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 ??