[Senate Hearing 105-113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-113, Part I
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
PART I
FEBRUARY 13 AND 26, MARCH 6, 13, AND 19, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
PART II
MARCH 22, 1997--COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO
MARCH 26, 1997--KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
MARCH 28, 1997--LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
APRIL 7, 1997--NEW YORK, NEW YORK
APRIL 21, 1997--WARWICK, RHODE ISLAND
MAY 7 AND JUNE 6, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-369 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas BARBARA BOXER, California
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RON WYDEN, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire MAX BAUCUS, Montana
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 13, 1997
TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 10
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 24
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 62
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 9
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 30
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho...... 12
Report, Our National Laboratories and Transportation Research 13
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 11
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 26
Smith, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire. 62
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 25
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 1
Letter, to Senate Budget Committee........................... 5
WITNESSES
Card, Andrew H., Jr., president and CEO, American Automobile
Manufacturers Association...................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 109
Downey, Hon. Mortimer L., Deputy Secretary, Department of
Transportation................................................. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 83
Report, 1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation
System: Condition and Performance.......................... 84
Kulash, Damian, president and CEO, ENO Transportation Foundation,
Inc............................................................ 51
Prepared statement........................................... 211
Pisarski, Alan E., author........................................ 45
Prepared statement........................................... 109
Report, Commuting in America................................119-169
Rensink, Darrel, president, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials................................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 205
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 209
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Reports:
Commuting in America........................................119-169
Economic Returns from Transportation Investment.............169-205
1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System:
Condition and Performance..................................84-107
Our National Laboratories and Transportation Research........ 13-22
------
FEBRUARY 26, 1997
ADMINISTRATION'S TRANSPORTATION POLICIES AND PROPOSALS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 220
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 222
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 219
Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho...... 222
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 225
Smith, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire. 224
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 224
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 219
WITNESSES
Dittmar, Hank, executive director, Surface Transportation Policy
Project........................................................ 261
Prepared statement........................................... 285
Fay, William D., president and CEO, American Highway Users
Alliance....................................................... 259
Prepared statement........................................... 280
Slater, Hon. Rodney E., Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 226
Prepared statement........................................... 271
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, to Senator Chafee from Commonwealth of Massachusetts,.... 289
------
MARCH 6, 1997
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 296
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 298
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 291
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 314
WITNESSES
Costantino, James, president and CEO, ITS America................ 331
Prepared statement........................................... 387
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 393
Senator Reid............................................. 392
DeLauro, Hon. Rosa L., U.S. Representative from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 291
Prepared statement........................................... 294
Flanagan, Daniel V., Jr., chairman, Commission to Promote
Investment in America's Infrastructure......................... 328
Prepared statement........................................... 376
Responses to additional questions from Senator Reid.......... 384
Downey, Mortimer, Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation;
accompanied by Jane Garvey, Deputy Federal Highway
Administrator and Christine Johnson, Director, Joint Program
Office, Intelligent Transportation Systems..................... 299
List of Principles, ITS of America........................... 348
Prepared statement........................................... 341
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 352
Senator Reid............................................. 349
Pfeffer, Gerald S., senior vice president, United Infrastructure
Company........................................................ 326
Prepared statement........................................... 370
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 374
Senator Reid............................................. 376
Scheinberg, Phyllis F., Associate Director, Transportation and
Telecommunications Issues, General Accounting Office;
accompanied by Joseph Christoff, Assistant Director, and Yvonne
Pufahl, Senior Evaluator....................................... 316
Prepared statement........................................... 353
Report, Urban Transportation--Challenges to Widespread
Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, General
Accounting Office.......................................... 358
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Chafee........................................... 369
Senator Reid............................................. 369
Senator Warner........................................... 369
Skinner, Robert E., Jr., executive director, Transportation
Research Board, National Academy of Sciences................... 333
Prepared statement........................................... 395
Responses to additional questions from Senator Reid.......... 398
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, letter to
Secretary-Designate Rodney Slater............................348, 386
------
MARCH 13, 1997
PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY AND FLEXIBILITY
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 416
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 416
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 422
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 406
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 421
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 419
Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 406
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 423
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 403
WITNESSES
Biden, Jr., Hon. Joseph R., U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 408
Prepared statement........................................... 410
Donohue, Thomas J., president and chief executive officer,
American Trucking Associations, Inc............................ 441
Letter, response to chart used at hearing.................... 482
Prepared statement........................................... 476
Response to additional questions from Senator Chafee......... 483
Downs, Thomas M., chairman, president and chief executive
officer, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)...... 444
Prepared statement........................................... 486
Huerta, Hon. Michael, Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of
Transportation................................................. 424
Prepared statement........................................... 458
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 462
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 413
Prepared statement........................................... 414
Loftus, William E., president, American Short Line Railroad...... 437
Prepared statement........................................... 472
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona........ 414
Phillips, Karen B., senior vice president, Association of
American Railroads............................................. 439
Prepared statement........................................... 490
Roth, Jr., Hon. William V., U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 404
White, Leslie, chairperson, American Public Transit Association,
on Behalf of the Clark County Public Transportation Benefit
Area Authority................................................. 434
Prepared statement........................................... 464
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 467
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Rails to Trails program, Vincent B. Mancini.............. 517
Recommendations, American Public Transit Association.......484, 492-512
Statements:
American Public Transit Association.........................493-512
Association of American Railroads............................ 513
Midwest Intercity High Speed Rail............................ 519
------
MARCH 19, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 526
Boxer, Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California........ 570
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 521
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 547
Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma........ 543
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 544
Smith, Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire......... 570
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 526
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 533
WITNESSES
Cooke, M. Michael, chair, Board of County Commissioners, Douglas
County, CO..................................................... 564
Letters to Senators Allard and Chafee.......................635-644
Prepared statement........................................... 631
Dahms, Lawrence, D., executive director, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission...................................... 562
Letter to Representative Shuster............................. 628
Prepared statement........................................... 626
Recommendations to amend title 23, U.S.C..................... 630
Dittmar, Hank, executive director, Surface Transportation Policy
Project........................................................ 555
Prepared statement........................................... 620
Gardiner, David M., Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency................ 527
Article, The Emission Reduction Potential of the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Program......................... 594
Prepared statement........................................... 582
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 590
Garvey, Jane F., Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 523
Article, Florida Highway Travel Demand--Current and Future... 581
Letters to Senators Thomas and Graham........................ 580
Prepared statement........................................... 574
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 578
Hiemstra, Hal, vice president of National Policy, Rails to Trails 552
Prepared statement........................................... 609
Kenison, Leon, S., Commissioner, Department of Transportation,
State of New Hampshire......................................... 557
Prepared statement........................................... 623
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 625
Maguire, Meg, president, Scenic America.......................... 553
Prepared statement........................................... 616
Stowe, Timothy S., vice president, Anderson and Associates,
Incorporated; on behalf of American Consulting Engineers
Council........................................................ 567
Prepared statement........................................... 649
Vidal, Guillermo, executive director, Department of
Transportation, State of Colorado.............................. 566
Letter to Senator Chafee..................................... 648
List, ISTEA reauthorization principles....................... 646
Prepared statement........................................... 644
Walker, Thomas, executive director, Wisconsin Road Builders
Association, on behalf of the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association........................................... 549
Prepared statement........................................... 602
Responses to additional questions from Senator Chafee........ 606
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
Carpenter, Margaret.......................................... 640
Cooke, M. Michael............................................ 635
Danish, Paul D............................................... 637
Erker, Cynthia............................................... 635
Flaum, Martin J.............................................. 637
Hollaway, Patricia B......................................... 638
Jones, Donald K.............................................. 638
Lasater, Gary................................................ 640
Lawrence, Michelle........................................... 638
Mendez, Jana................................................. 637
O'Boyle, John R.............................................. 639
Page, Polly.................................................. 636
Stewart, Ron................................................. 637
Stone, John P................................................ 638
Tauer, Paul E................................................ 638
Report, Emission Reduction Potential of the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Potential...................................... 594
Statements:
Civil War Trust.............................................. 658
Environmental Defense Fund, by Michael A. Replogle, Federal
Transportation Director.................................... 652
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John W. Warner (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Warner, Kempthorne, Bond, Inhofe, Thomas,
Moynihan, Reid, Baucus, and Chafee [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. The subcommittee will come to order. Even
though our witnesses haven't arrived, I think we'll go ahead
and get started.
We recognize the presence of the senior Senator from New
York, who was the father on the Senate side of ISTEA.
The purpose of these series of hearings is to enact a
follow-on piece of legislation.
This first hearing was intended by the distinguished
ranking member and myself to discuss the changing
transportation needs of both commercial traffic and personal
traveling habits; the anticipated funding requirements for our
surface transportation system; and the benefits our economy
receives from our investments in transportation.
The subcommittee's next hearing will be February 26, where
we will receive the testimony of the new Secretary of
Transportation, Mr. Slater. He will present the
Administration's perspective.
I look forward to working with him. Speaking for myself and
I think almost everyone that I know on this subcommittee, we
have a very high professional regard for the Secretary, and for
that reason I'm optimistic that we can have a meeting of the
minds between the goals of the Administration and certainly the
Senate side of the Congress.
We are well aware of the amount of work ahead of us, and we
want to meet a September 30 deadline. We know the consequences
of not doing that, and I'm hopeful that perhaps we can even get
a step ahead of it.
About the level of funding, I was joined by distinguished
colleagues such as Senator Graham and the distinguished
colleague from Montana and others to put out a letter saying
that we feel a level of 26 billion authority for this program
is a satisfactory level for this year. Fifty-seven Senators
have joined in that letter.
Now, we all know what's in the highway trust fund. Even if
we were to take this sum out, according to my calculations,
between $5 and $8 million would remain.
It does not require any more taxes. It does not require $26
billion trying to readdress this tough issue of the 4.3 cents
now going to the general fund. It's there.
Now, when I went through law school there was a very clear
definition of the word ``trust.'' You are a fiduciary. You hold
it as a trustee for the benefit of others.
We have represented to the American public, ``When you pay
your gas taxes, they come to Washington to a trust fund to be
redistributed back to you for the purpose of improving your
existing highway system and road system and possibly adding
newer sections.
We should hold to that concept of the trust. If we're not
going to follow the concept of the fiduciary and the trust,
then I suggest we rename this the ``jailhouse fund,'' and your
money is sent and it's locked up.
So let's just be honest with the American public, and I'm
going to fight very hard, and I'm very glad six other members
have joined me in this effort--particularly my distinguished
colleague from Montana.
Every statistic shows transportation is a very sound
investment in the United States. For every dollar invested,
economists anticipate a return of $2.60. The future of our
country depends on the ability of the American worker to
compete in a world market.
How many times have all of us visited our industrial plants
and asked the question? I did in Luray, VA, in a plant that
makes blue jeans--I know that sounds prosaic, but it's an
important economic entity in that rural community of Virginia.
As I exited, I said, ``Where do I find the basis for your being
able to compete with Asia?'' And he simply pointed to a truck
and he said, ``That order came in this morning. We turned it
around in 2 hours. It's back on that truck and it's on the
shelf of the merchant the next morning.''
That, Senator is turn-around time which makes this company
competitive with the world's cheap labor markets. I hasten to
say that the laborers in that plant were being paid a fair wage
for a good day's work.
I'm also concerned about safety--safety and structural
integrity of the present system. I'm going to, I hope, be
joined by others who impress upon Secretary Slater the need for
the level of funding over and above what the Administration has
indicated today.
As yet, our Budget Committee has not responded to my
request, joined by others, in giving us a higher level of
funding, but they haven't said no, so there is hope there.
Goals for ISTEA--I say ISTEA because I supported ISTEA-I. I
think it's not wise to name this ISTEA-II because, while I
intend to work toward preserving many of the strides and
accomplishments in ISTEA-I, I still feel we can make further
strides, particularly in the area of lessening the control over
the expenditure of funds in our States.
As I mentioned earlier this week, Senator Graham and I put
in the STEP 21 bill. This legislation responds to America's
need for a strong national transportation system. STEP 21 is a
reasonably balanced, multi-modal approach that will increase
our Nation's mobility and permit American products to
effectively compete again in the global marketplace. It
recognizes that all regions of the Nation have significant
transportation requirements and they're different. They're
different.
The program for the first time responds to our
transportation demands using current needs information. This
approach will address the inequities that have persisted in the
funding formulas.
We won't open that fight here today, but let me tell you
that is serious business to many of us. I'm heartened by the
fact that the distinguished majority leader has said to me in
no uncertain terms that he will support me as strongly as
possible in trying to get an equitable readjustment of a
formula which is long since outdated. We all know that.
If there ever were in the history of the Congress a witch's
brew that was mixed by the legislators, that's that formula
using criteria that go back to the days just following the
conclusion of the Pony Express. The time has come. Fortunately,
I think there are forces in fair and objective minds in the
Senate today to rework that formula.
So we're not retreating in any way from ISTEA. We're
picking out what I hope will be the strongest parts of that.
We'll continue to work toward greater flexibility of State and
local decisionmakers to invest their resources in non-highway
alternatives such as transit and, indeed, commuter rail.
Gentlemen, I think I will put the balance of mine in so
that we can shorten our statements.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from the
Commonwealth of Virginia
I want to welcome Deputy Secretary Downey and our other witnesses
to the subcommittee today as we continue our work to reauthorize the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--or ISTEA.
For the information of members on the subcommittee and others, the
purpose of the first hearing is to discuss changing transportation
trends, both commercial traffic and personal travel habits, the
anticipated funding requirements for our surface transportation system
and the benefits our economy receives from our investments in
transportation.
The subcommittee's next hearing will be February 26th, where we
will be pleased to have Secretary Slater present the Administration's
proposal for ISTEA reauthorization.
I look forward to working closely with the Department to devise a
bill that meets our shared goals of improving the mobility of all
Americans.
We are well aware of the very significant challenges ahead of us in
order to enact new legislation before ISTEA expires on September 30.
Failing to do so will cause serious disruption in project construction
and planning as no funds will be provided to states after October 1
until a new surface transportation law is enacted.
I am committed to meeting that deadline and will work to ensure
that the subcommittee reports legislation in a responsible timeframe.
Certainly, an adequate level of Federal funding available from the
Highway Trust Fund in the next 5 years is critical to our
reauthorization efforts.
We must find ways to begin to meet the significant financial
demands identified by the Department of Transportation to maintain our
highways and bridges at their current level.
I was pleased to work with Senator Baucus and other members of the
subcommittee on a letter to the Budget Committee requesting $26 billion
in contract authority for this program. The support of 57 Senators
indicates the strong bipartisan support for a healthy investment in our
surface transportation program.
This level of funding can be supported by the revenues in the
Highway Trust Fund without depleting the balances. It does not depend
on transferring the 4.3 cents of the gas tax now going to the general
fund or other additional revenues.
As the Highway Trust fund consists of taxes collected on the users
of the system--American drivers--we must use this revenue to maintain
our transportation system.
It is also evident that transportation is a sound investment for
the American taxpayer. According to DOT, for every $1.00 invested, we
receive an economic return of $2.60.
I am concerned that the funding levels proposed in the President's
budget cannot meet the serious structural, safety and capacity demands
we have today.
As the subcommittee begins it's work to reauthorize ISTEA, I remain
committed to a surface transportation system that:
effectively moves people and goods;
provides for the safety of the traveling public;
fosters a healthy economy; and
ensures a consistent level of performance and service
among the 50 states.
These are national priorities that must be met.
Earlier this week, Senator Graham, a member of this subcommittee,
and I introduced the so-called STEP 21 bill.
This legislation responds to our need for a strong national
transportation program.
STEP 21 is a regionally balanced, multimodal approach that will
increase our nation's mobility, and permit American products to
effectively compete in the global marketplace.
It recognizes that all regions of the Nation have significant
transportation needs.
It is a program that, for the first time, responds to our
transportation demands using current needs information. This approach
will address the inequities that have persisted in the funding
formulas.
In doing so, we provide a program that acknowledges that sparsely
populated states with large land areas or states with small populations
cannot ``go it alone.''
As Important, STEP 21 does not retreat from the principles of ISTEA
to provide a surface transportation program that is intermodal,
responds to our environmental needs, and maintains our commitment to
safety.
We continue the flexibility of state and local decisionmakers to
invest their resources in non-highway alternatives--such as transit or
commuter rail.
We continue the important role of metropolitan planning
organizations.
We recognize that a full and open planning process stimulates
public participation--which in turn fosters transportation solutions
that respond to larger community goals.
We provide a program that is environmentally sound, recognizing
that transportation plays an important part in our national commitment
to improving the quality of the air we breathe.
STEP 21 also continues the Enhancements program that invests in
alternative forms of transportation--bike paths and pedestrian
walkways--and mitigates the impacts of past transportation choices.
With that brief description of my legislation, I want everyone to
be clear, however, that I intend for the subcommittee's work to be a
collective process of ideas.
I look forward to working with all members of the subcommittee, and
particularly the Ranking Member, Senator Baucus to draft legislation
that provides a surface transportation program that can respond to the
demands of the next century.
Senator Warner. We'll turn to our distinguished chairman
here for a few opening comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Senator Warner,
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I want to thank you
for holding this first hearing on the reauthorization of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which we did,
as you remember, in 1990. And I want to pay tribute to Senator
Moynihan, who was such a tremendous leader in that effort in
that year.
I think it's terribly important that we remember what the
name of that legislation was and what the legislation is we're
working on today, and that is it's the Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act. It's not a highway bill; it's a surface
transportation act.
I believe that what we've got to do is make the most
strategic possible investments into transportation.
During the 1950's and 1960's it made sense to build an
interstate highway system. Today I think we have to be more
creative. We must carefully plan and allocate limited
resources. Yes, we seek more resources. We've applied to the
chairman of the Budget Committee, but who knows how much we'll
get. And no matter how much we get, it won't be enough.
It's like a general in the war. He never had enough
ammunition. And so will be the programs that we're dealing
with.
So I'm interested in hearing what our panelists have to say
about which transportation projects and programs will provide
the greatest economic benefits in the future.
Wise transportation investment decisions are largely a
question of what will generate the most efficient flow of
people and goods. ISTEA was a major step in reorienting the
focus on personal and commercial travel. Transportation
decisions have now become part of a larger planning process--a
process that recognizes how transportation touches every corner
of our lives.
Obviously, we're a different Nation now than we were when
the interstate system was created. We must maintain the
strengths of the transportation system we have in place, but we
must build upon them, too, so I look forward to hearing more
about these important issues.
We thank the chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John H. Chafee, U.S. Senator from the
State of Rhode Island
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to take part in
this, the first hearing of the new Congress on reauthorization of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Let me point out that
ISTEA expanded the focus of national policy, recognizing that the
individual transportation modes function best as a cohesive and
interrelated system. It transformed what was simply a highway program
into a surface transportation program dedicated to the mobility of
passengers and goods.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on
transportation trends, funding requirements, and the impact of
transportation on the economy. Transportation plays a critical role in
the national and global economy. In the United States, it employs more
than 12 million people; consumes one of every five dollars of total
household spending; and accounts for 11 percent of the nation's gross
domestic product.
There has been a great deal of emphasis on the level of funding for
transportation, but minimal attention to the question of which
transportation investments will yield the highest return in the future.
Now more than ever, strategic investment in transportation is
critical. During the 1950's and 1960's, it made the most sense for the
Nation to build an interstate highway system. Today, we need to be more
creative. We must carefully plan and allocate limited resources. I am
interested in hearing what our panelists have to say about which
transportation projects and programs will provide the greatest economic
benefits in the future.
Wise transportation investment decisions are largely a question of
what will generate the most efficient flow of people and goods. Along
those lines, we must keep a watchful eye on travel trends as we make
tough transportation policy choices.
ISTEA was a major step in reorienting the focus on personal and
commercial travel. Transportation decisions now have become part of a
larger planning process. A process that recognizes how transportation
touches every corner of our lives. Policy makers and planners must be
flexible in adapting to constantly changing transportation needs.
We are a far different nation than we were when the Interstate
System was created. The way we live, the way we travel, and even the
amount of money we have to spend on transportation all have changed--
and will continue to change. We must maintain the strengths of the
transportation system we have in place--but we must build upon them,
too.
I look forward to learning more about these very important issues.
Thank you.
Senator Warner. Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo your words, as well as the words of the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, in recognizing the
achievements of the Senator from New York. The distinguished
senior Senator from New York is the one who amazingly put this
together.
I can remember a few years ago watching him put the various
pieces of legislation together in a way that was very
accommodating. The various parts of the country were very
appreciative of his utmost grace and style, as befitting the
Senator from New York, and I just want to thank him publicly
here very much for the great work that he did.
Frankly, he set the stage for us. Most people would agree
that we have a very good surface transportation program. There
may be a few wrinkles in it, but essentially it has served us
very well.
Let's be reminded about the large portion that
transportation is of our U.S. gross domestic product. I was
surprised to see what a large percentage it is when this table
was given to me.
Housing is No. 1 in our country, about 24 percent. After
housing, health care is about 15 percent GDP, and then food 13.
The next-largest function is transportation. It's huge.
Frankly, as huge as it is, it's clear that we have a great
need for more dollars, if we can find them, to maintain our
current program.
The Department has a needs assessment, which we all know
about, but the Department of Transportation needs report states
that almost $50 billion per year will be needed in order to
maintain current highway conditions--just to maintain. That's
not in addition.
The chairman of the subcommittee mentioned that many of us
are encouraging the Budget Committee and the Appropriations
Committees to use the full $26 billion that's available in the
trust fund for each of the next 6 years. Senator Warner
mentioned that 57 Senators have signed the letter. Actually,
there are two more Senators that have signed to it. It's 59
Senators, at least.
We should do all we can to maintain the transportation
needs of our country--the various components of the programs,
in addition to highways. It's all the different forward-looking
features of an interconnected transportation system that we all
are working on, and particularly as begun by the Senator from
New York.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Moynihan from New York, who is the ranking member
of the subcommittee which is conducting this hearing today--
Senator Moynihan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Moynihan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your generous remarks about the ISTEA. I thank my colleague
from Montana. I thank Senator Warner.
As we ask ourselves, ``What do we do now?'' it doesn't do
great harm to pause a moment and say, ``We've not done so badly
in the past.''
We're going to hear testimony this morning that the return
for the highway investments prior to 1970 was 35 percent.
That's an aggregate for the private sector of 17 percent. If we
spend this money well, we get a lot back from it.
Senator Warner's clothing factory is a good example of a
highway system that made just-in-time inventory and delivery a
possibility that has enormously affected the economics of the
private sector quite apart from the convenience of the roads,
themselves.
I would much agree with Senator Chafee that we are dealing
with the Surface Transportation Act. The era of the
construction of the interstate system has ended, as it was
intended to do. We got the job done. And we moved on in this
last legislation to a more general surface transportation
concept, and we have a lot to show for it.
I continue to think that the idea of efficiency in these
matters is hugely important. There is no such thing as a free
ride. That idea is taking hold and we're showing results. I
think $26 billion is absolutely a minimum for highways. I think
there should be money for transit, too.
I would just leave one last note, because it was something
we thought about 5 years ago.
The magnetic levitation was invented, thought up in 1960 by
a young nuclear engineer coming back from Brookhaven Lab on the
east end of Long Island. He was on his way back to MIT for a
beer party, I suppose. Between the time he slowed down at
Frog's Neck Bridge and the time he paid his toll he'd thought
up mag lev. Well, that's what it means to be 28 years old and a
nuclear engineer.
It's the most important change in surface transportation in
history, except the wheel, because it does not rely on
friction.
In Japan, in Germany they're roaring ahead with
development. I think our distinguished chairmen are going to
have a look at the operation.
I would hate to accept a world in which things are invented
in the United States and made elsewhere, and it remains to be
seen, but it's not to be forgotten.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Senator Kempthorne.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
your leadership in the process as you've outlined how we will
proceed on the reauthorization of ISTEA. I ask to place my
statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kempthorne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dirk Kempthorne, U.S. Senator from the State
of Idaho
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you are holding this
hearing today as we begin the reauthorization of ISTEA. It is very
appropriate that we begin this process by receiving testimony about
transportation trends for the future and how we will pay for them.
When I speak with the Director of the Idaho DOT and my State
legislators about ISTEA the first thing they want to know is if there
will be more funds available to support the new National Highway
System.
They want to know if Congress is going to return more of the gas
tax dollars collected at the pump to States to build and maintain
Federal highways.
The want to know if Congress will continue to recognize and support
the concept of a ``National'' highway program that benefits all
Americans regardless if you live in a large urban area or a sparsely
populated rural western State.
They want to know if Congress will financially support research for
the development of new and more efficient modes of travel, alternative
fuels and vehicles.
These priorities are my priorities. That is why the testimony of
these witnesses today is so relevant and timely.
We must return more dollars of the gas tax ``user fee'' back to the
States for use on long deferred maintenance instead of building up a
balance in the trust fund that serves no transportation purpose.
We must structure ISTEA II so that it fulfills the objectives and
goals of ISTEA. One while we streamline and improve the original
program based on its track record of performance. We must never lose
sight however, of the intent and purpose of the original Federal
Interstate Highway System which was established more than 40 years ago
. . . we are one country with one national system of roadways that
people must be able to depend upon. We cannot allow the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or the National Highway System to
become programs of have and have-nots, and winners and losers.
We must be innovative and creative not only in developing
transportation technology for the future but, also in developing
creative ways to finance them.
We are at a critical crossroads of our nation's transportation
future. We must seize it as an opportunity for success and not let it
slip away.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to submit for the record a
report entitled ``Our National Laboratories and Transportation
Research.'' This is an excellent document which was prepared to address
the question ``What is the role of our National Laboratories in
transportation research?'' We are very proud to have one of these
laboratories, The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, located in Idaho. I am hopeful that members of the
committee will review this important report.
Our National Laboratories and Transportation Research
the civilian and military perspective the energy and environmental
perspective the transportation safety perspective
(By David Albright, The Alliance for Transportation Research Institute,
The University of New Mexico; Lewis S. Roach, Sandia National
Laboratories; Basil A. Barna, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;
Adrian Tentner, Argonne National Laboratory Our National Laboratories
and Transportation Research)
Introduction
david albright, the alliance for transportation research institute, the
university of new mexico
There are challenges we face as a nation that require extraordinary
means to achieve a solution. Sometimes called ``Grand Challenges''
these problems are characterized both by potential impact on society
and complexity of the problem. Urgent needs of the current
transportation system, and innovative solutions for sustainable
transportation in the next millennium, represent a Grand Challenge. A
meaningful response will require full and effective use of the science
and technology base of the United States of America.
The National Laboratories are an essential part of our science and
technology base. As a result of a half-century of public investment,
exceptional capabilities are available to support basic research and
achieve significant breakthroughs. The areas of transportation research
in which the National Laboratories can contribute the most are those
which are relevant to their core mission, support their strategic
objectives, and in which they have accumulated considerable expertise.
While some laboratories have developed transportation programs, there
are competencies in each National Laboratory that may help address the
transportation Grand Challenge.
Grand Challenges arise periodically in the history of nations.
Meaningful response to these challenges. or the lack thereof. can have
a dramatic military or economic impact on the global balance of power.
Perhaps the prototypical example of a Grand Challenge is the
development of nuclear weapons during the World War II.
There are many equally important. albeit less dramatic, challenges.
Mapping the human genome, forecasting the global climate, and
maintaining leadership in high-speed computing will have a major impact
on society and our nation's ability to compete on a global basis.
In almost all cases, we rely upon the nation's science and
technology base to lead in solving these problems. While universities
and free-market resources are an important part of this base, alone
they may be unable to provide the best solutions. Our system relies
upon a broadly based research and education mission for our
universities, and a near-term, competitive mindset for private-sector
laboratories.
The need for longer-term, higher risk and higher payoff research
responding to Grand Challenges was recognized as the fundamental reason
for the establishment of a National Laboratory System in the United
States. The National Laboratories have an important function in the
nation's science and technology base. The laboratories address selected
problems that require a highly expert, interdisciplinary approach. and
at its very best is based exclusively on the public interest. In
addressing these problems, the laboratories have in the past, do in the
present, and must in the future work closely with universities and
private industry.
The triad that composes our nation's science and technology base
has been tested by time and events. Each leg, whether private sector,
university or National Laboratory. has its strengths. It is important
to set national policy in a way that allows each component to serve and
develop, while constantly seeking improvement. Research consortia
involving the National Laboratories are a means of fully engaging the
science and technology base, and are important in addressing the
transportation Grand Challenge.
There are several areas in which our present and future
transportation system can be understood as a Grand Challenge, and in
which the National Laboratories are critically needed. Military and
civilian transportation needs and capabilities are inexorably linked--
and this linkage forms the first area. Colonel Lewis Roach. Sandia
National Laboratories. addresses this area of transportation research.
Energy and environmental research is the second area in which the
National Laboratories are critically needed to achieve a sustainable
transportation system. Mr. Basil Barna, Idaho National Energy
Laboratory. develops this need. Mr. Barna also made a significant
contribution to these introductory comments. Safety is the third area
of transportation research. Dr. Adrian Tentner, Argonne National
Laboratory, explores this subject and role of the National
Laboratories.
These three statements are not intended as exhaustive discourse on
the ways in which the National Laboratories should support
transportation. These statements are intended to present a clear and
compelling basis for the intentional. thoughtful inclusion of our
National Laboratories in addressing the transportation Grand Challenge.
The transportation Grand Challenge can be expressed as the civil
and military, energy and environment, and safety needs of our current
and future transportation system. While developed in general terms, the
impact of these needs is felt by each individual and each community
across the nation. To respond to individual, community, and national
concerns, our science and technology base should be fully and
meaningfully employed in transportation research.
______
Civil/Military Transportation Research and the National Laboratories
lewis s. roach, sandia national laboratories
There exists today an unprecedented level of commonality between
this nation's military and civilian transportation research needs. The
current view of United States national security centers on both our
defense and economic security. Transportation, a central element of
both of these aspects of national security. requires optimization by
the best available means. The national military strategy has undergone
a significant change from the cold war posture of containment of the
Soviet Union utilizing a large standing military force. much of it
forward deployed in Europe. The military establishment has been reduced
both in personnel and bases, particularly those abroad, and we now rely
on the concept of ``power projection'' of forces from the Continental
United States. The execution of that military strategy places
exceptional requirements on the nation's transportation system at a
time of expanding international trade and domestic economic activity
and increasing passenger traffic and congestion. A robust, high-
capacity transportation system is a common requirement for each of
these issues. The nation needs a careful focus on the interplay between
civilian and military transportation requirements so that improvements
can be made via a closely coordinated transportation research policy.
The National Laboratories are uniquely positioned to perform
exceptional service in this national interest.
Transportation has become the linchpin holding together the means
of executing the national military strategy. That strategy protects our
vital national interests with the capacity to respond to two nearly
simultaneous major re tonal contingencies. Military forces are
comprised of vast quantities of equipment, supplies. and troops. and
this assemblage must be moved on short notice to very distant
locations. The challenge is to project the bulk of this combat power
with many fewer forward-based forces and limited propositioned
equipment. This is a significant shift from the cold war era military
posture. The implications of this shift for the transportation system
require both policy and technology solutions to ensure successful
defense of our vital national interests.
Information Technologies
The current environment of global competition and heightened
reliance on foreign trade has direct implications on the ability to
efficiently move goods into and out of the country. Modern
manufacturing approaches often cause finished goods. individual parts.
and work in process to be transported into and out of the country
multiple times. With the widespread application of just-in-time
logistics, accurate status and carefully moderated flows of material
are imperative for profitable manufacturing operations. This is true
whether or not export/import is a feature of the distribution plan.
Forward thinking transportation companies have realized that providing
their customers with accurate, timely information flow regarding their
shipments' status and expected delivery is nearly as important as the
actual movement of the goods.
