It’s About Time:Investing in Transportation to Keep

Texas Economically Competitive

It’s About Time:Investing in Transportation to Keep

Texas Economically Competitive

José Weissmann

First 2030 – Unconstrained Funds – 2010 Report

• UTSA Bridge needs

• TTI Mobility needs

• CTR Pavement needs

2011 Report Committee

Primary 2030 Report Researchers

Results from the First 2030 - 2010

Committee Accomplishments2011

• Scenarios describe possible “futures” – Transportation infrastructure – roads & bridges

– Urban and rural mobility

– Effect on economic competitiveness & quality of life

• Possible funding options

• Guiding principles for projects/programs

• How Texans will pay for transportation

• Information for future decisions

Committee ScenariosConditions, Funding and Letter Grade

F - Unacceptable Conditions – What will happen if policies do not change? Conditions deteriorate & congestion grows rapidly

D - Worst Acceptable Conditions – Preserve enormous infrastructure investment, but congestion grows rapidly

C - Minimum Competitive Conditions – Conditions equal to or better than median of peer cities & states

B - Continue 2010 Conditions – Maintain current quality & congestion levels

F – Unacceptable Conditions

D – Worst Acceptable Conditions

C – Minimum Competitive Conditions

B – Continue 2010 Conditions

Average Annual Transportation Costs per Household, 2011 to 2035

232 406 511 634

6,095 4,825 4,228 3,652

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

F-Unacceptable D-Worst Acceptable

C-Minimum Competitive

B-Continue 2010 Conditions

Wasted Fuel, Time & Maintenance Costs

Taxes & Fees

Annual Investment2011 to 2035

Scenario & Grade Total Investment $Billion ($2010)

Average Cost per Household

F - Unacceptable Conditions $4.0 $232

D - Worst Acceptable $7.0 $406

C - Minimum Competitive $8.7 $511B - Continue 2010 Conditions $10.8 $634

Scenario & Grade Total Investment $Billion ($2010)

Average Cost per Household

F - Unacceptable Conditions $4.0 $232

D - Worst Acceptable $7.0 $406

C - Minimum Competitive $8.7 $511B - Continue 2010 Conditions $10.8 $634

Breakdown for Scenarios

Where are we on Revenues?

Examples of

Revenue Options

• Capture existing revenue

– $100+ million/year from a variety of truck fees

– Transfers to DPS: $600 million per year

• System-wide sources

– Fuel tax

– Vehicle registration fee

• Targeted options

– Toll roads

– Project-specific incentives

– Public-private partnerships

• Area approaches

– Local option vehicle registration fees

– Local option fuel tax

Committee Conclusions• Certain – Texans will pay more for transportation in the

future• Uncertain – the answer to “how?” and “how much?”• Local and state officials should select projects• Transportation Action Principles should guide investment

decisions• Many funding options are available

.Pay more & suffer ? OR Pay less & solve ?Doesn’t seem like a difficult choice

Available Data for Bridge AnalysisNational Bridge Inventory (NBI)

In Texas: BRINSAP• Ohio bridge collapse 1967

– 46 victims

• Congress passed law, 1970

• Started in 1978

• 600,000 records

• Inspection frequency, 2 years

• Database - 116 Items per bridge

• Helps allocate $ 4.7 billion to States (2007)

Texas Record Count 8.5%(More than 50,000 records)

NBI Total 600,000 records

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

Texas

Ohio

Illin

ois

Kansas

Iow

a

Califo

rnia

Mis

souri

Okl

ahoma

Pennsy

lvan

ia

Tennesse

e

India

na

North C

arolin

a

New Y

ork

Mis

siss

ippi

Alabam

a

Nebra

ska

Geo

rgia

Wis

consin

Kentu

cky

Virgin

ia

Louisia

na

Min

nesota

Arkan

sas

Florid

a

Mic

higan

South C

arolin

a

Colora

do

Wash

ingto

n

Arizona

Ore

gon

West

Virg

inia

New J

ersey

South D

akota

Mar

ylan

d

Texas Deck Area 11.3%(38.5 million m2) (414.4 million ft2 )

NBI Total 340 million m2 (3.7 billion ft2 )

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Texas

Califo

rnia

Louisia

na

Florid

aO

hio

New Y

ork

Illin

ois

Pennsy

lvan

ia

Mis

souri

Alabam

a

Tennesse

e

Virgin

ia

Geo

rgia

Mis

siss

ippi

Okl

ahoma

North C

arolin

a

Kansas

Iow

a

India

na

Wash

ingto

n

New J

ersey

South C

arolin

a

Mic

higan

Wis

consin

Min

nesota

Arkan

sas

Kentu

cky

Ore

gon

Mar

ylan

d

Arizona

Colora

do

Mas

sach

usetts

Nebra

ska

West

Virg

inia

Connectic

ut

Monta

na

Puerto R

ico

South D

akota

Utah

New M

exic

o

Idaho

Nevada

Wyom

ing

Hawai

i

HBP (Highway Bridge Program)Allocations for FY2007

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

CALIFORNIA

NEW Y

ORK

TEXAS

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW J

ERSEY

WASHIN

GTON

MASSACHUSETTS

ILLIN

OISOHIO

LOUISIA

NA

MIC

HIGAN

CONNECTIC

UT

OREGON

NORTH C

AROLINA

GEORGIA

OKLAHOM

A

MIS

SOURI

ALABAMA

MARYLAND

TENNESSEE

FLORIDA

SOUTH CAROLIN

A

VIRGIN

IAIO

WA

MIS

SISSIP

PI

INDIA

NA

RHODE ISLAND

WEST V

IRGIN

IA

DIST. O

F COL.

KANSAS

KENTUCKY

WIS

CONSIN

COLO

RADO

MIN

NESOTA

IDAHO

ARKANSAS

ALASKA

NEBRASKA

HAWAII

Texas: 7.6% of $4.8 Billion = $362 MillionTexas Deck Area 11.3%

Texas Bridge Data

Limit8 t

Historical DataData available 1995 - 2010

On and Off Systems

TxDOT Goals

• Not structurally deficient (2030 Committee goal)

• Not functionally obsolete

• Not substandard for load only (2030 Committee goal)

2030 Goals• Forecast number of deficient bridges under

constrained funding

• Forecast User Costs associated with deficient bridges

Future Needs - Constrained

Deck Area On and Off Systems by Year Built (sqft)

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

1888

1903

1907

1911

1915

1919

1923

1927

1931

1935

1939

1943

1947

1951

1955

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

2003

2007

The F Grade ScenarioPercent of Deficient Deck Area • Grade F 460 million/yr

• Grade B 590 million/yr

• Public Impacts• Detours• Ride Quality

Questions ?

Questions ??