17 Kansas 21.05
18 Montana 21.20
19 Indiana 21.83
20 Arkansas 22.24
21 Virginia 22.46
22 Alaska 22.84
23 Ohio 23.61
24 South Carolina 23.63
25 North Dakota 24.24
26 Nebraska 24.55
27 Washington 24.55
28 Alabama 24.94
29 Oregon 25.34
30 South Dakota 25.62
31 Mississippi 26.42
32 Maryland 26.93
33 Iowa 27.06
34 Michigan 27.60
35 New Jersey 27.91
36 Maine 29.87
37 New Hampshire 30.54
38 Louisiana 30.67
39 North Carolina 30.91
40 Kentucky 31.45
41 Missouri 31.47
42 Oklahoma 33.04
43 Connecticut 34.18
44 Vermont 34.80
45 Massachusetts 36.38
46 Hawaii 36.85
47 New York 37.08
48 West Virginia 37.10
49 Pennsylvania 39.00
50 Rhode Island 53.01
Mean 24.52
24 Reason Foundation
Fatality Rates.
Even though some highway fatalities
occur on other than state-owned roads,
overall fatality rates are an important
overall measure of each state’s road
performance.
The nation’s highway fatality rate
increased slightly (Table 14, Fatality
Rates, and Figure 7): for 2005, 43,395
fatalities were reported, higher than 42,593
reported for 2004. And, because travel
continued to increase, the overall fatality
rate was 1.453 fatalities per 100 million
vehicle miles, up 0.9 percent from 1.440 in
2004.
The states also vary widely by fatality
rates. For 2005, Massachusetts reported
the lowest rate, 0.797, while Montana
reported the highest, 2.256.
Table 14: Fatality Rates
2005 State
1 Massachusetts
2 Connecticut
3 Vermont
4 Minnesota
5 New Jersey
6 New York
7 Rhode Island
8 Michigan
9 Maryland
10 Utah
11 Maine
12 Washington
13 Virginia
14 Ohio
15 New Hampshire
16 Colorado
17 Illinois
18 Indiana
19 California
20 Wisconsin
21 Oregon
22 Hawaii
23 Delaware
24 Alaska
25 Nebraska
26 Kansas
27 Iowa
28 Texas
29 Pennsylvania
30 North Carolina
31 Georgia
32 North Dakota
33 Oklahoma
34 Florida
35 Tennessee
36 West Virginia
37 Missouri
38 Idaho
39 Wyoming
40 Alabama
41 Arizona
42 Arkansas
43 New Mexico
44 Nevada
45 Kentucky
46 Louisiana
47 Mississippi
48 South Carolina
49 South Dakota
50 Montana
Mean
Fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles
0.797
0.865
0.946
0.982
1.013
1.039
1.048
1.085
1.090
1.121
1.132
1.166
1.179
1.197
1.236
1.264
1.264
1.306
1.315
1.358
1.383
1.388
1.409
1.430
1.431
1.445
1.449
1.490
1.496
1.515
1.523
1.625
1.706
1.758
1.793
1.822
1.828
1.850
1.877
1.896
1.968
2.027
2.036
2.055
2.075
2.123
2.207
2.211
2.215
2.256
1.453
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 25
Figure 7: Fatality Rates
26 Reason Foundation
Narrow Lanes.
Narrow lanes on major rural roads are a key
indicator of sight visibility and design
adequacy. The national design standard for
lane width on major rural roads is generally
12 feet, and few, if any, major rural roads
would be improved without widening lanes
to the standard.
In 2005, about 10.70 percent of rural other
principal arterials—10,181 miles out of
95,134—had narrow lanes less than 12 feet
wide (Table 15, Rural Narrow Lanes),
slightly better than the 10.72 percent
reported in 2004.
The states also vary widely by percentage of
narrow lanes. Seven states reported no
narrow-lane mileage, while West Virginia
(41.81 percent) reported the highest
percentage of narrow lanes.
Table 15: Rural Narrow Lanes
2005 State % Narrow
1 Arizona 0
1 Delaware 0
1 North Dakota 0
1 New Jersey 0
1 Nevada 0
1 South Dakota 0
1 Utah 0
8 Idaho 0.52
9 Kansas 0.81
10 Montana 1.03
11 Connecticut 1.22
12 Georgia 1.34
13 Nebraska 1.56
14 Wyoming 1.86
15 Oklahoma 2.72
16 Wisconsin 2.79
17 Alaska 3.47
18 New Hampshire 3.63
19 Alabama 3.82
20 Rhode Island 4.17
21 Massachusetts 4.79
22 New Mexico 4.84
23 Minnesota 5.08
24 California 5.31
25 Indiana 6.14
26 Maryland 6.58
27 South Carolina 6.89
28 Oregon 7.07
29 Florida 7.6
30 Iowa 8.26
31 Louisiana 9.77
32 Mississippi 10.34
33 North Carolina 12.46
34 Illinois 12.78
35 Colorado 13.24
36 Texas 14.05
37 Ohio 14.51
38 Kentucky 16.32
39 Michigan 19.5
40 Missouri 20.13
41 New York 23.07
42 Vermont 23.99
43 Tennessee 25.23
44 Maine 25.89
45 Arkansas 31.68
46 Virginia 32.18
47 Hawaii 32.43
48 Washington 39.42
49 Pennsylvania 40.58
50 West Virginia 41.81
Mean 10.70
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 27
P a r t 4
Individual State Results
Alabama
In 2005, Alabama ranked 43rd overall, compared with 11th in 2000. Alabama
scored best on maintenance disbursements per mile (16th) and narrow rural
primary arterials (19th). Its lowest ratings were for urban interstate in poor
condition (49th), rural interstate in poor condition (48th) and fatality rate (40th). The state’s system is deteriorating.
Alaska
Alaska, with a state-owned highway system of 6,420 miles, ranked 49th in overall
performance. The state has worsened in overall performance from 40th in 2000.
Alaska scored best in urban interstate condition (tie for 1st) with no poor urban
interstate reported and 8th in urban interstate congestion. It is the state with the
worst rural primary pavement condition (50th). It also ranked low in rural interstate condition (45th) and maintenance disbursements per mile (34th). In summary, the state is achieving a relatively good condition system, but at relatively high cost.
Arizona
Arizona has 6,959 miles of state-owned highway. Overall the state ranked 27th in
performance in 2005, compared with 28th in 2000. The state reported no rural
interstate in poor condition, no rural primary pavement in poor condition, no
urban interstate in poor condition and no narrow rural primary arterials. It scored
high in bridge condition (2nd). The state ranked lowest for maintenance
disbursements per mile of responsibility (49th), administrative disbursements per mile of
responsibility (45th), receipts per mile of responsibility (41st), fatality rate (41st), capital/bridge
disbursements per mile of responsibility (40th) and total disbursements per mile of responsibility
(40th). So, the state’s relatively good system performance comes at a relatively high unit cost.
28 Reason Foundation
Arkansas
Arkansas is one of the states that sharply improved in overall ranking from 46th in
2000 to 28th in 2005. It scored best in administrative disbursements per mile (2nd),
receipts per mile of responsibility (9th), total disbursements per mile (10th),
maintenance disbursements per mile (11th) and capital/bridge disbursements per
mile (15th). It scored lowest for percent rural primary arterials narrow (45th),
fatality rate (42nd), rural interstate pavement condition (40th) and urban interstate congestion (38th). So while the state has moved up in budget ratings, its system performance needs attention.
California
California reported 18,230 miles of state-owned highway in 2005. Compared to
2000 the state improved slightly from 45th in 2000 to 44th in 2005 in the overall
rankings. The state ranked best in bridge condition (10th) and fatality rate (19th).
But California has the worst urban interstate congestion (50th). It also scored low
in administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (48th), receipts per mile
of responsibility (45th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (44th), maintenance per mile of responsibility (44th), urban interstate condition (44th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (43rd) and rural interstate condition (43rd). Overall, California’s relatively high costs per mile of responsibility are not translating into high performance.
Colorado
In 2005 Colorado reported a total of 10,343 miles of state-owned highway. The
state ranked 29th in the overall performance rankings in 2005, losing ground by
ten positions as compared to 19th in 2000. Colorado scored best in bridge
condition (4th) and fatality rate (16th). Its lowest ratings were for maintenance per
mile of responsibility (40th), rural primary pavement condition (39th) and receipts per mile of
responsibility (37th). Its relatively high costs per mile of responsibility are offset by only modest system performance.
Connecticut
Connecticut has a total of 3,960 miles of state-owned highway. The state ranked
39th in overall performance in 2005 as compared to 44nd in 2000. The state
reported no rural interstate in poor condition. It also ranked high in fatality rate
(2nd) and narrow rural primary arterials (11th). But Connecticut ranked lower for
total disbursements per mile of responsibility (44th), urban interstate congestion (44th), bridge
condition (43rd), receipts per mile of responsibility (43rd), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 29
responsibility (42nd), maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (42nd) and
administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (40th). Essentially, its relatively high costs are offset by generally superior system performance.
Delaware
Delaware has 5,243 miles of highway under the state control. The state stood 40th
in the overall performance rankings in 2005, slightly up from 41st in 2000. Its best
ratings were for rural primary pavement condition (1st), rural primary pavements
narrow (1st) and deficient bridges (7th). Delaware has no rural interstate. Its lowest
rankings were for administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (41st),
total disbursements per mile of responsibility (39th), urban interstate congestion
(39th) and receipts per mile of responsibility (38th). Overall, its above-average
system performance is offset by its relatively high unit costs.
Florida
The state of Florida has a total of 12,040 miles of state-owned highway. Overall
the state ranked 41st in performance in 2005, compared to 38th in 2000. The state
reported no rural interstate in poor condition and no rural primary pavement in
poor condition. Florida also scored well on urban interstate in poor condition
(11th) and bridge condition (11th). But Florida’s lowest ratings were for
maintenance per mile of responsibility (49th), receipts per mile of responsibility (48th),
capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (48th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (48th), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (42nd) and urban interstate congestion (40th). So, its superior condition status is offset by relatively high cost per mile of responsibility.
Georgia
Georgia has 18,274 miles of state-owned highway. In the performance ratings
Georgia ranked 6th in 2005 among the 50 states, compared to 4th in 2000. The state
reported no rural interstate in poor condition, no rural primary pavement in poor
condition and no urban interstate in poor condition. Hence it tied for 1st in all the
above categories. Apart from these, its best rankings were for maintenance
disbursements per mile of responsibility (12th), rural other primary arterials narrow (12th) and
deficient bridges (15th). It scored lowest in urban interstate congestion (35th) and administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (34th). Georgia has managed to achieve a good balance of
system condition and expenditures which have yielded consistently good overall ratings over time.
30 Reason Foundation
Hawaii
Hawaii has the smallest state-owned highway system at 975 miles. Overall, the
state ranked 46th in the performance rankings in 2005 as compared to 48th in
2000. Its best rankings were for rural interstate condition (1st), rural primary
pavement condition (1st), urban interstate congestion (16th) and administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (16th). Its lowest ratings were for urban interstate
condition (50th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (47th), rural primary
pavements narrow (47th), receipts per mile of responsibility (46th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (46th) and deficient bridges (46th). So, the state has relatively high unit costs which are only partially offset by some good-condition indicators.
Idaho
In 2005, Idaho reported 4,957 miles of state-owned highway. Overall the state
ranked 10th in performance in 2005, compared with 9th in 2000. Idaho scored best
on rural primary pavement condition (1st) with none in poor condition reported,
rural primary arterials narrow (8th), maintenance disbursements per mile of
responsibility (13th), urban interstate congestion (13th), deficient bridges (13th) and
administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (15th). It scored lowest on
urban interstate condition (38th) and fatality rate (38th). Idaho’s relatively good system condition is
generally accompanied by relatively low unit costs, resulting in overall sound performance over
time.