The military has a corresponding information requirement.
particularly during emergency deployments involving hundreds of
thousands of personnel and large volumes of equipment moving vast
distances by multiple modes. Maintaining visibility and control of such
massive and complicated operations requires new tools somewhat similar
to those used by commercial industry. The difference is the critical
synchronization requirements and the multimodal aspects of military
deployments, which in reality are the disassembly of large forces,
their transportation over long distances, and their reassembly at
destination. This causes heightened requirements for not just shipment
data that tracks individual items in transit. Rather. it envisions the
roll-up of that data into meaningful information from which is derived
critical knowledge of the transportation system. Additionally, there is
a need to anticipate bottlenecks and transportation system capacity
shortfalls before the impacts occur. along with decision support
mechanisms to help select corrective actions and model the outcomes for
validation and execution. Cutting-edge research in this area of
military logistics requirements could have application to United States
industrial competitiveness if defense and civilian interests are
mutually considered.
Infrastructure Development
The condition and continued development of the nation's
transportation infrastructure is relevant to the efficient movement of
people and goods. Several examples illustrating this point impact
civilian and defense transportation. As foreign trade plays a larger
role in the United States economy. commercial ports are changing to
accept the more specialized intermodal cargo flows. The types of port
facilities that support the military's ship of choice for unit
deployments--roll on/roll off (RORO)--are characterized by large, open
spaces for cargo staging and uncluttered waterside space for the large
ramps these ships lower to the wharf. However, modern container
terminals often have large equipment blocking access to the waterfront,
in addition to mountains of empty and loaded containers staked nearby.
This trend to specialization and development of commercial port
property may have particular impact on the military as it divests
itself of military-operated ocean terminals under the 1995 round of the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.
Investment in the upkeep and expansion of our road network is
necessary in both a growing population and economy. Technology is
needed that delivers more accurate and precise data for the assessment
of road and bridge condition and projected deterioration of the
infrastructure. Dual use technologies that could be focused on
intelligence collection regarding war time degradation of an opponent's
transportation network, could also prove effective for performing
comprehensive assessments of our domestic roads and bridges.
Such technologies could aid the decisionmaking process for
federally funded highway projects. Although these decisions are by
their nature in the political arena, with strong state and local
influence they benefit by accurate assessments of actual conditions.
Along certain specific routes, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has
a critical stake, yet limited influence. The concentration of military
forces in relatively few major bases places added urgency on having
solid transportation infrastructure from those bases to the strategic
seaports of embarkation. Rail is the preferred mode for moving heavy
and/or oversized equipment: and rail is also preferred for lighter
wheeled vehicles and accompanying supplies, where the convoy distance
to the port exceeds a day of road march. However, placing sole reliance
on rail would be imprudent considering the potential vulnerability of
fixed rail lines to sabotage.
Transportation System Protection
A series of catastrophes, some involving transportation, has
prompted President Clinton in July, 1996, to appoint a commission to
examine critical infrastructure protection. Although some incidents
were of natural causes or unintended manmade causes, others included
suspicious air crashes. mass transit bombings and lethal gassings, and
railway tampering. Together, they provide painful recognition of our
vulnerability to domestic terrorism, sabotage, and serious disruption
to orderly society. Given our military basing policy, with its reliance
on power projection. providing security to our domestic transportation
system is imperative to ensure the capability to deploy forces under
emergency conditions. A comprehensive systems approach to the question
of infrastructure protection is required to cover the range of
vulnerabilities and safeguards systems. Examining the major parts of
the transportation system and building in protections as facilities are
under design utilizing the concept of surety--the safety. security. and
reliability of a system--could provide an appropriate framework for
attacking this challenge. The National Laboratories have historically
provided the nation's foremost capability in providing a total systems
view of ``high consequence'' operations. These include nuclear power
plants, nuclear weapons research and development. air traffic control
systems, and others. An exceptionally wide variety of science and
technology disciplines are resident in these institutions.
Civil/Military Cooperation
Recognition of the degree of military reliance on the civilian
transportation system is fundamental to understanding the interplay
between civilian and military transportation research needs. Currently,
the military ships over 85 percent of cargo via commercial carriers in
peace time and a higher percentage during contingency operations. Once
the BRAC process is complete, the only strategic defense seaports in
the country under day-to-day military control will be the ammunition
ports. As a result, deployments of military unit equipment will occur
almost entirely through commercial ports. Maintaining a forward look at
new commercial technologies and their military implications is a firm,
continuing requirement.
With the reliance on commercial transportation comes a sensitivity
to potential disruption of commercial activity during a large military
deployment through the transportation system. Given the manufacturing
industry reliance on just-in-time logistics techniques, in addition to
reduction in finished goods inventory via responsive transportation
services, the potential for significant, military-induced economic
impacts must be considered. In a short notice crisis situation, it
cannot automatically be assumed that all required commercial
transportation capacity can be made instantly available. Research on
potential economic disruptions and effective methods to minimize their
effects would clearly be prudent.
Utilizing the civilian transportation industry for military
strategic lift has been a necessity since World War II. Formal
agreements with air and ocean carriers? such as the Civil Reserve Air
Fleet program and the Voluntary Intermodal Shipping Agreement, provide
heavy supplementation to the limited cargo aircraft and ships under DoD
control. The arrival of this civilian equipment in a hostile theater of
operations brings into question the safety of the carrier's equipment
and personnel. Consideration should be given to a more complete
integration of commercial conveyances into military communications
networks. military air traffic control systems, and force protection
systems such as friendly fire avoidance technology. Recent trends in
military logistics outsourcing to commercial firms in theaters of
operation provide additional reason for examination.
Conclusion
The several areas of overlap in civilian and defense
transportation, above described, are a subset of potential areas where
joint technology could be applied to these important national needs.
Advances arising singly in government or private sectors must be
examined for crossover application. With further recognition of the
interrelationship of civilian and defense transportation, actively
seeking areas of joint research to solve common problems is good public
policy in a time of declining resources. The development of advanced
transportation technologies holds the promise of significantly
contributing to achievements in both the economic and defense
dimensions of national security.
______
Transportation, Energy, and the Environment
basil a. barna, idaho national engineering laboratory,
the challenge of sustainable transportation
Sustainable transportation for the Nation in the 21st century
certainly qualifies as a Grand Challenge. The basis of the problem has
it roots in simple physics. Mobility requires energy. Current energy
use patterns for transportation result in significant economic.
national security. and environmental impacts. Even though this is
recognized. we can't simply replace the system because of the
investment in the infrastructure. the lack of suitable alternatives,
and the key role that transportation plays in the development of the
economy.
This challenge is made even more complex by a strong interaction
between the potential technological solutions and the human aspects of
the problem. Because of this. transportation solutions for the next
century will be characterized by an integration of both technical and
political concerns. The nature of this integration will affect the
quality of life of each individual and community in the nation.
The wise direction of science base resources to this problem will
require a fundamental understanding of the relationship that mobility
has with energy resources, the environment. and the nation's social and
economic processes. In short, research must treat the system as a
whole. Perhaps even more importantly, research must be conducted within
the framework of new partnerships that recognize the importance of
multiagency coordination and the development of regional solutions that
result in a national system.
Energy and Environmental Impacts
Few human activities affect the environment as dramatically as
transportation. Every highway, every pound of particulate emissions
from diesel engines. every discarded vehicle tire is part of an
emerging global problem that is generally not perceived as a series of
related events. It is time to begin treating these problems as part of
a larger system so that technology and policy development can be
steered in a direction that is sustainable and improves the quality of
life globally.
Transportation is so integrally woven into the fabric of day-to-day
life that we rarely see the connections between trucks, barges,
pipelines, the corner junkyard. and the lingering haze that is part of
every significant metropolitan area in the world. The political reality
is that we deal with immediate and easily identified problems such as
potholes and gasoline prices. The real message is that more efficient
and environmentally responsive transportation systems must be invented
or the United States' standard of living will decline as we loose our
global competitive edge.
In the time it takes to read this sentence, the nation's
transportation system will burn over 30.000 gallons of oil. Ninety-
seven percent of the transportation fleet is powered by petroleum based
fuels, and over 25 percent of America's total energy usage is consumed
by transportation (Transportation energy data book: Edition 15, May,
1995). Fueling the economy, the national security and personal freedom,
this system is one of the fundamental elements of the nation's
infrastructure.
Unlike other industries however. transportation is singularly
dependent on petroleum. This dependence on a single source of fuel,
much of it imported, adversely affects national security and balance of
payments. It also creates a situation in which even small gains in
efficiency can have major payoffs.
The transportation infrastructure is also chronically overburdened
as traffic volume is at an all time high. Added to this are new global
challenges, competition for limited resources, and a need to minimize
regulatory burden while ensuring its effectiveness. The United States
can no longer afford the luxury of increasing capacity by just doing
more of what has been done before.
The Critical Role of Interagency Coordination and Regional Partnerships
Historically, transportation has not been developed as a system
that requires integration of diverse individual interests. The science
base has been focused on many aspects of the problem, but not in an
integrated fashion. National Laboratories in particular have for the
most part been utilized to examine energy efficiency, oil imports, and
the development of enabling technologies in the areas of materials,
energy storage and conversion, and alternative energy sources.
While this is not wrong, it does not take advantage of the
tremendous potential of having the laboratories address the broader
issues and serve as a resource for development of an integrated,
optimally efficient national transportation system. It is time to
utilize the National Laboratories as both regional technology resources
and as resources that assist in the coordination of research across
Federal agencies.
Stronger linkage between the laboratories and the U.S. Department
of Transportation (US DOT) would compliment the existing laboratory
missions while providing a powerful tool in developing a sustainable
transportation system. The US DOT, for example, should have an office
specifically charged with the purpose of interfacing with the National
Laboratories. As the success of this approach is proven, the lessons
learned could serve as a template to expand the coordination to all
agencies with a transportation role.
A broader interagency collaboration is not, however, a complete
solution. If the science base is to be effective in meeting this Grand
Challenge, research must be conducted in a new and challenging way. To
this end, the National Laboratories should be utilized to promote
regional partnerships focused on transportation needs. Such
partnerships would include state and local agencies, universities, the
laboratories, and the private sector. In a very real sense these
partnerships would connect the research with the day-today reality of
how the Nation achieves mobility, equity and economic development.
Properly designed, these alliances could demonstrate a major advance in
how the science base creates national opportunities.
Technical Issues in Transportation--The Role of Fundamental Research
The Grand Challenge of sustainable transportation will require the
nation's science base to systematically address the entire scope of the
transportation system. This approach will transcend traditional
methods, which tend to focus on solutions for specific aspects of the
problem such as congestion management, fuel efficiency, and highway
infrastructure. A truly sustainable transportation infrastructure must
be based on the relationships between the economy, the environment, and
future energy supplies.
Approaching the problem in this fashion requires a broad,
interdisciplinary skill base that is primarily accountable to the
public interest. For this reason, the National Laboratories are an
essential ingredient in achieving a solution. Perhaps even more
importantly, the laboratory system should be utilized as an instrument
of synergy for common interests across Federal agencies.
To accomplish this, fundamental research is needed in these primary
areas:
First there must be an effort to develop the tools that allow
policymakers to work with the transportation system as an entity.
While complex and composed of many diverse but related elements,
there is a single purpose to the transportation system: the
movement of physical objects and information. (It is important to
recognize that people are often transported when the primary
objective is moving information.)
Increase the efficiency of energy conversion methods. While much
work is currently underway to increase the efficiency of internal
combustion engines and selected alternatives such as electric
propulsion, there is a need to better coordinate this development
with known problems of congestion, mobility, and pollution.
Reduce environmental impact from emissions, limited recycling, and
waste transportation. Transportation is a significant contributor
to the nation's waste stream in the form of emissions and abandoned
materials and is also the primary method for relocation of many
other waste streams.
Conduct research to increase the diversity of transportation
options and linkage between these options. This is more than
intermodalism. It includes new modes and methods of information
transfer.
Example of Potential Integration: Freight
As an example of how an integrated approach can be applied,
consider the following. While the nation's freight transportation
system has made improvements in engine efficiencies and aerodynamics.
the freight sector has not been able to match the strides made in
passenger transportation. manufacturing, and building energy
efficiency.
In large part the gains have been offset by an overall shift away
from transportation modes that use less energy per ton of freight
movement. From 1960 through 1993, the ton miles of freight moved by
rail increased by 193 percent compared to an increase of 309 percent
for intercity trucking (Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National
Transportation Statistics, 1993). Since it takes 2.946 BTUs to move a
ton mile by truck versus 344 BTUs by rail. the overall freight system
efficiency is heavily dependent on the share of freight for each mode.
The nation's transportation system has not begun to exploit the
benefits that can be achieved by technologies that better coordinate
transportation modes. Even within specific modes. there are significant
opportunities for greater efficiencies through improved information
systems, lightweight materials, and better engines. Diesel engines.
which are the primary power source for rail, trucking, and busses, are
significant contributors to emissions.
An integrated approach would establish the measures and tools that
would allow all modes to be developed as part of a system. In addition,
commodity flow data would be used to identify areas where high payoffs
could be obtained from mode shifting or automation technologies.
Needed Actions
If progress is to be made in answering the Grand Challenge of
sustainable transportation. action is required in the following areas:
Utilization of the National Laboratory System he all Federal
agencies involved in the nation's transportation system--This means
developing new policies that can allow sister Federal agencies such
as the US DOT, the U.S. Department of Energy. the U.S. Department
of Defense. and the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate
research at the National Laboratories.
Creation of regional transportation research partnerships that
strengthen the connection between the National Laboratories and the
real needs of the nation's transportation system--State and local
transportation agencies would play a lead role in these
partnerships and the laboratories would serve as an important new
resource for developing local solutions that address the national
issues.
Congressional and executive branch support for developing a
sustainable and dramatically improved transportation system--Such
support would only arise from a recognition that the existing
transportation system and its expected evolution will not
effectively compete in global markets in the 21st century.
Effective involvement of the science base--The National Laboratory
System must be given a clear mission and mandate to represent the
public interest in basic research. This mission should be defined
to compliment the skills of the university and private-sector
elements of the nation's science base.
______
The Role of the National Laboratories in Ensuring Transportation Safety
adrian tentner argonne national laboratory
Introduction
Ensuring the safety of our national transportation system has
always been one of the most important missions of the U.S. Department
of Transportation (US DOT). Considerable resources have been allocated
both by the US DOT and private industry for safety research and the
development of ever safer vehicles and roads. This sustained emphasis
on transportation safety and the cooperation of public agencies and
private industry has resulted in the United States having one of the
safest transportation systems in the world. But inexorable growth in
traffic constantly challenges the infrastructure capacity, and new
solutions relying on advanced technologies are needed to maintain and
enhance the efficiency of our transportation system. The trend toward
increased transportation reliance on information technologies and
system integration applies to all modes of transportation. The US DOT's
plan for an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), for example, has
been developed to provide solutions to some of our surface
transportation problems by combining advanced technologies with
traditional transportation systems. With the advent of transportation
systems relying on advanced technologies, new opportunities and
challenges in ensuring and enhancing the safety of our national
transportation system stand before us. The convergence of advanced
sensors, communications, and computing technologies with traditional
transportation systems promises to create an advanced transportation
system that will not only reduce traffic congestion and associated
negative environmental impacts, fuel consumption, and travel times, but
will also reduce the number of accidents that continue to occur on our
roadways. At the same time, reliance on many new technologies and
components will require additional safety research and analysis to
avoid or minimize new potential risks. The close interaction between
vehicles and infrastructure through wireless communications. for
example, will result in a more tightly connected transportation system,
in which a component failure could have greater adverse consequences
than in today's system. The planning and design of our future
transportation system should therefore involve, at an early stage, an
evaluation of the risks associated with the system. Through the early
identification of the primary sources of risk, the opportunity exists
to develop cost-effective approaches to avoid or minimize the risk of
adverse consequences before system development and deployment.
The safety analysis of an integrated national transportation system
is a challenging task, requiring considerable technical expertise and
resources. The National Laboratories have successfully fed the safety
analysis and research in the development of other complex technological
systems of national interest, such as advanced weapons systems, naval
submarines and nuclear reactors. Today the National Laboratories can
serve as a valuable resource to US DOT and to the Nation in the
development and implementation of an integrated safety analysis plan
that will coordinate the transportation safety research activities of
the industry, universities, and laboratories as we pursue the
development and deployment of advanced transportation systems in the
United States.
Background
The trend toward increased reliance of our transportation system on
advanced technologies. stimulated by the national ITS Program, is
likely to continue and accelerate as we approach the next millennium.
This trend provides new opportunities for increasing the transportation
system safety by assisting drivers in making better informed decisions.
expanding the role of automatic control systems in accident prevention,
optimizing the management of roadway systems. and providing faster help
in emergencies through improved communication between the vehicles and
control centers. Work on many related demonstration projects is
currently underway' under ITS DOT's leadership. with active
participation from industry. universities, and National Laboratories.
The National Laboratories provide a wealth of advanced technologies,
including sensors, computing, communications. and control technologies
that can play an important role in increasing the safety and
reliability of our future transportation system.
At the same time, the growing interdependency between the vehicles
and the roadway infrastructure. and the increasing reliance on advanced
technologies are combining to create a new challenge in ensuring the
safety of the emerging transportation system. Safety improvements in
this system will depend upon the accuracy and timeliness of data and
communications and upon the proper functioning of control systems. In
addition to the usual safety issues encountered in transportation,
issues of safety? correctness. security. and fault tolerance of system
components (software and hardware) become important when automatic
digital control systems are used.
Where there is greater reliance on advanced technologies, there is
also potential for new types of adverse consequences in terms of
vehicle accidents, misrouting of vehicles. or increased travel times. A
software error or hardware failure in a vehicle control system. for
example, could have more serious consequences in an Automated Highway
System than in today's transportation system.
To be acceptable to the public. any change in transportation system
technology must present a very low probability of causing conditions
worse than would apply without the change. Planning and design of a new
transportation system should therefore involve, early in the design
process, an evaluation of the risks associated with the proposed
system. Through early identification of the primary sources of risk,
the opportunity exists to incorporate cost-effective improvements that
eliminate or minimize the risk of adverse consequences before the
system design is completed. These improvements may be in hardware and
software component specifications. hardware and software design
features, operation or maintenance procedures. personnel training,
contingency planning. means of protecting the system from external
threats' etc. Fail-safe features should be incorporated at key points
of vulnerability, which a proper hazard evaluation would identify.
The National Laboratories have experience addressing the safety of
large-scale, safety-critical, complex control systems for nuclear
reactors. weapons systems, and robots used in weapons production and in
decontamination and decommissioning. Moreover, the National
Laboratories have long conducted research in computer science and in
modeling and simulation of complex systems. and they have developed
tools such as automated reasoning systems and program transformation
systems that can be used for the development of reliable software for
safety-critical applications. Several specific areas of expertise
available at the National Laboratories that could contribute directly
to the safety of our future transportation system are listed below.
Hazards Analysis and Risk Assessment
The National Laboratories have experience in hazards analysis of
complex systems involving hardware, personnel, and procedures. In
addition, the National Laboratories have capabilities to perform
computerized fault tree and event tree analyses, including
quantification of the frequency of key system failures, common cause
analyses, and human reliability analyses These techniques have been
used in the design of nuclear reactors and in the assessment of the
risk and reliability effects of plant modifications. equipment aging.
procedure changes. and changes in technical specifications. Risk
assessments estimate the probability of failure of a system and
determine the most likely contributors to that failure. and they may be
used to guide the system design with regard to safety-related features.
Such methods have been applied at the National Laboratories in the
design phase of systems to evaluate the effectiveness of various design
options in reducing the risk of accidents, and have also been used to
assess the safety of existing systems.
Computer Modeling and Simulation
Computer modeling and simulation have been used extensively at the
National Laboratories to analyze the behavior of complex systems and to
explore the effects of alternative designs on system safety and
efficiency. The use of computer simulation can greatly reduce the need
for costly and time consuming experiments The National Laboratories
have a wealth of experience in the use of advanced computational
methods. high-performance computing architectures. and computer
simulation environments that integrate hardware and software
components. They have developed computer models for the analysis of
large-scale transportation systems and simulation environments for the
detailed modeling of ITS that could be used in the safety analysis of
advanced transportation systems.
The risk assessment process discussed above requires not only an
estimation of the probability of events, but also an estimation of the
consequences of these events. This consequence analysis often requires
an understanding of the physical effects of accidents. which can be
obtained through a combination of experiments and computer simulation
of the physical events. The National Laboratories have considerable
experience in vehicle crash simulation and analysis of accident
consequences. They have cooperated with private industry in using
computer simulations for the analysis of crash response of various
automotive structural components. The use of similar analyses to assess
the safety of drivers and passengers and the efficiency of various
roadway safety barriers would be a natural extension of these
capabilities. The National Laboratories have extensive high-performance
computing and communications resources that can support such a large-
scale transportation safety modeling and simulation effort.
Modeling and simulation might also be used to estimate, in real
time, the severity of specific accidents and to guide the decisions of
the emergency response team. Several ITS operational tests already
include plans for making accident information, such as accelerometer
data, available to the emergency response agencies in real time. In the
future we can expect to see this data used in a real-time accident
computer simulation to provide the emergency response team with
estimates of accident consequences. The National Laboratories'
capability to integrate real-time data into process simulation codes
for predicting system response will be valuable in such a system.
System Safety Experiments
Large-scale experiments and demonstrations are an integral part of
the safety analysis of complex technological systems and are essential
in the validation of computer modeling and simulation results. The
National Laboratories have extensive experience in the design,
assembly, instrumentation, execution, and analysis of such experiments.
Experimental teams at the National Laboratories have worked closely
with computer simulation and analysis teams to minimize the number and
cost of experiments by using the results of computer simulations to
guide the design of experiments and to maximize the amount of relevant
information obtained from each experiment.
Reliable Software and Fault-tolerant Hardware
In the area of software development, the use of good software
development practices and tools can provide assistance in producing
correct software; but only the use of Formal Methods, which prove
mathematically that a program correctly implements the specified
system, can provide assurance that the program is correct.
The National Laboratories are in a position to undertake
considerable research in developing practical Formal Methods for use in
ITS control systems. They have developed program transformation systems
and automated reasoning systems, which can be used to help produce
correct software from specifications economically. Further whorl; needs
to be conducted to develop and demonstrate techniques for applying
these systems to digital control systems. Several National Laboratories
are currently working jointly on a High-Integrity Software project to
apply these techniques to such systems.
Software security is also an important issue that needs to be
investigated in conjunction with safety. For example, if centralized
control. or even traffic density information, is provided to vehicles,
subversion of the communication software could be used to direct
commercial vehicles to take an out-of-the-way route. where they might
be attacked and robbed. An important aspect of software security is to
prove that a program does not have certain properties (such as a ``back
door'') that permits someone to take over control of the software.
Almost no research has been done in this area, and the National
Laboratories, particularly using their background in automated
reasoning, could take the lead in performing such research.
The development of fault-tolerant hardware, such as multiprocessor
fault-tolerant computers, is another area of expertise available at the
National Laboratories that, combined with reliable software, can play
an important role in increasing the safety and reliability of advanced
transportation systems.
System Control and Accident Management
The National Laboratories have accumulated considerable expertise
in the areas of automated system monitoring, system malfunction
diagnosis, and recommendation of system control alternatives in order
to minimize the effects of malfunctions or accidents. Artificial
intelligence technologies, including expert systems and neural
networks, have been successfully applied to malfunction diagnosis and
accident management for electrical power plants and other complex
technological systems. The early diagnosis of sensor or system
malfunction and the recommendation of system management alternatives
will be an important element in ensuring the safety of an ITS that
could utilize the advanced computing and analysis methodologies
developed by the National Laboratories.
Operational Readiness Review
An important element of system safety is the assurance that the
system (comprised of hardware. software, personnel, and procedures) is
fully ready prior to deployment or implementation. Applying formalized
operational readiness review methods can greatly help to reduce the
potential for hazards caused by faulty system operation that result
from failure to recognize that certain components of the system were
absent, incomplete, or inadequately integrated into the system. The
National Laboratories have considerable experience in utilizing such
methods to ascertain the operational readiness of a new process
facility involving complex arrays of newly designed hardware and
software, many new procedures, and personnel who may require
specialized training and qualification.
Conclusion
Ensuring the safety and reliability of the national transportation
system presents new challenges resulting from the continuous increase
in the number of travelers and volume of freight, the increasing
reliance on advanced technologies and complex components, and the
increasing interaction between various modes of transportation. A
tightly coupled transportation system, relying more and more on
advanced sensors, computing, and communication technologies, requires
additional research and analysis of system safety, to ensure that
transportation presents only very low risks to travelers and that fail-
safe features have been incorporated at key points of vulnerability.
The National Laboratories have considerable expertise and
experience in the safety analysis of complex technological systems such
as complex weapons systems, naval submarines, and nuclear reactors. The
National Laboratories have demonstrated a sustained interest in
transportation safety research and development in general, and ITS in
particular, by participating in national and regional advanced
transportation research activities and operational tests. They are
working closely with Federal and state transportation agencies,
industry, and universities in promoting the development and deployment
of ITS.
The combined analytical and experimental capabilities of the
National Laboratories represent a unique resource that can help ensure
the safety and reliability of our transportation system. This resource
could, and should, be used by the US DOT in the process of designing
and deploying increasingly safer transportation systems of the United
States.
Senator Kempthorne. I, too, want to salute Senator Moynihan
for his vision in the development of the first ISTEA.
Tremendous.
Mr. Chairman, when I speak to the director of the Idaho
Department of Transportation and my State legislators about
ISTEA, the first thing they want to know is if there will be
more funds available to support the new national highway
system.
They want to know if Congress is going to return more of
the gas tax dollars collected at the pumps to States to build
and maintain Federal highways.
They want to know if Congress will continue to recognize
and support the concept of a national highway program that
benefits all Americans, regardless if you live in a large urban
area or a sparsely populated rural western State.
They want to know if Congress will financially support
research for the development of new and more efficient modes of
travel, alternative fuels in vehicles.
These priorities are my priorities. That's why the
testimony of these witnesses today is so relevant.
We must return more tax dollars of the gas tax user fee
back to the States for use on long-deferred maintenance instead
of building up a balance in the trust fund that serves no
transportation purpose. We must structure the reauthorized
ISTEA so that it fulfills the objectives and goals of ISTEA,
while we streamline and improve the original program based on
its track record of performance.
We must never lose sight, however, of the intent and
purpose of the original Federal interstate highway system,
which was established more than 40 years ago.
We are one country with one national system of roadways
that people must be able to depend upon. We cannot allow the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or the
national highway system to become programs of have's and have-
not's, and winners and losers.
We must be innovative and creative, not only in developing
transportation technology for the future, but also in
developing creative ways to finance them.
We are at a critical crossroads of our Nation's
transportation future. We must seize it as an opportunity for
success, not let it slip away.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I'd like to submit for the record
a report entitled, ``Our National Laboratories in
Transportation Research.'' This is an excellent document which
was prepared to address the question: what is the role of our
national laboratories in transportation research?
We're very proud to have one of these laboratories, the
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory,
located in Idaho. I'm hopeful that members of this committee
will be able to review this very important document.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
At your recommendation, Senator Kempthorne, it's the
intention of the chair and the ranking member to hold a hearing
on this legislation. I believe we're going to do it in your
State, in Coeur d'Alene, ID, at a date to be determined.
Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate that
greatly.
Senator Reid. How about one in Searchlight, NV?
Senator Warner. Beg your pardon?
Senator Reid. How about holding one in Searchlight, NV?
Senator Warner. If you'll turn it on, we'll come.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. How about in Montana?
Senator Bond. And on the way back you can stop off in
Missouri.
[Laughter.]
Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, I have to object. The idea
of interstate highway system began in the 1939 World's Fair in
Flushing Meadows, NY, and I think Flushing Meadows is it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I remember it, and remember the GM exhibit.
Senator Moynihan. Futurama.
Senator Warner. Yes, sir.
Senator Moynihan. That's correct.
Senator Warner. In order of the ``early bird'' rule, we'll
shift to Mr. Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a real pleasure to join with you and members of this
committee as we work on what is a vitally important measure for
my State. To say that we have made progress is obviously the
first step, and I do join with the others in commending the
leaders of this committee, Senator Moynihan and others, who
have brought us to where we are today to make the United States
the most mobile society in the world and in history.
Frankly, we've gone from the horse and buggies on dirt
roads to the interstate systems that we know can carry such
heavy volumes of passengers and products.
To make the case briefly for the hearing in Missouri, I
would just note that Missouri has long been a leader in
transportation. In 1808, King's Highway from St. Louis to
Southeast, Missouri, was the first legally designated road west
of the Mississippi. In 1919, Missouri was the first State to
protect and earmark funds for highway purposes. In 1956,
Missouri became the first State to accept and begin
construction on the Dwight Eisenhower Interstate Highway
System, and the first stretch of interstate actually began work
on Interstate 70 in St. Charles.
These roads, these highways have been vitally important for
our State's growth, for convenience, and, most of all, for
safety of our people.
The 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
provided the road map for our vision to the future, and that is
easy access for every community of any size to a modern, safe
road; roads that connect into a grid in the national highway
system.
The steps that you have taken in this committee before I
even joined the committee--when I was merely an officious
inter-meddler--have enabled us to make tremendous strides in
transportation.
I would--I can assure Senator Kempthorne that the questions
he heard in Idaho about the return, how much money is going to
come back, how much money is going to be available for badly
needed roads in Idaho are exactly the same questions I hear in
Missouri.
I agree with the chairman, the ranking member, that it is
time that we put the trust back in trust fund.
People keep saying, ``What are you doing with the money?''
They think we're probably using it----
Senator Warner. We locked it up.
Senator Bond [continuing]. For our personal benefit. I
think that it is time that we get back.
We are working with the chairman of the full committee on
means to do that, and I certainly am proud to support your
efforts on STEP 21.
We have a long way to go to meet the challenges of the 21st
century, resolving congestion problems, continuing research and
development, recognizing the changing demographics, and looking
at the financing options that are available. These are going to
be important, as well.
We've heard from the chair of the subcommittee about the
importance of good highways for an economy in a globally
competitive situation, but I want to emphasize a fact that I
guess I've known before. It was just brought to my attention
recently that highway, road, and bridge accidents are the
leading cause of death of children under 18 in my State, and
good highways, good safe highway systems, roads, and bridges
are vitally important if we're going to assure that safety.
Highway authorization funding debates are always exciting.
There are some who have even talked about taking charitable
contributions to watch the activities in the highway debates.
That might be a good way to get some additional funding for
highways.
But funding formulas are serious business and we intend to
work to see the fair and objective Senators who have been
referred to before have an opportunity to work on some of the
wrinkles, the few remaining wrinkles in the existing ISTEA
which include the rate of return for certain of us who have had
the pleasure of giving as donor States and would like to work
with our colleagues to even up the playing field.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, the ranking members, and the
leaders on this committee who have brought us to the point
where we are today.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Thomas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall be brief.
I notice in here the purpose of this hearing is to receive
testimony, so I will----
Senator Warner. If you haven't been listening, I gave a
little testimony in the beginning.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. And I look forward to your strong support.
Senator Thomas. Yes, indeed, and now it's my turn for a
little testimony.
First I must, of course, recognize Senator Moynihan. I
wouldn't want to be the one who failed to do that, sir.
Let me just be very brief. I have a statement.
Forty-four percent of the roads in my State of Wyoming are
fair to poor, according to the highway assessment, so we have a
great deal to do. The Federal Government owns 50 percent of
Wyoming, and so a great many of the roads are on the Federal
establishment. Yellowstone Park has a deficiency, $250 million
worth of road funding they believe. They get $8 million a year
now. That doesn't work well.
The national highway system, of course, is very important
to a State like Wyoming, a bridge State where people go
through. We have not too many folks. We're a small town with
very long streets, and they're terribly important to us.
