Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
September 30, 2002 Monday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1979 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SUBCOMMITTEE: TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
NUCLEAR SAFETY
HEADLINE: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SYSTEM
OVERSIGHT
TESTIMONY-BY: MARY E. PETERS,, ADMINISTRATOR
AFFILIATION: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
BODY: STATEMENT OF MARY E. PETERS, ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC
WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the state of our Nation's
highway and bridge infrastructure.
Section 502(g) of
title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) requires the Secretary of Transportation to
submit to the Congress every two years a report that describes "estimates of the
future
highway and bridge needs of the United States" and "the
backlog of current
highway and bridge needs." This is commonly
known as the Conditions and Performance Report. Since 1993, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has partnered with the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) to produce a Conditions and Performance Report that
contains both
highway and transit data.
The 2002
edition of the Conditions and Performance Report is in final clearance. I know
that this report is of interest to Congress in the reauthorization process, and
it is my hope that the report will be transmitted to the Congress this fall.
Today, I would like to share some of the findings from the Conditions and
Performance Report that can help you understand the state of the Nation's
highway and bridge infrastructure. In addition, a summary of
the major findings of the Conditions and Performance Report is attached to this
statement. Significant Increases in
Highway and Bridge
Infrastructure Investment
The 2002 edition of the Conditions and
Performance Report is the first edition to capture the effects of investment in
highways, bridges, and transit under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Since the enactment of TEA-21 in 1998,
combined investment in
highway infrastructure, by all levels of
government, has increased sharply. Total
highway expenditures
by Federal, State, and local governments increased by 25.0 percent between 1997
and 2000. This equates to a 14.4 percent increase in constant dollar terms.
Highway capital spending alone rose to $
64.6
billion in 2000, a 33.7 percent increase over 1997.
The increased
Federal
funding levels for
highway capital
investment under TEA-21 through 2000 have been matched and exceeded by increases
in State and local investment. This is a very important point. State and local
governments did not simply substitute Federal funds for their own during this
robust economic period. Instead, they poured billions of additional dollars into
transportation projects beyond the minimum increases necessary to meet Federal
matching requirements. As a result, the State share of
highway
capital investment rose from 1997 to 2000. In 1998, the State share of
highway capital outlays was above 60 percent for the first time
since 1959, and remained above that level through 2000.
New Emphasis on
System Preservation
The TEA-21 era coincided with a shift in the types
of capital improvements made by State and local governments. Under TEA-21,
States redirected their investments toward system preservation projects (the
resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of existing
highway lanes and bridges). There was a 45.7 percent increase
in spending on system preservation, from $
23.2 billion in 1997
to $
33.6 billion in 2000. The fact that system preservation
projects tend to have shorter lead times and are often less controversial than
system expansion projects, may have contributed to such projects attracting a
greater share of the increased
funding available under TEA-21.
Investment in system expansion (the construction of new roads and bridges and
the widening of existing roads) grew more slowly, rising 20.8 percent from
$
21.6 billion to $
25.9 billion.
This
increase in system preservation investment has had a profound effect on the
overall physical condition of the Nation's
highway and bridge
infrastructure. The percentage of
highway mileage with
"acceptable" ride quality rose from 82.5 percent in 1993 to 86.0 percent in
2000. The percentage of bridge deck area considered deficient dropped from 30.9
percent in 1996 to 27.9 percent in 2000. These improvements, however, were not
uniform across all
highways and bridges. For example, the
condition of higher-order roads, such as Interstates, has improved considerably
since 1993, while conditions on many lower- order roads have deteriorated.
Bridge condition also differs by functional system. Interstate bridges, for
example, tend to be less structurally deficient or functionally obsolete than
bridges on collector or local roads.
Continued Improvement in
Highway Safety
The 2002 Conditions and Performance
Report also documents the Nation's continued improvement in the area of
highway safety. Safety is the top priority for the Department
of Transportation. I am pleased to report that
highways have
become safer even as travel sharply increased. The fatality rate per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled has decreased, from 3.3 in 1980 to 1.5 in 2000, which met
the Department's Performance Plan target. The Department will continue to work
with our State and local partners to reduce the number of crashes on our
Nation's
highways even further.
Deterioration in
Operational Performance
Despite the historic investment in
highway infrastructure and improved conditions on many roads
and bridges, operational performance of the infrastructure--the quality of the
user's experience--has steadily deteriorated over the past decade. In 1987 for
example, a trip that would take 20 minutes during non- congested periods
required, on average, 25.8 minutes under congested conditions. By 2000, the same
trip under congested conditions required 30.2 minutes, or an additional 4.4
minutes.