Illinois
Illinois has 16,521 miles of highway under state control. In 2005, the state ranked
33rd in the overall performance ratings, compared with 35th in 2000. Its best
ratings were for deficient bridges (9th), fatality rate (17th) and rural interstate
condition (24th). Its lowest rankings were for receipts per mile of responsibility
(40th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (39th), administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (39th), maintenance disbursements per
mile of responsibility (38th) and total disbursements per mile of responsibility
(38th). Faced with difficult climate and traffic conditions, the state is nevertheless achieving good performance on some indicators at above-average costs.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 31
Indiana
The state-owned highway system of Indiana constitutes 11,183 miles of highway.
Overall, the state ranked 14th in the performance ratings in 2005, compared with
17th in 2000. Its best rankings were for rural interstate condition (1st) with none in
poor condition reported, urban interstate congestion (11th), administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (17th), fatality rate (18th), deficient bridges
(19th), rural primary pavement condition (20th) and urban interstate condition
(20th). It scored lowest on maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (43rd), total
disbursements per mile of responsibility (35th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
responsibility (34th) and receipts per mile of responsibility (33rd). On balance the state is achieving above-average system performance at above-average costs.
Iowa
Iowa with 9,266 miles of state-owned highway stood 35th in the overall
performance rankings in 2005. This represents a sharp decline from 23rd position
in 2000. Iowa scored best on maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility
(15th), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (16th), total
disbursements per mile of responsibility (19th), urban interstate congestion (19th), capital/bridge
disbursements per mile of responsibility (20th) and receipts per mile of responsibility (22nd). Its
lowest ratings were for urban interstate condition (48th) and rural primary pavement condition
(45th). So, relatively low unit costs appear insufficient to hold the system at good condition levels.
Kansas
Kansas has 10,549 miles of state-owned highway. In 2005, the state ranked 3rd in
the overall performance rankings, compared to 6th in 2000. Kansas reported no
urban interstate in poor condition and no rural interstate in poor condition. Hence
it tied for 1st in both these categories. It also scored well on rural primary arterials narrow (9th), urban interstate congestion (10th) and rural primary pavement condition (11th). Its lowest ratings were for capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (30th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (27th) and fatality rate (26th). Overall Kansas is achieving superior system
condition at lower-than-average costs.
Kentucky
In 2005, Kentucky with a total of 27,753 miles of state-owned highway ranked
12th in the overall performance ratings as compared to 10th in 2000. It reported no
rural interstate in poor condition and no rural primary pavement in poor condition.
32 Reason Foundation
Hence it tied for 1st on both these categories. It also scored well on maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (7th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (8th), capital/bridge
disbursements per mile of responsibility (9th), administrative disbursements per mile of
responsibility (12th), receipts per mile of responsibility (15th) and urban interstate condition (15th). Its lowest ratings were for urban interstate congestion (45th), fatality rate (45th), deficient bridges (40th) and rural primary arterial narrow (38th). So, the state’s overall rating is based on relatively thin budget and modest system condition.
Louisiana
Louisiana has 16,696 miles of highway under state control. Overall the state
ranked 30th in performance in 2005 as compared to 42nd in 2000. It scored best on
administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (6th), receipts per mile of
responsibility (16th) and total disbursements per mile of responsibility (17th). Its
lowest ratings were for fatality rate (46th), rural primary pavement condition (40th),
deficient bridges (38th) and urban interstate in poor condition (36th). Louisiana’s overall rating is based on holding cost down resulting in some system deterioration; Hurricane Katrina, in
September 2005, may have contributed somewhat to lower system condition.
Maine
Maine has 8,684 miles of highway under state control. In 2005, the state ranked
23rd on the overall performance ratings as compared to 15th in 2000. Its best
ratings were for rural interstate condition (1st) with none in poor condition
reported, urban interstate congestion (5th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile
of responsibility (8th), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility
(8th) and fatality rate (11th). It scored lowest on rural primary pavement condition (44th), rural primary pavement narrow (44th) and deficient bridges (36th). Maine’s overall rating has slipped slightly in recent years as rural primary road conditions have worsened.
Maryland
Maryland has 3,277 miles of state-owned highway. Overall, the state ranked 38th
in performance in 2005 as compared to 34th in 2000. It scored best on fatality rate
(9th) and rural primary pavement condition (21st). Its lowest ratings were for
capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (46th), urban interstate congestion (46th), maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (45th), receipts per mile of responsibility (42nd) and total disbursements per mile of responsibility (42nd). Maryland’s relatively high unit costs offset its good performance on several condition indicators.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 33
Massachusetts
In 2005, Massachusetts reported a total of 3,257 miles of state-owned highway.
The state ranked 45th in the overall performance ratings in 2005, compared with
49th in 2000. Its best ratings were for rural interstate condition (1st), rural primary
pavement condition (1st), fatality rate (1st) and urban interstate in poor condition (13th). It scored lowest on receipts per mile of responsibility (49th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (49th), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (49th), total
disbursements per mile of responsibility (49th), maintenance per mile of responsibility (46th) and deficient bridges (45th). Massachusetts has achieved good condition ratings on most condition indicators but at a relatively high unit cost compared with other states.
Michigan
The state-owned highway system of Michigan consists of 9,735 miles. Overall in
2005 the state ranked 42nd on the performance ratings as compared to 43rd in 2000.
Its best ratings were for fatality rate (8th) and rural primary pavement condition
(24th). Its lowest ratings were for rural interstate condition (46th), urban interstate
condition (42nd), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (41st), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (41st), receipts per mile of responsibility (39th) and rural primary
pavements narrow (39th). Challenging climate and traffic circumstances along with relatively high unit costs, have contributed to Michigan’s overall rating.
Minnesota
Minnesota has 13,182 miles of highway under the state control. In 2005, the state
ranked 13th on the overall performance ratings. This compares to 12th in 2000. It
scored best on rural interstate condition (1st) with no poor miles reported, fatality
rate (4th) and deficient bridges (5th). Its lowest rankings were for urban interstate
congestion (49th) and maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (35th).
Minnesota seems to be holding its own despite rising congestion and unit costs.
Mississippi
Mississippi has a state-owned highway system of 10,948 miles. Overall, the state
ranked 25th in the performance ratings in 2005. This compares to 21st in 2000. It
scored best on maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (6th),
administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (11th), urban interstate
congestion (12th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (16th), receipts per
mile of responsibility (17th) and capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
34 Reason Foundation
responsibility (19th). Its lowest ratings were for fatality rate (47th), rural primary pavement
condition (42nd) and rural interstate condition (38th). Otherwise sound performance on the cost side is being offset by under-performance of Interstate and rural primary condition.
Missouri
In 2005 Missouri reported a total of 32,464 state-owned miles. Missouri is one of
the states that sharply improved its ranking of overall performance from 2000,
from 39th in 2000 to 17th in 2005. Its best ratings were for administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (3rd), receipts per mile of responsibility
(6th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (6th) and capital/bridge
disbursements per mile of responsibility (7th). It scored lowest on deficient bridges (41st), rural
primary pavements narrow (40th) and fatality rate (37th). So, while holding down and focusing
expenditures, Missouri faces continuing challenges but is moving in the right direction.
Montana
Montana has 10,789 miles of highway under the state control. In 2005, the state
ranked 5th in the overall performance rankings, as compared to 5th in 2000. Its best
rankings were for urban interstate congestion (1st) with none reported,
maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (2nd), total disbursements per mile of
responsibility (4th), receipts per mile of responsibility (5th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
responsibility (10th), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (10th), rural primary
pavements narrow (10th) and rural primary pavement condition (12th). Its worst rankings were for
fatality rate (50th) and urban interstate condition (40th). So, generally light traffic and good system
condition combined with relatively low unit costs have enabled Montana to remain near the top on
overall rating.
Nebraska
Nebraska in 2005 reported a total of 10,256 miles under the state control. Overall
the state scored 19th in the performance ratings in 2005, compared to 29th in 2000.
It scored best on maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (9th),
receipts per mile of responsibility (12th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (12th),
capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (13th), rural primary pavement narrow
(13th), urban interstate congestion (14th) and administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (14th). It scored lowest on urban interstate condition (45th) and rural interstate condition (36th).
Nebraska’s relatively low unit costs, combined with sound system performance, contribute to its
overall solid rating.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 35
Nevada
Nevada has 5,922 miles of highway under the state-owned system. In 2005, the
state ranked 9th in the overall performance ratings as compared to 13th in 2000.
Nevada scored best on rural interstate condition (1st), rural primary pavement
condition (1st), rural primary pavement narrow (1st) and deficient bridges (1st). It
scored lowest on fatality rate (44th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
responsibility (38th), receipts per mile of responsibility (35th) and total
disbursements per mile of responsibility (33rd). Relatively low traffic and good system condition are sufficient to offset relatively high costs and accident rates.
New Hampshire
The total state-owned highway system of New Hampshire consists of 4,004 miles
of highway. In 2005 the state ranked 34th in the overall performance ratings as
compared to 26th in 2000. Its best ratings were for rural interstate condition (1st),
urban interstate condition (1st) and capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
responsibility (4th). It scored lowest on rural primary pavement condition (48th),
maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (41st), deficient bridges
(37th) and urban interstate congestion (34th). Increasing urbanization, a challenging
climate and higher unit costs are offsetting otherwise sound performance.
New Jersey
New Jersey has 2,906 miles of state-owned highway. Overall, the state ranked 50th
in the overall performance ratings in 2005. This compares to 50th in 2000. It
scored best on rural primary pavements narrow (1st) and fatality rate (5th). Its
lowest rankings were for receipts per mile of responsibility (50th), capital/bridge
disbursements per mile of responsibility (50th), administrative disbursements per
mile of responsibility (50th), maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility
(50th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (50th), urban interstate
congestion (48th), rural interstate pavement condition (47th) and urban interstate
condition (43rd). Very high unit costs relative to other states, in combination with traffic, more than offset low accident rates and rural pavement condition.
36 Reason Foundation
New Mexico
In 2005, New Mexico reported 12,205 miles under the state control. The state
ranked 4th in the overall performance ratings in 2005. This represents a sharp
improvement from 2000 when the state ranked 27th. Its best ratings were for rural
interstate condition (1st), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility
(5th), urban interstate congestion (9th), receipts per mile of responsibility (10th),
deficient bridges (12th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (13th) and rural primary
pavement condition (16th). Its worst ratings were for fatality rate (43rd) and administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (35th). New Mexico’s solid condition ratings are more than enough to offset its high fatality rate and administrative costs.
New York
New York in 2005 reported a total of 15,707 miles of highway under the state
control. Overall in 2005, the state ranked 48th in the overall performance ratings,
as compared to 47th in 2000. New York scored best on fatality rate (6th). Its lowest
rankings were for rural interstate condition (49th), receipts per mile of
responsibility (47th), maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (47th), total
disbursements per mile of responsibility (47th), rural primary pavement condition (47th), urban
interstate condition (47th) and deficient bridges (47th). New York’s high unit costs, combined with
challenging climate and traffic circumstances, have resulted in a relatively low overall ranking.
North Carolina
North Carolina has the largest state-owned highway system, at 79,779 miles,
overtaking Texas which has just 128 fewer miles. Overall the state ranked 31st in
performance in 2005, compared with 25th in 2000. North Carolina scored best on
receipts per mile of responsibility (4th) and capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility
(6th). Its lowest ratings were for urban interstate congestion (47th), rural interstate pavement
condition (41st), rural primary pavement condition (41st) and urban interstate pavement condition
(39th). The state’s low unit cost advantage is being offset by deteriorating system condition.