So I look forward to working with you. I'm delighted to be
on the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Thomas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Craig Thomas, U.S. Senator from the State of
Wyoming
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. It is
important that the subcommittee examine our country's transportation
infrastructure finding requirements because they are significant and we
should be doing more to meet them. In fact, 44 percent of the roads in
my State of Wyoming are in fair to poor condition. In addition, the
State's highway repair and maintenance needs total $50 million per
year, which is more than the State can address. Those figures do not
include Wyoming's infrastructure needs in the Federal lands highway
program. The Federal Government owns 50 percent of the land in my State
and those roads have substantial funding requirements as well.
I am also concerned about the infrastructure needs in our national
parks. I met recently with the Superintendent of Yellowstone National
Park and discovered that the majority of Yellowstone's road
structurally deficient. As one of the crown jewels of the national park
system and host of more than three million visitors annually, this
situation is unacceptable. In fact, the Park's 10-year plan includes
$250 million in road funding requirements. However, Yellowstone only
receives roughly $8 million annually to meet these needs. I certainly
hope this shortfall is an issue the committee will address during the
reauthorization of ISTEA.
I also am pleased today's hearing will focus on the national
economic benefits of the country's transportation infrastructure.
Wyoming is a ``bridge'' State; goods are transported from their source
across Wyoming, and to their final destination. A set of efficient and
well maintained roads are as important to the cities that export goods
across the country and around the world as they are to the people in
Wyoming. The former director of the Wyoming Department of
Transportation, Don Diller, said last year, ``On I-80 in Wyoming, more
than 50 percent of the traffic is trucks, and those trucks are not
serviced in Wyoming. The goods are not manufactured in Wyoming, and the
economy of Wyoming is not improved by their manufacture. The goods are
not delivered in Wyoming, but add to the economy of some other area.''
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you are holding this hearing so
the subcommittee can explore these important national issues. I look
forward to working with you to address some of these pressing national
needs.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, should we recognize Senator Reid? I realize
every now and then we ought to slip over here.
The lighthouse is on, the searchlight.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've sat through a couple of these authorization bills and
my friend from Missouri says that maybe we could get people to
pay. Well, I've watched Seinfeld and sat through these. There's
no comparison.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. I don't think we'd make much money.
Mr. Chairman, the dynamic flow of commerce and individuals
is continually subject to change. While our transportation
policies may not always be able to anticipate these changes,
they must be flexible enough to accommodate them.
All of us have varying opinions about the best way to meet
these changes. I believe there are some areas of common ground
that all of us can agree, as we establish the framework of
reauthorizing ISTEA.
Our transportation policies must recognize the importance
of providing adequate dollars for improvement and maintenance
of our infrastructure. The policy should not favor one region
over another. Funding formulas should provide States with
sufficient funding to meet the changing infrastructure needs
they face.
While some push for devolution, all of us agree that
Federal regulations have to recognize the need for greater
flexibility at the State level. Because we have a national
transportation policy, we must recognize there are often unique
interstate needs that otherwise would not be addressed but for
a Federal program. I think we started doing that, and I think
we did it quite well in the last bill that we passed.
I believe the unique regional perspectives, though, will
bring this issue ultimately to a coherent national policy.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a State that is 650 miles from
one corner to the other corner. It's a long way. We have in the
Las Vegas area 5,000 new people moving into that relatively
small area every month. We have tremendous infrastructure
problems.
Because funding formulas are based on old census data, it's
nearly impossible for States like Nevada to receive the proper
financing necessary to accommodate this growth.
I heard my friend from Wyoming say that his State is 50
percent Federal land. Ours is almost 90 percent Federal land,
and we have some unique problems because of that.
Between our interstates, you can fit the States of New
Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Delaware. That's just between our interstates.
We have a lot of territory to cover. That's because of all the
Federal land and because we're sparsely populated, even though,
Mr. Chairman, Nevada now is the most urban State in the Union--
more urban than New York, more urban than California, any State
in the Union. We have almost 90 percent of the people that live
in Reno and Las Vegas metropolitan areas.
We have some very unique problems.
Because the Federal Government owns about 90 percent of the
lands in Nevada, Nevada receives little or no taxes from these
lands but still must provide for intercontinental activity
across these areas. In order for all States to enjoy the
benefits of our economy, we must be able to build and maintain
these lines of commerce, and Federal land programs is a source
of much of the funding for these areas.
Nevada is a bridge State. Most of the traffic that comes
across Nevada highways is interstate traffic. We play an
important role in interstate commerce. But the need for
improving and maintaining these interstates arises out of the
damage caused by non-Nevada traffic.
It's difficult for me to explain to my constituents why
we're under-funding basic maintenance projects when we see
firsthand the infrastructure degradation caused by out-of-state
travel and out-of-state travelers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I'll just take a minute. I know that----
Senator Warner. Take your time, Senator.
Senator Reid [continuing]. There's almost unanimous
disagreement with me on this committee. I've tried it before.
But I'll tell you, we are going to have demonstration projects
in this bill. There's always everybody that stands up over here
and says, ``We're not going to have any demonstration
projects.'' We're going to wind up having them.
Bud Shuster is the chairman of the committee in the House.
He has demonstration projects. His members want demonstration
projects. They're going to wind up having demonstration
projects, just like the last bill we had.
I think that we should recognize that there are certain
areas of this country that we need to go outside the basic
formula. I think that we have the ability, as much as my State
director, to determine where there are some needs. So I just
say that we should be aware of that.
We are going to wind up in this bill with demonstration
projects.
I would also say a couple of members have already mentioned
that we need more money spent on infrastructure. I say let's
spend all the money that comes into the highway trust fund
then. And if people believe this, join with me in my
legislation.
I have a bill that has been introduced that says that we
should spend all of the highway trust fund money doing work for
surface transportation.
Finally, I'm concerned that we haven't consistently
articulated coherent national policy and we need to do that.
We're doing much better. I think this last bill we passed is
really a good one.
I'm troubled, though, sometimes by the budgetary gimmickry
being played with, as I've mentioned, with the highway trust
fund. We should get these highway trust fund moneys off budget.
Our Nation's infrastructure represents a lifeline that
fuels our economy. When we neglect to adequately provide for
the health of this lifeline, all of us suffer. Whether it's
unsafe and degraded roads or pollution caused from over-
congestion, all of us are affected. The price is not only
inconvenience of traversing a dilapidated infrastructure;
indeed, the real price is increased costs all of us pay for
goods and services because of the burdens placed on us because
of the steady flow of commerce.
It's similar, I guess, to a cholesterol buildup in the
arteries. Eventually we have a steep price to pay.
I also, Mr. Chairman, would like to recognize and pay
tribute, for lack of a better description, to Senator Moynihan.
I enjoyed very much 5 years ago working on the legislation. For
example, Senator Moynihan said in this committee that building
more roads isn't the answer, and a number of us said ``prove
it,'' and he did. There have been a number of articles that
have been written showing just because you have a lot of
traffic, building more roads isn't necessarily the way to
handle the problem.
I think that many of the things that we tried to do last
time we were unable to do, but I think we have to give some of
those theories which have now been developed with 5 more years
of research and development, I think we need to develop some of
them.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that even though our bill was a
good one, I think we can improve upon it by doing some unique
things like we tried to do in the last bill.
So thank you all very much. I look forward to working with
each of you in the coming months. It's not going to be easy, as
we all know.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator. Your statement I think
very forcefully brought home to us the unique qualities of your
State, and I mentioned in my opening statement that there is a
strong diversity here and we've got to recognize that. We do
have our differences, however, on the question of the
demonstration projects, and I think that what remains of the
highway trust fund should be a matter that remains on budget.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the State of
Nevada
Mr. Chairman, there is little doubt that the issues we will address
in today's hearing are issues that are of great interest to every
member of both bodies. Transportation represents a truly national
concern. All of us have a stake in ensuring that America's
transportation policies are coherent and efficient. More importantly,
all of us have a vested interest in ensuring that the goals of our
transportation policies are capable of being achieved.
This session of Congress will likely include extensive
consideration of not only how we finance our national infrastructure
but also what our transportation policies should aim for as we head
into the 21st century.
The dynamic flow of commerce and individuals is continually subject
to change. While our transportation policies may not always be able to
anticipate these changes, they must be flexible enough to accommodate
them. All of us have varying opinions about the best way to meet these
changes. However, I believe there are some areas of common ground that
all of us can agree on as we establish the framework for reauthorizing
the ISTEA.
Our transportation policies must recognize the importance
of providing adequate dollars for improvement and maintenance of our
infrastructure.
The policies should not favor one region over another, as
the steady flow of commerce across State lines is in the nation's best
interests.
Funding formulas should provide States with sufficient
funding to meet the changing infrastructure needs they face.
While some push for devolution, all of us agree that
Federal regulations have to recognize the need for greater flexibility
at the State level.
Because we have a national transportation policy we must
recognize that there are often unique interstate needs that otherwise
would not be addressed but for a Federal program.
I believe the unique regional perspectives all of us bring to this
issue will ultimately allow us to forge a coherent national policy. I
represent a State that just happens to be the fastest growing State in
the country. We have 5,000 new people moving into the State of Nevada
every month. Because funding formulas are based on old census data it
is nearly impossible for Nevada to receive the proper financing
necessary to accommodate is growth.
Nevada is also unique in that 87 percent of the land is owned by
the Federal Government. To appreciate how much land this is consider
the fact that in the areas in between our interstates, you can fit the
States of New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Vermont, New Hampshire and Delaware. That's a lot of Federal land.
Because the Federal Government owns these lands the State of Nevada
receives little or no taxes from these lands but must still provide for
intercontinental activity across these areas. In order for all States
to enjoy the benefits of our economy we must be able to build and
maintain these lines of commerce, and Federal lands programs is the
source of much of the funding for these areas.
Nevada is also a bridge State. Much of the traffic is interstate
traffic. We play an important role in interstate commerce. But the need
for improving and maintaining these interstates arises out of the
damage caused largely by non-Nevada traffic. It is difficult for me to
explain to my constituents why we are underfunding basic maintenance
projects when they see firsthand the infrastructure degradation caused
by out-of-State traffic traveling on our interstates.
Finally, I am concerned that while we have consistently articulated
a coherent national transportation policy, we have failed to provide
the adequate funding necessary to support these policies. Specifically,
I am troubled by the current budgetary gimmickry being played with the
Highway Trust Funds. The games being played with the highway trust fund
are penny-wise and pound-foolish. I have introduced legislation to take
the highway trust fund off budget and believe this action is necessary
if we are serious about meeting our transportation objectives.
Our nation's infrastructure represents the lifeline that fuels our
economy. When we neglect to adequately provide for the health of this
lifeline all of us suffer. Whether its unsafe and degraded roads or
pollution caused from over congestion, all of us are affected. The
price is not only the inconvenience of traversing a dilapidated
infrastructure. Indeed, the real price is the increased costs all of us
pay for goods and services because of the burdens placed on a steady
flow of the stream of commerce. It's similar to cholesterol buildup in
the arteries--eventually there is a steep price to pay.
I look forward to being an active participant in rewriting a bill
that will allow us to continue into the next millennium as the world's
foremost economic powerhouse. By providing coherent, efficient and
flexible transportation policies we will surely rise to the great
challenges of the 21st century.
I thank our distinguished colleague for being very patient.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit a
statement for the record.
Senator Warner. You go right ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. I'll just make a couple comments.
Certainly I pay tribute to Senator Moynihan, who has
brought us to the point where we are today and had the vision
and foresight to look beyond our old scope, and I have been
here just long enough to remember what that was, having spent 8
years in the House of Representatives serving on the Public
Works and Transportation Committee.
I look around and I see that we have broadened our scope.
Not many people are aware that we in Oklahoma are navigable. We
actually have--Tulsa, OK, is the most inland port. I know that
Mr. Card knows that and a few others maybe are aware of that,
too. So we have a diverse transportation currently and
transportation potential.
In looking at the committee up here, of the nine members
that are sitting before you today, six of us are donor States,
and I think this will become a more lively debate.
I introduced legislation in the past, both in the House and
in the Senate, to put some bench mark, maybe 80 percent, beyond
which a State could go ahead and have some money and make the
decision on a local basis as to whether it would go into mass
transit or go into roads.
So I see that there should be differences of opinion, and
I'd say to my good friend, Senator Reid, I fought that battle
against the demonstration projects for 8 years, lost it every
year to Bud Shuster, and I'm not optimistic about winning it
this time, but I'll still try.
So I'm looking forward to a very active and beneficial
debate on this most significant piece of legislation.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today. As we begin
the important process of reauthorizing ISTEA, the legislation that
represents the most sweeping change to this nation's transportation
policy, we need to take the time to examine current transportation
trends across the United States.
The fact is that people are becoming more mobile every year. City
limits are expanding and the population in the Midwest and beyond are
booming. With urban sprawl, rural travel becomes urban travel and
highway and transit traffic increase as people move to and from work.
The passage of NAFTA and the globalization of the economy augmented
international trade as well, bringing with it an increase in movement
of foreign goods to all corners of the country. These goods travel on
our highways, waterways, and railroads.
Oklahoma maintains all modes of transportation. Just north of
Tulsa, is the Port of Catoosa, an inland international seaport. Barges,
with loads of cargo ranging from metal products and building materials
to wheat, use this port as a gateway to communities further inland. In
the heart of America, Oklahoma's rails, highways and air space are
constantly in use.
But the interstate transportation system is not just about
Oklahoma. It is about the Nation being interconnected as a unit for the
free flow of domestic as well as foreign commodities and people. That
means a truck filled with Oklahoma peanuts can travel quickly and
efficiently to a customer in Maine.
The entire transportation industry is estimated to comprise 17
percent of the United States economy. If for no other reason, we need
to make sure that our programs are workable, efficient and
intelligently funded. Transportation has shaped what our nation is
today, and to continue to operate successfully, the system needs to be
maintained.
I was a member of the House Public Works and Transportation
Committee back when ISTEA was crafted in 1991. I think we did an
admirable job. However, the changing needs of our nation and its
transportation system need to be reflected in updated formulas and
programs. Last year I introduced a bill that would guarantee an 80
percent return on a State's transit funds. Oklahoma, like other States,
is classified as a donor State in both highways and transit dollars. As
we move through this reauthorization process, I will look forward to
reworking the formulas established under ISTEA to make sure that donor
States see a fair return on their contributions to the Highway Trust
Fund and Mass Transit Account. Calculations used in the past served our
nation for the time, but population growth and movement warrants a new
approach.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on just how the
population has shifted and their recommendations on ways to meet the
new demands as a result.
Senator Warner. Senator Moynihan, do you wish to have a
moment or two rebuttal?
[Laughter.]
Senator Moynihan. I think Senator Inhofe has been there
with Bud Shuster, and so have I, sir. I'm happy that this year
it will be you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Thanks.
Well, we'd better get started here. We're having too good a
time.
Mr. Secretary, would you join us, please?
We have very good attendance. We're anxious to get the
perspectives of the Department, and we recognize that we're
departing from--should we say some tradition of having the
Secretary first? But we value you as a professional and what
you've done. You've made very important contributions to
transportation in your public service.
You just proceed. We'll place into the record your entire
statement, and perhaps you can summarize it so that we can move
to questions early on.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Downey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will summarize
my statement. My longer statement for the record does deal with
the three issues that were named as the topics of this hearing
in detail: infrastructure needs, transportation benefits to the
economy, and trends in transportation. I'll just try to
highlight some of the issues.
This week opens the official debate on ISTEA
reauthorization. This will be a major challenge, and we look
forward to working with this committee and with all of the
Congress in renewing this important legislation.
Incoming Secretary Rodney Slater and I, our administrators
from the various modal administrations within DOT, are ready to
work with you. We'll present our proposal for reauthorization
in a few weeks, and we look forward to the debate on it and to
other proposals, as well.
ISTEA authorized $157 billion for fiscal years 1992 through
1997, and we certainly should ask what did we get for all that
money. That investment is producing results, even with many of
the projects still under construction. But funding was not the
only benefit from the ISTEA legislation. It changed the nature
of the transportation planning process. It introduced new ideas
with respect to intermodalism and technology. It gave us new
financial choices. And we believe it strengthened the
partnerships among State and local governments and with the
private sector.
The result is that the transportation system is getting
better. The physical condition of bridges and pavement which
had been deteriorating has stabilized across the Nation, and in
many areas actually improved--especially on the National
Highway System.
Peak hour congestion in our largest urban areas has
stabilized, and the rate of highway fatalities has declined
since the enactment of ISTEA, although not as much as we would
like to see. It is now steady at 1.7 fatalities per 100 million
miles traveled.
The conditions and performance of our transit systems has
also improved.
These trends suggest that we are keeping pace with the
maintenance requirements of our infrastructure system. We have
stopped the tide of accelerating deterioration. We are seeing
positive results from our safety programs, and we have begun to
tie our system together through ISTEA's emphasis on
intermodalism.
Despite this progress, though, we are still confronted with
an infrastructure deficit. Over the long term, to maintain
current conditions on our highway and transit systems will
require significantly higher funding from all sources--Federal,
State, and local governments. That's why over the last 4 years
we have stepped up the level of infrastructure investment.
We've averaged $25.5 billion a year for infrastructure in the
last 4 years. That's 20 percent higher than the preceding 4
years. We've committed in the 1998 budget to continue that
level at $25.6 billion, slightly above the average of the past
4 years.
Under the Administration's plan, $24 billion would be
available next year for highway and transit capital, the core
ISTEA programs, and in our proposed legislation we would
request authorization levels somewhat above the 1998 proposal
in hopes that economic conditions and budgetary progress would
enable us to support higher obligation levels in future budget
and appropriation actions.
But we also recognize that Federal grant funding cannot
meet all of our infrastructure needs. We need to continue
working with you to develop new financial tools such as the
State infrastructure banks that we began 2 years ago and
innovative financing techniques to attract new sources of
funding from the private sector.
We need to increase the use of technology to make our
current infrastructure more efficient and less costly.
The priority given to transportation investment reflects
the vital role that transportation plays in assuring America's
economic prosperity and quality of life. Senator Baucus spoke
of the significant contribution to the gross domestic product
of transportation. That's one measure of its importance.
Another is the fact that nearly 10 million Americans are
employed in industries that provide transportation-related
goods and services, and these are good jobs with the highest
wage level of any sector in the economy.
Our Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a creature of
ISTEA, has found that, as a result of greater efficiency in the
transport systems, Americans now enjoy higher levels of
transportation output for the same level of input, an overall
improvement in productivity.
Another recently completed DOT-sponsored study has clearly
documented the substantial economic returns on highway
investments. Senator Moynihan referred to this study, showing
that the private sector return on investment from improved
transportation is a substantial one, even higher than the
investment earned by the private sector on their own
investments.
We find, not surprisingly, not all spending is the same.
Investments in transportation infrastructure pay long-term
dividends. If the Nation's economy is going to grow in the
years ahead, we cannot short-change ourselves and under-invest
in essential infrastructure.
But to make the right investment choices, we need to take
account of the factors affecting our transportation system.
This country is facing major changes in personal and business
travel, new patterns of freight shipments, regional population
shifts, fast-growing elderly populations, and teenage
populations, and an explosion of information technology. All of
this will change the nature of demand and use of the
transportation system, and we need to respond to that.
One of the most significant trends in recent years has been
simply the increase in travel. U.S. passenger travel has nearly
doubled in the last 25 years. Much of that has been in the
highway modes, but we also have stabilized public transit. It
is no longer declining, and elements of it, like commuter rail
and light rail, have increased appreciably.
Many different factors have contributed to the growth in
travel: demographic and labor force changes, income growth, and
changes in the makeup of metropolitan areas. Much more of the
travel in America is suburb-to-suburb, less of it is suburb-to-
downtown.
Our population trend changes will also affect the demand
for transportation services.
The number of Americans over age 65--today there are 33.5
million such Americans. That number could increase by over 50
percent, and that will require public transportation and
highways to be more user friendly with better signing, facility
modifications, and other improvements.
With respect to freight movement, again there has been
substantial change. To gain better knowledge of that, our
Bureau of Transportation Statistics worked with the Census
Bureau to re-initiate a commodity flow survey so we have
measures of what is going on in the freight system. We find
that the system continues to be dominated by trucks, especially
for short-distance movements. We find that flexible forms of
transportation such as express and inter-modal movements are
increasingly important.
While there are economic and social benefits to increased
travel and freight transport, at the same time there are costs
in terms of safety and environmental harm, and these challenges
must be met in future legislation.
Transportation injuries and deaths still impose a
substantial drain on the economy.
Taking into account the current level of Federal and State
highway programs, projected increases in miles traveled would
mean that the number of Americans killed in crashes would
increase. A conservative estimate projects up to 51,000 deaths
a year by 2005, compared to about 41,500 last year. We should
not allow this to happen. We need to reduce the fatality rate.
We need to reduce the actual number of traffic fatalities.
The key to much of this is improving our behavior on
highways: increasing safety belt usage, increasing child safety
seat use, reducing drunk driving, and increasing compliance
with the established traffic laws.
We will propose in our legislation tools to achieve these
goals. We also will propose changes with respect to
environmental protection so that we can strengthen our efforts
to mitigate the effects of transportation on the economy.
We cannot achieve these key national priorities linking
Americans to jobs, health care, and education without efficient
transportation, and the challenges we face in the areas of
safety and the environment do not stop at State borders.
ISTEA was visionary legislation, and its central elements--
intermodalism, flexibility, inter-governmental partnership, a
strong commitment to safety, environmental protection, enhanced
planning, and strategic investment--should be preserved and
should be the foundation for the next surface transportation
reauthorization.
With those tools, we should be able to respond to these
trends and the challenges, and, in partnership with our
partners in the States and in local communities and with the
private sector, I believe that we at the Federal level can play
a leadership role in meeting these challenges.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement, and I would be
pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
You're familiar with this document?
Mr. Downey. Yes.
Senator Warner. I'm just going to read a little bit.
``In 1994, an estimated $49.9 billion in highway and bridge
capital investment would have been required from all sources
just to maintain the 1993 conditions and performance.''
Now, I would hope that your Department--and I would like to
request the Secretary, in his testimony, to provide this
committee with some charts showing one curve, the amount that's
needed to maintain the current system in a safe and effective
and economic manner, just maintenance. Then, if we are to
increase the funding, what funding increase would be required
to enhance this system?
For example, this goes on to say, ``An estimated 68.2
billion would be required in 1994 to provide a higher quality
of service on highway and bridge systems.''
Do you want to take a look at that? It's the second
paragraph there.
Now, we need to show to the American public just exactly
what's going on. I'm not trying to fault the Administration or
fault the Congress. I just want to get the facts out there.
We're the trustees. They're paying the dollars in.
In my judgment, this curve is going to show a downward
trend as to what's needed just to maintain the current system,
when, in fact, much of the public thinks that the payment of
this significant tax is improving what they already have.
So could you convey that to the Secretary?
Mr. Downey. Mr. Chairman, I will. And, in fact----
Senator Warner. Would you like to comment a little bit on
it?
Mr. Downey. Yes, sir. The Conditions and Performance Report
is a departmental document. It's an analysis we do at the
request of the Congress every 2 years. We will be submitting a
new one later in 1997.
I think it sets----
Senator Warner. I think it's due out in about April or May.
Mr. Downey. Yes.
Senator Warner. But we're going to be well along in our
legislative work on this particular piece of legislation.
Mr. Downey. I think its findings will be similar to the
1995 findings. It will indicate how additional resources will
be needed over time to maintain the performance of the system.
It will also point to the progress that we have made. We
believe it will show that with some good choices that have been
put in place, we are holding our own, but that we could, in
fact, with that additional investment, achieve good returns to
the economy. I think that's the conclusion of the combination
of the studies that we have done.
And the Conditions and Performance Report suggests that
greater investment--Federal, State, local, and private--would
pay returns to the economy.
Senator Warner. Well, you're not the one to--you've got to
salute and march off with your budget figures from OMB, as
approved by the President, so we're not going to get into that
debate today.
But you're very articulate. You say we do need more. You
recognize that. The other professionals recognize it. I think
everyone around this dais recognizes that. So who, when, and
where is going to make the decision to begin to turn this curve
around?
Well, I'm suggesting it has to be made here by the
Congress, and we put in place steps to do it.
Let's talk about--to what extent can you--and if you're not
able to deal with this, do ask the Secretary to include it in
his--where are our major trading partners in terms of their
transportation system and their level of expenditures?
We need a comparison in this country, because we're in a
day-by-day struggle around the world to remain competitive and
to make our economy strong.
Mr. Downey. On that point, I would--we'd be pleased to
provide that kind of an analysis. I think the point it will
make is that our trading partners are investing heavily in an
effort to catch up.
Senator Warner. Catch up.
Mr. Downey. And they recognize that they need to catch up.
One study that I'm familiar with showed that in India,
where wage levels are such that their product could be very
competitive, they suffer a 30 percent disadvantage immediately
after the product leaves the factory because their
transportation system is so far below the efficiency of ours.
So the efficiency of our transportation system, as it
exists today, is clearly a competitive advantage for this
country, and other countries are investing heavily because they
want to catch up.
Senator Warner. My last question--here in the metropolitan
area in Washington, our analysis shows that many, many people
are spending up to an hour behind the wheel in transportation.
This, of course, contributes to gridlock, but it's a loss of
their time from other productive activities--namely, their job
or their family, both equally important.
Do you foresee that the Administration will be forthcoming
in some solutions as to how to rework that problem in this
bill, legislative solutions?
Mr. Downey. I think there will be proposals, both proposals
that are nationwide in scope but can also be put to work in
this region, things like intelligent transportation systems,
improvements in traffic flow. We will also have proposals for
some of the specific needs of this region such as the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge, and our continued commitment to the METRO
system.
Senator Warner. Yes. I hadn't intended to get into the
bridge situation. That's very important to this Senator, and it
seems to me another day and another time to get into that.
My distinguished colleague.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Downey, you said other countries are trying to catch up
with us, and I think to some degree that's true. At least it's
my understanding that Japan spends about four times what we do
as a percentage of gross domestic product, and I suspect that
maybe some European countries spend more as a percent of their
GDP than we.
But we shouldn't help them catch up by, at best, running in
place, or perhaps even spending less.
As I look at the Administration's budget, the highway
budget, highway portion only, looks like the request is $500
million less than currently we're spending.
Are we going to help other countries catch up?
Mr. Downey. We certainly don't want to help them catch up.
I think our budget for 1998 should sustain the level of
investment we're currently putting in place, and hopefully
maintain the performance of the system. But over time we are
going to need to invest more.
We believe some of the aspects of our budget, especially
the Federal credit program and the State Infrastructure Bank
program, will allow us to make some of those strategic
investments in major new projects that will, in fact, sustain
our advantage against these other countries.
Senator Baucus. When will the Administration submit a bill?
Mr. Downey. I hope within a few weeks.
Senator Baucus. As you know, we have another hearing, I
think the 26th of this month.
Mr. Downey. Yes.
Senator Baucus. It doesn't sound like your bill will be
ready by that hearing.
Mr. Downey. We know of the date of that hearing and
certainly are working toward being ready.
Senator Baucus. Yes. Could you just convey back to OMB, or
whomever, we've got to get cracking here.
Mr. Downey. I will do that.
Senator Baucus. OK. I appreciate that.
Your comments on proposed turn-back legislation submitted
by some Members of Congress--I'm very much opposed to that. I
think it undermines the Federal nature of the program. I think
it's very short-sighted. I don't think we should fall victim to
the excessive States' rights claims. I mean, it sounds good.
It's good for home consumption. But, frankly, I think it's a
disservice to the national character of the program.
Your thoughts on the economic or the safety or mobility
implications of that legislation if it were to be enacted?
Mr. Downey. Certainly it would be a major shift from what
has worked well over the last 50 to 75 years, which has been a
national system of partnership between the Federal Government
and the State governments. We are concerned about the concept
of breaking that system apart with the turn-back proposal.
Were that to fall into place, there's no assurance that at
the State levels the taxes would be reenacted at their present
amounts.
There's no assurance that in a State-only approach to our
transportation system we would get the linkages that we need,
the common safety standards that we need, or the applications
of technology that, in fact, have made our system better.
We gave some thought to this concept in putting the
Administration's proposal together before we decided on the
course we have in place. We said, ``Should we consider a turn-
back? Should we consider other options?''
Our endorsement of the present approach, with some
modifications to make it work better is, in our view, the best
way to go.
Senator Baucus. So you rejected the turn-back?
Mr. Downey. We rejected turn-back.
Senator Baucus. Could you give the committee some more
reasons why you rejected it?
Mr. Downey. There are safety considerations.
Senator Baucus. What are some of them?
Mr. Downey. The considerations of making the system
consistent across the country in areas of signage, in areas of
civil design, and in some of the incentives that we can put in
place.
We are not supportive of mandates on some of the safety
issues, but we think there are incentives that can be put in
place to assure that people who drive in this country, wherever
they might be, will have the same degree of protection and
concern for drunk drivers, for safety belt use, and the like.
I think there is a lot to be gained from a national system.
This is a single society. People have mobility. People learn to
drive in one State but move to another. People travel. I think
a single system from both a safety standpoint and an economic
standpoint is critical to the Nation.
Senator Baucus. I appreciate that.
I'm a little concerned, as I think some are, that the
President's budget submission generally is just sort of a
maintenance budget. It's clear we have to work to balance the
budget, but it just seems to me that, as we drive toward a
balanced budget, we have to still be more creative to look for
ways to meet our Nation's needs, and whether that's additional
revenue, tax revenue, or whether it's additional private
financing techniques, or whatever it is, I think we're being a
little bit pedestrian in our approach to infrastructure needs
in this country, generally--particularly surface
transportation.
I just urge you and others in the Administration, as I'm
urging all of us here in the Congress, to be a little more
creative than I think we are being as we attempt to grapple
with all of these.
Mr. Downey. Certainly, as we work on this bill that's
something we would be looking to explore--to see if there
aren't new ways to do it.
I was with the President last week when he met with the
Governors, who raised this same issue, and his message to them
was, ``I want to work with you on all of the priorities in the
budget, and the outcome will be what makes sense for the
American people.''
Senator Baucus. I think it's clear we want to work
together, but the challenge or the charge here is to be more
aggressive, more creative to come up with something more
quickly.
Senator Warner. Senator Baucus, thank you very much.
Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Downey, I'm kind of new at this. You had 24 pages in
your statement. Here's part of it: ``We cannot achieve other
key national priorities linking Americans to jobs, health care,
without efficient transportation. The challenge we face is in
safety, environment. Do not stop. Significant challenge is
ahead.''
We all agree with that, but if you were to say in four
things what is it we ought to be doing this year, what would
they be? I'm afraid I don't quite understand, from all of your
statement, what it is you think are the priorities.
Mr. Downey. From the standpoint of legislation, the key
priority is reenactment of the Federal surface transportation
program, a piece of legislation that has been known as ISTEA
over the last 6 years, whatever it will be known as in the
future.
I think it's important to reenact that, and to do it in a
timely way.
Senator Thomas. What does that mean?
Mr. Downey. To hopefully have it in place by the 1st of
October.
Senator Thomas. OK.
Mr. Downey. The States need that lead time to put their
programs in place, and we'd like to get started on implementing
it.
Within that piece of legislation I think it's important to
create a climate in which good investment decisions can be made
so that State and local areas can pick the projects that are
most important and get on with them, connect them up in a
useful way.
That's one of the reasons why we supported the National
Highway System legislation, because it will concentrate a
significant portion of the dollars on a small portion of the
system that carries the majority of inter-city and local
traffic, particularly commercial traffic.
The third priority, which really is first in terms of
importance, is safety. The legislation and the way we implement
the program really has to focus on safety. We are very
concerned by the fact that the rate of traffic fatalities,
while it had declined substantially over the past decade to 15
years, has now leveled out. If we don't do something about that
rate, increasing population and increasing travel will mean an
upturn, a significant upturn in traffic deaths.
Senator Thomas. So what's the solution to that?
Mr. Downey. Solution is construction, better vehicles, and
behavior-related measures such as increasing the rate of safety
belt use, and decreasing the rate of drunk driving.