Some estimates attribute as much delay to incidents as to
recurring congestion. Part of the answer to all forms of congestion is an
increased emphasis on operations, including more effective responses to
incidents, better management of work zones, and deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.
Highway Investment Requirements
Analysis
The heart of the Conditions and Performance Report is an
analysis of future capital investment requirements under different scenarios.
The Cost to Improve
Highways and Bridges scenario is intended
to define the upper limit of cost-effective national investment based on
engineering and economic criteria. This is essentially an "investment ceiling"
above which it would not be cost-beneficial to invest. This scenario implicitly
assumes unlimited availability of
funding, and does not take
into account competing investment options in the economy that may have an even
more favorable cost-benefit return. The Cost to Maintain
Highways and Bridges scenario is designed to show the
investment required to keep future indicators of conditions and performance at
current levels, based on long term projections of future
highway use. These benchmarks are intended to be illustrative
and do not represent comprehensive alternative transportation policies.
In addition to these primary scenarios, the report also identifies the
projected level of investment required to achieve other specific benchmarks,
such as average pavement conditions, and estimates the current backlog of
cost-beneficial preservation and capacity investments based solely on current
conditions and traffic volume.
It is important to note that the
scenarios in the Conditions and Performance Report are intended to address
investment requirements for all levels of government combined. The report makes
no attempt to address the question of what share of total infrastructure
investment should be borne by the Federal government, State governments, local
governments, or the private sector.
The average annual investment level
under the Cost to Improve
Highways and Bridges Scenario is
projected to be $
106.9 billion for 2001 through 2020, stated in
constant year 2000 dollars. This is 65.3 percent higher than the
$
64.6 billion of total capital investments by all levels of
government in 2000. The average annual investment level under the Cost to
Maintain
Highways and Bridges is projected to be
$
75.9 billion for 2001 through 2020, which is 17.5 percent
larger than the $
64.6 billion of capital spending in 2000.
Capital spending by all levels of government is projected to increase in
constant dollar terms over the remainder of the life of TEA-21. This assumes,
however, that Federal, State, and local governments will be in a financial
position to allow them to continue to increase their
highway
and bridge investments. Government at all levels may not be able to sustain the
rate of increase in infrastructure investment observed in recent years.
In addition to the two investment scenarios I have just described, the
Conditions and Performance Report also predicts the impacts of numerous
alternative investment levels on a variety of condition and performance
indicators.
If investment were to remain at year 2000 levels, or
anticipated levels for 2001 to 2003, it is projected that recent trends observed
in the condition and performance of the
highway system would
continue. At this range of investment levels, physical conditions and safety
performance would improve, but the operational performance of the
highway system would further deteriorate. Average speeds would
decline, the amount of delay experienced by drivers would increase, and the
average length of congested periods on the Nation's urban principal arterials
would increase. Recent trends toward improvement in bridge conditions would also
continue; however, the aging of the Nation's bridges, particularly on the
Interstate system, will present additional challenges in the future.
The
preceding edition of the Conditions and Performance report suggested that it
would be cost-beneficial to apply a larger share of future
highway investment increases to system preservation. As I
previously noted, such a shift did occur between 1997 and 2000, resulting in
significant improvements in the physical conditions of the Nation's
highways and bridges; however, the operational performance of
the
highway system continued to decline over this period. Since
1997, infrastructure investment at all levels of government has been more
successful in addressing physical conditions than operating performance.
Therefore, the Conditions and Performance Report now suggests that it would be
cost-beneficial to devote a larger share of future increases in
highway capital investment to system expansion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the state of the Nation's road and
bridge infrastructure has generally improved due to the significant investment
increases of the TEA-21 era. Since the enactment of TEA-21, State and local
governments--spurred in part by higher levels of Federal investment--have poured
billions of dollars into
highway infrastructure. This
investment led to improved
highway and bridge conditions,
particularly on higher-order functional systems. Despite record levels of
funding, however, operational performance--measured by
congestion--worsened throughout the country. Congestion increased in
metropolitan areas of every size. FHWA's analysis of
highway
and bridge needs and investment requirements suggests that future
funding continue to address system preservation needs, but that
increases be reoriented toward system expansion to reduce user costs and enhance
system performance.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, this
concludes my statement. I again thank you for the opportunity to testify today
and I look forward to working with you as we prepare for reauthorization of the
surface transportation programs. I will be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 2002