North Dakota
North Dakota has a total of 7,405 miles under the state-owned highway system. In
2005, the state ranked 1st in the overall performance ratings, compared to 2nd in
2000. Its best rankings were for urban interstate condition (1st), urban interstate
congestion (1st), rural primary pavements narrow (1st), rural interstate condition (1st), administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (1st), maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 37
(1st), receipts per mile of responsibility (2nd) and total disbursements per mile of responsibility (5th). Its lowest ratings were for rural primary pavement narrow (37th) and fatality rate (32nd). North
Dakota’s relatively low traffic volumes and good system condition, combined with relatively low unit costs, have consistently placed it in the top-performing states.
Ohio
Ohio has 22,461 miles of highway under the state control. Overall, the state
ranked 16th in the performance ratings in 2005 as compared to 22nd in 2000. The
state scored best on rural interstate condition (1st), urban interstate condition (14th)
and fatality rate (14th). It scored lowest on urban interstate congestion (42nd) and
rural primary pavement narrow (37th). Ohio shows steady system improvement with attention to unit costs.
Oklahoma
In 2005, Oklahoma reported 13,389 miles of highway under the state control. The
state ranked 24th in the overall performance rankings in 2005, as compared to 31st
in 2000. Oklahoma’s best ratings were for capital/bridge disbursements per mile
of responsibility (11th), receipts per mile of responsibility (14th), total disbursements per mile of
responsibility (15th), urban interstate congestion (15th), rural primary pavement narrow (15th) and
maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (17th). Its lowest ratings were for urban
interstate condition (46th), deficient bridges (42nd), rural primary pavement condition (38th) and
fatality rate (33rd). Oklahoma’s worse-than-average system performance is offset by its relatively
low unit costs.
Oregon
The state-owned highway system of Oregon consists of 12,065 miles of highway.
In 2005, the state ranked 8th in the overall performance ratings as opposed to 7th in
2000. Oregon scored best on urban interstate condition (1st), rural interstate
condition (1st) and maintenance per mile of responsibility (8th). The state’s lowest
ratings were for rural primary pavement condition (35th), deficient bridges (29th) and rural primary pavement narrow (28th). Oregon displays overall steady performance.
38 Reason Foundation
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has 43,283 miles of highway under the state control. Overall, the state stood 36nd in the performance ratings in 2005, compared with 33rd in 2000. Pennsylvania scored best on capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
responsibility (18th), urban interstate condition (21st) and urban interstate congestion (23rd). Its lowest rankings were for rural primary pavement narrow (49th), deficient bridges (49th) and maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (37th). Pennsylvania balances its average total disbursements with average conditions.
Rhode Island
In 2005, Rhode Island reported 1,102 miles of highway under the state-owned
highway system. The state ranked 47th in the performance rankings in 2005 as
compared to 36th in 2000. The state’s best ratings were for rural interstate
condition (1st), urban interstate condition (1st) and fatality rate (7th). The state
scored lowest on deficient bridges (50th), rural primary pavement condition (49th),
maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (48th), total disbursements per mile of
responsibility (45th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (45th), receipts per mile
of responsibility (44th), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (44th) and urban
interstate congestion (43rd). Rhode Island has relatively high costs compared to system condition.
South Carolina
South Carolina, with a total of 41,582 miles of state-owned highway, stood 2nd in
the overall performance rankings in 2005. This compares to 3rd in 2000. South
Carolina scored best on receipts per mile of responsibility (1st), capital/bridge
disbursements per mile of responsibility (1st), total disbursements per mile of
responsibility (1st), rural interstate condition (1st), administrative disbursements per mile of
responsibility (4th) and maintenance per mile of responsibility (5th). The state also rated high (1st)
for rural interstate pavement condition, 12th for urban interstate condition, and 14th for rural
primary condition. Its lowest rankings were for fatality rate (48th) and urban interstate congestion
(33rd). South Carolina has consistently solid performance with a relatively thin budget.
South Dakota
South Dakota in 2005 reported 8,038 miles under the state control. Overall the
state ranked 11th in the performance rankings in 2005. The state has sharply
improved 19 positions from 2000 (30th). The state scored best on rural interstate
condition (1st), urban interstate congestion (1st), rural primary pavement narrow (1st), maintenance
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 39
disbursements per mile of responsibility (4th), receipts per mile of responsibility (7th) and total disbursements per mile of responsibility (9th). Its lowest ratings were for fatality rate (49th) and rural primary pavement condition (43rd). In spite of a high fatality rate, South Dakota’s good system performance and low spending earn it a high overall ranking.
Tennessee
Tennessee has a total of 14,163 miles of highway in the state-owned system. The
state ranked 20th in the overall rankings in 2005 as compared to 20th in 2000. Its
best rankings were for rural interstate condition (1st), deficient bridges (14th), urban interstate condition (18th) and rural primary pavement condition (19th). Tennessee scored lowest on rural primary pavement narrow (43rd) and fatality rate (35th). Tennessee has consistently solid
performance and average spending.
Texas
Texas has the second largest (behind North Carolina) state-owned highway system
at 79,651 miles. Overall, the state ranked 15th in the performance ratings in 2005,
as compared to 8th in 2000. Its best ratings were for administrative disbursements
per mile of responsibility (9th), deficient bridges (16th) and rural primary pavement
condition (18th). Texas scored lowest on urban interstate congestion (41st) and rural primary
pavement narrow (36th). For a large state with several major urban areas this is sound performance.
Utah
Utah has 5,868 miles of highway under the state control. In 2005 the state stood
21st in the overall performance rankings as compared to 24th in 2000. Its best
ratings were for rural primary pavement condition (1st), urban interstate condition
(1st), rural primary pavement narrow (1st), deficient bridges (8th) and fatality rate
(10th). It scored lowest for rural interstate condition (44th), administrative
disbursements per mile of responsibility (41st), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of
responsibility (37th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (36th) and receipts per mile of responsibility (34th).
40 Reason Foundation
Vermont
The state of Vermont has 2,844 miles of highway under state control. Overall, the
state ranked 37th in the performance rankings in 2005, unchanged from 37th in
2000. Vermont scored best on urban interstate condition (1st), fatality rate (3rd) and
urban interstate congestion (7th). The state scored lowest on rural primary
pavement condition (46th), deficient bridges (44th), rural primary pavements
narrow (42nd) and administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (37th).
Virginia
In 2005, Virginia reported 57,884 miles of highway under the state-owned
highway system. The state ranked 18th in the overall performance rankings in
2005 as compared with 14th in 2000. The state’s best scores were for rural
interstate condition (1st), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (2nd),
administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (7th), total disbursements per mile of
responsibility (7th), receipts per mile of responsibility (8th) and fatality rate (13th). It scored lowest on rural primary pavements narrow (46th) and rural primary pavement condition (34th). Virginia has good system condition managed on a thin budget.
Washington
Washington stood 32th in overall performance rankings in 2005 with 17,836 miles of state-owned highway. This compares to 18th in 2000. The state’s best rankings were for fatality rate (12th), rural primary pavement condition (15th) and
administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (20th). Washington scored lowest on rural primary pavements narrow (48th) and rural interstate condition (42nd).
West Virginia
West Virginia in 2005 reported a total of 34,051 miles of state-controlled highway.
Overall, the state ranked 26th in 2005 in the performance rankings as compared to
32nd in 2000. Its best rankings were for total disbursements per mile of
responsibility (2nd), maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (3rd),
capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (3rd), receipts per mile of responsibility
(3rd), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (5th) and urban interstate congestion (6th). Its lowest rankings were for rural primary pavements narrow (50th), deficient bridges (48th), rural interstate condition (37th) and fatality rate (36th). Low system performance rankings balance low spending for a mid-range overall performance rank.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 41
Wisconsin
Wisconsin has 11,794 miles of highway under the state control. In 2005, the state
stood 22nd in the overall performance rankings as compared to 16th in 2000.
Wisconsin scored best on deficient bridges (6th), rural primary pavements narrow
(16th), urban interstate congestion (17th), fatality rate (20th) and maintenance
disbursements per mile of responsibility (20th). The state scored lowest on rural
interstate condition (39th), administrative disbursements per mile of responsibility (38th), total disbursements per mile of responsibility (37th), receipts per mile of responsibility (36th) and capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (36th).
Wyoming
Wyoming has 7,404 miles of highway under state control. In 2005 the state ranked
7th in the overall performance rankings as compared to 1st in 2000. Wyoming’s
best ratings were for urban interstate congestion (1st), deficient bridges (3rd),
receipts per mile of responsibility (11th), total disbursements per mile of
responsibility (11th), capital/bridge disbursements per mile of responsibility (12th), rural primary pavement condition (13th), rural primary pavement narrow (14th) and maintenance disbursements per mile of responsibility (14th). Wyoming’s only low ranking is 41st in urban interstate condition. The state’s overall performance is good.
42 Reason Foundation
About the Authors
avid T. Hartgen, David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. is Emeritus Professor of Transportation
Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he established the Center for
Interdisciplinary Transportation Studies and now conducts research in transportation policy. Before
coming to Charlotte he was at the New York State Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration He is the author of about 335 papers and reports on transportation policy
and planning, is U.S. Editor of the international journal Transportation, and is active in
professional organizations, particularly the Transportation Research Board. He holds engineering
degrees from Duke University and Northwestern University, has taught at SUNY Albany, Union
University, Syracuse University and lectures widely. His recent studies of congestion for Reason
Foundation (at www.reason.org) and transit and congestion for the John Locke Foundation (at
www.johnlocke.org) have attracted wide national attention. He can be contacted at
dthartge@uncc.edu, or by telephone at 704-687-5917.
Ravi K. Karanam is graduate student in electrical engineering at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. A graduate of Nehru Technological Institute in India, he is focusing on computer architecture, electronics and telecommunications technologies, embedded systems, and
computational applications in the biomedical sciences.
16TH ANNUAL HIGHWAY STUDY 43
Related Reason Studies
Peter Samuel, Leasing State Toll Roads: Frequently Asked Questions, Reason Foundation Policy
Brief No.60, March 2007, http://www.reason.org/pb60_leasing_state_toll_roads.pdf
Leonard C. Gilroy, Robert W. Poole, Jr., Peter Samuel, and Geoffrey Segal, Building New Roads
Through Public-Private Partnerships: Frequently Asked Questions, Reason Foundation Policy
Brief No.58, March 2007, http://www.reason.org/pb58_building_new_roads.pdf
Peter Samuel, Innovative Roadway Design: Making Highways More Likeable, Reason Foundation
Policy Study No.348, September 2006, http://www.reason.org/ps348.pdf
David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E., and M. Gregory Fields, Building Roads to Reduce Traffic
Congestion in America 's Cities: How Much and at What Cost?, Policy Study No. 346, August
2006
Robert W. Poole, Jr. and Kevin Soucie, Adding FAST Lanes to Milwaukee's Freeways: Congestion
Relief, Improved Transit, and Help with Funding Reconstruction, Reason Foundation Policy Study
No.342, February 2006, http://www.reason.org/ps342_FASTlanes.pdf
Peter Samuel, Should States Sell Their Toll Roads?, Reason Foundation Policy Study No.334, June
2005, http://www.reason.org/ps334.pdf
Robert W. Poole, Jr., Easing California's Transportation Crisis with Tolls and Public-Private
Partnerships, Reason Foundation Policy Study No.324, January 2005,
http://www.reason.org/ps324.pdf
Robert W. Poole, Jr., and Peter Samuel, Corridors for Toll Truckways: Suggested Locations for
Pilot Projects, Reason Foundation Policy Study No.316, February 2004,
http://www.reason.org/ps316.pdf
Robert W. Poole, Jr. and C. Kenneth Orski, HOT Networks: A New Plan for Congestion Relief and Better Transit, Reason Foundation Policy Study No.305, February 2003,
http://www.reason.org/ps305.pdf
44 Reason Foundation
Endnotes
1 Cost effectiveness for each state is computed by averaging its 12 performance ratios (ratio of
each state’s statistic to the national average, for 5 financial measures and 7 condition
measures). Financial ratios are weighted inversely by relative road widths lane miles per mile
per U.S. avg. Ratios less than 1.0 mean that the state is better than average, ratios greater than
1.0 mean the state is worse than average.