Senator Thomas. So your main interest would be in
construction? You're not really in charge of safety belts, are
you?
Mr. Downey. Through our programs, we have had a role in
increasing use of safety belts, and we would propose continuing
that, working through the States on both legislation and
enforcement, to ensure that the public travels safely.
And then the last piece is technology. We'd like to invest
in new technology to make these transportation systems work
better.
Senator Thomas. You indicated in one of the reports, I
think on page 3, 50 billion would have been required at all
levels of government to maintain current conditions--only 70
percent of what was needed in 1993. Is that still the case?
Mr. Downey. We have--as I said to the chairman, we have not
completed the 1997 report, but I think it will be in that
range. It may be a little--it should be a little bit better, at
least at the Federal level, and we hope that State and local
governments have followed through with some additional
investment.
We are still probably below that level----
Senator Thomas. So generally you're still saying----
Mr. Downey [continuing]. To maintain systems----
Senator Thomas [continuing]. The combined resources would
only provide 70 or 75 percent?
Mr. Downey. From 70 to maybe 75 percent of the long-term
need.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Downey. If we continue at that pace, we will see
physical deterioration, and, as traffic grows, performance
would degrade. You would have additional congestion and delays
and inadequate performance.
Senator Thomas. Finally, would you comment on what would be
your solution to the public land roads like national parks,
specifically? How do you think we should deal with those
backlogs?
Mr. Downey. We will propose in our legislation continued
Federal funding for the national park roads and other Federal
land roads. The Federal Highway Administration carries out
those programs. We think they should continue to play an active
role.
Senator Thomas. Would you care to guess, if the others are
75 percent funded, how would you say the national parks are?
Mr. Downey. I would like to provide that for the record.
Senator Thomas. Please.
Mr. Downey. I think we do have an analysis of that.
Senator Thomas. All right, sir. Thank you.
Senator Warner. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Downey, I'm the chairman of the subcommittee called
Clean Air, Property Rights, Wetlands, and Nuclear Safety. As
you know, right now we're looking at--we've had two hearings so
far concerning the changes in the national ambient air quality
standards, and it has become quite contentious.
During your analysis of the future transportation needs,
did you take into consideration any potential changes in these
standards?
Mr. Downey. We have been working with the Environmental
Protection Agency on the new standards. Of course, they are the
lead agency and would establish the standards.
Working with them, we have identified what the potential
impacts would be on States, counties, municipalities, what
additional populations and areas might, under those standards,
fall into non-attainment. And we will propose in our
legislation additional allocations of funding to those areas to
help them build the transportation system changes that will be
needed to help reach attainment.
Senator Inhofe. Well, what kind of transportation systems
could you build that would help reach attainment if you find
that an area is out of attainment?
Mr. Downey. For example, we have found in the existing non-
attainment areas that measures to improve traffic flow, which
are really short-term in their benefits, measures to improve
public transit use, measures to encourage land use development
that would have less travel associated with them, all can
contribute.
Some urbanized areas have experimented with freight
movement improvements to reduce the use of trucks and increase
the use of rail.
All of these have individually fairly small impacts on air
quality, but they do help toward achieving the air quality
goals, and we'd like to continue that approach.
Senator Inhofe. Part of what we're talking about here today
is trying to project into the future what our future needs are
going to be. Of course, we had a little discussion with Senator
Baucus. I didn't agree with some of his analyses about where
these decisions are best made.
But it would seem to me that if you're looking at some
massive changes, as have been proposed by the Administration,
that you would have either as into your plan now or as an
alternative should those become a reality as to what the future
needs would be throughout the country on the transportation
system.
I'm wondering if, first of all, you have plugged that into
your current analysis. And second, if not, are you coming up
with a stand-by plan to take those things into consideration?
And if the second answer is yes, would that have an effect
on what you would feel the needs would be around different
parts of the country?
Mr. Downey. In our proposed legislation we will have some
responses. Some of them will be, as you described, stand-by.
We don't fully understand yet when the impacts of some of
these changes would occur, and certainly we at the Federal
level would not be designing the transportation system changes.
That would happen at the State and the regional level through
the metropolitan planning organizations, through State
governments, in the inter-connection of the air quality
implementation plans and their transportation plans.
But we would be prepared to work with the States in the
event that changes have to be made.
Senator Inhofe. I'm really thinking about an allocation of
funds and preparing for the future as we step into this next
age, and what we're doing right now is very, very significant,
but I wanted to kind of explore a little bit where we would go;
what effect, if those were to pass, that would have on the
overall plan in terms of use on the system and in terms of
deterioration.
In other words, I could see, quite frankly, a shift in
funding if non-attainment areas were mandated to car pooling or
some alternative means of transportation, as you just
suggested, that could very well work--have a negative effect as
to how projects were funded in the future.
And if you haven't gotten into it, I would, because it
would have very, very serious, serious, serious effects on
future transportation needs from location to location.
Mr. Downey. When we submit our legislation, I think there
will be some reference and----
Senator Inhofe. What I'd like to see----
Mr. Downey [continuing]. And we will be working with EPA on
implementation plans.
Senator Inhofe. Well, by the time you submit your
legislation I have an idea that we'll pretty much know where
that's going to go, and in which case we ought at least to have
an alternative plan as to how it would be affected as a result
of adopting that change in standards.
Senator Kempthorne [assuming the chair]. Senator Inhofe,
thank you very much.
Mr. Downey, I noticed on different occasions during this
testimony you've referenced, of course, safety, and you've
talked about seat belt usage, and, of course, the objective to
lower fatalities. I've not heard you make any reference to the
current air bags and air bag standards. Is there a reason
you've not referenced that?
Mr. Downey. Only that that's not really part of the ISTEA
legislation insofar as this committee is involved, but it
certainly is a concern. We are aware of your interest and your
concern. I know Secretary Designate Slater is, as well, and
will be responding to you.
Senator Kempthorne. All right. Mr. Downey, thank you very
much.
Mr. Downey. Thank you.
Senator Kempthorne. I'd like to call the next panel
forward.
Before the next panel begins, I'd just note for the record,
Mr. Downey, that Federal motor vehicle safety standard 208
dealing with air bags was modified in ISTEA, so it certainly
does pertain here.
OK. With that, I'd like to welcome our next panel of
distinguished guests. We have: Mr. Andrew Card, who is the
president and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association; Mr. Darrel Rensink, who is the president of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials; Mr. Alan E. Pisarski, who is the author of
``Commuting in America,'' and Mr. Damian Kulash, who is the
president and CEO, ENO Transportation Foundation, Incorporated.
Welcome all of you.
With that, Mr. Card, if you'd please give us your opening
comments.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW H. CARD, JR., PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Card. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's good to
be with you.
I was pleased you referenced FMVS 208 as being part of
ISTEA. I happen to have been secretary when the mandate under
that provision of ISTEA took effect, and I had to put forward a
notice of proposed rulemaking on the current air bag
technology.
My name is Andrew H. Card, Junior. I am the president and
chief executive officer of the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association, whose members are Chrysler
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors
Corporation. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today
in the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, known as ISTEA.
The automotive industry has a keen interest in and a unique
perspective on a safe and efficient highway system. Good roads
are vital for both the production and the use of our products.
The automotive industry sells mobility. Some years ago a
former GM chairman characterized the role of the industry in
this way: we may think we sell cars and trucks, but what we are
really selling is mobility. Our cars and trucks must be well-
designed and well-built, but if they cannot be used efficiently
and enjoyably, they will be of no more value than a canoe in a
desert.
While our customers need good roads for the safe and
efficient use of our products, we, as manufacturers, must also
have good roads to build and distribute our products.
Global economic competition has changed the way we conduct
every aspect of our business, and that includes how we use our
highways.
U.S. maps may show that Interstate 75 goes from Sault Ste.
Marie to Key West, and that Interstate 95 runs from Maine to
Florida; however, for America's car companies, these roads
extend directly from our 276 manufacturing facilities to
Europe, to South America, to Asia, and beyond.
In order to compete in our global economy, AAMA member
companies have instituted quality control and lean
manufacturing processes to reduce costs and increase
productivity. These improvements have resulted in a significant
change in the auto industry's material delivery network. Auto
manufacturers now ship the majority of their parts and
components just in time to meet very precise production
schedules.
The data dramatically illustrates this change. In a decade,
just-in-time deliveries have increased, on average, from 25
percent to 95 percent of all deliveries. For example, at one of
our member companies 32 plants operate on just-in-time
inventory system. That means that throughout every single
working day about 2,500 trucks travel more than one million
miles on the Nation's highways delivering parts and components
to those 32 plants just at the point they're needed in the
production process.
At another one of our member companies' plants, one typical
plant receives and unloads an average of 120 truck loads of
components, parts, and supplies daily.
The plant then ships approximately 480 vehicles, one-half
of its daily production, directly to dealers using 60 haul-away
trucks.
An additional 480 vehicles leave the plant site loaded on
multi-level rail cars destined to rail unloading ramps located
in major market areas. Upon arrival, the rail cars are unloaded
and the 480 vehicles are delivered to dealers by another 60
haul-away trucks.
Finally, at another plant trucks pick up parts at suppliers
within a 30-minute window and deliver them to the
manufacturer's plant under the same time constraints. The
objective is to have no more than 2 hours' inventory on the
line at any one time.
It is clear that any disruption in highway service, such as
congestion or bad roads, will cause disruption in the
manufacturing cycle. That results in production loss, sales
loss, and even sometimes job loss.
As Henry Ford put it, ordinarily money put into raw
materials or into finished stock is thought of as live money.
It is money in the business. It is true. But having a stock of
raw material or finished products in excess of requirements is
waste which, like every other waste, turns up in high prices
and low wages.
Just-in-time was a goal in the 1980's, but in the 1990's it
is truly a necessity in order to be internationally
competitive.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to address some specific
issues related to ISTEA. I want to compliment Senator Moynihan
in the role he played in developing the original ISTEA
legislation.
Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Card, I tell you what. The reason
you've seen an absence is there's a vote that is currently
taking place.
Rather than have you have to rush so that we would dash
off, I'm going to take a brief recess, because out of courtesy
to all of you gentlemen we want to hear what you have to say,
so, rather than having the time clock pushing us, I'm just
going to recess and I'll be back in just a few moments.
Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kempthorne. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Kempthorne. Again, for those of you on the panel,
we appreciate your indulgence here.
Mr. Card, you were about ready to get specific.
Mr. Card. I'm trying to get specific.
Senator Kempthorne. All right.
Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Baucus, good to see you, and thank you for the
accommodations you gave me when I was Secretary of
Transportation.
As you said, Mr. Chairman, we would now like to get into
more of the specific issues related to ISTEA.
One of the most critical responsibilities for Congress in
the reauthorization process is to provide adequate funding for
the highway program. We all know that there is a need. I think
that's indisputable. We also all know that there is money in
the highway fund, in the highway trust fund, and that money
should be spent. I think that is the simple approach that we
should use to address all of the debate over this very
important ISTEA legislation.
I know the subcommittee is very well aware of the problems
associated with our surface transportation infrastructure. In
fact, subcommittee members signed--and I was pleased to see
that, the letter that Senator Warner mentioned, now with 59
Senators--signed a letter to the Budget Committee chairman
urging the committee to provide a $6 billion increase in
highway funding for fiscal year 1997.
AAMA's members strongly support the objectives of that
letter, and we sincerely appreciate the efforts that were put
into getting that letter with so many signatories on it.
As a global industry, the automobile industry also believes
that the future U.S. competitiveness must address global
transportation trends. With the national commitment in some
major overseas markets to advanced surface transportation modes
and ITS systems, we know that more must be done if we're going
to remain competitive.
In this context, the automobile industry supports the
development of ITS in a mix of both vehicle and highway
technologies which are designed to assist all roadway users in
the smooth movement of traffic in congested areas.
I note that the debate over ISTEA will not only center
around the size of the pot--I think the most important part of
the debate is the size of the pot--but it will also center
around how that pot would be allocated.
I know that the CMAQ program is of particular concern and
will come up in the debate.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler are very, very interested in being
partners as we address the problems of congestion mitigation.
We also know that we have societal responsibilities to help
improve air quality.
I feel personally that the CMAQ program is in desperate
need of reform, but the goals of CMAQ are very important for us
to remember when we consider ISTEA.
Congestion mitigation is important not only because it
relates to what happens to individual travel, but also to the
commerce of America. Congestion does slow down just-in-time
delivery and we would like to work with you to reform the CMAQ
program to best reflect the needs of the transportation system.
ITS would be one area where we think it makes sense for us
to work together on advanced technologies to help mitigate
those problems, but America's car companies truly believe that
maintaining and improving our Nation's highway system must be
one of the national priorities.
If we are to compete effectively in the 21st century, our
transportation must be up to the competition and up to the
challenge.
We will work with you. We would welcome the chance to work
with you as you craft the next ISTEA, and our goal is to
reauthorize an ISTEA that is good for America and good for
American workers so that they can compete in markets around the
world.
With that I say thank you, and I'd be glad to answer any
questions that you might have.
Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Card, thank you very much.
Senator Kempthorne. Let me turn to Mr. Pisarski. Your
comments, please?
STATEMENT OF ALAN E. PISARSKI, AUTHOR OF ``COMMUTING IN
AMERICA''
Mr. Pisarski. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, it's an honor
to be here at this first Senate hearing on ISTEA
reauthorization. I recall with great pride that I participated
in the first Senate hearing at the inception of ISTEA 6 years
ago.
My focus today will be on commuting trends, their economic
and demographic determinants, and their implications for our
transportation future.
I should say that the other members of the panel were all
participants in the development of the document ``Commuting in
America.'' AASHTO led and chaired the 14 public agencies that
participated in its development and support of ISTEA. One of
the funders was Mr. Card's group. The ENO Foundation was the
publisher. The Department of Transportation was very important
in developing the information that I used in my document.
I'll be referring to some of the graphics here. I think
that may be the simplest way to get through some of the
material.
In the early work of ``Commuting in America'' back in the
1980's we talked about three booms in America with respect to
commuting--the worker boom, the automobile boom, and the
suburbanization boom.
I'm going to talk a little bit about the virulence of those
trends, whether they have persisted into the present and how
will they develop out into the future, and also I would like to
discuss some emerging trends that are important for us to focus
on.
With respect to workers, the main point is that the great
boom in population and workers with the advent of women joining
the labor force in extensive numbers, with the baby boomers
joining the labor force, is at an end. This big surge that we
felt of commuters in the 1970's and into the 1980's is behind
us. It's kind of like a python that swallowed a pig. It's
working its way through the system, as the baby boomers age,
and so the large numbers of workers that were added in that
period are very much behind us.
We will be having steady additions to the labor force out
into the future, but not of extraordinary scale that we saw in
the past.
With respect to the automobile boom, the dramatic shift to
the single occupant vehicle is, in a sense, almost complete. We
saw a tremendous surge to the single occupant vehicle,
basically at the expense of all alternatives. Car pooling,
transit, walking--all of the other alternatives declined in
both share and in absolute numbers as the population shifted to
the single occupant vehicle.
That trend has stabilized at very high levels. We've got
saturation effectively in auto ownership in America, and
saturation with respect to driver's licenses, with some
important exceptions that I'd like to mention later.
The third part of the booms of the past that I want to look
at is one that has retained its virulence and will grow in the
future, and that is the shift of the population to our suburbs.
Suburbanization continues at a very strong pace, in terms
of population, workers, and jobs. This is still a dominant
force. I would say there's no end in sight with respect to the
shift to the suburbs.
What we've seen is about two-thirds of job development
going into our suburbs, and the dominance of the new
circumferential kinds of commuting, the suburb-to-suburb
commute.
Other patterns that I think are of significance are inter-
metropolitan commuting, where more and more we're seeing people
moving from areas like Baltimore to Washington, moving from one
suburb of a metropolitan area to the suburbs of another
metropolitan area.
Another factor is so-called ``reverse commuting'' that I
think is important for us to consider. The President mentioned
in his State of the Union Address the importance of central
city workers and getting them to the jobs that are more and
more located in our suburban areas. In fact, we had greater
growth in reverse commuting than we did in commuting within our
central cities in the last 10 years.
Among forces of change that are emerging and that are going
to be critical in commuting, the first of these is immigration.
Immigration is now a dominant factor in national population
growth trends. Our overall population growth is at very low
levels, about the same as our depression years. But about 40
percent of our population growth is in immigrant populations.
The big difference is when we add one to our population with a
new birth, we get a commuter 20 years later. When we add one to
our population by immigration, we get almost instant commuters.
About 80 percent of immigrants come to the United States at
working age. Of course, one of the reasons they're here is to
join the labor force and to join the commuting stream.
Where will they go? Where will they work? Where will they
live? That's going to be a very important set of factors in how
commuting patterns develop.
The final point that I'd like to focus on is ethnic and
racial patterns. I mentioned earlier that we had something like
saturation with respect to driver's licenses and auto ownership
in America. That's misleading. When we get closer to the
information, what we find is that, although we have only 11
percent of our households in America without automobiles that
breaks into about 7 percent of the white, non-Hispanic
households without vehicles, but in the black population we're
talking about 30 percent of households without vehicles, and in
Hispanic populations we're talking about 20 percent of
households without vehicles, and in our central cities those
numbers are considerably higher.
With respect to driver's licenses, the same thing is true--
that we have saturation in the sense of 96 percent of white
male non-Hispanics of driving age have driver's licenses. But
within the black population, black males have 80 percent
driver's licenses, black women 70 percent.
So a lot of our growth in the future, the future automobile
buyers, the future participants in commuting patterns are going
to be coming from racial minorities and ethnic minorities in
the future. This is going to be one of the patterns that we're
going to have to focus on.
One of the patterns that we've seen grow is the immense
pressures of time on people, and we are seeing their reaction.
One of the reasons so many people, particularly women, shifted
to the single occupant vehicle was the immense pressures of
time. Although actual travel times did not increase that much,
what we've seen is a shift into something we call ``trip
chaining,'' where more and more people, instead of just going
to work and coming home, are making stops on the way to work
and are making stops on the way home, particularly women.
This kind of ties the work trip together with the whole
social pattern of the household and has immense influence on
traffic patterns. There's good news and bad news in that
pattern, as you might suspect.
I think I'd like to stop there, Senator, and would be
delighted to answer any questions if I can.
Senator Warner [resuming the chair]. Thank you.
Senator Warner. I'm sorry I wasn't here for the entire
testimony, but I shall read it. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Pisarski. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Warner. All right. We'll have our next panelist
now. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF DARREL RENSINK, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. Rensink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Darrel
Rensink. I am the president for the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials and director of the
Iowa Department of Transportation.
On behalf of AASHTO, I am pleased to accept your invitation
to testify on issues relative to reauthorization of the surface
transportation programs.
As members of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
you are well aware of both the benefits from and the need for
transportation as we head into the 21st century. So, what I am
about to say will come as no surprise. However, the importance
of transportation for this Nation's future requires that we
focus our attention directly on transportation.
America's transportation network has played a major role in
our Nation's economic success. Just as in our Nation's past,
our future is greatly dependent on how well we support our
transportation system. The legislation you will be considering
is, therefore, very important to the people of America as we
rapidly approach the 21st century.
Perhaps no other Federal investment has such far-reaching
implications or influences the daily quality of our lives as
does our transportation systems. It serves all of our citizens
daily in traveling to their jobs, day cares, and markets, in
providing goods to wholesale and retail outlets, in traveling
to recreational activities, and in a wide range of activities
in which we all participate.
Most importantly, transportation is the backbone for our
State, national, and international economies. Transportation is
our Nation's economic engine, which is built on an efficient
transportation system, a key component to our global
competitiveness.
Industry, much of which now rely on ``just-in-time''
delivery of raw materials, must have an effective and efficient
transportation system.
I recognize that a central point of the debate on
reauthorization will be funding formulas and the distribution
of funds among the States.
As the director of the Iowa Department of Transportation, I
understand the importance of Federal funding for my State's
highway and transit programs, and I also understand that the
discussion of formulas is important. However, as the debate
begins, we must remember that without transportation there is
no State or national economy, there is no quality of life,
there is no economic development, and therefore there is no
future.
We must evaluate the discussion of transportation beyond
the funding formulas and focus on the importance of
transportation to our Nation and its citizens.
Our Nation has thrived largely in part, due to
transportation and its systems, which we currently enjoy and
often take for granted. People and freight would not move if it
were not for our highways, railroads, airports, and waterways
that we now have in place.
Just as important are the transportation services provided
by the transit systems and the trucking or motor carrier
industry.
The Interstate System and the National Highway System are
the two most visible components of our transportation system
and serve as the backbone of our transportation infrastructure.
We must not reduce our commitment to maintaining this backbone,
our Nation's primary economic foundation.
I often hear that to compete in the global economy we need
a good transportation system. I believe that concept is
included in my formal testimony submitted to your committee.
However, competing in the world economy is not good enough. As
it is in sports, we can compete and still lose.
We cannot afford to lose when it comes to our
transportation systems. This Nation must be the leader, and to
lead we must have a transportation system second to none. To be
in the forefront, we must invest in our transportation systems.
In my remaining comments today I will touch on AASHTO's key
recommendations and respond to the themes you have stated for
this hearing.
AASHTO agrees that the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act was landmark legislation. It improved our
ability to provide better transportation for the Nation in many
ways. The planning and decisionmaking processes for surface
transportation were changed by ISTEA, moving decisionmaking the
States and local governments and emphasizing State and local
cooperation, intermodal planning, and public participation.
Greater flexibility was provided in utilizing Federal
funds, allowing States and local governments to better target
resources to match State, local, and citizen priorities.
AASHTO's support for ISTEA doesn't mean that there are not
areas for improvement. The detailed policy recommendations for
reauthorization which were provided to the committee identify
areas where the Association believes changes could be made.
You asked that we respond to three areas: future
transportation trends, transportation benefits to the economy,
and infrastructure funding requirements.
Mr. Chairman, looking at the trends for transportation, it
is clear that it continues to play a major role in the well-
being of this Nation. This role is demonstrated by the growth
in the number of drivers, vehicles, and passengers on our
highway and transit systems, and the reliance of industry and
economic development on the availability of efficient
transportation.
An example, just-in-time production, is one of the most
significant trends in U.S. manufacturing in recent years. This
trend has allowed many businesses to sharply reduce or
eliminate inventories.
In 1990, just-in-time manufacturing accounted for 18
percent of U.S. production, by 1995, this percentage had
increased to 28 percent. However, just-in-time production and
the resulting reduction in inventories require dependable and
efficient transportation facilities. These trends will continue
placing an ever-increasing demand on our systems.
The benefits to the economy--Mr. Chairman, throughout the
history of our Nation, transportation has been a key driving
force in building and maintaining our economy. A copy of a
report prepared by AASHTO and FHWA, entitled, ``The Economic
Importance of Transportation, Talking Points and References,''
has been provided to your committee.
Industry estimates that logistic and transportation costs
account for 20 to 25 percent of the value of a product on the
shelf. This results in a direct relationship between what our
citizens pay for products and the cost of transportation.
In addition to the efficiency and production benefits for a
manufacturing sector, investments in transportation are also
important for job creation and employment mobility.
The Federal Highway Administration's most recent report on
job generation for highway investment finds that $1 billion of
investments in the Federal highway program supports more than
42,000 full-time jobs.
Also, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
every dollar invested in the highway system will return more
than $2.60 in benefits to the economy.
As indicated in the few examples shown above, investing in
the Nation's transportation facilities is important to ensuring
long-term economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, you also requested testimony on
infrastructure funding requirements. Simply described, our
needs for investments to adequately support the Nation's
surface transportation systems are well documented and far
exceed the current investment levels.
AASHTO analyzed the investment requirements of our
transportation systems based on information received from the
U.S. Department of Transportation. This analysis is detailed in
our report, ``The Bottom Line: Transportation Investment Needs,
1998 to 2002.'' Copies of this report have also been provided
to the subcommittee.
To summarize the report, over the next 5 years total
highway investment needs to maintain the current conditions and
performance capabilities are $264 billion, an additional
investment of $94 billion is needed to improve the condition
and performance of this essential system, for a total
investment need of $358 billion over 5 years.
Transit needs to maintain and improve are identified at $39
billion and $33 billion, respectively, for a total of $72
billion over 5 years.
While the estimated amounts to maintain and improve our
highway and transit systems are daunting, significantly more
funding is being collected from highway users but is not
available for transportation.
If we could access all the funds now flowing into the
Highway Trust Fund and the 4.3 cents per gallon now used to
support the general fund programs, we could at least maintain
the current conditions of our surface transportation system.
AASHTO and the National Governors' Association share this
recommendation to fully use highway user fees for
transportation purposes. We commend you, Senator Warner and
Senator Baucus, and the 55 Senators who joined you in writing
to Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
seeking a higher highway program level. We also commend
Senators D'Amato and Moynihan for their similar letter urging
higher transit funding levels.
So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, AASHTO believes that there
will be no more important legislation before the Congress for
the future of America than the reauthorization of our surface
transportation program. We must either meet our investment
needs or face a decline in American mobility as we enter the
21st century.
During your hearings and during the debate on
reauthorization, you will receive testimony from many groups,
individuals who are interested and concerned about
transportation and its funding. As you prepare your list of
witnesses, I hope you will hear from the users of
transportation systems, including the members of industries
that rely on transportation for their financial future. This
includes: General Motors, Sears, Wal-Mart, Federal Express,
United Parcel, only to name a few. These companies recognize
the true importance of transportation to our economy and our
future.
We have provided you with AASHTO's recommendations for your
authorization and stand ready to provide any further
information which would be of assistance as you move forward in
the legislative process.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more thought. As a State
transportation official, I have been bothered by some time that
transportation is not higher on the national agenda, the
public's radar screen. Other activities and issues such as
welfare reform, health care, crime, budget deficit, and
education have occupied higher positions on the national
agenda. These are all important issues, and I don't want to
downplay their importance, but at a time when good news seems
hard to come by, transportation is good news.
Because of this concern and to further the cause of
transportation, as President of AASHTO I have initiated
discussions between AASHTO and the National Governors
Association to plan and convene a National Transportation
summit to be held this spring or summer. Its purpose is to
bring together State, Federal, and local officials, along with
the users of the transportation system, to bring attention to
the importance of transportation for the future of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Again, thank you
for the invitation to present our views, and I would be pleased
to respond to questions now or in writing.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Senator Warner. I would hope that that meeting could be
held in a timeframe that the work product and recommendations
can be taken into consideration by this subcommittee, and,
indeed, the Congress as a whole. I commend you for your
testimony.
Mr. Rensink. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Kulash.
STATEMENT OF DAMIAN KULASH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ENO
TRANSPORTATION FOUNDATION, INC.
Mr. Kulash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Thank you.
Mr. Kulash. You've heard from the other witnesses and you
certainly know from your own work about the tremendous
importance of transportation to the economy.
Some of those linkages are very obvious. Transportation is
clearly very important to the industries that make heavy use of
it. The site-specific benefits of transportation--of
investments made in one place versus another--are brought to
your attention in all the decisions you make.
What may not be so obvious is the effect that
transportation has on the economy, as a whole. We got some new
and important evidence on that this past year in an analysis
done by M. Ishaq Nadiri of New York University.
In my testimony on page 4 there is a graph in there that
shows what he found, and it is striking. This analysis examined
the return to the Nation's economy, as a whole, of the
investments made in the capital stock over the period 1950 to
1990.
In the early years of this period, Prof. Nadiri found a
very striking return. The returns were something in the order
of 30, 35 percent, and some years even higher. That means that
a dollar put into this program repaid itself within 3 years,
before the period of the authorization was even over--a very
stunning return.
In more recent decades, these returns have fallen ending
the period at about the same level as private investment,
namely down around 10 percent.
I think that pattern is very surprising, in two respects.
No. 1 is how large the returns were when the investment was
working at its peak. I think it's surprising also at how big a
difference there has been over the decades in terms of what
those returns have been between the 1950's, for example, and
the late 1980's.
To figure out what led to those patterns and whether they
have implications on today's investments, we at the ENO
Foundation convened a forum of economists and industry
representatives and others to see if there was a rationale for
which investments worked and which did not.
The bottom line of our discussions was that these large
returns came about because of network effects. A network effect
is a type of consequence over and above the site-specific
benefits of transportation. A network effect comes about
because you create growing room in the economy to allow
entirely new businesses to spring up--things that didn't happen
before.
We've heard about some of those network effects from the
other witnesses today, with their very impressive statistics on
just-in-time, on other industries such as catalog stores that
have come into business, intermodal freight operations,
relocations to central plant, and ability to achieve new
economies of scale there.
Such consequences show up in many, many companies across
the Nation. One thing that the Nadiri analysis pointed out was
that they occur throughout every sector of the economy, not
just the big highway using communities.
Which programs now will have these sorts of network effects
today and create growing room for the economy now? There is a
lot of speculation about this. No one really knows. But I think
there are four areas that warrant specific consideration in
this regard, the interstate highway system certainly being one.
The very large returns realized during the 1950's and
1960's happened to coincide with the era when the interstate
system was built. If we disinvest in this system now, either
functionally or physically--by letting the condition
deteriorate, or by letting congestion defeat the function--then
the disinvestment could trigger negative returns at the same
rates, some very high rates, that our early investment showed
positive returns.
The national highway system--like the interstate system,
would target the investment around those roads that are most
heavily used, most vital to the economy. Investments here might
similarly show larger than normal returns.
The Nadiri analysis did separate out non-local roads, and
found that even though the pattern for the entire highway
investment had come down in recent decades to the level of the
private sector return, the investment on non-local roads, a
system that is probably roughly equivalent to the national
highway system, was still about 50 percent higher than that
private sector return. That means it's around 15 percent or so,
not the same as the high rates found in the 1950's but not bad,
either.
Another promising area are investments to fill intermodal
gaps. The intermodal feature of ISTEA did open a new focus on
these gaps. Since the formation of the Department of
Transportation there has been one policy statement after
another that alludes to the need for integrated national
transportation system. That has always been much easier to say
than to do.
One of the reasons that it has been difficult to do is that
the specter of such a large Federal role came off like a
command and control structure imposed on this large system.
This was very scary to the many economic interests that depend
on the transportation system and find it working well.
Intermodalism, by not trying to be a command and control
structure for the whole transportation network, but by
concentrating only on the worst points of coordination of the
overall system--namely, those points of contract between the
modes--is a way of achieving better efficiency out of the whole
transportation network without a greatly expanded Federal
presence.
Finally, the greater coordination capabilities that are
offered through intelligent transportation systems also are an
area that may create economic growing room through systems
improvements in transportation.
So as you go into the reauthorization cycle and look at
which programs can do the most to fuel the Nation's economic
performance, the very large differences we've seen in the past
certainly point out that this is a significant area, that some
investments are much, much better than others.
I recognize there are many other social concerns that you
must take into concern as you reauthorize the bill, but the
economic returns are too big to ignore. They're much bigger
than the site-specific benefits, and selecting investments that
fuel the Nation's economy ought to be one of the top priorities
as you move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
We'll now proceed with questions.
First, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you back again. You've
been before our committee many times.
Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. We value highly your insights into this
problem.
Now, I want to talk a little bit about intermodalism. We
want very much--I'm speaking for myself--very much to have this
bill incorporate and advance those concepts that were put into
ISTEA.
Now, what can we do, in your judgment, to make further
strides toward intermodalism which brings in efficiencies--not
only cost, but I think transportation.
Mr. Card. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that it would be
good to look at the choke points in our transportation system
today, and that's where we should target some of the
opportunities for greater efficiency.
We clearly have a choke point, if you will, at the Mexican
border. The bulk of our transportation network has been east-
west, not so much north-south. However, because of the North
American Free Trade Agreement, we are finding a lot more
commercial traffic moving north-south, and we do have some
intermodal choke points, specifically at the Mexican border,
and I think it would be good to facilitate greater
interconnectivity at our border, and that should not just be
with regard to truck traffic or motor vehicle traffic, but also
with regard to our rail traffic.