2 FHWA uses 0.80 as the cutoff for ‘congestion’, but this ignores mild congestion in some rural
states.
Reason Foundation
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
310/391-2245
310/391- 4395 (fax)
www.reason.org
Transportation
Friday, April 11, 2008
Road performance review thru 2005
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
How much will roads cost to reduce congestion?
Building Roads By David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. and M. Gregory Fields Project Director: Robert W. Poole, Jr. Reason Foundation's mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying, and Reason Foundation's nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition, The Galvin Mobility Project is made possible by the generous support of Robert Galvin. Reason Foundation is developing practical, cost-effective solutions to traffic congestion The old canard "we can't build our way out of congestion" is not true. Adding capacity and improving management of roads can eliminate chronic congestion. Public-private partnerships to build and operate toll facilities have sparked innovations in engineering We can solve our congestion woes. We can upgrade to an innovative, market-driven, R e a s o n F o u n d a t i o n Building Roads to Reduce Traffic Congestion in America's Cities: How By David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. and M. Gregory Fields We define and quantify severe congestion, in which peak-hour traffic volumes exceed road capacity, and estimate future congestion if trends continue. With the help of 32 participating This report finds that severe traffic congestion is pervasive in large regions and is worsening throughout the United States. In the future even small, urbanized areas are likely to experience congestion common in mid-sized areas today. The cause of this increase is not wastefulness but R e a s o n F o u n d a t i o n Eliminating Severe Congestion by Increasing Capacity ... . 6 B. Costs by Road Type (Functional Class) ... .. 11 C. Lane-Miles Needed and Costs by Urbanized Area and Region ... . 12 D. Risk Analysis of the Cost to Relieve Severe Congestion ... . 23 E. Additional Costs of Removing Moderate Urban Congestion ... ... 23 E. Comparison with Long-Range Plans ... ... 26 User Benefits of Congestion Reduction ... . 32 A. The Magnitude of Present and Future Congestion ... .. 35 B. Capacity Needs to Eliminate Severe Congestion ... .. 35 C. The Cost of Dealing with Congestion ... .. 36 D. These Costs Are Reasonable Compared to Planned Transportation Spending ... ... 37 E. The Likely Benefits ... . 38 R e a s o n F o u n d a t i o n Table 1: Trends and Forecasts of Travel Time Indices ... .. 7 Table 2: Cities with 2030 Travel Time Delays Worse Than Today's Los Angeles... .. 7 Table 3: Additional Cities with Travel Time Delays Worse Than Today's Chicago ... .. 8 Table 4: Changes in Traffic Density Forecast, 403 Urbanized Areas ... .. 8 Table 5: Severely Congested Roadways, 403 Urbanized Areas ... ... 9 Table 6: Summary of Findings: Cost to Relieve Severe Congestion... .. 10 Table 7: Individual Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion ... . 11 Table 8: Costs by Roadway Type ... . 12 Table 9: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion by City Size ($B) ... ... 12 Table 10: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion for the Top Ten Cities in Population ($B) ... ... 13 Table 11: Costs of Relieving Severe Urban Area (UA) Congestion for the 25 States in the Northeast/North- Central United States ($Billion)... . 16 Table 12: Costs of Relieving Severe Urban Area (UA)Congestion for the Southeast United States Table 13: Costs of Relieving Severe Urban Area (UA) Congestion for the 8 States in the Southwest United States ($Billions) ... . 19 Table 14: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion in the Northwest United States ($B)... .. 19 Table 15: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion for Alaska and Hawaii ($B) ... ... 20 Table 16: States Ranked by Congested Lane Miles in 2030... . 22 Table 17: States Ranked by 2030 Urban Area Lane Miles Needed... .. 22 Table 18: States Ranked by Total Costs of Lane Miles Needed... .. 22 Table 19: Mileage and Costs of Removing Moderate Urban Congestion ... . 24 Table 20: Mileage and Costs of Relieving Severe Rural Congestion ... . 25 Table 21: Mileage and Costs of Relieving Moderate Rural Congestion ... .. 25 Table 22: Costs to Relieve Congestion versus Present Plan Costs... .. 27 Table 23: Average Costs per Resident to Relieve Congestion versus Present Plan Costs, Weighted by Population ... .. 28 Table 24: User Benefits Analysis for Detroit ... ... 33 Table 25: User Benefits Analysis for Atlanta ... ... 33 Table 26: Cost of Capacity Expansion Per Hour of Delay Saved... ... 34 Table 27: Severely Congested Facilities, 403 Urbanized Areas ... .. 35 Table 28: Summary of Needs and Costs ... .. 36 Figure 1: An Overview of the Congestion Problem ... .. 2 Figure 2: Urban Areas in the United States Requiring Congestion Relief with Costs to Relieve Figure 3: Urban Areas in the Northeast/North Central United States Requiring Congestion Relief with Costs to Relieve Congestion ($Million)... ... 15 Figure 4: Urban Areas in the Southeast United States Requiring Congestion Relief with Costs to Relieve Severe Congestion ($Million)... ... 17 Figure 5: Urban Areas in the Southwest Requiring Congestion Relief with Costs to Relieve Congestion ($Million) ... ... 18 Figure 6: Urban Areas in the Northwest United States Requiring Congestion Relief ($M) ... . 20 Figure 7: Urban Areas in Alaska and Hawaii Requiring Congestion Relief and Costs to Relieve BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 1 rban congestion is a growing problem, as indicated in the annual congestion statistics reported for large urban regions. The Texas Transportation Institute annually calculates costs of traffic delay in the nation's largest cities and its 2005 report pegged the costs at $65 billion a Figure 1 summarizes the status of planning for urbanized area congestion. The trend is steeply rising congestion compared to 2003 levels. Most current long-range transportation plans forecast Figure 1: An Overview of the Congestion Problem Several recent studies have reviewed the magnitude and cost of congestion. In addition to the Texas Transportation Institute's annual mobility study, the American Highway Users Alliance recently reviewed the delays associated with the worst highway bottlenecks.4 They found that BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 3 e focus initially on severe congestion in 403 urbanized areas in the United States with populations greater than 50,000 persons in 2003.10 Supplemental analysis is also added for 1. Current Congestion. Estimates of current (2003) severe congestion,11 2. Future Congestion. Future congestion is estimated by relating current congestion indices to 3. Needed Capacity Increases. Capacity increases needed to relieve severe congestion are then BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 5 4. Cost of Capacity Increases. To estimate costs of capacity increases, federal estimates of 5. Comparisons with Long-Range Plans. Cost estimates for relieving severe congestion are 6. Rural Congestion and Moderate Urban Congestion. 7. User Benefits of Congestion Reduction. Finally, savings in delay are estimated for each Eliminating Severe Congestion by The 403 largest urbanized areas of the United States, those over 50,000 in population in 2003, The Texas Transportation Institute generates an annual survey on congestion. The Institute uses a BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 7 Table 1: Trends and Forecasts of Travel Time Indices City Size 1982 1993 1995 2003 2030 Est. Relative Increase in Ave 3+ M 1.15 1.35 1.36 1.46 1.76 65% Ave 1-3 M 1.08 1.18 1.21 1.28 1.53 89% Ave 500K-1M 1.05 1.11 1.13 1.18 1.36 100% Ave 250-500 K 1.04 1.06 1.15 150% Ave 50-250 K 1.03 1.04 1.09 125% To put these in perspective, consider today's congestion levels. Present-day (2003) Los Angeles is the most congested city in the United States, with a travel time index of 1.75. But by 2030, Table 2: Cities with 2030 Travel Time Delays Worse Than Today's Los Angeles City Population in 2030 (000s) Congestion Index in 2030 Los Angeles-Long Beach 15,652 1.94 San Francisco-Oakland 4,968 1.86 Minneapolis-St. Paul 3,370 1.76 Table 3: Additional Cities with Travel Time Delays Worse Than Today's Chicago City Population in 2030 (000s) Congestion Index in 2030 Riverside-San Bernardino 2,629 1.64 Bridgeport-Stamford 1,018 1.62 An alternate way of viewing traffic congestion is to look at overall Table 4: Changes in Traffic Density Forecast, 403 Urbanized Areas City Size 1995 2003 2020 2030 Percent Increase 2003-30 Ave 3+ M 7,050 7,500 8,400 9,000 19.8 Ave 1-3 M 6,000 6,300 7,000 7,500 18.3 Ave 500K-1M 5,800 6,000 6,400 6,600 10.5 Ave 250-501K 4,700 4,900 5,500 5,800 17.6 Ave 50-251K 3,800 4,100 4,800 5,300 28.2 Traffic Density = Average annual daily traffic, per mile of road, rounded to 100s. A third way of looking at congestion is the number of lane-miles of severely congested facilities. BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 9 is expected to grow about 50 percent to about 59,700 severely congested lane-miles by 2030, assuming trends in traffic density and population continue. Table 5: Roadway Type 2003 Miles 2003 Miles Percent 2003 Lane-Miles 2030 Lane-Miles Percent Severely Severely Severely Severely Change Congested* Congested Congested* Congested* Urban Interstate 12,766 2,100 16.4 17,800 27,400 54.3 Urban Other 44,351 2,200 4.9 9,000 12,400 37.5 Urban Minor Arterial 75,124 3,700 4.9 12,700 19,900 56.1 Urban Collector 75,894 2,700 3.6 Total 770,634 11,700** - 39,500 59,700 51.1 The spreading of urbanized areas may obviate congestion trends somewhat, and in some regions 3. Costs to Relieve Severe Congestion Additions for major bridge widenings and for elevated or tunnel-design sections might also Table 6: Summary of Findings: Cost to Relieve Severe Congestion Base Estimate 104,000 (6.2%) 391 391 Add-on for Large Bridge Widening 31 Add-on for Elevated or Tunnel Structures 70 533 These estimates compare reasonably well with other recent partial assessments. The USDOT These cost estimates should be put in perspective. The present U.S. highway program, including capital and maintenance, costs about $140 billion per year (the new federal transportation bill Another way to look at these costs is to compare them with other common expenses. BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 11 4. Unit Costs per Capita and per Commuter Trip Table 7: Individual Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion City Size Cost per Commuter Cost per Resident Cost per Commuter Cost per per Year ($) per Year ($) per Day ($) Commuter Trip ($) Ave 3+ M 368.47 184.23 1.47 0.75 Ave 1-3 M 118.97 59.49 0.48 0.24 Ave 500K-1M 147.04 73.52 0.59 0.30 Ave 250-500K 151.73 75.87 0.61 0.31 Ave 50-250K 44.96 22.48 0.18 0.09 Average for All $196.21 $98.11 $0.78 $0.39 B. Costs by Road Type (Functional Class) As might be expected, the additional capacity necessary to significantly reduce severe congestion is largely concentrated in the higher-level roads.27 Table 8 Table 8: Roadway Type Current Current Est. Additional Percent of Cost of Cost per 2003 Lane-Miles* Lane-Miles Current Additional Added Miles* Needed* System to Lane-Miles Lane-Mile be added ($Billion) ($Million) Urban Interstate 21,400 113,600 38,600 33.90 362 9.4 Urb OPA 44,400 177,400 20,700 11.70 75 3.6 Urb Min Arterial 75,100 150,200 1,300 0.80 96 2.2 Urb Collector 75,900 151,800 41,900 27.50 Local 553,800 1,107,600 800 0.07 Total 770,600 1,700,600 104,100 6.20 533 5.1 * Rounded to nearest 100 for convenience. C. Lane-Miles Needed and Costs by Urbanized Area and Region Table 9: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion by City Size ($B) City Size Interstate Other Minor Total Percent of Percent of Cost per Hour and OFE Principal Arterials Total Cost Total US of Delay 3+M $251.1 $36.0 $38.5 $325.6 61.0 23.7 $ 2.72 1-3 M 70.7 10.7 16.7 98.2 18.4 16.6 1.83 500k-1M 20.1 12.0 16.0 48.1 9.0 8.1 3.73 250-500K 14.7 10.5 15.2 40.4 7.6 6.3 10.44 50-250K 5.5 5.1 10.6 21.2 4.0 10.4 6.43 Total All $362.3 $74.4 $96.9 $533.5 100.0 65.2 $ 2.76 BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 13 1. The 10 Largest Urbanized Areas As the next table (Table 10) indicates, the 10 largest regions have a third of the U.S. urban population, a third of the urban lane miles with traffic that exceeds their capacity (Volume/Capacity ratios above 1.0), and a fourth of the urban lane-miles needed to relieve congestion, but almost 2/3 of the total costs. This is not surprising—the costs for capacity Table 10: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion for the Top Ten Cities in Population ($B) City 2003 Pop 2030 Pop 2030 Lane 2030 Lane Total Costs of Cost per Hour (000s) (000s) Miles expected Miles Lane Miles of Delay Saved to be congested Needed Needed ($Billion) New York 17,717 21,295 3,827 2,446 $38.6 1.24 Los Angeles 12,520 15,652 3,594 3,695 67.7 2.62 Chicago 7,702 9,522 2,793 3,875 53.8 3.52 Philadelphia 5,287 5,879 1,475 1,929 19.6 3.75 Miami 5,104 7,551 1,919 3,400 30.0 3.39 Dallas 4,312 7,014 2,646 3,656 26.1 3.52 Washington 4,277 5,973 1,130 1,803 16.2 1.52 San Francisco 4,120 4,968 1,304 2,261 29.2 3.72 Boston 3,988 4,636 990 1,493 20.3 4.56 Detroit 3,939 4,277 1,136 2,301 24.1 9.05 Subtotals 68,966 86,767 20,813 26,858 325.6 National Totals 189,510 245,523 59,688 104,122 533.5 % of Total 36.4 35.3 34.9 25.8 61.0 A closer look at the urbanized areas across the U.S. reflects the trends noted above: the larger areas have the bulk of the costs, and the costs are more concentrated in the interstates and arterials 2. The Northeast/North-Central United States Figure 3 and Table 11 show needs for the Northeast/North-Central United States. With 25 states, BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 15 Figure 3: Urban Areas in the Northeast/North Central United States Requiring Congestion Relief with Costs to Relieve Congestion ($Million) 3. The Southeast United States Katrina puts it back on its trend.) Table 11: Costs of Relieving Severe Urban Area (UA) Congestion for the 25 States in the Northeast/North- Central United States ($Billion) State 2003 UA 2030 UA 2030 UA Lane 2030 UA Total Costs of Pop (000s) Pop (000s) Miles expected Lane Miles Lane Miles to be congested Needed Needed ($B)* Illinois 9,114 11,044 3,037 4,459 55.0 New York 21,089 24,573 4,735 4,511 45.0 Michigan 6,732 7,666 1,785 3,668 27.1 Pennsylvania 9,978 10,698 2,456 4,465 25.5 Massachusetts 5,575 6,493 1,214 1,961 21.9 DC 4,277 5,973 1,130 1,803 16.2 North Carolina 3,507 5,257 1,537 4,361 12.4 Minnesota 2,803 3,756 1,427 2,531 7.7 Ohio 8,062 8,954 1,212 1,610 5.6 Tennessee 3,334 4,467 1,291 2,754 5.0 Kentucky 1,372 1,703 391 1,234 4.6 Missouri 3,930 4,757 1,163 1,972 4.6 Connecticut 2,837 3,234 585 1,618 3.4 Virginia 3,269 4,021 735 989 3.1 Indiana 2,167 2,691 762 2,269 3.1 Wisconsin 3,019 3,519 877 1,687 3.0 Maryland 2,689 3,299 546 580 2.3 Rhode Island 1,218 1,411 267 257 0.85 New Jersey 734 913 164 388 0.65 New Hampshire 391 521 141 218 0.30 West Virginia 509 487 77 154 0.28 Subtotals 98,048 117,210 25,801 43,980 248.5 National Totals 189,510 245,523 59,688 104,122 533.5 % of Total 51.7 47.7 43.2 42.2 46.6 *Cities grouped into major state, so costs may include work in nearby states. BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 17 Figure 4: Urban Areas in the Southeast United States Requiring Congestion Relief with Costs to Relieve Severe Congestion ($Million) Costs to Relieve Congestion ($M) 50000 Urban Interstates and Freeways 25002.5 Other Principal Arterials 5 Minor Arterials, Collectors, Local Streets Table 12: Costs of Relieving Severe Urban Area (UA)Congestion for the Southeast United States ($B) State 2003 UA 2030 UA 2030 UA Lane Miles 2030 UA Lane Miles Total Costs of Lane Pop 000s Pop 000s expected to be congested Needed Miles Needed ($B)* Texas 13,244 19,951 7,986 12,929 $49.1 Florida 13,122 19,474 3,990 8,536 38.7 Georgia 4,311 6,716 1,516 3,220 14.3 South Carolina 1,720 2,285 726 1,934 4.9 Louisiana 2,534 2,829 846 1,248 3.3 Oklahoma 1,483 1,844 363 727 3.1 Alabama 1,906 2,239 458 967 2.5 Arkansas 692 938 271 1,207 2.5 Mississippi 743 953 139 254 0.72 Subtotals 39,755 57,229 16,296 31,024 119.2 National Totals 189,510 245,523 59,688 104,122 533.5 % of Total 21.0 23.3 27.3 29.8 22.3 *Cities grouped into major state, so costs may include work in nearby states. 4. The Southwest United States BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 19 Table 13: Costs of Relieving Severe Urban Area (UA) Congestion for the 8 States in the Southwest City 2003 UA 2030 UA 2030 UA Lane Miles 2030 Lane Miles Total Costs of Lane Pop (000s) Pop (000s) expected to be congested Needed Miles Needed ($B)* California 30,487 39,874 8,730 13,132 121.9 Colorado 3,246 5,048 1,111 4,668 11.4 Arizona 3,909 6,888 4,082 3,813 11.3 Nevada 1,147 1,483 281 919 2.3 Nebraska 852 1,107 262 966 1.7 New Mexico 738 1,058 249 556 1.4 Subtotals 42,810 58,985 15,368 25,579 153.2 National Totals 189,510 245,523 59,688 104,122 533.5 % of Total 22.6 24.0 25.7 24.6 28.7 *Cities grouped into major state, so costs may include work in nearby states. 5. The Northwest United States Table 14: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion in the Northwest United States ($B) State 2003 UA 2030 2030 UA Lane 2030 UA Lane Total Costs of Lane Pop (000s) UAPop Miles expected to Miles Needed Miles Needed ($B)* Washington 4,081 5,497 1,063 1,477 $6.9 Oregon 2,372 3,478 660 1,020 3.2 North Dakota 276 322 55 108 0.15 South Dakota 190 260 26 51 0.06 Subtotals 7,829 10,845 2,033 2,987 10.7 National Totals 189,510 245,523 59,688 104,122 533.5 % of Total 4.1 4.4 3.4 2.9 2.0 *Cities grouped into major state, so costs may include work in nearby states Figure 6: Urban Areas in the Northwest United States Requiring Congestion Relief ($M) Costs to Relieve Congestion ($M ) 50000 Urban Interstates and Freeways 25002.5 Other Principal Arterials 5 Minor Arterials, Collectors, Local Streets The severe congestion needs of Alaska and Hawaii are relatively modest. In Hawaii, Honolulu Table 15: Costs of Relieving Severe Congestion for Alaska and Hawaii ($B) State 2003 UA 2030 UA 2030 UA Lane 2030 UA Total Costs of Pop (000s) Pop (000s) Miles expected Lane Miles Lane Miles to be congested Needed Needed ($B) Subtotals 1,068 1,255 189 551 1.9 National Totals 189,510 245,523 59,688 104,122 533.5 % of Total 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 21 Table 16: States Ranked by Table 17: States Ranked by 2030 Table 18: States Ranked by Total Congested Lane Miles in 2030 Urban Area Lane Miles Needed Costs of Lane Miles Needed 2030 Urbanized Area 2030 Urban Area Lane Total Costs of Lane State Lane Miles Congested State Miles Needed State Miles Needed ($B) 1. California 8,730 1. California 13,132 1. California 121.90 2. Texas 7,986 2. Texas 12,929 2. Illinois 55.00 3. New York 4,735 3. Florida 8,536 3. Texas 49.10 4. Arizona 4,082 4. Colorado 4,668 4. New York 45.00 5. Florida 3,990 5. New York 4,512 5. Florida 38.70 6. Illinois 3,037 6. Pennsylvania 4,465 6. Michigan 27.10 7. Pennsylvania 2,456 7. Illinois 4,459 7. Pennsylvania 25.50 8. Michigan 1,785 8. North Carolina 4,361 8. Massachusetts 21.90 9. North Carolina 1,537 9. Arizona 3,813 9. D.C. 16.20 10. Georgia 1,516 10. Michigan 3,668 10. Georgia 14.30 11. Minnesota 1,427 11. Georgia 3,221 11. North Carolina 12.40 12. Tennessee 1,291 12. Tennessee 2,754 12. Colorado 11.40 13. Massachusetts 1,214 13. Minnesota 2,531 13. Arizona 11.30 14. Ohio 1,212 14. Indiana 2,269 14. Minnesota 7.70 15. Missouri 1,164 15. Missouri 1,972 15. Washington 6.90 16. D.C. 1,130 16. Massachusetts 1,961 16. Ohio 5.60 17. Colorado 1,111 17. South Carolina 1,934 17. Tennessee 5.00 18. Washington 1,063 18. D.C. 1,803 18. South Carolina 4.90 19. Wisconsin 877 19. Wisconsin 1,687 19. Kentucky 4.60 20. Louisiana 846 20. Connecticut 1,618 20. Missouri 4.60 21. Indiana 762 21. Ohio 1,610 21. Connecticut 3.40 22. Virginia 735 22. Washington 1,477 22. Louisiana 3.30 23. South Carolina 726 23. Louisiana 1,248 23. Oregon 3.20 24. Oregon 660 24. Kentucky 1,234 24. Oklahoma 3.10 25. Connecticut 585 25. Arkansas 1,207 25. Virginia 3.10 26. Maryland 546 26. Oregon 1,020 26. Indiana 3.10 27. Utah 505 27. Virginia 989 27. Wisconsin 3.00 28. Alabama 458 28. Alabama 967 28. Alabama 2.50 29. Kentucky 392 29. Nebraska 966 29. Arkansas 2.50 30. Oklahoma 363 30. Utah 948 30. Utah 2.30 31. Nevada 281 31. Nevada 919 31. Nevada 2.30 32. Arkansas 271 32. Oklahoma 727 32. Maryland 2.30 33. Rhode Island 267 33. Maryland 580 33. Nebraska 1.70 34. Nebraska 262 34. Kansas 578 34. New Mexico 1.40 35. New Mexico 249 35. New Mexico 556 35. Hawaii 1.10 36. Idaho 180 36. New Jersey 388 36. Alaska 0.85 37. Iowa 165 37. Hawaii 321 37. Rhode Island 0.85 38. New Jersey 164 38. Iowa 304 38. Kansas 0.81 39. Kansas 148 39. Idaho 278 39. Mississippi 0.72 40. New Hampshire 142 40. Rhode Island 257 40. New Jersey 0.65 41. Mississippi 139 41. Mississippi 254 41. Iowa 0.57 42. Hawaii 121 42. Alaska 230 42. Idaho 0.37 43. West Virginia 77 43. New Hampshire 218 43. New Hampshire 0.30 44. Alaska 68 44. West Virginia 154 44. West Virginia 0.28 45. North Dakota 55 45. North Dakota 108 45. Maine 0.18 46. Maine 50 46. Maine 82 46. North Dakota 0.15 47. Vermont 28 47. Vermont 61 47. Vermont 0.13 48. South Dakota 26 48. South Dakota 51 48. South Dakota 0.06 49. Wyoming 25 49. Delaware 42 49. Montana 0.06 50. Delaware 25 50. Montana 31 50. Delaware 0.06 51. Montana 24 51. Wyoming 22 51. Wyoming 0.05 BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 23 D. Risk Analysis of the Cost to Relieve Severe Congestion Costs to add capacity were calculated using estimates of construction costs, induced travel, bridgewidening construction, and elevated-tunnel construction costs (see Appendix B). But there is a fair amount of uncertainty in those numbers. To determine the likely range of costs, an uncertainty analysis of the cost was conducted using the Crystal Ball® software package. This software uses a range of numbers for each factor affecting the cost rather than just one, and produces a range of estimates rather than just one. (See Appendix H for the full risk analysis.) E. Additional Costs of Removing Moderate Urban Congestion Data from 2003 show about 15,900 miles of road in urbanized areas with congestion levels Table 19: Mileage and Costs of Removing Moderate Urban Congestion 2003 Miles 2030 Miles 2030 Lane-Miles Cost to Provide 0.80-0.95 0.80-0.95 Needed to Additional Capacity (000s) (000s) Remove (000s) ($B) Interstate and OFE 3,801 10,395 20,790 117.1 Other Primary Arterials 3,924 10,206 20,412 65.0 Minor Arterials 4,828 12,469 24,937 50.7 Major Collectors 3,300 8,966 17,931 37.6 Total 15,853 42,035 84,070 270.5 State-level details of this assessment are provided in Appendix D. Although this study focuses primarily on urban congestion, we did take a brief look at rural congestion.29 The methodology is similar to that used to review LOS D and E congestion: we BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 25 Tables 20 and 21 summarize the findings. Overall, about 2,800 miles of rural highway are Since most of these roads have little potential for significant pent-up demand, most could be Table 20: Mileage and Costs