Also, the disputes of the past that use to rage between
highways and railroads have lessened somewhat over the last
several years because of ISTEA, and that's because we now have
a closer working relationship in the movement of goods from
railroads to our highways and highways to our railroad systems.
So my counsel would be that you ask the Department of
Transportation to help identify particular choke points in our
transportation network.
While congestion was an object of significant discussion
during the original ISTEA debate, congestion mitigation relief
really hasn't materialized the way we had hoped it would now 6
years into ISTEA.
During my testimony I talked about our belief that
congestion mitigation is a proper and appropriate goal under
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
Unfortunately, some of the programs that were instituted under
the CMAQ program did little to mitigate congestion, and we have
found that congestion actually increased over the last 5 years
rather than decreased.
I think that there should be a recognition of the role of
highways and highway construction in congestion mitigation.
There was a--I think a knee-jerk presumption that congestion
mitigation would mean no highways and no interchanges and no
off-ramps, and I hope that that would be something that could
be done so that congestion mitigation would also include the
ability to spend money to better use our highway networks.
If you have other particular questions, I'd be glad to try
to respond.
Senator Warner. President Rensink, I raised the report here
earlier, the 1995 Conditions and Performance Report, and in it
it reflects that in that particular fiscal cycle 46.9 billion
was contributed by States and 23.4 billion by local
governments. This compares to 18.2 billion provided by the
Federal Government in that particular cycle.
Now, I perceive that the Congress is trying to put more and
more responsibility--and I'm very much a part of that movement
here in the Congress--onto the States, wide range--welfare, may
well end up in the medical area, also.
Given that, do you think that, if we're held to this level
of just the 20 billion, that the States can increase their
revenue portions to the highway problem? Or should Uncle Sam
awaken to the fact that we're sending enough down to the States
already and maybe it's now our responsibility to increase the
highway and not to lessen theirs but at least recognize that
their dollars are being stretched in many different directions
as a direct consequence by the Congress?
Mr. Rensink. Mr. Chairman, the States have a good history
and are proud of the fact that on many, many occasions they
stepped up to the plate to provide transportation resources. We
are proud of the partnership that we've had with the Federal
Government in making our transportation system what it is
today. It has been a good partnership. It has worked out well.
Each State, in some unique or distinct way, has its own
capacity to do things and/or to raise revenues.
I'm quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that States are aware and
support some of the events and objectives that are set out here
in Washington, as you look at balancing a budget, etc.
But I also believe that before States are going to come
back and carry a big bat and step up to the plate, that they're
expecting some answers from Washington concerning the
unobligated balances that are in the trust fund, as well as the
4.3 cents that currently is being directed toward general fund
and deficit reduction purposes.
Certainly States are going to be ready to do their share.
But at this point, given perhaps some of the difficulties that
some would have in taking a heavier share, that they would
expect Washington and the Federal Government to look at those
two situations I just referenced.
Senator Warner. Have you had the opportunity to consult
with the National Governors Association? And, if not, would you
undertake to explore that? It would be very helpful----
Mr. Rensink. Yes, we have been.
Senator Warner [continuing]. If the Governors across the
United States would come in and support the concept of moving
up to hopefully the 26 billion.
Mr. Rensink. Mr. Chairman, in my remarks I referenced our
partnership with the Governors, through the National Governors
Association at a national summit on transportation. More
recently, when they were in Washington at their annual winter
meeting, we were pleased that the National Governors
Association did appoint a special task force on transportation.
It is the intention of AASHTO to partner very closely with them
in looking at these issues including the 4.3 cents and the
trust fund balance. We plan to work with them very closely.
Senator Warner. Well, working with them is fine, but, mind
you, this train is out of the station, this bill, and it's
moving.
I think the likelihood of having significant impact on this
bill from organizations such as yours--you've made your
contribution today, but the NGA has got to come in a timely
fashion.
This is a very, very significant undertaking to present to
the President and to the Congress, as a whole, the necessity to
increase significantly this highway funding.
I'm pleased that the gentlemen here at this table are with
me on that, but we need all the help we can get.
Mr. Rensink. We're ready to help.
Senator Warner. Fine.
Now, this is fascinating, and I must tell you I've got to
go back and rethink some things here, but we want to take this
into consideration.
Given the significant trends in this area, do you think
they're going to continue to move more strongly in this area--I
mean, this pattern of particularly the female worker and the
need to stop coming and going, which we understand fully? What
should we be putting in this bill to recognize this trend and
begin to facilitate that mode of transportation?
Mr. Pisarski. Well, first, sir, there's no question that
these patterns are going to continue. I think they're getting,
in fact, more virulent. They're getting stronger.
Senator Warner. Let me make sure, you said more pronounced
and stronger?
Mr. Pisarski. Yes. More pronounced in the future.
One of the things, the new technologies that are coming
along--computers, telecommunication--are pushing us toward
greater potential dispersal of the population, greater
dependence on these kinds of flows.
And I think the kinds of patterns that we're going to see,
the immense pressures of time, particularly on women, are just
the factor that, in effect, drives all of these patterns.
Senator Warner. Chances are they're working both parents,
or the household, both of them are gainfully employed,
sometimes in three jobs, some having two jobs.
Mr. Pisarski. One of the keys here is that 70 percent of
the workers in the country are in households with two or more
workers, and so we don't have the kind of Ozzie and Harriet
situation of the past of the sole worker getting in the car in
the suburbs and going downtown.
It's much more a case of people having, in effect,
competing activities where they have to make arrangements for
the household, for children, for their other activities, and
balance their entire household requirements.
So I think that set of factors is going to be very much a
part of our future.
With respect to the response to the system, I'd say there
are two things. I mentioned that there's kind of good news and
bad news in this. The good news is, from an air quality point
of view, you have fewer cold starts because people make the
rounds rather than make individual trips, and they are bunching
the trips together, and so we don't have go home, go back, go
home, go back. That's kind of good news.
The bad news is that this is not a kind of pattern that
transit can respond to. It's not a kind of a pattern that car
pooling can respond to. And it also tends to pull into the peak
period those other activities that--going to the supermarket,
stopping at the dry cleaners--that historically we didn't put
in the peak periods.
So now we've got some people competing with the commuter in
the peak period.
The response of the system--we're going to have to have a
highly flexible system. I think the ability of transit to
respond to this and to the suburb-to-suburb commute is going to
demand a tremendous amount of flexibility, and the historical
notion of suburb-to-center-city is just not going to help us.
Senator Warner. One last question to you. Have you done any
analysis on HOV lanes? We're trying that more and more in this
greater metropolitan area.
Mr. Pisarski. One of the things we've seen is almost a
complete collapse of car pooling, quite astonishingly so.
What has happened is the big car pools have just about
dissolved. They're about half of what they were years ago.
Senator Warner. By ``big'' do you mean three or more?
Mr. Pisarski. Three, four, five, six. You still see them in
the very long trips, West Virginia to Washington, trips like
that, but most car pooling today is husband/wife car pooling,
parent and child car pooling. It's a family activity rather
than an association of neighborhoods or co-workers.
It's increasingly internal to the household, so it's not
really car pooling in the sense that I think of those terms.
Car pooling has a big advantage when there's heavy
congestion on the main roads and you can put something like the
HOV lanes on 395, but there is a penalty to car pooling,
itself. Basically there's a chart in ``Commuting in America''
that says that for each person you add to the car pool you add
5 minutes to the travel time, and so the congestion on the
alternative routes has got to make it worth that extra 5
minutes for each person to make car pooling worth people's
while.
Senator Warner. That's an interesting statistic.
My time has expired.
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have just one basic question of Mr. Card.
Mr. Secretary, I was wondering what the big three can do to
help my little campaign here on the Budget Committee and
Appropriations Committee to increase our appropriations. You've
got a lot of folks behind you and a lot of power.
I'm remind of--who was it? One of GM's former chairman,
``What's good for GM is good for the country.''
Mr. Card. Senator, I prefer to think I only have three
members--GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
Senator Baucus. Right.
Mr. Card. And they have a lot of momentum behind them, and
I'm subject to that momentum several different times.
We definitely support Senator Warner's letter that all of
you signed, along with 58 of your colleagues. That is a very
important step. You have given us something that we can point
to that would allow us to go forward and encourage others to
support the position that you've taken.
AAMA will go on record and will try to solicit support from
others to the cause that you've so appropriately identified.
It's very important that the pot of money available to meet
our surface transportation needs be as large as possible. It's
a pot of money that, quite frankly, belongs to the users, and
the users have put their money in that pot and they've told us
to take good care of the money, to spend it wisely, but to
spend it.
We would like to work with you to make sure that all of
Congress understands that responsibility, so I pledge to work
with you, and we can talk about particular strategies that
might be important.
Senator Baucus. Thank you. I'd encourage you to kind of
send the message back up the pipeline. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Card, when Secretary Slater was before this committee
for his confirmation hearing, one of the points that he made,
which I appreciated, was that safety was his No. 1 priority.
As you know, I have a great interest in motor vehicle
safety, and particularly in the issue of air bag safety. As you
know also, I've placed a high priority on the elimination of
the current unbelted testing standard because it results in the
manufacturing of air bags that are too aggressive, that are
causing the deaths of children, small-statured people,
particularly women.
As you're also aware, on December 4 of 1996, I petitioned
the Department of Transportation to include in their proposed
rule changes an immediate moratorium on the unbelted test.
Your organization has been on record several times in
support of the proposal, and as recently as January 30 of this
year, when you stated in a letter to NHTSA,
The immediate elimination of the present FMV SS208
unrestrained dummy test remains the single-most direct action
that would allow manufacturers to quickly initiate air bag
design changes that can further reduce the injury risks related
to air bag inflation.
Would you elaborate on your support of my efforts to get
this standard changed?
Mr. Card. Thank you, Senator Kempthorne.
The automobile industry--and I would point out that it's
the world's automobile industry, it isn't just the domestic
manufacturers, but all of the manufacturers of automobiles
throughout the world--believes that bringing a less-aggressive
air bag into the marketplace as quickly as possible would help
to mitigate problems associated with air bags.
At the same time, all of the world's manufacturers also
recognize that the most optimal design criteria that we could
bring to our vehicles for safety would come with a presumption
by the Government that the occupants of a car are wearing their
safety belts.
Clearly, the unbelted test requirement that is currently
the regulation at the Department of Transportation results in
overly aggressive air bags, and it restricts the ability of the
automobile industry to design their vehicles in an optimal
fashion to meet the safety requirements of the occupants.
We have a goal to do no harm to any of the occupants in the
car. We feel that that is our paramount concern. Clearly, our
objectives are to do no harm to those who are properly buckled
up. When people are buckled up, you can better judge their
location in the vehicle. They also recognize that the safety
systems in the automobile or truck today include the crumple
zones in the structure of the vehicle, the safety belt, and the
air bag. They are not separable systems. They work as a system.
Yes, we fully endorse an effort to eliminate the unbelted
regulation. We compliment you, Senator Kempthorne. But I would
point out that it is incumbent upon the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration to move as expeditiously as
possible to allow us to bring less-aggressive air bags into the
marketplace, and they can do that by approving the sled test
protocol and approving that rule such that we can begin to
bring less-aggressive air bags into the marketplace in a matter
of 6 to 9 months.
Senator Kempthorne. OK. I agree with you that they should
approve the sled test, and we are in agreement that that is an
incremental step and that they should then proceed with
eliminating the unbelted test. That is the ultimate most direct
route.
Mr. Card, I know, because of your background as former
Secretary of Transportation, it has to be as upsetting to you
as it is to myself, and I'm sure to the Chairman, that we have
a standard, a Government standard, that was predicted would
kill children, and today there are at least 32 dead children
because of that Government standard.
Do you see any reason why the Administration would need to
slow down implementing the sled test as it moves forward to
issue a proposed rulemaking change that would do away with the
unbelted test?
Mr. Card. Senator Kempthorne, there is absolutely no reason
why the Government should not be able to proceed quickly with a
sled test protocol that would allow for depowered air bags.
There is now a consensus among the safety community, the
world's manufacturers of automobiles, and I'm going to say even
regulators, that the sled test protocol is the quickest way to
allow for a depowered air bag to come into the marketplace.
At the same time, no regulation should be held up while the
debate goes on about the question of unbelted test
requirements.
It's imperative that the Government move quickly with the
sled test proposal so that less-aggressive air bags come into
the marketplace. That is a transition to a better policy, we
think, that would be a test protocol recognizing belted
occupants.
But let's get the interim solution out there as quickly as
we can, while we work together to get a better solution. The
better solution would be a belted test requirement and advanced
technology.
Senator Kempthorne. All right. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I would just add to that the chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board also agrees that we should
do away with the unbelted standard, and so I'm doing all that I
can with the Department of Transportation so that they will
issue that proposed rule change.
It is appalling to me that March of last year, before the
Commerce Committee, the administrator of NHTSA testified that
there are 15 dead children because of that standard. Ten months
later that administrator testified there were now 32 dead
children because of that standard.
I do not understand the reluctance of NHTSA to move forward
so that we no longer risk the lives of kids.
Enough said on that topic. I'm going to pursue it.
To all of the other members of the panel, I appreciate
greatly the information you have provided. I'm going to have to
excuse myself because of another hearing that I will be going
to, but it is very helpful as we now move forward in the
reauthorization of ISTEA, and I can tell you that we're in
extremely capable hands with Chairman Warner, who has fashioned
an appropriate process that will be inclusive so that we're
going to come up with an excellent reauthorization.
I thank all of you.
Senator Warner. I thank the Senator, and I look forward to
supporting you in your endeavors on resolving this air bag
thing.
Senator Kempthorne. Thank you very much.
Senator Warner. I'm going to have one last question to the
president here, and I've got to tell a little story to try and
frame it.
Eighteen years ago I was privileged to be elected to the
U.S. Senate. I was anxious, after my re-election, to get back
to my State and visit and thank the people. And I expect my
colleagues have this experience.
Anyway, there was a big parade in this community that
prides itself in being the peanut capital of the world.
Don't you folks leave yet. It's a good story.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. It's the peanut capital of the world.
So I arrived down there, brand new U.S. Senator, and all of
us who have gone to the parades, there's the big marshaling
area on the high school grounds, and we were all there, and the
cars had all been placed in order.
You don't have to put all this in the record.
I started looking for my car, thinking that I'm the U.S.
Senator, I'm going to be in the head of the parade.
Well, I found my car, and it was behind the sheriff and the
mayor and three or four State legislators, so I didn't become
indignant but I decided to figure out just exactly what was the
formula by which these cars were located.
It was a particular State legislator ahead of me with whom
I'd had some encounters with--it so happens he's of the other
political persuasion--and I was somewhat indignant about that
man particularly.
I found out that that parade was ordered in terms of what
those folks had done for the community, and several of those
legislators had gotten a new road for that community, and
that's what decided the position in the parade.
Now, I'd just as soon be omitted parades in my next term,
but anyway, I'll be down there.
But the point of this story is that people contend that in
our interstate system, Mr. President, we're falling into some
poor condition because the States are putting too great a
percentage of their assets into new highway construction rather
than maintaining what's in place.
Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Rensink. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I've got all
the available data to respond, at least as it pertains to other
States, but I can speak to my own State as it relates to the
interstate system and other parts of the primary system, and
the priority that we give to maintenance versus capacity.
It can be tempting and sometimes very tempting to defer
from and to move away from maintenance, be it on the interstate
or any other parts of the primary, to respond to the pressures
that we all face as DOT directors in our individual States for
some expansion programs, some new roads, something new that you
can put a ribbon across and cut. It's got that flavor that it
seems to be a dollar better spent.
What I've tried to do in my State, and something that I
certainly hope we can do throughout the industry, is to create
an awareness that a dollar spent for maintenance is a dollar
that's just as valuable and just as important as a dollar for
new capacity.
Senator Warner. I'm glad to hear that, because we're going
to have to look at various options. I'm the last here to want
to try and put more directives to the States, but for every
State legislator to get his or her new road at the expense of
the maintenance, we've got to do something about that.
Mr. Rensink. We agree.
Senator Warner. And I thank you.
I want to ask Mr. Kulash the wrap-up question here. With
the limited resources to invest in a large network of highways
and transit systems with growing needs, how can we be sure to
make the right investments so that taxpayers receive the same
high rate of economic return that we experienced in building
the interstate system?
Mr. Kulash. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that is possible.
The very high rates that we got from the interstate system were
wonderful. I'm not sure that equally high rates could be
achieved today, but it is important to try to target Federal
investments on those programs that can produce the best
returns, and these are the ones that make the national network
stronger.
You described very graphically how most political leaders
see the investment in the road system. They see what's in their
back yard. What they don't see is how an investment that gets
rid of a bottleneck in St. Louis benefits somebody who's
growing oranges in Florida and benefits a manufacturer in
California who is shipping cross-country.
Those are the network effects--they are created by
improvements that make the whole system perform better; not
just by weighing what has an immediate district benefit for us.
These network effects were most apparent following the
Nation's investment in the interstate. Keeping the interstate
in good repair, making sure that the developing bottlenecks on
the interstate are somehow dealt with, is certainly a high
priority.
The national highway system has that potential, as well.
The whole intermodal area offers a potential to produce
national transportation benefits, not just highway benefits,
that have those same network features.
As you're aware, even though ISTEA created the capacity to
start to deal with intermodal investments, without sufficient
funding they're in competition with other priorities. As a
result, there has been some disappointment at the small amount
of money that has actually found its way into intermodal
projects. Using intermodal investments to improve the national
transportation system is a question of both money and how
responsibility for this activity is structured within the
Department.
Finally, intelligent transportation systems also have the
potential to offer these kinds of benefits.
Senator Warner. Well, I thank you very much, and I thank
the panel, as a whole.
We've had an excellent hearing today, and we've got a
tremendous challenge facing the Congress, and we're fortunate
to have the expertise that each of you brings to the resolution
of these issues.
The subcommittee stands in recess until the call of the
chair. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned,
subject to the call of the chair.]
[The prepared statements of Senators Smith and Boxer, and
other material submitted for the record, follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Hampshire
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this first in a series of
hearings on reauthorization of our major surface transportation law,
otherwise known as ISTEA. I was a proud supporter of this legislation
in 1991 and continue to support its goals today.
ISTEA represented a revolutionary change from past transportation
legislation and a shift toward an integrated, intermodal transportation
system to promote efficiency and economic growth. Some of its major
provisions included: greater planning authority for State and local
governments, increased research for innovative technologies such as
intelligent vehicle highway systems, and funding for environmental
protection activities.
A reauthorized ISTEA should continue to recognize regional
differences, but at the same time, recognize that our transportation
system is a national system. Certainly, every State wants to get its
``fair share,'' and we will need to balance each State's needs with the
needs of the Nation as a whole.
While there is some merit to having various funding programs, we
should refrain from creating any new funding categories or setasides,
and allow for maximum flexibility between the various programs. It is
also important that we reduce or eliminate any onerous mandates or
sanctions on the States.
From New Hampshire's perspective, it will be important to ensure
that small States continue to receive adequate funding for their
infrastructure needs. New Hampshire strongly supports certain programs,
such as the Bridge Rehabilitation, Scenic Byway and Recreational Trail
programs, that other States may not utilize as much. The strength of
ISTEA is that it recognizes these varying needs and provides States
with the flexibility to direct funding as they see appropriate.
There are many challenges before us as we take steps toward a
balanced budget--something I have fought long and hard for. Our needs
will always outweigh our resources. But, we also have to recognize how
critical transportation is to our economy and social well-being.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you in
this reauthorization process.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the State
of California
I want to thank Chairman Warner and Sen. Baucus, our ranking
member, for beginning our ISTEA hearings early this year. We have a lot
of work to do.
Now is the time that we make ISTEA a solid blueprint for surface
transportation policy into the next century.
Transportation is an increasingly major concern for the people of
California. The Bay Area survey recently found a third of the residents
surveyed last fall cited the most important problem is transportation,
surpassing crime as the region's chief worry.
Our system is running at over-capacity. While California has
finally emerged from economic recession--jobs growth is up and
international trade is flourishing--our continued recovery is
jeopardized by the strains on our transportation system.
Cargo handled by the Los Angeles International Airport--already the
third busiest cargo airport in the world--may nearly triple into the
next century. Expansion at San Francisco International Airport could
add up to 75,000 cars on peninsula highways. California has identified
about $1 billion of transportation infrastructure improvements needed
to adequately serve future commercial vehicle traffic crossing the
California-Mexico border as a result of NAFTA.
Trade-related jobs now surpass aerospace jobs in Los Angeles. The
Los Angeles Customs district is the largest in the country. More than a
billion tons of cargo move out of, into and within the State every
year. A survey of shippers and carriers reported last year that
congestion was the key issue limiting their ability to provide
efficient transportation. This freight-related congestion, as well as
the explosion in single-occupant vehicles, impacts our consumers and
air quality as well. Lack of grade-separated railroad crossings cost
consumers in travel time and shippers in efficiency. And, those idling
cars and trucks are spewing poisons into our air.
As I said, we have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to
working my colleagues to fashion a revitalized ISTEA that encompasses
the economic benefits of a safe and efficient transportation system.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mortimer L. Downey, Deputy Secretary of
Transportation
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, members of the committee: Good
afternoon. Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon to testify
about reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). I welcome this opportunity and I am
excited by the prospects for building on ISTEA. It seems we have all
been talking about this subject a great deal. At DOT, we have done
extensive public outreach over the past year. We have heard from all
parts of the transportation community, in all regions, at all levels of
government, as well as from the private sector. The response has been
heartening. It is now 1997, the year of decision, when we must move
from generalities to specifics. Armed with a wealth of information and
viewpoints, we can now get down to the business of developing
successful legislation. On behalf of incoming Secretary Rodney Slater,
and the Administrators of DOT's operating Administrations, I want to
express our willingness to work closely with this committee and, of
course, with all the others in Congress.
This week opens the ``official'' debate on ISTEA reauthorization in
the 105th Congress. I think we all recognize how big a challenge this
year will be. It is time for the discussion to get down to real terms
with real solutions in the context of a real deadline, September 30,
the expiration of the current authorization. We know we will not all
agree on every aspect of the next bill--what I have been referring to
as ``NEX-TEA''--but I believe we can reach consensus in a way that
builds on the important themes of ISTEA: intermodalism, planning,
flexibility, safety, environmental protection, investment and
innovation.
In a few weeks, we will present to you the product of our
deliberations, the Administration's proposed reauthorization bill. It
will reflect our firm belief that ISTEA has been a success and that the
next authorization cycle should continue its programs and policies.
Because of ISTEA, including its innovative programs authored by this
committee like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement
(CMAQ) program, our transportation system is getting better and we are
addressing its environmental impacts. We, along with our old and new
partners in State and local governments and in the private sector--both
in industry and labor--are making good choices. Within the context of a
balanced Federal budget, we are making progress on most of our most
pressing infrastructure needs.
I noted the goal of a balanced Federal budget--a goal shared by the
President and Congress. The theme of ``balance'' may be a useful one to
remember during 1997. In fashioning a successor to ISTEA, we will have
to achieve a balance among competing interests, between requests and
available resources, between short-term and long-term solutions,
between donor and donee States, between demands for greater mobility
and higher productivity and the costs of such activity to our
environment and to safety. This bill will also weigh the balance of
power and responsibilities among levels of government. Achieving a good
balance will not be an easy task, but it is a task that has been made
easier by the record already established under ISTEA. ISTEA has given
us both a foundation and a blueprint for the future.
As we begin the legislative process, I want to reemphasize that the
Administration's long-term vision of the Nation's transportation system
is spelled out in our DOT Strategic Plan. It envisions a ``seamless''
intermodal transportation system that effectively ties America together
and links it to the world--a system that will provide safe, efficient
and environmentally friendly movement of people and the products they
use. And it is always important to underscore that we need a
transportation system equipped to meet our national security needs--to
respond to disasters, and to move people and goods, for both military
and civilian purposes, in times of national emergency.
Today, you have asked me to address three topics: infrastructure
funding needs, transportation benefits to our economy, and trends in
transportation. In addition, I would like to briefly mention how the
President's budget proposal will respond to our needs. I believe it
demonstrates the Presidents continued commitment to transportation
priorities and will allow us to build that bridge to the 21st century.
infrastructure needs
ISTEA authorized a total of $157 billion over the period of fiscal
years 1992-1997. The appropriations process over that period actually
made $145 billion available for ISTEA programs. We all should ask
``What did we get for that money?'' That investment is producing real
results, even with many of the projects still under construction.
The physical condition of bridges and pavement, which had been
deteriorating, has stabilized and, in many areas, actually improved.
This is especially true on the 161,000-mile National Highway System
(NHS), our premier national and regional network of principal routes
that provide the greatest economic, defense, and personal mobility
benefits. Peak-hour congestion in our largest urban areas has
stabilized. Also, the rate of highway fatalities has declined, although
not as much as we would like to see. These trends suggest that, while
the successes of ISTEA may not make the daily headlines, overall, we
have kept pace with the maintenance requirements of our infrastructure
system; we have stopped the tide of accelerating deterioration of the
system; and most importantly, we have begun to tie our transportation
system together through ISTEA's emphasis on intermodalism.
And this success has extended to transit nationwide. In the last 4
years we have helped buy nearly 26,000 new buses and nearly 600 new
rail cars for State and local transit agencies. Most of these meet
requirements that they be accessible to persons with disabilities. We
have also helped to fund more than 100 miles of new transit lines,
serving more than 100 new stations, and our data show improved
conditions and performance of our transit systems.
We are making progress. According to the Department's 1995
Conditions and Performance Report: *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System
Condition and Performance Report of the Secretary of Transportation to
the U.S. Congress (Comm. Print 104-30, March 1996). This report
compares 1993 data with data for 1991. The Department's 1997 report
will be published later this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of structurally deficient bridges has dropped.
The amount of pavement in poor condition has stabilized at
a manageable level.
The percent of transit fixed facilities and rolling stock
in good condition has increased.
Since 1984, the passenger-mile weighted average speed
improved by about 10 percent on our Nation's transit systems.
Well over half of all riders report wait times of 5
minutes or less. Fifty-one percent of transit trips involve one or more
transfers.
Less than one-third of all transit trips involve standing
for at least part of the trip.
About 25 percent of all transit users report trip times of
10 minutes or less.
Over the long run, to maintain current conditions on our highway
and transit systems, it will require significantly higher funding from
all sources--Federal, State, and local governments. Our most recent
report to Congress suggests the shortfall may be as high as 40 percent.
To improve conditions to optimal levels based on economic and
engineering criteria would require us to double our current capital
investment in highways and transit.
President Clinton recognizes the importance of sound infrastructure
to America's prosperity and international competitiveness, and he has
addressed infrastructure needs even as he has reduced the budget
deficit. That is why he, drawing on ISTEA resources, increased
investment in highways, transit systems, airports, and other
infrastructure to an average of $25.5 billion over the past 4 years,
more than 20 percent higher than during the previous 4 years.
Federal grant funding cannot meet all of our infrastructure needs,
and so 2 years ago we created the Partnership for Transportation
investment, which has cut red tape, produced new financial tools, and
attracted new sources of funding. That has accelerated over 70 projects
worth more than $4 billion, including $1.2 billion in increased
investment above and beyond that available through conventional
financing. These projects have moved an average of 2 years ahead of
schedule, saving interest and inflation costs and producing benefits
faster. The `97 budget built on this progress by providing $150 million
in seed money for the first State Infrastructure Banks, or SIBs, which,
thanks to action by this committee, were established under a pilot
program under the NHS Act. SIBs will leverage private and other public
funds through a variety of new financial strategies. The new budget
proposes to expand this effort by providing another $150 million in
seed money for SIBs, and $100 million for a new Federal Credit Program.
The Credit Program will be similar to the SIBs in its support of
innovative financing, but it will fill a different need--the support of
projects which, by virtue of their magnitude or multi-state benefits,
are of national significance but which might not fit into the programs
of individual States. That will enable us to make loans and apply other
financing arrangements for such projects.
We can also invest in intelligent transportation technologies that
will make our current infrastructure more efficient--and less costly.
Indeed, we believe that as much as two-thirds of the new capacity that
we will need in the coming years in our Nation's most congested
corridors can be provided by intelligent transportation systems and at
much less cost than for normal construction.
The challenges before us are national in scope, and they require
national solutions. Traffic congestion and bottlenecks in major trade
centers like Los Angeles and Chicago not only impose delays on local
commuters and regional freight, they also interfere with the speedy and
reliable cargo movements essential to enhance our global
competitiveness. Efficient mass transit systems are essential for our
regional economies to compete with business centers around the world,
and to assure that all our citizens have access to health care,
education, and job training. And the members of this committee are well
aware of the significance that we, as a Nation, have placed on
improving the environment and upgrading safety. These challenges cannot
be solved on a piece-meal basis, but rather require coordinated
national strategies, in partnership with State and local governments,
industry, labor and other transportation customers.
Also national in scope are the public roads that serve the
transportation needs of national parks, forests, tribal lands, and
other areas under Federal jurisdiction. We propose spending $512
million in fiscal year 1998 to support efforts coordinated by FHWA's
Federal Lands Highway Program to develop necessary transportation
infrastructure on Federal lands that protects natural resources, serves
tourism, provides access for Native Americans, and supports economic
development in rural areas.
President Clinton's proposed Fiscal Year 1998 budget for the
Department of Transportation reflects the President's commitments both
to balancing the budget by 2002 and to a safe, secure, and efficient
transportation system--one which supports economic growth while
preserving our natural environment. Therefore at a time when the
overall Budget is decreasing, the President has protected
infrastructure by requesting a steady discretionary spending level of
$25.6 billion.
For example, our highest priority within DOT is improving the
safety and security of our transportation system. Although it is
already the safest in the world, much of what we do is aimed at making
that system even safer--even as travel growth and demographic changes
create new challenges. That is why we want to raise direct Federal
safety spending by $200 million--to $2.9 billion, a record 7.5 percent
of our total budget. A major focus will be on reducing highway crashes,
which account for nine of every ten transportation fatalities. About
41,500 travelers died in such crashes last year, a slight reduction
from 1995. This toll is far too high and we must redouble our efforts
to reduce it.
In order to cut the fatality rate, we have to focus not only on
making safer cars and safer roads, but also on working to assure that
drivers do their part. We need increased education and enforcement, and
to do that we want to raise highway safety spending by NHTSA by 11
percent--to $333 million. While the details of our efforts will be
included in our ISTEA reauthorization bill, I can tell you that our
plan includes:
$9 million for a new occupant protection grant program to
encourage States to increase safety belt use, the single best way to
protect a vehicle's occupants;
a $9 million increase--to a total of $34 million--in
funding to help States enact tough drunk driving laws;
$8 million for a new research and education program to
reduce air bag risks for children and small adults, while still
preserving the benefits of air bags for all motorists; and,
$2 million for a pilot program for pre-license drug-
testing, as the first step in launching the President's new initiative
to combat drug-impaired driving.
Along with a greater emphasis on safety, the President has also
indicated his continuing commitment to infrastructure investment. The
fiscal year 1998 budget proposal of $25.6 billion--slightly above the
average of the past 4 years--would sustain the current investment that
has produced significant results in terms of the performance of our
transportation system. Under the Administration's plan, $24 billion
could actually be obligated next year for highway and transit capital.
Under ISTEA's successor bill, we will be proposing higher authorization
levels for fiscal year 1998 and subsequent years in case the
Administration's economic growth and deficit projections prove too
conservative, as they have in the recent past. If the budget situation
were to improve in future years in this manner, we would look toward
increasing the obligation levels. We will work with Congress on NEX-TEA
funding issues this year, and each year, through the normal budget and
appropriations process.
As part of the President's Budget, we propose to support Amtrak--
including improvements for the Northeast Corridor--from the Highway
Trust Fund. That includes $767 million in fiscal year 1998--$344
million for operating and $423 million for capital, an increase of $27
million over last year's level minus one-time costs. The Administration
will work with Congress, Amtrak management and labor, State
governments, and other interested parties in the coming year to develop
an affordable long-range plan that eliminates Amtrak's dependence on
Federal operating subsidy.
As part of a comprehensive plan to increase flexibility and improve
efficiency in transit, we hope to integrate formerly disparate formula
capital, formula operating, discretionary bus, and fixed-guideway
modernization grants into a streamlined Formula Programs account. For
urbanized areas over 200,000 population, we plan to replace transit
operating assistance with increased capital funding and a more flexible
capital assistance definition that would include preventative
maintenance. Areas under 200,000 population--those most dependent on
Federal assistance for operating costs--would be able to use their
formula grants for all transit expenses, including operating
assistance. Also, transit providers in any size area would be eligible
for a new Access to Jobs and Training program that targets Federal
transit assistance to low-income individuals, including current and
former welfare recipients.
Moreover, in the future, we are looking to technology to provide
many of the improvements we need in safety and efficiency. That's why
we want to increase investment in transportation research and
development by 9 percent, to $1 billion. That includes $250 million for
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), which apply advanced computer
and communications technologies to travel. About $150 million will fund
research, development, and technology transfer activities, and $100
million is for grants to encourage State and local governments to begin
to invest in the integrated, intermodal deployment of the electronic
infrastructure necessary to support ITS services. These include
regional traffic information services and coordinated traffic control
on both freeways and arterial streets.
Finally, transportation, like all human activity, affects the
natural environment, and we have an obligation to mitigate its impacts.
That is why we're proposing a 5 percent funding increase in our
environmental programs--to $1.53 billion. Much of this would be for
CMAQ which State and local governments use to cut pollution through
transit projects--traffic flow improvements--and alternatives such as
ridesharing. CMAQ funds would be authorized at $1.3 billion a year, up
30 percent from their level under ISTEA.
I believe this budget will allow us to continue to improve our
transportation networks.
economic benefits of transportation
This committee is well aware of the vital role that transportation
plays in assuring America's economic prosperity and quality of life.
From the colonial post roads and canals that expanded our frontiers, to
the railroads and Interstate Highways that linked a growing country, to
the transit systems that made possible the development of our great
cities and provided important linkages in rural areas--America's
economic progress has always been closely tied to advances in
transportation. And this progress has accrued to all those
participating in this vital industry, including those engaged in its
construction and operation.
And along the way, transportation became more than just a means to
prosperity--it became a big economic player in its own right. One
measure of transportation's role in the economy is its contribution to
the gross domestic product (GDP). In 1995, the portion of the GDP
attributed to transportation-related demand was $777.2 billion, or 10.7
percent of overall GDP. Thus, transportation ranks fourth among
economic sectors in its share in GDP, not far below health care and
food. Nearly 10 million Americans are employed in industries that
provide transportation-related goods and services, and these are good
jobs--with the highest wage level of any sector of the economy.
We find that, as a result of greater efficiency in our transport
systems, Americans now enjoy higher levels of transport output for the
same level of input, an overall improvement in productivity.
As our national economy becomes more fully integrated and as
America increasingly becomes part--of a larger global economy,
transportation will only become more important to our standard of
living. Logistical innovations such as intermodalism and flexible
`just-in-time'' delivery systems have been essential in maintaining our
productivity advantage worldwide against other countries that compete
on the basis of lower wages. This process continues to accelerate and
translates into tower costs for businesses and for consumers, who pay
less at the checkout counter as a result. In 1990, 18 percent of
production was just-in-time; by 1995, it was 28 percent. In this and in
other ways, transportation continues to contribute to our growing
productivity.
Under ISTEA, Americans got more for their transportation dollars
because ISTEA provided a strategic investment framework. It did so
through stronger planning requirements and through programs, such as
the National Highway System, that focused resources on roads of high
national priority; it also provided for completion of the Interstate
construction program. And ISTEA's authors had the vision to create the
Surface Transportation Program, which provided unprecedented
flexibility to State and local officials in determining transportation
solutions that meet the unique needs of their communities.
We all know that investments in transportation systems and
infrastructure can have a powerful effect on business activity. Until
recently, however, our information about the economic consequences of
such investments has been largely anecdotal. This is no longer the
case. A recently completed DOT-sponsored study--and, I might add, the
most carefully done study ever undertaken on this subject--has clearly
documented the substantial economic returns on highway investments. As
comprehensive as this study is, it is important to understand one other
fact about it: the authors examined the economic returns on highway
investments; they did not attempt to estimate the consumer benefits of
highway investments, a major component of the public benefits.
The DOT study estimated how increased spending on highways lowered
costs to those private companies that rely on highways. The results of
the study are dramatic: between 1950 and 1989, the authors estimated
that the average rate of private sector return on highway investments
was 28 percent, a figure substantially higher than the average rate of
return on investment earned by the private sector during this 40-year
period (13 percent or so). While the rate of return on highway
investments varies depending on the time period or highway system, the
rate of return for total highway capital for the most recent period
studied (1980-1989) was comparable to the average rate of return earned
in the private sector (11 percent or so).
Other nations do not have the transportation infrastructure that we
sometimes take for granted in the United States. It is transportation
that has set us apart from the rest of the world. The Economist
recently tracked the slow travel of Wrigley's chewing gum on a 1,000
mile trip from a factory in China's Pearl River delta to a consumer in
Shanghai--a trip that took several months and involved freighters,
trucks, tricycle carts and bicycles. Most manufacturers in Asia could
not even imagine ``just-in-time'' production; an Indian exporter's cost
advantage over western competitors is eroded by around 30 percent,
simply because of costs and delays in transportation. Gridlock is
common in parts of Asia--for goods and for people. Greater Jakarta, for
example, is home to 16 million people, and it has no subway. The annual
cost of gridlock in Bangkok is estimated at $3.2 billion.
Many nations around the world have also identified large
infrastructure investment requirements, although the financial capacity
to make the necessary investments varies by country. In Japan,
transportation capital investment by the government, as a proportion of
Gross Domestic Product, is about four times that of the United States.
And our European allies invest at a rate substantially above ours.
Asian governments hope to invest upwards of one trillion dollars on
infrastructure by the century's end, half of which will be for
transportation-related infrastructure. European governments are
spending even more on a continent-wide system of high-speed rail and
motorways. Our global competitiveness hinges on the efficiency of our
transportation system--in part because of the very size of our Nation:
in Japan, the average journey from manufacturer to the export shipping
point is 50 miles; in the U.S., it is about 450 miles. We are examining
transportation improvements, particularly in north-south corridors and
along our borders with Mexico and Canada, that will facilitate enhanced
trade resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Another significant factor in freight movement has been the shift to
east-west-Pacific-oriented flows, affecting not only the size and
direction of rail traffic, but causing ports in Los Angeles and Long
Beach to increase their market share. On a broader scale, it is
critical that we assure that our connections across the country--to
ports, airports and major transportation facilities--effectively link
us to our global partners.
The benefits of an efficient, interconnected national
transportation system are clear. It is therefore vital that we
understand the factors that contribute to and affect the performance
of-that system. While it may not make for the most dramatic testimony,
I believe it is important to understand recent trends in transportation
so that we may make the best choices for the future.
transportation trends
The United States is facing major changes in personal and business
travel, new patterns of freight shipments, regional population shifts,
fast-growing elderly and teen populations, and an explosion of
information technology. Across the Nation, there are growing demands
for speed and efficiency, especially from businesses, but also from
individuals struggling to preserve time for family and community
alongside demanding work lives. Congestion and pollution are two
problems that are increasing. Both present new challenges for the
transportation community and force us to devise innovative solutions
for dealing with them. We must meet the demand for increased mobility
for all our citizens--rich and poor, elderly and young, disabled and
able-bodied, in urban and rural areas--to ensure their full
participation in community life. Let me outline a few aspects of
current trends in transportation that will direct our future policy
decisions on ISTEA reauthorization.
Much of this information is from the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS) which, as you all know, was established by ISTEA.
Their work of compiling, analyzing, and disseminating information on
the nation's transportation systems will lead to a better understanding
of the performance of the transportation system and the potential for
its improvement.
Passenger Travel
Between 1970 and 1995, U.S. passenger travel nearly doubled,
growing by an average of 2.7 percent a year. Annual passenger miles of
travel per person averaged 17,200 miles in 1995--nearly 6,000 miles
further than in 1970. Automobile travel grew by almost 1 trillion
passenger-miles, reaching 2.8 trillion passenger-miles in 1995,
overshadowing all other modes in absolute terms. Passenger travel in
light-duty trucks (including pickups, sport-utility vehicles, and
minivans) grew nearly fivefold over this period raising concerns over
the fuel efficiency of the light-duty fleet. With regard to public
transportation, over the past 15 years, transit travel has remained
relatively stable. However, passenger-miles traveled on commuter rail,
light rail and demand-responsive services have increased appreciably.
Many different factors have contributed to the growth in travel,
including demographic and labor force changes, income growth, and
changes in the makeup of metropolitan areas:
In the quarter of a century between 1970 and 1995, the
U.S. population grew by nearly 58 million people. More than 16 million
people immigrated to the United States during this period. A high
proportion were working-age adults who have joined the labor force and
live in metropolitan areas. These factors have influenced urban travel
demand.
Baby boomers and women poured into the workplace. The
civilian labor force grew by 59 percent, from 83 million in 1970 to 132
million in 1995. More people working means more people commuting, and
more travel. In 1990, employed persons with licenses drove an average
of 15,280 miles compared with 8,048 miles for people with licenses who
are not employed.
The number of households increased by 53 percent, nearly
twice as much as the increase in population would suggest. The reason:
household size decreased from 3.14 people in 1970 to 2.65 people in
1995. Smaller households mean fewer people to share responsibilities
for shopping, recreation, and child care, and thus more travel per
household.
The number of automobiles and light trucks grew from 107
million in 1970 to 191 million in 1994. This increase is partly related
to income growth. Rising income also generates demand for long-distance
travel, especially international travel.
Changes in development patterns also have affected travel. In
metropolitan areas, the locations where people live, work, and shop
have become more dispersed, and travel and dependency on private
vehicles have increased. Metropolitan areas grew from 140 million
people in 1970 to 189 million in 1990, but between 1980 and 1990, the
central cities lost half a million people, while the suburbs gained
17.5 million. Between 1970 and 1990, the suburban share of metropolitan
population rose from 54 percent to 62 percent, and during the second
decade of this period, the suburban share of jobs rose by almost the
same proportion, from 37 percent to 42 percent.
Shifts in the location of jobs have changed travel patterns.
Suburb-to-suburb commutes in 1990 accounted for 44 percent of all
metropolitan commutes, while suburb-to-downtown made up only 20
percent. As metropolitan areas expanded and low-density suburbs spread
into rural areas, mass transit struggled to provide the same level of
service as in higher density city cores. Thus, private vehicle trips
soared, as they offered the most direct connections for many suburb-to-
suburb commutes by occupants.
Although the increase in mobility over the last quarter of a
century has brought major benefits to American society, not all share
fully in the benefits. For example, for many Native Americans,
inadequate transportation infrastructure has hindered economic
progress, health care, jobs, and schools in Indian Country. This must
change. President Clinton has proclaimed a government-to-government
relationship with American Indian Nations to foster Indian self-
determination and economic independence. Investment in the future of
Indian Country, including investment in infrastructure, will ensure
long-term dividends to our partners in this special relationship. The
jobs created through this investment may provide some of the most
impoverished areas of the United States an opportunity for economic
prosperity.
In addition, as many available jobs have shifted to suburban and
exurban areas, low-income workers who cannot afford to live in those
communities or own a car are often left with inadequate resources to
reach their places of employment. Alternatively, they cannot find work
because the travel times involved are prohibitive. Also, if welfare
reform is to be successful, low-income inner city residents must have
the means to access jobs in suburban communities. Efforts such as our
Department's fiscal year 1998 $100 million access to jobs initiative,
and HUD's Bridges to Work initiative, will contribute to enhancing
welfare-to-work opportunities.
Mobility for older Americans and people with disabilities is a
critical and growing need that must be addressed. The elderly are the
fastest growing component of the U.S. population, with nearly 13
percent of the population over the age 65. The number of Americans over
age 65--33.5 million in 1995--could increase by over 50 percent by
2020. The majority of these individuals are accustomed to independent
mobility in self-operated vehicles. The aging of the population will
require important modifications to the transportation system to make it
safer for those with less keen eyesight, hearing and responses.
Adjusting our public transportation systems to bring them into
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is a mandate that
must be fully implemented to serve better the needs of elderly persons
and persons with disabilities. Public transportation and highways must
be made more user-friendly through better signing, facility
modifications and other improvements. We will have to give increased
attention to mobility alternatives for these segments of our
population, as their mobility may be a significant social, economic,
and health concern. Appropriate and acceptable approaches to achieving
these objectives will have to be addressed in ISTEA reauthorization.
Traffic congestion in the nation's 50 largest cities costs
travelers more than $40 billion annually. Without a strategy that uses
multi-modal solutions to this problem, delays are likely to increase
over the next two decades as travel nationwide increases by a projected
60 percent. These delays translate directly into growing costs to
business and ultimately are passed along to consumers.
The Movement of Freight
Freight transportation grew substantially between 1970 and 1994 in
all land modes and air cargo. The ton-miles carried by Class 1
railroads increased 57 percent, while ton-miles carried by oil
pipelines increased 41 percent. Using vehicle-miles of travel by
combination trucks as a surrogate for ton-miles, freight transportation
by truck increased 210 percent. The number of commercial motor carriers
has also increased from 180,000 in 1989 to over 400,000 in 1996. The
biggest relative growth was in air cargo ton-miles, which increased 434
percent.
This growth has been uneven, responding to general fluctuations in
the economy. In response to the need for better data on freight
movements, BTS worked with the Bureau of the Census to conduct the
Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) in 1993. Results from the CFS (with
adjustments by BTS) show that the nations freight transportation system
carried more than 12 billion tons of goods, generating a total of 3.6
trillion ton-miles in 1993.
The CFS confirms the dominance of trucks in our nation's freight
transportation system, especially for shipping distances under 500
miles. Trucks moved nearly three-quarters of the value and just over
half of the weight of all shipments. In terms of ton-miles, the split
among truck, rail, water, and pipeline is more even because of the
greater distances large shipments move in the nonhighway modes. Growth
in truck use has been particularly dramatic. According to the Bureau of
the Census Truck Inventory and Use Survey, the number of trucks used in
for-hire transportation increased by 24 percent between 1982 and 1992.
Vehicle-miles grew even faster: for-hire trucks traveled approximately
58,000 miles per vehicle in 1992 compared with 46,000 miles in 1982.
Also, the truck fleet appears to be getting heavier as well as
traveling farther.
Fast, flexible forms of transportation have become more important
in recent years. In 1993, parcel, postal, and courier services carried
more than 9 percent of the value of shipments of processed or
manufactured goods that were measured by the CFS. When shipments
carried by more than one mode are added to moves by parcel and courier
services, intermodal freight exceeded 208 million tons, valued at about
$660 billion. In particular, about 41 million tons, valued at $83
billion, moved by the classic intermodal combination of truck and rail.
Assuming 50,000 pounds of payload per truck, this means that more than
1.6 million large trucks were diverted from our nation's highways for a
major part of their trips.
Intermodal shipments tend to be high in value: goods shipped by
parcel, postal, and courier services have an average value of $14.91
per pound, while truck-rail intermodal shipments average $1.02 per
pound. Although these numbers are far less than the $22.15 per pound
average for air and air-truck shipments, they are significantly higher
than the 34 cents per pound for truck-only shipments and the less than
10 cents per pound for railroads, water transportation, and pipelines.
The importance of interstate transportation was also demonstrated.
Much of the freight was shipped over long distances. According to CFS
data, out-of-state shipments accounted for 62.3 percent of the value of
all shipments in the U.S. By weight, out-of-state shipments accounted
for 35.3 percent. These figures do not fully reflect certain categories
of shipments (such as imports from foreign countries) that were out of
the scope of the survey. Hence, the above figures on out-of-state
shipments are probably conservative. Another indication of the
significance of interstate travel is that 49 percent of the vehicle
miles traveled by for-hire trucks in 1992 were outside their base
State.
Freight transportation has changed in response to many factors. We
are moving lighter goods, either because traditional products like
automobiles are being manufactured with lighter materials, or because
the economy is emphasizing inherently light products such as consumer
electronics. Just-in-time logistical systems have placed new demands
for faster and more reliable service to support manufacturing,
wholesale, and retail. The combination of toll-free telephone numbers
and overnight parcel delivery services has allowed small retail
establishments to serve national and international markets, resulting
in more growth for carriers specializing in small shipments.
International trade will probably continue to place increasing
demands on the domestic transportation system. Although overall global
economic growth rates are likely to be uneven, economic growth in
regions such as Asia, the Pacific Rim, and Latin America may continue
to be significant. This growth will provide new markets for U.S.
products, and be the source of both imports and tourists to be carried
on the domestic U.S. transportation system.
As I noted earlier, NAFTA has added a north-south focus to
traditional concern with east-west freight movements for international
shipments. Based on information from the BTS Transborder Surface
Freight Dataset, collected through the Census Bureau, $273.56 billion
in goods moved by surface transport between Canada and the United
States in 1995, an increase of 10.2 percent from 1994. In terms of
value, 74 percent of this trade move by truck, 22 percent by rail and 4
percent by pipeline in 1995.
In 1995, $96.36 billion in goods moved by surface transport between
Mexico and the United States, an increase of 6.4 percent from 1994. In
terms of value, 85 percent of this trade moved by truck in 1995;
virtually all the rest moved by rail.
Finally, although transborder land crossings are important, most
international trade moves in and out of the United States through
ports. Seaports handled international cargo valued at $619 billion in
1995, compared to $49 billion in 1970 (in current dollars).
Safety
We have made great safety progress in the face of increasing
travel. Even so, transportation injuries and deaths still impose a
substantial drain on the U.S. economy, along with emotional devastation
for surviving family members and friends. Transportation accounts for
roughly half of the accidental deaths in the United States, as it has
for at least 25 years. And approximately 95 percent of transportation
deaths resulted from crashes involving motor vehicles. These crashes
are the leading killer of America's youth. Yet the reduction in the
highway death toll is one of the great success stories of the last
quarter century. Had the 1969 death rate--five fatalities per 100
million vehicle-miles traveled (vmt)--persisted, more than 120,000
people would have died from motor vehicle crashes in 1995, nearly three
times the actual number of fatalities. Not only the death rate, but the
absolute number of deaths from crashes involving motor vehicles has
declined dramatically.
Nevertheless, a close look at recent statistics allows little room
for complacency. As I noted earlier, about 41,500 lives were lost last
year on our nation's highways. These deaths are only part of the
picture; crashes result in costly injuries, productivity losses, lost
travel time and increased congestion, placing a huge burden on our
economy--an estimated $150.5 billion in 1994. The cost of medical
treatment alone is estimated to be more than $14 billion a year. The
American taxpayer pays more than one-quarter of that amount to cover
the Medicaid and Medicare costs associated with these injuries. The
American taxpayer also has to make up for the lost tax revenue
resulting from injuries and fatalities, estimated at nearly $8 billion
a year.
Taking into account the current level of Federal and State highway
safety programs, projected increases in miles traveled will mean that
the number of Americans killed in crashes will increase; a conservative
estimate projects up to 51,000 deaths a year by 2005. This must not
happen. We must reduce the fatality rate, and reduce the actual number
of traffic fatalities. Improvements in vehicle and highway design will
help. But the key is to improve our behavior on the highways by
increasing safety belt and child safety seat use, by reducing drunk
driving, and by increasing compliance with established traffic laws.
Greater community involvement, and public and private sector leadership
will lead directly to improved traffic behavior. National research and
development also will continue to play a critical role in developing
more effective countermeasures and delivery systems.
Over a year ago, DOT began to develop an Action Plan to Reduce
Highway Injuries and Related Costs. We are assisting States in setting
and evaluating their performance goals and providing a wide range of
technical and financial assistance to assure that States have the
tools, such as adequate data, to identify their problems and pursue the
best strategies to resolve them. The Action Plan is an ongoing effort
of the Department directed toward saving lives and taxpayer dollars.
That plan, together with the safety measures I noted earlier that are
included in our budget plan, will help communities respond effectively
to these safety problems.
Environment
Transportation, like all human activity, also affects the natural
environment. Because of its enormous size, it is inevitable that our
transportation system will have some undesirable environmental impacts.
Many, but by no means all of these impacts, stem from reliance on
fossil fuels, especially petroleum. Because transportation energy use
is increasing and domestic oil production continues to decline, U.S.
reliance on imports is likely to continue. Gains from past
technological change and fuel economy standards have tapered off.
Transportation activities can affect the quality of surface and
groundwaters. Under some circumstances water quality may be affected
when oil, fuel, and other chemicals emitted or dropped from vehicles is
washed from highways by rainfall. These contaminants can eventually
reach streams, lakes, or groundwater. The movement and storage of fuels
and other substances used for transportation also has the potential to
cause water quality problems.
With regard to air pollution, the effort to control vehicle
emissions has been an environmental success story. Far less pollution
is emitted from cars and trucks today than 25 years ago. These dramatic
improvements in air quality would never have occurred without a strong
Federal role. Coordination between transportation and air quality
planning has improved. More than one-quarter of the areas that did not
meet ozone standards in 1990, and a few areas not meeting carbon
monoxide standards, have met air quality goals. The Environmental
Protection Agency has reclassified these areas as in attainment.
Nevertheless, many large cities continue to have problems meeting air
quality standards and compliance will continue to be a significant
challenge. Transportation officials must continue efforts under ISTEA's
successor and the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollutant emissions from
transportation.
Moreover, the United States continues to be the world's largest
producer of greenhouse gases--both absolutely and on a per capita
basis--and transportation accounts for 32 percent of U.S. carbon
dioxide emissions, the key emission from anthropogenic sources. This is
of ongoing concern because, as vehicle miles traveled and single
occupancy vehicle rates continue to increase, transportation is the
fastest growing sector for greenhouse gas emissions. The threat posed
by global climate change must continue to be addressed through efforts
to encourage travel in higher occupancy modes such as mass transit and
carpools, to help reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled.
Finally, efforts to mitigate environmental impacts and improve air
and water quality, to protect open space, wetlands, and wildlife
habitat, and to support other options that reduce the need for travel,
such as pedestrian-friendly developments, must be continued and
strengthened through programs such as CMAQ and transportation
enhancements and through comprehensive and integrated transportation
planning. Transportation planning decisions should also take into
account efforts to redevelop ``brownfields,'' particularly urban areas
that have been abandoned or underutilized due to contamination risks.
lessons learned and the challenges ahead
ISTEA marked a turning point in developing an interconnected
national transportation system, and its successor should be based upon
that same vision. The question is: how do we get there, in an era of
tight budgets? We believe ISTEA has provided a solid framework for us
to build upon. The successor to ISTEA must retain the core elements
that have made ISTEA such a success in just a few short years.
While we can be justly proud of the national progress made under
ISTEA, there are still significant challenges ahead--ones that will
require fresh thinking and creative solutions--and continue to require
Federal investment and guidance. If we are to maintain our quality of
life and remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must
aggressively meet the challenge of continued growth while mitigating
unwanted safety and environmental affects.
As ISTEA's Declaration of Policy specifically acknowledged, we
cannot treat our transportation infrastructure as a collection of
individual modes competing with each other. We need to see our
transportation facilities as a national system, with each mode
complementing the others, and working together as a whole for the
benefit of all users. ISTEA brought us closer to that goal, in several
ways. First, it gave State and local governments the responsibility for
planning all aspects of their State and regional transportation
systems, and gave them more funding flexibility to pursue the goal of a
more efficient, integrated transportation system. Second, ISTEA created
mechanisms for funding projects connecting the different components of
our transportation system. Through the CMAQ program--the flexible,
environmentally oriented category in ISTEA--we have, for example,
funded an innovative truck-rail transfer facility in Stark County,
Ohio, and projects in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington,
designed to unsnarl traffic and improve rail and truck access to the
commercial waterfront. These projects--which help reduce vehicular
congestion, improve safety and air quality, and provide better access
into the port area so we can accommodate the increased volume of
trade--show that there does not have to be a tradeoff between jobs and
the environment.
In regard to Indian reservation roads, ISTEA implemented our
special government-to-government relationships by establishing a policy
of consultation with tribal governments concerning the development of
transportation systems for Indian reservations. For years, a lack of
transportation infrastructure ``chilled'' economic development on
Indian reservations. But ISTEA has begun to address reservation
infrastructure needs and we need to continue to include tribal
governments as partners in this effort.
In Miami, efforts are underway to plan a transit facility, known as
the Miami Intermodal Center, to link Miami International Airport to the
Port of Miami, a major cruise ship center. This is a good example of
how the private sector and all levels of government--city, county,
State and Federal--together with officials from different modes of
transportation--the air, maritime, port, transit and highways--can work
together to accomplish mutual goals.
Sound transportation systems cannot be created without the
involvement of those affected. ISTEA brought new players to the table.
The goal was to make the process of setting transportation priorities
more informed and more inclusive. And State and local governments are
responding. Efforts have been made throughout the country--in Atlanta
and Boise to name a couple of leading examples. Also, Federal land
management agencies and tribal governments are increasingly involved in
statewide and metropolitan transportation planning.
And a more inclusive process does yield results--in the form of
better, more feasible and more publicly acceptable plans. The plans
being developed by States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) through the ISTEA processes are more viable. The fiscal
constraint requirements ISTEA applied to these Transportation Plans
mean they reflect the reality that planning requires hard choices based
on available funding.
The comprehensive planning and public participation requirements
established by ISTEA help to assure that a full range of social,
economic, and community impacts are taken into consideration as
investment decisions are being made. They connect transportation
decisions with other community concerns--land use, environment, and
quality of life--to make communities more livable. There should be no
question of turning back. ISTEA's successor must continue to guarantee
that investment decisions are the product of a systematic, inclusive
planning process--an informed political decision.
In order to meet the transportation challenges of the 21st century,
we will have to draw upon the talents and creativity of all levels of
government and the private sector. In the past 3 years, we have taken
major steps in that direction. For example, in Glendale, California, a
public-private partnership of the Glendale Transportation Management
Associates, Nestle USA Inc., and Commonwealth Land Title took on the
challenging question: how can private companies help clean the air? In
June 1993, in a program partly supported by CMAQ funds, Nestle and
Commonwealth Title began rewarding employees who voluntarily chose
alternatives to driving alone. An evaluation of this demonstration
program found that, with a modest investment of startup funds, the
average vehicle occupancy increased by approximately one-third,
suggesting the possibility of achieving dramatic reductions in the
number of vehicles clogging the roads of the Los Angeles basin.
ISTEA strengthened the traditional Federal-State partnership and
expanded it to include local governments, metropolitan planning
organizations, and the private sector. Post-ISTEA legislation should
build upon these successful relationships. We also need to bring in all
the resources and talent available.
Finally, cleaner, safer, and more efficient transportation has
often come because of new technologies--some entirely new, such as the
automobile, and some that have made previous advances safer or more
efficient, such as seat belts. Continued development and use of
advanced technology are vital if such progress is to continue. Under
ISTEA, there is a renewed emphasis on applying technology that will
close the gap between the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-
practice. And a reauthorized ISTEA must harness technology to serve a
new century, through intelligent transportation systems, high speed
rail, magnetic levitation, and other new technologies. By emphasizing
deployment of technologies such as ITS, we can translate innovation
into improved safety, system capacity, efficiency and travel time.
Investment in research and development has been expanded, both through
increased funding and through new partnerships with the private sector.
conclusion
ISTEA is visionary legislation, and its central elements--
intermodalism, flexibility, intergovernmental partnership, a strong
commitment to safety, environmental protection, enhanced planning and
strategic investment--should be preserved. These elements should serve
as the foundation for the next surface transportation reauthorization.
Over the course of the next several months, all parts of the
transportation community, from both public and private sectors, will
examine the merits of ISTEA and debate the details of the new
legislation. I look forward to that debate.
Efficient national cargo movement is key to our ability to benefit
from expanding trade opportunities. Truckers and other freight
operators need national uniformity in both facilities and regulatory
standards. We cannot achieve other key national priorities--linking
Americans to jobs, health care and education--without efficient
transportation. And the challenges we face in the areas of safety and
the environment do not stop at State borders.
There are significant challenges ahead with a lot of work to do. In
partnership with our colleagues in the States and local communities,
and with the private sector, I believe that we at the Federal level
have a leadership role in meeting those challenges.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I look forward
to working with you and other committee members on reauthorization of
these important surface transportation programs. Clearly, we can all
agree that investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure is
vital to preserving our competitive advantage throughout the world and
to maintaining the well being of our citizens. I will be happy to
answer any questions.
Responses of Mortimer Downey to Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1a. According to a Department of Transportation (DOT)
study, the rate of economic return on highway investments has declined
somewhat over the last decade.
Do you foresee this slightly downward trend continuing in the next
century?
Response. The rate of return on highway investment has declined
over the last decade in part because a larger share of total highway
investment has been devoted to improving highway conditions and a
smaller share to improving the capacity and performance of the highway
system. Industry thus has not realized the kinds of improvements in
highway accessibility and levels of service that it did during the
period when the Interstate System was under construction. Recently,
FHWA and its partners have focused much greater attention on
incorporating freight considerations into the highway planning process
to identify the types of highway and intermodal transportation
investments needed to improve the efficiency and level of service of
freight transportation. Increased funding for the National Highway
System (NHS), the backbone of national surface transportation systems,
should also contribute to providing the transportation services needed
by an increasingly dispersed economy. Furthermore, as State and local
transportation agencies accelerate the implementation of intelligent
transportation initiatives, the performance of highway and related
transportation systems can be expected to improve significantly,
allowing industry greater opportunities to reduce overall logistics
costs thereby increasing their productivity. We cannot expect the kinds
of economic returns that we realized during the Interstate construction
era, but technological innovations such as ITS and adequate funding for
the NHS should slow and perhaps reverse declines in the rates of return
on highway and intermodal transportation investment.
Question 1b. If highways alone no longer yield the highest rate of
return, where in the area of transportation should we direct limited
resources?
Response. We are not aware of any comparative analysis of highway
investment versus other infrastructure or alternative government
programs currently available to answer your question.
Question 2. For obvious reasons, the term ``intermodalism'' is used
repeatedly in the context of surface transportation policy. Indeed,
your testimony emphasizes the goal of a ``seamless'' intermodal
transportation system. There are countless examples of ``intermodal
connectors'' with respect to freight, but intermodalism with respect to
passenger travel is overlooked at times.
Can you share some specific examples of how intermodalism is
working to move people more efficiency?
Response. Although the term ``intermodalism'' refers to a well
defined segment of the freight industry, its meaning is less precise
when applied to passenger transportation. Fundamentally, intermodalism
is about designing solutions which make the most sense for the
passenger--regardless of mode.
The goal of ``seamless transportation'' refers to one common
definition of intermodalism: improving connections between the modes. A
trip that requires a passenger to change modes typically is slower,
less convenient, and less reliable than one where no change is
required: the more changes, the greater is the delay and inconvenience.
Easing and, where possible, eliminating the barriers which complicate
intermodal passenger travel improves the efficiency and capacity of the
overall transportation system. The Department is helping to fund a
variety of such initiatives. We are also encouraging State and local
institutions needed to facilitate passenger intermodalism to engage in
the cooperative efforts which make this goal a reality.
The Department supports a number of initiatives to encourage and
foster passenger intermodalism. In Albany, New York, the State spent
Federal Highway Administration funds to build park and ride lots in the
congested I-87 ``Northway'' Corridor to link with the regional transit
operator's buses, which are being funded by our Federal Transit
Administration. In Miami, Florida, the eight-mile long South Dade
Busway provides the city's Metrobuses with an exclusive connection to
the city's rapid transit network. FHWA funding provided 80 percent of
the cost of the project to extend the transit system to the suburbs.