of Relieving Severe Rural Congestion 2003 Miles 2030 Miles 2030 Cost to congested congested Lane-Miles Provide (000s) (000s) Needed (000s) ($B) Interstate 607 1,558 3,117 2.5 Other Primary Arterials 948 2,823 5,646 5.5 Minor Arterials 729 2,268 4,535 4.0 Major Collectors 516 1,528 3,057 2.1 Table 21: Mileage and Costs of Relieving Moderate Rural Congestion 2003 Miles 2030 Miles 2030 Cost to 0.80-0.95 0.80-0.95 Lane-Miles Provide (000s) (000s) Needed (000s) ($B) Interstate 1,392 3,745 7,490 5.8 Other Primary Arterials 954 2,793 5,586 5.4 Minor Arterials 1,065 3,315 6,630 5.8 Major Collectors 575 1,862 3,724 2.8 Total 3,986 11,715 23,429 19.7 E. Comparison with Long-Range Plans To bring these findings into perspective, we have prepared an analysis of how the implied costs to relieve severe congestion compare with the planned expenditures in 43 selected urbanized areas. The sources of the costs shown here are the latest long-range plans, as described in the Websites of each urbanized area's MPO. Most plans are for 2030, although a few are for 2025. The urbanized areas are in order by 2003 population. Table 22 3.6 percent on other projects, primarily pedestrian/bike facilities and enhancements. With the exceptions of New York City and Chicago, most of the transit commuting shares are under 10 BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 27 Table 22: Costs to Relieve Congestion versus Present Plan Costs Urbanized 2003 UA LRP Total Auto LRP Total Transit LRP Total LRP Cost to Percent of Area Pop K Highway Commute Transit Commute Other Plan Cost Relieve LOS Total LRP Costs Share** (%) Costs Share*** (%) Costs F Congestion New York 17,170 $78.7 B 38.9 $249.0 B 48.7 $0 $327.8 B 38.5 B 11.8 Los Angeles 12,520 48.5 B 88.0 66.9 B 4.8 0 115.4 B 67.7 B 58.7 Chicago 7,702 33.5 B 81.3 27.5 B 11.9 0 61.0 B 53.9 B 88.3 Philadelphia 5,287 21.9 B 82.3, 22.8 B 10.0 12.7 B 57.4 B 19.6 B 34.1 Miami 5,104 6.0 B 90.7 13.3 B 3.9 0 19.3 B 30.0 B 155.6 Dallas-FW 4,312 30.6 B 92.2 13.5 B 2.1 1.0 B 45.1 B 26.1 B 58.0 Wash. D.C. 4,227 36.9 B 46.6 56.4 B 38.8 0 93.3 B 16.2 B 17.4 San Fran. 4,120 42.0 B 80.8 76.0 B 9.2 0 118.0 B 29.2 B 24.8 Boston 3,988 4.5 B 82.7 43.8 B 9.4 0 48.3 B 20.3 B 42.1 Detroit 3,939 31.5 B 93.4 9.3 B 1.6 0.2 B 41.0 B 24.1 B 58.7 Seattle 2,946 49.4 B 81.9 46.3 B 7.9 5.9 B 101.6 B 4.8 B 4.7 Atlanta 2,924 29.6 B 90.7 21.5 B 3.0 1.9 B 53.0 B 13.1 B 24.6 San Diego 2,872 8.1 B 88.1 15.9 B 3.9 8.3 B 32.2 B 10.1 B 31.5 Houston-Galv 2,620 46.7 B 91.2 17.9 B 3.3 12.7 B 77.3 B 9.2 B 11.9 Minneapolis 2,482 5.6 B 75.0 2.6 B 14.2 0.7 B 8.8 B 7.6 B 85.9 Baltimore 2,076 13.2 B 72.3 11.8 B 18.2 0.5 B 25.5 B 1.8 B 7.2 Denver 2,050 53.9 B 88.4 23.4 B 4.1 10.5 B 87.8 B 10.0 B 11.3 Portland OR 1,685 14.2 B 74.5 5.5 B 12.9 na 19.7 B 2.7 B 13.7 San Jose 1,664 1.1 B 90.3 6.9 B 2.8 0.6 B 8.5 B 1.3 B 15.0 Cincinnati 1,606 5.7 B 83.6 1.6 B 8.2 0.1 B 7.4 B 0.6 B 8.5 San Antonio 1,333 6.5 B 91.4 4.0 B 2.9 0 10.5 B 5.6 B 53.7 Columbus OH 1,195 4.0 B 92.2 1.3 B 2.7 0.2 B 5.4 B 1.5 B 27.1 Salt Lake 877 3.2 B 91.4 17.3 B 2.4 2.4 B 23.0 B 1.2 B 5.4 Austin 757 15.4 B 92.2 6.2 B 1.8 0.3 B 21.9 B 2.5 B 11.3 Charlotte 725 1.2 B* 91.1 6.3 B 2.6 5 M 7.6 B 2.9 B 38.3 Tucson 720 9.6 B 87.8 3.4 B 3.0 1.4 B 14.4 B 1.0 B 6.8 El Paso 629 4.4 B 93.6 1.8 B 1.9 0 6.2 B 1.4 B 23.0 Akron 614 2.3 B 91.1 0.3 B 3.4 62 M 2.7 B 0.3 B 9.7 Raleigh 528 5.7 B 93.1 2.2 B 1.9 3 M 7.9 B 3.3 B 41.2 Bakersfield 443 4.2 B 88.2 1.4 B 2.1 15 M 5.7 B 0.4 B 7.4 McAllen TX 376 3.9 B 93.1 72 M 0.0 42 M 4.0 B 0.6 B 16.2 Spokane 357 1.2 B 88.8 1.4 B 1.2 0.4 B 3.0 B 1.4 B 47.0 Little Rock 338 2.8 B 95.6 0.8 B 0.7 25 M 3.6 B 2.3 B 63.8 Corpus Christi 295 741 M 93.4 163 M 0.3 0 904 M 862 M 95.4 Boise 254 2.2 B 91.5 na 0.8 na 2.2 B 0.3 B 12.4 Eugene 239 1.2 B 83.2 0.8 B 2.1 28 M 2.0 B 0.2 B 11.4 Lincoln 227 1.5 B 90.9 na 1.2 na 1.5 B 0.1 B 7.8 Lubbock 206 0.9 B 95.5 0.2 B 0.1 0 1.1 B 0.2 B 13.7 Fredericksburg 168 2.1 B -- na -- na 2.1 B 0.3 B 13.8 Binghamton 137 690 M 87.2 130 M 1.4 0 820 M 132 M 16.1 Sioux City 108 609 M -- 121 M -- 0 730 M 21 M 2.8 Missoula 74 118 M -- 66 M -- 21 M 205 M 23 M 11.3 Elmira NY 57 658 M -- 130 M -- 4 M 792 M 26 M 3.2 Total 101,951 $636.7 B NA $780.0 B NA $60.0 B $1,476.7 B $413.4 B 28.0 *A $3.57 billion road plan has recently been proposed. Table 23: Average Costs per Resident to Relieve Congestion versus Present Plan Costs, City Size Average Average Average LRP Average Cost to Average Cost Population LRP Plan Cost per Relieve LOS F to Relieve (000) Cost ($ B) Commuter Congestion ($ B) Congestion, per 3+ Million 9,503.4 137.1 2.31 38.9 0.65 1-3 Million 2,294.7 42.6 2.97 6.5 0.45 500K-1M 708.8 12.9 2.90 1.8 0.40 250K-500K 354.3 3.5 1.56 1.0 0.44 50K-250K 179.7 1.4 1.21 0.2 0.14 *Based only on cities reporting in Table 22 Such funds might be available through the reallocation of expenditures within the plans, if congestion relief were given higher priority. But the challenge of adding capacity to reduce The following are typical of comments that propose to reduce congestion by non-capacity means: "The ability of the region to fund capacity-increasing roadway projects will be limited by other allocation decisions."30 — Lane Council of Governments, Central Lane Regional Transportation Plan "To coordinate with the region's congestion management system in relieving existing congestion and preventing congestion where it has not yet occurred."31 —First Coast MPO, 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 29 "Traditionally, the solution to congestion has been to expand roadway construction capacity. It has become apparent, however, that metropolitan areas cannot build their way out of —OKI Regional Council of Governments, While Austin has a Congestion Management System, none of the transportation improvement strategies include adding more lanes. The improvement strategies include upgrading traffic signals, —Capital Area MPO, Capital Area MPO Mobility 2030 Plan Other cities place low priority on congestion reduction: Does not specifically list congestion relief as a goal. "Promote sustainable community design that supports transit use and increases non- motorized transportation while still meeting the mobility needs of residents and employees."34 —Kern Council of Governments, Long Range Transportation Plan "The transportation industry is giving more attention to safeguarding the natural "MUMPO's plan is to increase choices in transportation….."35 —Mecklenburg-Union MPO, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan The congestion management goals do not include adding lane capacity. The primary goal is "to develop a means to reduce traffic demand….by reducing the percentage of single occupancy vehicles and promoting public transit."36 — Columbia Area Transportation Study, Long-Range Inter-modal Transportation Plan 2025 Out of four goals and several objectives within each goal, addressing congestion was goal #4 and the last objective: "Maximize the highway system efficiency using means other than adding —Capital Area MPO, Capital Area MPO Mobility 2030 Plan Out of five strategies to reduce congestion, adding capacity is the last resort. "Road widening to increase capacity when other strategies are not applicable or do not reduce congestion to an acceptable level."38 —Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, The unmistakable impression one draws from reviewing these plans is that urbanized areas A few cities appear to be assessing the implications of what congestion reduction might cost: To reduce congestion from 1.47 Texas Congestion Index (TCI, similar to TTI—Travel Time Index) to 1.12, "the region must find an additional $8 billon in funding."39 —San Antonio & Bexar County MPO, Mobility 2030 San Antonio Mobility-Bexar County Metropolitan Transportation Plan In perhaps the most stunning case of attention to congestion, Atlanta's Congestion Mitigation Task Force has passed resolutions calling for raising the weight placed on congestion relief from 11 percent to 70 percent in project —Congestion Mitigation Task Force, Final Report and Recommendations As noted above, the Governor's Business Council has adopted a goal of 1.18 for the Texas Congestion Index (similar to the TTI) for Texas urbanized area, and estimated the needed additional funding at $54 billion to achieve it.41 —Governor's Business Council Transportation Task Force BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 31 "In Washington…the growth of travel demand has outpaced expansion of …system capacity…leaving .a growing backlog of capacity needs. The …imbalance affects … daily lives and almost every sector of economic activity"42 —WSDOT Transportation Commission, Urban Areas Congestion Relief Analysis Work Progress Report User Benefits of Congestion Reduction sers benefit from congestion reduction in many ways, but even looking at just a few of them—reduced travel time, lower operating costs and lower accident costs—shows the benefits can be substantial. The data below are taken from two sources. First, several of the 32 cities that provided detailed data for the fine estimates made in this study included additional BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 33 Table 24: User Benefits Analysis for Detroit Daily vehicle miles traveled Daily vehicle hours Average (VMT) (Millions) traveled (VHT) (Millions) Speed 2030 LRP Assignment 157.774 4.593 34.35 2030 Unconstrained 156.575 4.062 38.55 Lives saved over 20 years 89.92 Lifetime value of travel time saved $26.6 billion Lifetime value of operating cost saved $3.4 billion Lifetime value of lives saved $269.8 M Total savings over 20 years $30.3 billion Cost to Relieve LOS F Congestion $24.1 B Table 25: User Benefits Analysis for Atlanta AM and PM vehicle miles AM and PM vehicle hours Average traveled (VMT) (Millions) traveled (VHT) (Millions) Speed 2030 LRP Assignment 103.899 5.942 17.49 2030 Unconstrained 103.268 4.328 23.86 Lives saved over 20 years 47.25 Lifetime value of time saved $96.6 billion Lifetime value of operating cost saved $1.9 billion Lifetime value of lives saved $141.8 M Total savings over 20 years $98.6 billion Cost to Relieve LOS F Congestion $13.1 B 27.2 percent reduction in peak-period travel times and a 36.5 percent increase in peak-period Table 26: Cost of Capacity Expansion Per Hour of Delay Saved Urban Area Size Average Annual Delay Total Cost over Average Cost per Hour of Saved, Hours 25 years, ($M) Delay Saved ($) 3+ M 4,780,230,762 325,599.10 2.72 1-3 M 2,151,708,742 98,185.99 1.83 500K-1M 515,696,950 48,123.03 3.73 250-500K 154,626,517 40,359.34 10.44 50-250K 131,988,660 21,229.19 6.43 Total 7,734,251,631 533,496.60 2.76 BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 35 A. The Magnitude of Present and Future Congestion U.S. urban area population is expected to increase about 30 percent over the next 25 years. As Table 27: Roadway Type 2003 Lane-Miles 2030 Lane-Miles Percent Severely Congested* Severely Congested* Change Urban Interstate 17,800 27,400 54.3 Urban Other Principal Arterial 9,000 12,400 37.5 Urban Minor Arterial 12,700 19,900 56.1 B. Capacity Needs to Eliminate Severe Congestion C. The Cost of Dealing with Congestion Severe congestion needs are spread throughout the United States. Although the 10 largest Table 28: Summary of Needs and Costs Region Severe Congestion Moderate Congestion Totals Urbanized Areas Lane-Miles 104,220 Lane-Miles 84,070 Lane-Miles 188,290 Cost $533.4 Billion Cost $270.5 Billion Cost $803.9 Billion Rural Areas Lane-Miles 16,354 Lane-Miles 23,429 Lane-Miles 39,783 Cost $14.2 Billion Cost $19.7 Billion Cost $33.9 Billion Totals Lane-Miles 120,574 Lane-Miles 107,499 Lane-Miles 228,073 Cost $547.6 Billion Cost $290.2 Billion Cost $837.8 Billion BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 