Around the country, numerous intermodal terminals are being
planned, built and/or rebuilt using a variety of ``modal'' funding
sources to link rail, bus, and taxi services. Examples include
Richmond, Virginia's Union Station linking intercity and intracity rail
services as well as bus services; Dallas, Texas's Union Station linking
Amtrak, taxis, and the city's new light rail system; and Baltimore's
Pennsylvania Station linking intercity and intracity rail as well as
commuter rail and bus services. St. Louis, Missouri is developing its
own plans for a new intermodal center. New York City's Metropolitan
Transportation Authority is developing a farecard which will allow
commuters to use either bus or subway services.
Good intermodal connections improve system capacity by providing
travel alternatives. In San Francisco, California, the extension of the
Bay Area Rapid Transit system to San Francisco International Airport is
seen as providing an alternative to highway access. By doing so, BART
is helping to relieve access constraints that threaten the airport's
ability to service the region. In Houston, Texas, a regional mobility
program incorporates freeway improvements, transit and carpool lanes,
park and ride lots, and a regional travel information system. Since the
program began, transit ridership has increased significantly, as have
average highway speeds.
Finally, in addition to these activities, the Department's
reauthorization proposal, NEXTEA, will seek to foster intermodalism by
increasing the ability of State and local governments to flex Federal
funds for publicly owned, and certain privately owned, transportation
facilities. This flexibility will allow State and local governments to
improve connections that often are the bottlenecks impeding regional or
local mobility. Coupling this flexibility with innovative financing is
expected to give the public sector additional tools and potential
sources of revenues that otherwise would not be available under
traditional grant programs.
1995 Status of the Nation's Surface Transportation System: Condition
and Performance
Introduction
This pamphlet provides a summary of the 1995 Status of the Nation's
Surface transportable System: Condition and Performance Report to
Congress (C&P Report). It is the latest in a series of biennial reports
that track changes in transportation physical and operating
characteristics, finance, and usage patterns. Also included are
estimates of capital investment required from all sources to meet
specified levels of system performance in future years. The current
report combines information about our highway, bridge, transit, and
maritime systems.
This report is the second in the C&P Report series that combines
documents satisfying statutory requirements for the Department of
Transportation to provide Congress with information on the condition,
performance, and capital investment requirements of the Nation's
highway and transit systems. For the first time in the report series
history, information is provided on maritime infrastructure. Maritime
reports are not, however, statutorily required.
This report is in keeping with the Department's commitment to a
truly intermodal perspective of the Nation's transport system.
Combining modal information provides a valuable intermodal perspective
as we seek to make the best use of each mode in satisfying our Nation's
needs. We will continue the expansion of modal coverage in this report
series to provide the breadth of information needed to deal with our
increasingly complex transportation requirements.
The report finds that personal and freight transport demands on our
systems are at an all time high and are expected to increase with
population and economic growth, but at a slower rate than experienced
in past decades. While the U.S. population has increased 1.16 percent
annually since 1980, the number of trips per person and miles per trip
have increased about three times as fast. Reasons for the per capita
increases include changes in trends related to employment; the number,
size, makeup, and location of households; the number of licensed
drivers; and the number of household vehicles.
The physical condition of the surface transportation system has
generally been stable, with States and local governments investing at
rates approximately equal to the cost of maintaining the physical
plant. Improved highway conditions have, to some extent, resulted in a
significant decline in highway fatality rates over the past decade.
In contrast, highway system performance has been declining; this is
reflected in various measures of congestion. The quality of transit
performance has improved with increases in average speed, reductions in
wait tunes and number of transfers as well as reductions in trip times.
Although all units of government and private industry are currently
investing at record levels to maintain transport services and
efficiency, demands continue to outpace investment. In 1994, an
estimated $57.2 billion capital investment would have been required
from all sources just to maintain 1993 conditions and performance on
our Nation's highway, bridge, and transit systems. In 1993, all levels
of government actually invested $40.5 billion in these systems.
An estimated $80.0 billion would have been required in 1994 to
provide a higher level of service by correcting sting and accruing
deficient highway, bridge and transit conditions. The highway component
of this estimate based on a new procedure that focuses on the services
that the system provides to the users rather than on physical condition
of the infrastructure. All highway improvements included in this
estimate generate direct r and agency benefits in excess of the initial
cost of the improvement.
______
document organization
This document provides a summary of the 1995 Status of the Nation's
Surface Transportation Conditions and Performance Report to Congress.
It is presented in two parts. The first contains material on highway
and transit facilities, the second covers the maritime industry.
Part I begins with a discussion of highway and transit system and
user characteristics:
Who uses the system?
Why do they use it?
What does the system need in order to meet current and
future personal transportation requirements?
What does the system look like?
The second chapter provides information on highway and transit
finance:
Who pays for the system?
Where do the revenues come from?
How are highway and transit funds spent?
The third chapter provides an indication of how well the highway
and transit systems are working:
In what physical condition are the Nation's highway and
transit systems?
How much congestion are highway users facing?
How has the transit system been performing?
How safe is the highway system?
What has been the impact of highway transportation on the
quality of our environment?
The next chapter provides estimates of the investment required, by
all units of government, to either maintain or improve the condition
and performance of the highway and transit systems over the next 20
years. These estimates are expressed as average annual requirements,
that is the 20-year investment total divided by 20 years. The final
chapter in Part I provides a linkage between the 20-year investment
estimates and actual recent capital outlays by all units of government
for highway, bridge, and transit capital improvements.
Part II summarizes information describing the maritime system.
Material is also provided on system condition and performance. This
section does not provide estimates of future investment requirements.
Readers will note that this summary contains a number of boxes
labeled ``Drawing Conclusions.'' This convention is intended as a
vehicle for providing background information that may be useful in
interpreting the report's statistical information.
__________
PART I: HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT
1993 System Report Card
highway
System Characteristics
Highway vehicle miles traveled reached 2.3 trillion (up 2.2 percent
per year since 1989); highway passenger miles reached 3.9 trillion (an
increase of 2.3 percent per year since 1989).
The extent of rural center-line mileage declined since 1983 due
primarily to the expansion of Federal-aid urban area boundaries based
on the periodic census.
Conditions and Performance
Pavement condition improved throughout the 1980's and continued to
do so into the early 1990's. However, because the States are
transitioning to a new method of rating pavements, it is impossible to
determine if overall pavement condition changed in 1993 relative to
prior years.
The severity of congestion (as measured by the percent of travel
congested in the peak hour) increased through most of the 1980's, but
stabilized between 1989 and 1991. The 1993 data indicates that the
severity of congestion has continued to remain relatively constant.
However, the change in urban area boundaries shifted a number of
formerly rural highway sections into the urban category--diluting
congested urban mileage. In urban areas, the extent and duration of
congestion has increased steadily since 1983.
Highway safety has improved since 1983; the overall highway
fatality rate has declined steadily from 2.58 fatalities per 100
million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 1983 to 1.75 per 100 million
VMT in 1993, with the Interstate system continuing to be, by far, the
safest system.
Since 1990, the percent of deficient bridges has decreased. In
1994, bridges classified as either structurally or functionally
deficient accounted for 24 percent of Interstate bridges, 28 percent of
other arterial system bridges, and 28 percent of collector system
bridges.
Finance and Investment Requirements
All levels of government provided $88.5 billion for highway
programs. The Federal Government provided $18.2 billion; the States,
$46.9 billion; and counties, cities, and other local government
entities funded the remaining $23.4 billion.
The $88.5 billion provided for highway programs was distributed as
follows:
Capital investment: $39.0 billion
Noncapital expenses: $41.9 billion
Debt retirement: $5.2 billion
Reserve: $2.4 billion
Of the $39.0 billion invested in capital improvements, $34.8
billion was for projects intended to improve the physical condition or
performance of the system. The remaining $4.2 billion was spent on
improvements that were not triggered by condition or performance
deficiencies (e.g., environmental mitigation and expenditures for
economic development).
Federal funds accounted for $17.1 billion of the $39.0 billion in
capital outlay, or 44 percent.
In 1994, an estimated $49.9 billion in highway and bridge capital
investment would have been required from all sources just to maintain
1993 conditions and performance. Actual capital investment in 1993 (the
latest year for which expenditure data is available) was 70 percent of
what was required to maintain conditions.
An estimated $68.2 billion would have been required in 1994 to
provide a higher quality of service on highway and bridge systems. Not
all existing and accruing highway deficiencies would have been
eliminated, but those highway improvements that generated direct
benefits in excess of the initial cost would have been made.
transit
System Characteristics
A total of 508 local public transit operators provided transit
services in 316 urbanized areas. An additional 5,010 local and regional
organizations provided publicly accessible transit services in rural
and small urban areas.
On rail, transit patronage was 17.9 billion passenger miles (up 0.7
percent per year since 1983); on bus systems, transit patronage was
18.4 billion passenger miles (down by 0.5 percent per year since 1983).
Conditions and Performance
Between 1984 and 1992, the percent of transit maintenance yards,
maintenance buildings, stations, and bridges in good or better
condition improved significantly. However, one-third or more remain in
less than good condition. As of 1992, 76 percent of rail cars were in
good or better condition.
The perception of quality among customers and potential customers
is an important determinant of transit use, often more important than
the fare levels:
Since 1984, the passenger-mile-weighted average speed
improved by about 10 percent.
Well over half of all riders reported wait times of 5
minutes or less. About 80 percent of riders wait no longer than 10
minutes. Fifty-one percent of transit trips involve one or more
transfers.
Twenty-nine percent of transit trips involve standing for at
least part of the trip.
About 25 percent of all transit users report trip times of
10 minutes or less, and nearly 76 percent of transit trips were
reported to take less than half an hour.
Finance and Investment Requirements
Total transit revenue, from all sources, was $22.6 billion. Public
funding for transit was $15.5 billion. The Federal share of this
support was $3.3 billion, the State and local share was $12.1 billion.
Fares and other system-generated revenue accounted for $7.1 billion.
Of the $22.6 billion in funding provided for transit, $21.7 billion
was expended for capital investment and operating requirements. Capital
investment accounted for $5.7 billion and $16.0 billion was spent to
satisfy operating costs (the remainder was placed in reserve).
Overall, Federal funds contributed only 6 percent to meeting
transit operating costs, while contributing just under 42 percent of
transit capital expenditures.
In 1994, an estimated $7.3 billion in transit capital investment
would have been required from all sources just to maintain 1993
conditions and performance. This level of investment included a $5.1
billion requirement in system preservation and $2.2 billion to expand
capacity. Capital investment in 1993 was $5.7 billion, or 78 percent of
what was required.
An estimated $11.8 billion was required in 1994 to provide a higher
quality of service on transit systems. Of the $11.8 billion investment
requirement, $7.1 billion would have been spent on system preservation
and $4.7 billion would have been used to correct capacity deficiencies.
__________
Chapter 1: System Description and Usage Characteristics
The United States enjoys an extensive surface transportation system
that includes 3.9 million miles of roads, 576,000 bridges, and over
166,000 route miles of transit.
In 1993, the number of vehicle miles traveled on highways reached
2.3 trillion, up 3.4 percent per year since 1983. On rail, transit
patronage was 17.9 billion passenger miles in 1993, up at an annual
rate of 0.7 percent from 1983. On bus systems, transit patronage was
18.4 billion in 1993, down by 0.5 percent per year since 1983. In 1993,
total highway passenger miles traveled (PMT) reached 3.9 trillion, up
at an annual rate of 2.3 percent since 1989 (the first year that
highway PMT statistics were available).
The interaction of complex societal forces over the last two
decades has resulted in important changes in the Nation's travel-
trends. These changes will place new demands on our transportation
system in the future.
A major trend noted is the transition to a service economy and the
associated increase in the flexible labor force. Commuter trips will be
increasingly spread over a longer day, with a sizable minority of
travelers having variable work schedules.
A number of important demographic trends may also impact future
travel patterns and service requirements. For example, the significant
growth in the number of married women who work outside the home
suggests large numbers of commuters who may need to drive alone due to
their need to balance multiple responsibilities such as dropping
children at day care on the way to work or grocery shopping on the way
home.
Finally, rapid suburbanization of the population and employment has
important transportation implications. In general, the lower the
density of a community, the fewer concentrated origins and destinations
and the fewer corridors of high density demand. These kinds of patterns
require decentralized transportation facilities and services.
classification by function
Highway
The 3.9 million miles of public roads and streets in the United
States are functionally classified as arterials, collectors, and local
roads, depending on the type of service they provide. These major
systems are further subdivided into both rural and urban areas. Exhibit
1-1 provides an overview of the system and displays mileage and travel
system and displays mileage and travel shares by functional
classification.
Arterials
The arterial system, which includes the Interstate as well as the
recently designated National Highway System, provides the highest level
of mobility, at the highest speed, for long uninterrupted distances.
These facilities generally have higher design standards than other
roads, often with multiple lanes and some degree of access control.
Collectors
Collectors provide a lower level of mobility than arterials at
lower speeds and for shorter trips. Collectors are usually two-lane
roads that collect and distribute travel to and from the arterial
systems. They provide the highest degree of mobility for a variety of
local travel requirements.
Local Roads
The majority of public road and street mileage is classified as
local. Local roads provide the access between residential and
commercial properties and the higher functional systems. These roads
and streets provide a high level of access to abutting land but limited
VMT.
Transit
All public transit services in the United States may be
functionally classified according to the public policy purposes served
by individual trips: low-cost mobility, congestion management, and
supporting livable metropolitan areas. Exhibit 1-2 provides an
organizational overview and displays trip shares by functional system.
Low-Cost Mobility
All transit systems in the United States devote a portion of their
services to providing low-cost mobility for people who, for reasons of
low income, youth, old age, or disability, do not or cannot operate
personal motorized transportation. The most important characteristic of
such services is the provision of regular access to as many
destinations in the service area as possible for a fare that passengers
from low-income households can afford.
Congestion Management
Transit services that are competetive with the automobile most
effectively serve the congestion mitigation function. The most
distinctive characteristic of these transit services is consistently
rapid door-to-door travel speeds encouraging a large proportion of
people who own automobiles to choose transit thereby avoiding the
unreliability and delays of congested highways.
Livable Metropolitan Areas
Transit services that provide motorized access to and from
pedestrian oriented and multiple purpose central business districts and
communities serve the function of supporting livable metropolitan
areas. The most distinctive characteristic of these services is design
for pedestrian access rather than access by automobile. Transit's role
in supporting a livable metropolitan area is strongest where pedestrian
access to transit and to other services via transit enable households
and businesses to function with reduced use of automotive transport.
Although most such areas are very large cities, communities with very
large college campuses exhibit similar characteristics.
system extent and capacity
Extent
Highway
In 1993, total National public road and street mileage was 3.9
million miles. Exhibit 1-3 compares current (1993) mileage with 1983
mileage. The share of total miles in rural areas decreased slightly,
from 83 percent to 79 percent.
Bridge
In 1994, there were more than 576,000 bridges on our Nation's
highways, compared to about 573,000 bridges in 1984.
Transit
In 1993, 508 local public transit operators provided transit
services in 316 urbanized areas. An additional 5,010 local and regional
organizations provided publicly accessible transit services in rural
and small urban areas. In 1993, there were 129,317 total transit
vehicles, 7,439 miles of rail track, 2,271 rail stations, and 1,172
maintenance facilities. Route miles of transit rail grew 15.7 percent
from 1983 to 1993, or 1.5 percent per year. Nonrail transit includes
buses, ferry boats, vans, and other conveyances, which in 1993 reached
158,799 route miles, an annual increase of 2.0 percent since 1983.
drawing conclusions
Comparison of previous year data with the 1993 data used in the
current C&P Report has the following difficulties:
Expansion of the urban area boundaries as a result of the
1990 census resulted in reclassification of certain rural highway
facilities to urban, causing miles and travel to shift from rural
to urban classification.
The States have reclassified certain U.S. Forest Service
roadways to nonpublic roadways (which are not included in the
National statistics).
As a prelude to designation of the National Highway System,
the States functionally reclassified their roads.
Capacity
Highway and transit capacitor comparisons are found in Exhibit 1-4.
In 1993, there were .1 million lane miles of highways in the Nation.
Over the Midyear period from 1983 to 1993, lane mileage increased 0.2
percent annually. Transit rail and bus capacitor is defined as the
average number of miles traveled by each vehicle multiplied by the
number of vehicles, expressed as standardized ``bus equivalent
vehicles.'' In 1993, transit rail capacitor consisted of 15,945 rail
passenger vehicles providing 1,564 million bus equivalent vehicle
miles, an annual increase of 2.2 percent since 1983. Transit bus
capacitor, from 1983 to 1993, increased 1.5 percent annually.
aggregate and per capita travel growth
The 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey shows that in
1990 Americans made 250 billion personal trips in a car or truck, or by
bus, train, subway, or airplane, or by walking, biking, or riding a
motorcycle. In 1990, Americans took over 91 percent of work trips and
over 87 percent of all trips in a car or truck or other personal
vehicle and only 2 percent to 4 percent of all trips in a bus, subway,
or train. However, the transit share is much higher in urban areas,
particularly the largest areas.
In 1990, Americans made 72 percent more person trips and traveled
65 percent more person miles than they had in 1969. This remarkable
growth in travel is a function of aggregate travel growth and per
capita growth.
Aggregate travel growth is related to total growth in the U.S.
population; as the population increases the aggregate number of trips
made and miles traveled increases, even if no one person takes more
trips or travels farther than before. However, as shown in Exhibit 1-5,
from 1969 through 1990 the total number of trips taken by all Americans
increased over three times as fast as the population. It is clear that
other factors, in addition to population growth, account for much of
the increase in total trips.
In 1990, the average trip length for all purposes was 9.4 miles
compared to 8.7 miles in 1983, while the average commute increased to
10.7 miles from 8.5 miles, or a 26 percent increase.
Highway Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Highway VMT comparisons are found in Exhibit 1-6. In 1993, total
highway VMT reached 2.3 trillion. For the 10-year period from 1983 to
1993, total travel increased at a compound annual rate of 3.4 percent.
Travel growth in urban areas outpaced rural areas. However, as noted
earlier, part of this growth is the result of expanding urban
boundaries, i.e., rural travel becoming urban travel.
Highway and Transit Personal Miles Traveled
On rail, transit patronage was 7.9 billion passenger miles in 1993,
up at an annual rate of 0.7 percent from 1983. On bus systems, transit
patronage was 8.4 billion in 1993, down by 0.5 percent per year since
1983. In 1993, total highway passenger miles reached 3.9 trillion, up
at an annual rate of 2.3 percent since 1989 (the first year that PMT
statistics were available). Person miles of travel trends are provided
in Exhibit 1-7.
personal travel characteristics
While almost all indicators of travel are up, there is substantial
diversity within aggregate travel trends. There are important
differences in the travel patterns of men and women, the young and the
old, those in urban and rural areas, and among those of different
racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Changes in travel patterns during the last two decades result from
the interaction of complex societal forces that constrain and shape how
American households organize all aspects of their lives. In order to
recognize the demands that will be made on the Nation's transportation
systems in the future, we must recognize how American households
respond to the pressures created by these linked forces, and how their
responses lead to wide variations in individual and aggregate travel
patterns.
economic trends
In the next decade most job growth will be in service rather than
production industries. Retail trade will soon replace manufacturing as
the second largest source of total U.S. employment, generating over 5
million jobs by 2005.
A key component of the service sector is the flexible labor force,
which contains as much as one fourth of all American workers. The
flexible labor force is characterized by temporary employment, variable
work schedules, workers with multiple employers, and work weeks of less
than 40 hours.
In addition, the change to a service industry has brought
Reconcentration of employment sites, creating a wide variety of
dispersed work destinations. Industries do not need to be near one
another or in a central area, average firm size is smaller, and firms
are less likely to locate along heavily traveled corridors.
These changes have substantially altered the trip patterns of many
workers, who are now traveling at different hours, along different
routes, and on different days of the week than comparable people two
decades earlier. Commuter trips are now spread over a longer day, with
a sizable minority of travelers having variable work schedules.
demographic trends
The major societal trends highlighted in Exhibit 1-5 appear to have
affected certain groups in society differentially.
Ethnic Diversity
Large and growing numbers of the U.S. population are from different
cultural, racial, or ethnic backgrounds. For reasons ranging from
differing cultural norms to varying employment opportunities and income
levels, these groups appear to have distinct travel patterns.
The Elderly
American society is rapidly aging. In 1990, more than one fourth of
the entire population was over age 60. By the first decade of the next
century almost half of all elderly people will be over age 75, and
almost 5 percent of the entire U.S. population will be over age 80.
A number of factors related to the aging of society have profound
implications for our Nation's transportation system. First, there are
larger numbers of elderly drivers today. Between 1983 and 1993 the
increase in licensing among both older men and women was substantial.
As a result the elderly are driving far more than they did two decades
ago.
Second, the travel patterns of older people are strongly influenced
by residential patterns. Because most older people age in the places
they lived while working, elderly people are concentrated in low
density or rural areas, where alternatives to automobile transportation
are limited.
Third, there are central city concentrations of older people with
special needs. Those elderly people who live in the central cities of
metropolitan areas are more likely to be members of ethnic or racial
minorities or women living alone.
One of the major implications of the aging of society is that there
will be fewer younger workers available to pay for, or to directly
provide, services for the rapidly growing number of seniors who require
assistance. The overall level of care required by our aging population
is much more physically and psychologically demanding than that needed
four decades ago, in part because of the increased number of cognitive
diseases among the growing number of people older than age 80.
Women
Today women account for close to half of those in paid employment.
There has been significant growth in the number of married women who
work outside the home as well as the participation of women with
children, many with very young children.
The ways in which salaried women balance their domestic and
employment responsibilities impact the modes they choose, the hours
they travel, the routes they take, and how they organize and combine
their out-of-home activities. For example, because they retain multiple
responsibilities when they enter the paid labor force, women often
``link'' trips together, dropping children at day care on the way to
work or going grocery shopping on the way home.
Women with children often have to make trips solely to meet the
needs of their children and therefore may be less able to use
alternative modes. Many workers report that they must drive alone
because they need access to a car immediately before and after work to
accomplish their child care needs and are concerned that they might be
faced with a family emergency during the middle of the work day.
population movements and land use patterns
Over the last three decades, the United States has experienced
large shifts in employment and population that have resulted in rapid
suburbanization of the population and employment as well as
concentration of poverty in central cities. At the same time, local
land use regulations have interacted with these factors to continue to
increase the expansion of single purpose neighborhoods and low density
communities.
These patterns all have strong implications for how, where, and how
often people travel. The majority of Americans today live and work in
metropolitan areas with low density land use and housing patterns. In
general, the lower the density of a community the fewer concentrated
origins and destinations and the fewer corridors of high density
demand. These kinds of patterns require decentralized transportation
facilities and services.
__________
Chapter 2: Financing
All levels of government provided $88.5 billion for highway
programs. The Federal Government accounted for 21 percent; the States
53 percent; and counties, cities, and other local government entities
funded the remaining 26 percent.
In the past two decades (since 1973), the Federal share of highway
funding has gradually dropped from 28 percent to 21 percent.
Alternatively, the percentage of highway receipts contributed by local
governments has steadily increased during the same period, increasing
from 19 percent in 1973 to 26 percent in 1993.
Ihe $88.5 billion in highway revenues does not include revenues
collected from highway users but used to finance transit and other
nonhighway activities. For example, State highway user revenues from
motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees, and tolls actually generated
$46.1 billion in revenues in 1993, but only $36.7 billion was actually
used to fund highways.
The $88.5 billion provided for highway programs was distributed as
follows:
Capital investment: $39.0 billion
Noncapital expenses: $41.9 billion
Debt retirement: $5.2 billion
Reserve: $2.4 billion
During the past two decades, in constant (1970) cents per unit of
travel, total expenditures have dropped from 1.88 cents per vehicle
mile of travel (VMI) in 1970 to 1.12 cents per VMT in 1993, a 40
percent reduction.
Total transit revenue, from all sources, was $22.6 billion. Public
funding accounted for slightly over two-thirds and system-generated
revenue (e.g., fares, advertising, etc.) accounted for almost one-
third.
Of the $22.6 billion in funding provided for transit, $21.7 billion
was expended for capital investment and operating requirements. Capital
investment accounted for $5.7 billion and $16.0 billion was spent to
satisfy operating costs.
funding by level of government
Highway
In 1993, all levels of government provided $88.5 billion for
highway programs. The Federal Government funded $18.2 billion; the
States, $46.9 billion; and counties, cities, and other local government
entities funded the remaining $23.4 billion. The Federal share of
funding for highways increased dramatically between 1956 and 1960
following passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and the
establishment of the Highway Trust Fund. However, since 1960 there has
been a gradual trend downward in the Federal share of funding. The
percentage of highway receipts contributed by local governments has
been steadily increasing over the past several decades. For example, as
illustrated in Exhibit 2-1, the local share of highway funding has
increased from 19 percent in 1973 to 26 percent in 1993.
While the Federal Government provided 21 percent of the funding for
highways in 1993, its direct share of actual total expenditures was
only $0.9 billion, or less than 1 percent. This is because almost all
of the funds that the Federal Government provides for highways are
transferred to the States under the Federal-Aid Highway Program for
State and local governments to expend. Most of the remainder is spent
on federally owned roads and research.
Transit
Public funding for transit in 1993 was $15.4 billion. The Federal
share of this support was $3.3 billion, remaining at about the same
level in current dollar terms since 1985. The State and local share was
$12.1 billion in 1993.
The state and local share of transit assistance has climbed
steadily since reaching a low of 45 percent in 1980. This is due to a
reduction in Federal operating assistance in the 1980's, an increase in
State and local assistance over the same period, and a continued
increase in transit service provided.
sources of public sector financing
Highway
The $88.5 billion provided for highway programs in 1993 came from a
number of sources including highway user charges, property taxes and
assessments, general funds, investment income, other taxes,
miscellaneous fees, and bond issues. Exactions, development fees, and
special district assessments provided additional revenue.
At the Federal level, motor fuel and motor vehicle taxes are the
primary source of funds for highways. Motor fuel and motor vehicle
taxes also provide the largest share, 72 percent, of highway funds at
the State level.
Over one-third (36 percent) of highway funding at the local level
is provided through the General Fund. Investment income and bond issue
proceeds account for 32 percent. Property taxes, assessments, and other
fees contribute almost 24 percent. The remainder (7 percent) is
provided by highway users (motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and
tolls).
Transit
Federal support for transit comes from two sources: the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund. The
Transit Account now receives 2.0 cents per gallon of Federal motor fuel
tax receipts.
drawing conclusions
Funds Collected for Highways but Spent for Nonhighway Purposes
The highway revenues cited in this report do not include revenues
collected from highway users but used to finance transit and other
nonhighway activities. For example, State highway user revenues from
motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees, and tolls actually generated
$46.1 billion in revenues in 1993. However. only $36.7 billion was used
to fund highways.
Although local governments I actually raised $2.4 billion from
highway user taxation, only $1.7 billion was expended for roads and
streets. The difference in highway user revenues went for a variety of
highway purposes.
capital and noncapital expenditures
Summary of Expenditures
Of the $88.5 billion in funding provided for highways in 1993,
$86.1 billion was expended for highway programs and $2.4 billion was
placed in reserve. Of the total highway expenditures, $80.9 billion
went for current expenditures and $5.2 billion was used for debt
retirement.
In constant (1970) cents per unit of travel, total expenditures
dropped from 1.88 cents per vehicle mile of travel (VMI) in 1970 to
1.12 cents per VMT in 1993.
Of the $21.7 billion expended for transit in 1993, $5.7 billion was
expended for capital and $16.0 billion was for operating costs.
Capital Expenditures
Highway
All levels of government spent over $39.0 billion on highway
capital improvements. Of total expenditures, capital outlay represented
53 percent in 1973 and 48 percent in 1993. In constant (1970) cents per
unit of travel, capital outlay dropped from 1.04 cents per VMT in 1970
to 0.56 cents per VMT in 1993, a 46 percent decline.
Of the $39.0 billion spent on capital outlay in 1993, State and
local governments spent $38.7 billion, including $17.1 billion in
Federal funds. Federal direct expenditures were $0.3 billion. Federal
funds accounted for 44 percent of total highway capital outlay in 1993,
down from a high of 56 percent in 1980.
State and local governments supplied 55 percent of all funds for
highway capital improvements in 1993. With the exception of the period
from 1976 to 1986, the State and local government share has been
consistently more than 50 percent.
Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the distribution of highway capital outlay
by improvement type and functional system for nonlocal roads.
Capital outlay on all local roads was $7.1 billion in 1993. Local
roads have the highest level of spending per unit of travel of all the
functional systems. Improvement type data, however, are not available
for this functional class.
Transit
While Federal capital assistance has remained relatively stable
between 1988 and 1993, the level of State and local contribution to
transit capital assistance has grown. Thus, investment in transit
capital assets, both for existing and new systems has increased from
$4.1 billion in 1988 to $5.7 billion in 1993. Federal capital
assistance levels in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 were substantially
higher than in past years.
The largest single component of transit capital expenditures in
1993 was rail facilities, reflecting a general preponderance in capital
investment for facilities. Rolling stock accounts for just 27 percent
of transit capital expenditures. This is due primarily to the greater
investment required for rail facilities, which includes the rights of
way, track, and structure over which the service operates. Bus
facilities, while far more numerous, can be much simpler and require
less substantial investment.
Noncapital Expenditures
Since 1956, in both current and constant dollars, spending for non-
capital highway expenditures has increased. The noncapital share of
expenditures for highways was $41.9 billion in 1993, or 52 percent of
highway expenditures.
Constant dollar growth from 1960 through 1993 for the noncapital
category of expenditures was 122 percent compared to a 60 percent
growth in total expenditures for both the capital and noncapital
categories. In constant dollars, 1993 maintenance and traffic services
expenditures were 78 percent higher than in 1960. Exhibit 2-6
demonstrates the increase in the proportion of total highway
expenditures directed toward noncapital requirements. A total of $22.9
billion was spent by State and local governments in 1993 to keep all
highways, roads, and streets in 1993 to keep all highways, roads, and
streets in serviceable condition. The maintenance and traffic services
share of total expenditures was 26 percent in 1960 and 28 percent in
1993.
Other noncapital highway expenditures include administration,
highway law enforcement and safety, and interest on highway debt. The
relative share of these other noncapital expenditures to total
expenditures has increased from 12 percent in total expenditures has
increased from 12 percent in 1960 to 24 percent in 1993. In constant
dollars this category of spending has increased dramatically (216
percent) since 1960.
Transit
Operating (noncapital) expenditures increased significantly between
1983 and 1992, from $8.4 billion to $16.0 billion. Most of the
percentage increase took place between 1983 and 1986. From 1987 to
1993, the annual increase in operating expenses, in real terms, was
less than 1 percent The earlier increases result, largely, from more
complete reporting of costs, particularly in the rail transit sector as
well as from significant increases in service supplied.
Although real operating costs per unit of service have remained
relatively stable in recent years, expenditures per unit of travel have
increased due to a decline in the rate of service utilization.
Specifically, real operating costs per passenger mile increased 31
percent from 1983 to 1993, an average annual increase of 3 percent. The
decline in service utilization rates can largely be explained by the
increase in real fares of 41 percent during this period, an annual rate
of an annual rate of 4 percent.
__________
Chapter 3: Conditions and Performance
Because of investment targeted to system preservation, our
highways, bridges, and transit systems are in better physical shape
than they were a few years ago, and they are safer than ever:
The number of structurally deficient bridges has dropped.
The amount of the pavement in poor condition has stabilized
at a manageable level.
The percent of transit fixed facilities and rolling stock in
good condition has improved.
The overall highway fatality rate has declined steadily from
2.58 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in
1983 to 1.75 per 100 million VMT in 1993, with the Interstate
system continuing to be, by far, the safest system.