37 D. These Costs Are Reasonable Compared to Planned Transportation Spending It is possible for America to 'build out' of severe congestion, and it is relatively inexpensive to do A real concern is whether additional urban highway capacity can be provided, given current Options for pricing, in conjunction with new capacity provision, should not be overlooked. In many locations where additional capacity is needed, the options for priced lanes or tolled-HOV Benefits to users will be primarily in the form of savings in travel time, with smaller benefits in Benefits to businesses include reduced delivery costs through reduced travel times for trucking operations, lower operating costs and lower accident rates. Important secondary business user benefits include improved just-in-time delivery, reliability of shipments, smoother supply-chain management, and more regular production operation. These savings in lower logistical costs are often passed on to consumers through competition. In the aggregate they help to maintain Cities that reduce congestion also benefit substantially, through increased economic BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 39 avid T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. is Professor of Transportation Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he established the Center for Interdisciplinary Transportation Studies and now teaches and conducts research in transportation policy. He is the M. Gregory Fields is a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte pursuing masters degrees in Geography (Transportation), Earth Sciences (Environmental Monitoring) and Sociology, with plans to graduate in December 2006. A retired U.S. Army officer, he holds a BS degree from West Point and a master of arts from Webster University in St. Louis. He has Project Director Robert W. Poole, Jr. is Director of Transportation Studies at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees in engineering from MIT and did additional graduate work in operations research at NYU. He worked in aerospace and for several research firms before launching Reason Foundation in 1978. His 1988 policy study, "Private Tollways: Resolving BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 41 1 David Shrank and Tim Lomax, The 2005 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, May 2005. Available at http://mobility.tamu.edu. 2 Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation's Travel, Washington DC 2005, p. 16-17. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Federal Highway Administration, "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU): A Summary of Highway Provisions", Washington DC 20590, August 10, 2005. American Highway Users Alliance, Unclogging America's Arteries: Effective Relief for US Department of Transportation, 2002 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges and Transit: Conditions and Performance, Washington DC 20590, 2004, p. 7-6. Governor's Business Council, Shaping the Competitive Advantage of Texas Metropolitan Regions: The Role of Transportation, Housing and Aesthetics, Governor's Business Council Transportation Task Force, Austin, TX, Draft October 2005. TDA Inc., End Gridlock Now, Our Transportation Mess: Truth and Facts versus Myths and Governor's Congestion Mitigation Task Force, Final Report and Recommendations, Atlanta, GA Dec. 6, 2005. Transportation Research Board, Critical Issues in Transportation, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, December 2005. Urbanized areas are used as the 'geography' in the study because they form the basis of formal urban transportation planning, published historical traffic and network data is readily available, and the Texas Transportation Institute uses them for congestion monitoring. Although this data (primarily the HPMS database) has some problems, primarily an expanding geography over time, it is significantly better as a data set than others. Severe congestion is defined as that occurring when the peak-hour volume of traffic on a road 13 85 regions for which congestion data is available from the Texas Transportation Institute, plus Durham, NC, which had been consolidated with Raleigh NC in the TTI reports. 14 The Highway Performance Monitoring System is a federally-managed data reporting system in which the states annually report conditions and performance of about 116,700 sections of 15 A 'vehicle-mile-of-travel' (VMT) is a commonly used measure of travel, defined as one 16 'Induced travel' represents travel shifted from other modes, time periods, days, and possibly 17 Numbers in the text are rounded for convenience. See Appendix C for specific numbers for 18 The 'Travel Time Index' is computed from the sample of HPMS road sections in the region. For each section, data is obtained annually on average daily traffic, section length, posted 19 The amount and cost of 'induced travel' is controversial, ranging from estimates near zero to 20 Samuel, Peter, Innovative Highway Design, Report for the Mobility Project, Spring 2006. 21 If 'year of construction' estimates are used, nominal costs would be higher. We estimate that about $692 billion (in 'year of construction' dollars) would be needed. 22 USDOT, 2002 Conditions and Performance Report, op. cit. 23 W. Cox and A. Pisarski, Blueprint 2030: Affordable Mobility and Access for all of Atlanta and Georgia, Report to the Governor's Mitigation Task Force, Atlanta GA, June 21, 2004, p. 6. 24 Governor's Business Council Transportation Task Force, o. cit., p. vii. 25 Recent work by FHWA looking at unit costs suggests that the previous numbers used in HERS double-count the individual state adjustments and that overall costs in some categories are BUILDING ROADS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION 43 26 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 2003, Table HF10, Disbursements for highways, all levels of government, Washington DC 2004. 27 Traffic planners describe roads by 'functional class' referring to the intended purpose that 28 These might be compared with the criteria that the Federal Transit Administration uses in evaluating 'New Starts' projects, currently $21.00 per hour of transportation benefit. 29 The Road Information Program (www.trip.org) has recently reviewed the extent of 'recreational congestion' and identified some of the nation's worst 'recreational congestion' hotspots. 30 Lane Council of Governments, Central Lane Regional Transportation Plan, Chapters 1, pages 1,4,& 5; Chapter 2, pages 4, December 2004, www.thempo.org 31 First Coast MPO, 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan, Goals & Objectives, Goal C, pages 1-2, 2004, www.firstcoast2030/com. 32 OKI Regional Council of Governments, OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan 2004 Update, Congestion Management Strategies, page 6-8, 2004, www.oki.org 33 Capital Area MPO, Capital Area MPO Mobility 2030 Plan, Comparison of 2025 AMATP & Recommended CAMPO Mobility 2030 Summary Presentation, 2005, www.campotexas.org. 34 Kern Council of Governments, Long Range Transportation Plan, Chapter 2, Transportation Planning Policies, page 6, 2004, available at www.kerncog.org. 35 Mecklenburg-Union MPO, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, 2005, Chapter 7.0, Financial Plan, page 7-1, www.charmeck.org 36 Columbia Area Transportation Study, Long-Range Inter-modal Transportation Plan 2025, 2003, Chapter 1, page 4. 37 Capital Area MPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, Raleigh, NC. September 15, 2004. 38 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan, November 2004, page 13, www.semcop.org 39 San Antonio & Bexar County MPO, Mobility 2030 San Antonio Mobility-Bexar County Metropolitan Transportation Plan, 2004, Chapter 2, page 6. 40 Congestion Mitigation Task Force, Final Report and Recommendations, GDOT, December 6, 2005. 41 Governor's Business Council Transportation Task Force, op.cit. 42 WSDOT Transportation Commission, Urban Areas Congestion Relief Analysis Work Progress Report, Olympia WA: February 2005. 43 Schrank, David and Tim Lomax. The 2005 Urban Mobility Report. College Station, TX: The Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, May 2005. Available at: 44 Traditional transportation benefit-cost assessments often value time at about ½ the prevailing wage rate, assuming a mix of trip purposes. Since these are primarily congestion-related benefits, a higher value, $10-12/hour, is more appropriate. 45 Hartgen, David T., Highways and Sprawl in North Carolina, Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2003. Available at: http://www.johnlocke.org/policy_reports/display_story.html?id=41. 46 Peter Samuel, Innovative Roadway Design: Making Highways More Likable, Reason Foundation, forthcoming, 2006. 47 Contrary to popular belief, taxes that governments receive from increased economic activity are not a benefit since they represent a transfer of resources from the private sector to the public sector; if left in the private sector they might have been equally or more productive to the economy. Mobility Project Advisory Board n Rob Atkinson, Vice President, Progressive n Al Appleton, Senior Fellow, Regional Plan n Peggy Catlin, Director, Colorado Tolling Enterprise and Deputy Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation n Professor Robert Cervero, College of Envi- ronmental Design, University of California, Berkeley n Professor Randall Crane, Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles n Professor Elizabeth Deakin, City and n Professor Max Donath, Director, Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute, Univer- n Robert Dunphy, Senior Resident Fellow Transportation, Infrastructure, Urban Land Institute n James Ely, Director, Florida Turnpike Enterprise and Vice President, International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike Assn n Professor David Gillen, Transportation Policy, University of British Columbia n Professor Genevieve Giuliano, Director, METRANS Transportation Center, Univer- n Professor Peter Gordon, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California n Gary Groat, Director of Project Develop- n Professor David Hartgen, Transportation Studies, University of North Carolina, Char- n Tony Kane, Director, Engineering and Technical Services, American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) n Steve Lockwood, Principal Consultant, n Jim March, Industry and Economic Analysis Team Leader, Office of Policy and Govern- n Joel Marcuson, PE, Traffic Engineering/ Intelligent Transportation Systems Expert, Jacobs Engineering n Nancy McGuckin, Travel Behavior Analyst, n Professor Michael D. Meyer, School of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology n Professor James Moore, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Uni- n John Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT n Ken Orski, Principal, Urban Mobility Corpora- n Mary Peters, Former Administrator, Federal n Alan Pisarski, Transportation Consultant n Steve PonTell, President, LaJolla Institute n Pete Rahn, Director, Missouri Department n Jon Ramirez, Senior Vice President, Cofir- n Darrin Roth, Director of Highway Opera- tions, American Trucking Associations n Gabriel Roth, Civil Engineer and Transport n Tom Rubin, Transportation Consultant n Phillip Russell, Director, Texas Turnpike n Peter Samuel, Transportation Consultant n Professor Kenneth Small, Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine n Professor Pravin Varaiya, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sci- n Professor Chelsea C. White III, Schneider National Chair of Transportation and Logis-
to Reduce tRaffic congestion
in
ameRica's cities: How mucH
and
at wHat cost?
Much and at What Cost?
year.1 Numerous polls show growing frustration on the part of citizens and businesses with
congestion and its deleterious impacts on personal lives and commerce. In a 2001 national travel
survey fully 24 percent of respondents cited congestion as a severe or serious problem; in large
cities 39 percent thought so, but even in smaller cities 21 percent thought so. 2 Federal policy
documents cite congestion as "…one of the biggest transportation challenges facing
us…pervasive…affect[ing] more trips, more hours of the day and more of the transportation
system."3
worse congestion conditions even after the expenditure of billions of dollars. In most regions the
competition is fierce for scarce dollars for transportation improvements. Many regions have very
large maintenance and repair needs for the existing system. Planning requirements encourage
expenditures for a variety of projects serving numerous objectives other than congestion. Pulled by
competing priorities, many cities and states appear to be focusing largely on other objectives and
are de-emphasizing the congestion problem. Some regions assert that congestion cannot be
eliminated or reduced, or that the extra capacity will just be 'filled up' anyway, and addition of
capacity is very expensive.
sometimes called
urbanized area population and traffic density (daily vehicle-miles-of-travel15 per mile of road).
Forecasts of population and traffic density to 2030 are then made for each urbanized area, and
future TTIs are also estimated by trend. A separate forecast of lane-miles with severe
congestion (volume exceeds capacity) is then made using forecasts of population and traffic
congestion indices. These projections incorporate planned capacity additions under long range
transportation plans. This is the primary estimate of future congestion used for analytical
purposes.
estimated from the future congestion estimates (lane-miles over: traffic exceeds capacity) for
each urbanized area, such that peak-hour capacity is sufficient to carry peak-hour traffic
volumes. These estimates are adjusted to account for diverted traffic (traffic moving to faster
roads as they are widened) using network-based traffic assignments or similar information for
32 urbanized areas participating in the study. The numbers from these contributing areas are
highlighted in
Appendix C. Results from these 32 urbanized areas assignments are then used to
scale up the preliminary estimates for the other urbanized areas.
In a short follow-up analysis, the
region, and for the United States as a whole. These are compared with the cost of capacity
expansion. This estimate is conservative since it does not consider fuel savings, reduced
operating costs, or other benefits. Two more detailed examples (Atlanta and Detroit) are also
developed to show how travelers benefit from congestion removal, through higher speeds and
savings in travel time, operating costs, and lower accident rates.
Increasing Capacity
"Travel Time Index" (TTI), defined as the ratio of travel time in peak hours to the travel time in
off-peak hours.18 For instance, an index of 1.5 means that travel time in the peak hour is 50 percent
longer than in the off-peak. The 'delay' in the travel time is the portion over 1.0. This data was
used to chart trends in congestion in the nation's largest 86 cities, then extended to other smaller
urbanized areas, and then forecast to 2030 based on trends and on forecasts of population and
traffic density.
urbanized areas with over three million people will be averaging about the same travel time delay (1.76) as today's Los Angeles. Cities with travel time delays equal to today's Los Angeles will include Atlanta, Denver, and Minneapolis/St. Paul.
traffic density, the amount of
traffic per mile of road space. Table 4 shows recent trends and forecasts of traffic density for cities
by size.
"Severe congestion" is defined as peak-hour traffic volume which exceeds the peak-hour capacity
of the facility to carry it. Recent data from the federal Highway Performance Monitoring System
(Table 5)
show that the Urban Interstate system has the highest proportion of severely congested
miles, 16.4 percent, followed by other freeways, 11.5 percent. About 39,500 lane-miles of road in
the 403 largest urbanized areas currently carry more traffic than their rated capacities. This number
Severely Congested Roadways, 403 Urbanized Areas
In 2005, Americans spent about $41 billion at Lowes Home Improvement, $81.5 billion at
Home Depot, and about $13.6 billion on pet food;
There are about $21 billion in student loans in default nationwide;
In 2003, the federal government spent nearly $25 billion on things it could not identify—
"unreconciled expenditures."
shows that the Urban Interstate (UI) and Other Freeway/Expressway (OFE) system would need to be expanded in capacity by about onethird nationwide; urban Other Principal Arterials would need to be expanded 11.7 percent. For the lower systems about a 6.3 overall percent increase is implied. The unit cost per lane-mile averages about $9.4 million for Interstates, $3.6 million for principal arterials, and $2.2 million for lesser streets. Overall, the average unit cost is about $5.1 million per lane-mile.
Costs by Roadway Type
(Figure 2). The larger circles show the larger concentration of costs, with urban interstates,
freeways, and principal arterials making up most of the costs in major urbanized areas. The overall pattern reflects this concentration of higher costs in the larger areas, with heavier concentrations of costs on the east and west coasts and in states with large metropolitan regions. The five general regions of the United States will be more fully analyzed below. Appendix C
contains a complete listing of each state and its regions' congestion circumstances.
this region is estimated to have 47.7 percent of the future U.S. urbanized area population and 46.6
percent of future severe congestion needs. The two states with the largest needs in this region,
Illinois and New York, account for 18.7 percent of the U.S. total. Within the region, metropolitan
New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, and Detroit dominate the requirements,
each with more than $16 billion in needs. Numerous mid-sized areas also require $1-5 billion each.
However, even small urbanized areas in rural states such as Maine and Vermont have congestion-
relief needs.
Maine's needs are concentrated in Portland ($130.8 million), Lewiston ($21.7 million) and Bangor ($24.6 million).
summarizes the findings.
congestion."32
OKI 2030 Regional Transportation Plan 2004 Update
modifying bus routes, installing reversible travel lanes, and promoting alternative transportation
modes (ridesharing, transit, bicycling, walking, etc.).33 Austin has $262M of bike projects in the
2030 LRP.
general-purpose traffic lanes."37
2030 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan
selection, and setting a TTI value of 1.35 (presently 1.44) as a performance index for planning and project selection.40
Severely Congested Facilities, 403 Urbanized Areas
so. The $533 billion estimate for relieving severe congestion ($21 billion/year) is about one-quarter
of the total cost of the 25-year transportation plans we reviewed, and is about 15 percent of the
total highway budget over 25 years; it would be a maximum of about 30 percent increase in capital
expenditures, if all current capital work were not capacity-increasing. It is about three times what is
now being spent
annually on 'new starts.' Moreover, at $2.76 per hour of delay saved, the cost is
considerably lower than most comparable costs for other transportation improvements.
reduced operating costs and reduced accident costs. The examples for Detroit and Atlanta and the
cost per hour of delay saved for each region show that significant savings are likely if projects are
targeted at congestion relief, and that these savings are likely to be cost-effective. These real
savings put time and money in consumers' pockets and can be reinvested in other goods and
services that directly help the economy. Important secondary user benefits include increased
reliability of travel times, reduced travel stress, and improved reliability of activity scheduling.
Although these benefits have been traditionally more difficult to quantify, they are nevertheless
substantial and real.
America's competitive edge in the global economy and make domestic transportation costs very 'flat' relative to other nations, a significant advantage.
author of about 329 papers and reports on transportation policy and planning, is U.S. Editor of the
international journal Transportation, and is active in professional organizations, particularly the
Transportation Research Board. He holds engineering degrees from Duke University and
Northwestern University, has taught at SUNY Albany, Union University, Syracuse University and
lectures widely. He can be contacted at dthartge@email.uncc.edu, or by telephone at 704-687-
5917. His Web site is http://www.geoearth.uncc.edu/Dhartgen.htm.
contributed to several transportation studies including a review of the cost-effectiveness of North Carolina's highway projects, county-level road condition trends in North Carolina, and a review of South Carolina's traffic modeling systems.
Gridlock in Southern California," directly inspired California's 1989 public/private toll roads law, which has been emulated in more than a dozen other states. He has advised the U.S., California,
and Florida departments of transportation, and served 18 months as a member of California's
Commission on Transportation Investment. He has also advised the last four White Houses on
various transportation policy issues.
Highway Bottlenecks, 1999-2004, One Thomas Circle NW, 10th Floor, Washington DC 20005. February 2004.
Baloney, Seattle WA May 2, 2003; and WSDOT Transportation Commission, Urban Areas
Congestion Relief Analysis Work Progress Report Briefing Paper, Olympia WA, Feb. 2005.
is greater than the carrying capacity of the road, that is, the volume/capacity ratio is greater
than 1.0. Moderate congestion is defined as occurring when the peak-hour volume of traffic on
a road is between 80 percent and 95 percent of the carrying capacity of the road. These
definitions correspond closely to Levels of Service F and E-D, respectively, in the widely used
Highway Capacity Manual. See Appendix B for a more complete discussion.
Technically, 'gridlock' refers to cases in which connected streets are jammed by traffic.
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/report/.
sity of Minnesota
sity of Southern California
lotte
mental Affairs, Federal Highway Adminis-
tration
versity of Southern California
ences, University of California, Berkeley
tics, Georgia Institute of Technology