However, highway congestion continues to worsen. More travelers, in
more areas, during more hours are Acing high levels of congestion and
delay than at any point in the history of the country. This means we
are more susceptible to massive traffic backups as a result of
accidents and even minor incidents.
The quality of transit service has improved:
Since 1984, the passenger-mile weighted average speed
improved by about 10 percent.
Well over half of all riders report wait times of 5 minutes
or less. Fifty 1 percent of transit trips involve one or more
transfers.
Less than one-third of all transit trips involve standing
for at least part of the trip.
About 25 percent of all transit users report trip times of
10 minutes or less.
system performance
Highway Performance
Highway performance refers to the quality of service provided to
system users. Highway operating performance, on a given facility or
system, is a function of the quality of traffic flow. ``Congestion'' is
a term often used to describe poor highway performance. There are
substantial costs to the economy of the Nation as a result of
congestion. A report by the Texas Transportation Institute, Roadway
Congestion Estimates and Trends--1990, March 1993, estimated the total
cost of congestion for the 50 urban areas studied at $43.2 billion.
Delay accounted for approximately 85 percent of this amount, while
excess fuel consumption accounted for 15 percent. Eight of the top ten
urban areas had total congestion costs exceeding $1 billion.
While there is no widely accepted definition of congestion,
congestion has three attributes: severity, duration, and extent. These
three attributes affect system reliability. The severity of congestion
refers to the magnitude of the problem, measured primarily by the
average overall travel speed, travel time delay, or the maximum length
of a queue behind a bottleneck. The extent of congestion is defined by
the geographic area, the portion of the population, or the portion of
total travel affected. The duration of congestion is the length of time
that the traffic is congested. This report presents an assessment of
severity. However, data to quantify the duration and extent of
congestion are currently unavailable. A discussion of daily vehicle
travel per lane mile is provided to give the reader a sense of travel
density.
Peak-Hour Severity
The volume to service flow ratio (V/SF) may be used as a measure of
severity. The V/SF is the ratio between the volume of traffic actually
using a highway facility during the peak hour and the theoretical
capacity of that facility to accommodate the traffic.
A V/SF of greater than 0.80 indicates the beginning condition of
congestion. This level is a cost effective level of operation, but
small increases in traffic beyond this point will generally cause
operational problems.
Beyond a V/SF of 0.80, delay increases rapidly and system
reliability is impaired because of an increase in nonrecurring delay.
In general, as the traffic flow and density increase, any interruption
is increasingly likely to cause disruption to the smooth flow and
create a stop-and-go situation, resulting in lower throughput.
A V/SF of 0.95 or higher indicates the onset of severe congestion.
Vehicle operating costs, fuel consumption, emission, and aggravation
increase dramatically. Commuting time increases, worker productivity is
lost, and trip quality declines.
The percentage of daily peak-hour urban travel in 1993 occurring
under congested or highly congested (near stop-and-go) conditions is
presented in Exhibit 3-1. It is noteworthy that of the peak-hour travel
on Interstates and other freeways and expressways that is congested to
some extent, 77 percent is occurring under severely congested
conditions.
Due to changes in urban area boundaries and reclassification of
some rural facilities, it is difficult to assess trends related to
peak-hour congestion. However, the percent of peak-hour travel on urban
Interstates with V/SF ratios greater than 0.80 increased from about 55
percent to about 70 percent between 1983 and 1989, and has remained
relatively constant since that time.
drawing conclusions
Congestion
``Congestion'' is a term often used to describe poor highway
performance. However, there is no widely accepted specific definition.
It results from the inability of an individual highway section or
system to accommodate adequately the volume of traffic that attempts to
use the facility or system.
The results of congestion are interruptions in the traffic flow,
delay, increased travel time, increased fuel consumption, increased
vehicle emissions and reduced air quality, increased user costs,
increased cost of goods transport with resultant increased costs to the
consumer, increased aggravation to the driver, and other effects.
The perception of what constitutes congestion varies from place to
place. What may be perceived as congestion in a city of 300,000
population may not be considered congestion in a city of 3 million. For
that reason, this report does not attempt to specifically define
congestion. instead, it looks at the peak-hour volume of--raffic
relative to the calculated capacity.
Nonrecurring Delay
Incidents such as vehicle breakdowns and accidents, including minor
fender benders, have the potential to create nonrecurring delay. Where
congestion levels exceed volume to service flows of 0.80. the
likelihood: of nonrecurring delay increases significantly. High levels
of nonrecurring delay result in system unreliability and are the
economic reason that high levels of congestion should be avoided.
Questionable system reliability can severely restrict the adoption
of advanced production and distribution techniques. Justin-time
delivery is only one example of many innovative practices that depend
on the efficiency and reliability of highways. Although the absolute
amount of time taken for a trip is important, what is more important is
the assurance that the time for the trip will not be outside a
specified range.
Highway and Bridge Data Sources
The highway information on condition and performance is based on
data supplied by State highway agencies via the Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) and the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data
bases. The HPMS data is a: updated annually and includes information
about pavement. roadway cross-section, alignment, and usage for more
than 110,000 sample sections of arterial and collector highways
nationwide. The NBI contains records on each of approximately 575,000
bridges and is updated continuously.
Calculating Capacity
The volume to service flow ratios (V/SFs) reported in the current
1995 C&P Report are consistent with the capacity calculation procedures
presented in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209
of the Transportation Research Board.
The 1985 HCM was revised in 1994 to reflect the increased volumes
of traffic that are now being accommodated by freeways and, to a lesser
extent, by other roads. Current research shows that more traffic can
move through a freeway lane per hour than ever before because drivers
have become willing to travel at closer headways (less than 2-second
intervals) and at higher speeds at higher rates of flow than
previously.
The new HCM suggests a capacity increase of 10 percent to 15
percent on freeways and means that less highway mileage and s travel
will be reported as occurring under congested conditions than is
currently reported using the old procedure.
It is anticipated that the 1995 HPMS data furnished by the States
and reported in the 1997 C&P Report will reflect the new capacity:
calculation procedures.
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel per Lane Mile (DVMT)
There has been a consistent increase in travel relative to the
capacity of the highway system to accommodate the travel. Exhibits 3-2
and 3-3 illustrate the changes in DVMT per lane mile for each
functional system, from 1983 to 1993.
These exhibits demonstrate the continuing increase in travel
density on the higher functional systems, particularly the Interstate.
DVMT per lane mile on the rural Interstates increased an average of 3.6
percent annually. On the urban Interstates, travel per lane mile
increased 2.6 percent annually.
This increase in travel relative to the slower increase in supply
of highway capacity suggests increasing congestion on the higher
functional systems in the urbanized areas. Rural travel has not yet
saturated the facilities to the degree that has occurred in the large
urbanized areas. The greatest extent of congestion on highways in the
rural category often occurs on those highways adjacent to urban areas
or on facilities with heavy recreational travel.
Transit Performance
The perception of quality among customers and potential customers
is an important determinant of transit use, often more important than
the fare levels.
User Travel Speed
One of the most important dimensions of transit performance is
speed of service, as perceived by the user. Overall speeds have
improved since 1984 for both rail and bus service. Average rail speed
improved from 24.8 miles per hour in 1984 to 26.3 miles per hour in
1993. Bus speed, on average, was 12.9 miles per hour in 1984 and 13.7
miles per hour in our in 1993.
Transfers and Waiting Times
The latest data (1990) indicates that the majority of transit users
do not spend much time waiting for service. Well over half of all
riders (59 percent) reported wait times of 5 minutes or less. About 80
percent of riders wait no longer than 10 minutes.
The need to transfer between transit vehicles en route to one's
travel destination also influences transit patronage. Fifty-one percent
of transit trips involve one or more transfers. In addition,
approximately 17 percent of transit trips involve a transfer from a
private vehicle, e.g., park-and-ride situations.
Available Seats
The presence of standees, even one or two, tends to convey a sense
of crowding. This is especially true from the perspective of those who
must stand. Passengers often consider a vehicle to be crowded when it
is operating with a load factor above seated capacity but still
significantly below full capacity. As shown in Exhibit 3A, 29 percent
of transit trips involve standing for at least part of the trip.
Travel Times
According to data collected in 1990, about 25 percent of all
transit users reported trip times of 10 minutes or less, and nearly 76
percent of transit trips were reported to take less than half an hour.
system condition
Highway Conditions
Highways
Highway physical condition is a function of pavement condition,
lane width, alignment, drainage adequacy, and other measures that
relate to the road's physical integrity or level of safety. Pavement
conditions degrade because of normal use and weathering, increases in
traffic or vehicle sizes and weights, as well as levels of maintenance
and capital spending.
Pavement rated as poor usually requires vehicles to travel more
slowly than the posted speed limit, with more acceleration and
deceleration to avoid potholes or other sections of bad pavement.
Vehicle slowdown and rough pavement driving reduces fuel efficiency,
wears out brakes and shock absorbers more quickly, and can lead to more
frequent front end alignments.
Exhibit 3-5 shows the 1993 mileage and travel distribution by
category of pavement condition as well as the percent of unpaved
mileage.
Pavement in poor condition requires immediate improvement, usually
reconstruction, to restore serviceability. Reconstruction involves
removing and replacing paving material down to (and perhaps including)
the subbase.
Mediocre pavement is expected to need improvement in the near
future, generally within the next 5 years, depending on pavement
design, environmental factors, and traffic loading. Pavement rated as
mediocre can be improved by pavement management programs. The life of
the highway surface for these pavements can be prolonged with lower
cost, 3R types of pavement improvements (resurfacing, restoration, and
rehabilitation).
Pavement in fair condition will likely need improvement in the 5?
to 10-year horizon. The pavement in good condition will not likely need
improvement for 10 years to 15 years or more.
The pavement information for the higher functional systems is, for
most States, based on the International Roughness Index (IRI) pavement
rating system. Ratings for the lower order functional systems reflect,
for the most part, Pavement Serviceability Rating (PSR)-based
assessments. However, to some extent, the distribution of pavements by
condition rating reflects a mixture in each functional system of the
PSR and IRI procedures.
Bridge
The proportions of bridges that are classified as being
structurally or functionally deficient are found in Exhibit 3-6. In
general, the higher functional systems have fewer deficient bridges.
A structurally deficient bridge is not necessarily unsafe or one
that requires special posting for speed or weight limitations. It is a
bridge that is designated as needing significant maintenance attention,
rehabilitation, or sometimes replacement. Some of these bridges are
load-posted so that heavier trucks will be required to take an
alternate, longer route.
Functionally deficient bridges are those that do not have the lane
widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances adequate to seine the
traffic demand; or the waterway of the bridge may be inadequate and
therefore allow occasional flooding of the roadway,
drawing conclusions
Assessing Pavement Condition
Pavement condition evaluations have in the past been based on the
Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) system. However, a transition is
being made to ratings based on the international Roughness Index (IRI).
This change from PSR to IRI invalidates any comparison of 1993 pavement
condition data with that of preceding years. Several years of
measurements using the IRI procedure are needed to define a trend.
IRI is an objective measure of pavement roughness developed by the
World:Bonk, and is accepted as a standard in the pavement evaluation
community. It has been adopted as the measurement of pavement roughness
by FHWA because (1) it uses a standard procedure and can be replicated,
(2) it provides a consistent measure across jurisdictional lines and
diverse functional systems, (3) it is an objective measurement, and (4)
it is consistent with accepted worldwide pavement roughness measurement
procedures.
The PSR measure is more subjective, and its application was subject
to variation among jurisdictions and over time in the same
jurisdiction, so it was difficult to compare accurately the trends in
pavement.
transit conditions
Bus and Paratransit
Vehicle age is used as a surrogate for condition and provides the
basis for evaluating bus and Paratransit fleet conditions.
Exhibit 3-7 displays urban bus and Paratransit vehicle conditions,
in terms of the percentage of fleet in excess of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) guideline age for each type of vehicle.
There is a significant number of overage vehicles of all types in
the rural Section 16 and Section 18 fleets. The Section 16 fleet
includes all vehicles owned by private nonprofit human service agencies
that are recipients of Section 16 funds, not just those acquired with
FTA funds.
Bus Maintenance Facilities
According to transit operators, more than half (57 percent) of
urban bus support facilities are in ``good or better:'' condition for
their current mission. The remaining facilities are categorized as
``adequate'' (18 percent), ``substandard'' (14 percent), and ``poor''
(10 percent).
Of those facilities owned by rural operators, 74 percent are
reported to be of adequate size and 68 percent adequately equipped. Of
leased facilities, 61 percent are reported to be of adequate size and
55 percent are considered to be adequately equipped.
Rail
The areas reported to be in most need of improvement in 1984 have
improved significantly. Maintenance yards went from only 17 percent in
good or better condition to 64 percent, and maintenance buildings went
from only 28 percent to 52 percent. Also, stations improved
significantly from 29 percent to 66 percent, and bridges from 33
percent to .61 percent. ' A substantial portion of rail infrastructure
is still in need of investment to return it to good condition. Most
significantly, over 73 percent of elevated structures need major
investments. In addition, overhead (43 percent), third rail (41
percent), and maintenance facilities (48 percent) also have significant
shares in less than good condition, requiring major investments.
drawing conclusions
Minimum Transit Asset Age Requirements
For the purpose of managing the Federal investment in transit, the
Federal Transit Administration (ETA) has established minimum require
meets for the period of time an asset must remain in mass transit
service before it will be considered eligible for funding of a
replacement. These guidelines are based on such factors as industry
practices, manufacturer recommendations, and studies of the tradeoff
between capital investments and operating costs. On this basis. the
following are the minimum useful life guidelines for vehicles used in
bus and paratransit service: =
Standard Full Size Transit Bus: 12 years
Medium Duty Transit Bus: 10 years
Small Transit Bus: 7 years
Urban Paratransit van: 4 years
highway safety
A significant improvement in highway safety occurred during the
period from 1983 through 1993. The overall highway fatality rate
declined steadily from 2.58 fatalities per 100 million in 1983 to 1.75
fatalities per 100 million in 1993. Accident and fatality rates are
affected by many factors other than highway condition and performance,
including weather conditions, occupant protection use, number of
intoxicated drivers, extent of police exposure, law enforcement,
vehicle speed variations, and driver performance.
selected highway environmental indicators
The environmental consequences of transportation arise from both
construction and usage. Indices of performance pose both conceptual and
practical challenges. However, an initial set of categories has been
identified and includes air quality, water quality, wetlands, energy,
noise, land use and open space, threatened and endangered species, and
community impacts.
Progress is being made in each of these categories. As an example,
there has been significant progress in reducing the overall levels of
four major transportation-related air pollutants over the last decade.
Transportation sources are credited with most of the emissions
reductions during the decade, even though travel increased by 33
percent. Improvements in air quality are attributed to Federal limits
on gasoline volatility; replacement of older cars with newer, less
polluting ones; and increased usage of unleaded gasoline.
__________
Chapter 4: Investment Requirements
Investment requirement estimates are developed for two scenarios.
The Cost to Maintain conditions and performance provides the cost to
keep the system functioning at its current level. The Cost to Improve
conditions and performance provides the cost to bring the system up to
a specified level of condition and performance.
The average annual Cost to Maintain overall 1993 highway, bridge,
and transit conditions and performance, for the period 1994 through
2013 is estimated at $62.7 billion. The average annual Cost to Improve
highway, bridge, and transit conditions and performance is $86.8
billion over the same period.
Seventy percent of the highway and bridge investment reported as
necessary to either maintain or improve conditions and performance
would be required in urban areas where about 55 percent of the cost
would be directed to capacity expansion.
Somewhat over half of the investment necessary to either maintun or
improve transit conditions and performance would be required to correct
rail deficiencies; the remainder would be directed to the bus system. A
significant portion (85 percent) of total transit investment
requirements would be spent in areas having populations greater than 1
million.
The investment requirements provided above reflect the adoption of
policies, within the most populous urbanized areas, to locally manage
and satisfy future travel demand given environmental, fiscal, and
social constraints.
The highway component of the Cost to Improve scenario was developed
using a new simulation model, the Highway Economic Requirements System.
This procedure uses marginal benefit/cost analysis to optimize highway
investment. All highway improvements selected for implementation
generate direct user and agency benefits in excess of the initial cost
of the improvement.
analytical overview
Investment Scenarios
Total capital investment required from all sources to achieve
certain specified levels of overall condition and performance on the
Nation's highway, bridge, and transit systems is provided for two
scenarios: (1) the Cost to Maintain current conditions and performance
and (2) the Cost to Improve current conditions and performance.
Both scenarios are implemented over a Midyear beginning in 1994 and
include the cost to selectively repair pavement, bridge, and transit
deficiencies; eliminate unsafe conditions; and add capacity.
Under the Cost to Maintain scenario, some facilities will get
better and some will get worse but overall system condition and
performance will stay the same throughout the analysis period. In
contrast, under the Cost to Improve scenario, overall system
performance is improved by correcting existing and accruing system
deficiencies.
Methodology
The centerpiece of the highway investment requirements estimation
procedure is the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which
includes a comprehensive national data base and sophisticated
investment/performance simulation models.
The HPMS data base provides information describing the current
state of the highway system in terms of condition and performance.
The coordinated simulation models--the Analytical Process (AP) and
the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS)--simulate investment
decisions and estimate the resulting level of system condition and
performance. The AP was used to evaluate the Cost to Maintain scenario.
This approach is founded on engineering principles. That is,
engineering standards determine deficiency levels for various system
attributes and potential improvement options are identified and
considered for implementation based on engineering judgment and
practice.
The HERS was used to evaluate the highway Cost to Improve scenario.
This marks the beginning of a significant transition from the
traditional engineering-based approach to one that incorporates
economic considerations. The Cost to Improve investment requirements
estimate now incorporates an economic efficiency test that each
candidate improvement must pass before being selected for
implementation.
The highway Cost to Improve scenario is now referred to as the
Economic Efficiency scenario to highlight its economic component.
Where the traditional engineering-based analysis systematically
implements all appropriate improvement options identified, regardless
of economic merit, HERS evaluates each potential improvement to assure
that direct user and agency benefits generated by the project will
exceed the initial cost of the improvement.
Bridge investment requirements for both the Cost to Improve and
Cost to Maintain scenarios are estimated using an engineering-based
procedure, analogous to the HPMS AP. The bridge investment requirements
do not reflect explicit benefit/cost considerations.
For both scenarios, the transit analysis is based on current
infrastructure extent and condition and an estimate of the cost of
system preservation and added transit capacity required to satisfy the
objectives of each scenario. Explicit benefit/cost procedures are used
to validate service level assumptions and certain unit costs.
drawing conclusions
Investment Requirements
Estimates of investment required to either maintain or improve the
Nation's highway, bridge, and transit systems over the next 20 years
are intended to serve as benchmarks for policy development.
The Cost to Improve highway, bridge, and transit conditions and
performance suggest the upper limit of appropriate national investment,
based on either engineering or economic criteria. Alternatively, the
Cost to Maintain conditions and performance estimates provide a sense
of the lowest reasonable level of investment; investment at levels less
than the Cost to Maintain benchmark will result in system
deterioration.
The investment scenarios do not represent comprehensive alternative
national investment policies. No policy priorities have been assumed
regarding either the strategic importance of individual facilities,
classes of facilities, or mode of transportation. In actual practice,
however, State and local transportation agencies do target.
The Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS)
An Overview
An important goal of highway capital investment is to reduce the
total cost of transportation, including costs occasioned by public
agencies as well as highway users. User costs vary according to highway
physical conditions and system performance, and these factors are
directly affected by the level of highway investment.
The HERS model estimates the national highway investment required
to achieve a specified user cost level or the user cost level resulting
from a given level of highway investment. Its simulation procedure
assumes that project-level selection practices will optimize (given
varying constraints) the relationship between public investment and
direct user costs.
The HERS uses as input the HPMS data base and employs benefit/cost
analysis (BCA) to evaluate the attractiveness of potential highway
improvements that have been identified to correct deficient prototype
sections. The BCA decision rule is straightforward: invest only when
benefits exceed costs.
In the current version of HERS, benefits include reductions in
direct user and agency costs. Highway user benefits are defined as
reductions in travel time costs, accidents, and vehicle operating
costs. Agency benefits include;reduced maintenance costs and the
residual (salvage) value of a project. Costs refer to expenditures
associated with implementing the project such as design, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction.
For each alternative, a time stream of constant-dollar costs and
benefits is estimated for the lifetime of the project. Future benefits
are measured relative to the base, or do nothing alternative, and
discounted to allow for the opportunity value of resources with respect
to time.
When analyzing the Economic Efficiency Investment scenario, the
HERS corrects all system deficiencies having associated improvements
that generate direct user and agency costs exceeding the initial cost.
Investment beyond that indicated by the Economic Efficiency scenario
includes projects having negative net benefits. Investment short of
this point is a ``second best'' alternative because constraints, such
as funding exclude some project:s having benefits greater than costs.
When funding is not available to achieve ``optimal'' spending
levels, HERS will prioritize economically worthwhile potential
improvement options according to relative merit (that is, benefit/cost
ratios) and select the best set of projects. Subsequent editions of the
C&P Report series will include the results of such analysis.
Limitations
An intensive, independent review of HERS in 1994 indicated that,
while the model was fundamentally sound, it could be improved by
consideration of a number of issues.
Static System. The current version of the model does not consider
network interactions, new construction on new alignment, traffic
diversion, or induced travel. Many of these limitations are a function
of the data base, which consists of statistically sampled discrete
highway sections.
Inefficient Pricing of Facilities. Because highways (and
transportation in general) are not efficiently priced, highway users do
not consider the marginal costs--increased travel times--they impose on
all other drivers using the facility. Future versions of HERS will have
the capability of simulating the impact of alternative pricing
strategies.
Direct User Costs. While the direct benefits included in the
current version of HERS constitute the major impacts of highway
improvements, the HERS accounting is not comprehensive. Most
significantly, externalities (e.g., changes in air quality) and
''real'' As opposed to pecuniary) productivity improvements (e,g.,
benefits from improved system reliability) arising from system
improvements are not addressed. Work is under way to incorporate
externalities into the HERS framework.
Uncertain Value of Travel Time. One of the most significant
benefits associated with many highway improvements is travel time
savings. Although much research has been conducted in this area, there
is still disagreement on the proper values that should be applied to
the various types of travel: commercial, commuting to work, and
personal. Future editions of the C&P Report will include detailed
results of sensitivity analysis.
Travel Growth Assumptions
For the current 1995 C&P Report, the travel forecasts underlying
the highway and transit investment requirements for the 33 most
populous urbanized areas (UZAs) are derived from the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) planning process. Highway travel growth
projections for facilities outside these areas are based on state-
supplied, facility-specific forecasts as provided in the HPMS data
base.
Social, fiscal, and environmental concerns are most pronounced in
these areas and transportation modal alternatives are more prevalent as
well. For example, approximately 90 percent of transit ridership occurs
in the 33 most populous UZAs.
The MPO highway and travel forecasts must be in conformance with
Clean Air Act requirements and consistent with the fiscal capability of
the area to implement the proposed transportation investments.
Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the divergence from historical
patterns implied by adoption of MPO travel growth assumptions. Highway
travel is projected to increase at a dampened rate (1.5 percent
annually) relative to past experience. The growth rate would naturally
decline in the future as the VMT base grows; however, the MPO forecast
implies a sudden shift to a lower rate.)
Alternatively, transit travel growth trends are assumed to shift
from a continually constant level of travel to one in which travel will
grow at a compound annual rate of 2.4 percent. These trends are
consistent with MPO plans that seek to reduce highway travel through
various demand and supply oriented measures that encourage higher
transit use.
However, without significant and widespread demand-shaping
policies, which have yet to be implemented in any American city, it is
not likely that the MPO forecasts will be achieved. To the extent that
actual future experience exceeds the highway travel forecasts, the
resulting investment requirement estimates may be understated.
Analogously, the degree to which the transit travel forecasts are not
realized, the estimates of future transit investment requirements may
be overstated.
additional assumptions and procedural improvements
The data base, as well as the associated models are under
continuous review. Procedures are routinely developed, external to the
models, to keep the investment requirement estimation procedures
consistent with current information. Efforts to incorporate these
external procedures into the model structure are underway but may take
several years to complete.
Exhibit 4-3 provides an overview of the external revisions to the
model inputs and outputs that were implemented for the current report.
investment requirements
Cost to Maintain Conditions and Performance
Highway and Bridge
The average annual Cost to Maintain overall 1993 highway and bridge
conditions and performance on existing arterial, collector, and local
systems through 2013 is estimated at $54.8 billion.
Under this strategy, the overall miles of roadway in poor or
mediocre condition would remain essentially unchanged over the analysis
period. System performance would be maintained at its current level on
most rural and many urban miles.
The current total number of structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete bridges would also remain about the same.
Transit
The average annual Cost to Maintain current transit conditions and
performance, for the period 1994 through 2013, is estimated at $7.9
billion.
This level of investment would maintain facilities and equipment in
their current state of repair and expand service to meet the demand
increase forecasted by the MPOs.
At this level of investment, transit vehicles would be replaced at
about the current rate, which is slightly slower than what is generally
regarded as optimal. Existing rail systems would be maintained in about
their current condition, with no major improvements. Transit operators
would meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).
Cost to Improve Conditions and Performance
Highway (Economic Efficiency)
Under this scenario, system deficiencies are identified and any
investment that creates positive net benefits is considered worthwhile.
Implementation of this scenario resulted in an average BCR of greater
than 2.6. Some improvements resulted in BCRs significantly higher than
2.6 and some were lower; no improvement was implemented that had a BCR
of less than 1.0.
The average annual Cost to Improve highway conditions and
performance for the period 1994 through 2013 is, given Economic
Efficiency standards, $65.1 billion.
Bridge
The Cost to Improve bridge conditions scenario provides cost
estimates for achieving and maintaining predefined Minimum Condition
Standards for physical conditions on bridges that are currently
deficient or expected to become deficient at some point during the
analysis period. This scenario represents a significant improvement in
nationwide bridge conditions.
The modeling procedure used to develop the investment estimates for
this scenario does not employ economic considerations in the evaluation
of potential improvements.
The Cost to Improve bridge conditions for the period 1994 through
2013 is $8.9 billion annually.
Transit
The average annual Cost to Improve transit conditions and
performance is estimated at $12.9 billion for the analysis period.
Of the total annual investment requirements, $7.9 billion
represents the Cost to Maintain current conditions and performance,
$2.0 billion to correct existing deficiencies, and $3.0 billion to
improve transit service levels in terms of system speed, comfort, and
convenience. These estimates reflect investment requirements imposed by
the CAAA and the ADA.
At this investment level, sufficient capacity would be available to
provide transit patrons with seats for all but those trips occurring at
the peak of rush hours. In addition, wait times and the need to
transfer would be reduced. Finally, the backlog of deferred rail and
bus modernization and rehabilitation requirements would be eliminated.
schematic: development of highway investment requirements
Adjustments to the Highway Performance Monitoring System Analytical
Process and Highway Economic Requirements System Simulated
Investment Requirements
1. The analysis of 1994-2013 highway and bridge investment
requirements began with an assessment of the 1993 Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) data base. The States provide section-specific
estimates of future travel at the end of the analysis period.
2. The first major adjustment was to revise the HPMS State-supplied
travel forecasts in the 33 most populous urbanized areas to reflect MPO
planning considerations. This adjustment resulted in less highway
travel being projected over the 20-year analysis period and therefore
lowered capacity requirements, especially in the most populous
urbanized areas.
3. In the face of increasing congestion, many drivers will adjust
their schedules to make more intensive and efficient use of available
highway capacity. Therefore. peak travel periods will extend for longer
periods of time and in more locations. To reflect this phenomenon a
spreading of the peak was simulated, resulting in lower capacity
requirements.
4. The model-based results were adjusted to reflect the latest
edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). which assumes a larger
number of vehicles per lane per hour are now being accommodated than in
the past [effectively increasing capacity). The impact of this
adjustment was a reduction in projected capacity requirements.
5. Where appropriate, capacity enhancements other than constructing
additional lanes were simulated. Such enhancements include freeway
surveillance and control, High Occupancy Vehicle facilities, ramp
metering, incident management, signalization improvements, traffic
channeling, and restriping existing pavement. The impact of
implementing an aggressive Transportation System Management program
reduces the requirement for additional lane miles of capacity.
Investment Requirements Added to the Model-Based Estimates
6. To incorporate the basic infrastructure requirements in
expanding suburban areas, the expected population growth in and around
urbanized areas is translated into basic network infrastructure.
Incremental metropolitan expansion requirements are estimated at $8.5
billion per year (beyond estimates for increased demand on existing
facilities).
7. The HPMS data base does not contain condition and performance
information for the approximately 2.7 million miles of roads
functionally classified as local. Local road investment requirements
are estimated at $1.0 billion per year, based on a Department of
Agriculture study.
8. The military relies on the highway system for peacetime movement
of military shipments, as well as for wartime or emergency mobilization
and deployment of military units. For these purposes, a subset of
Interstate and other principal arterial systems has been accorded
certain design specifications in order to accommodate large and heavy
military vehicles. Capital requirements necessary to achieve these
specifications, above and beyond what would normally be required to
accommodate nonmilitary traffic, are estimated at $30 million annually.
9. In their HPMS submittal, the States are no longer required to
provide information on rural minor collectors. The investment analysis
of rural minor collectors was based on information included in the 1992
HPMS data base.
__________
Chapter 5: Investment Requirements Versus Capital Outlay
In 1994, $57.2 billion in capital investment would have been
required, from all levels of government, just to maintain 1993
conditions and performance on our Nation's highways, bridges, and
transit systems. This estimate includes $34.8 billion in system
presentation and $22.4 billion to expand capacity to prevent increased
congestion.
In 1994, $80 billion would have been required to provide a higher
quality of service. This estimate includes $50.7 billion for system
presentation and $29.3 billion for expanded capacity. Under this
scenario, highway deficiencies would not be eliminated, but those
highway improvements that generated a benefit/cost ratio of one or
greater would be made.
Currently (1993), all levels of government spend $40.5 billion
annually on highway and transit capital investment triggered by
condition and/or performance deficiencies. Highway investment accounted
for $34.8 billion and transit investment accounted for $5.7 billion.
Just to maintain current conditions on our highway and transit
systems will require 41 percent higher funding than Federal, State, and
local governments are currently investing. To improve conditions to
optimal levels based on economic and engineering criteria would require
us to double our current capital investment in highways and transit.
Investment by all units of government has never been sufficient to
maintain overall system condition and performance. However, highway and
transit systems have not fallen apart because the States are investing
strategically so that the most important deficiencies are addressed. As
a result of overall disinvestment, highway system performance continues
to decline. Motorists now face more congestion, in more places, for
longer periods of time, than at any point in history. Maintaining the
highway and transit infrastructure at an acceptable level will become
increasingly difficult unless adequate funding is provided.
Investment estimates are developed for a 20-year analysis period.
To provide linkage between these 20-year investment estimates and
actual current year investment, this section offers a comparison of
1994 investment requirements and actual recent capital outlays by all
units of government. This analysis requires that only 1993
disbursements related to condition and performance deficiencies (as
opposed to total capital outlay) be compared to investment required in
1994 (in contrast to the average annual requirement).
It was reported earlier in this pamphlet that a total of $38.7
billion was spent by State and local governments on highway and bridge
capital improvements in 1993. However, not all of this spending was
occasioned by condition and performance deficiencies.
Of the $38.7 billion in capital expenditures, $34.8 billion was
spent to correct condition and performance deficiencies. The balance
was spent on capital improvements intended to satisfy other objectives
such as environmental impact mitigation or economic development.
Exhibit 5-1 provides a comparison of total capital outlay with that
portion invested to correct condition and performance deficiencies.
Because of projected increases in highway and transit travel over
the 20-year analysis period, the investment requirement estimate for
any given year (except the midpoint) will be different than the average
annual investment requirement reported in Section 4. Investment
required for capacity expansion to maintain or improve system
performance is assumed to grow at a rate equal to the rate of travel
growth. Therefore, the investment required for each year during the
first 10 years of the analysis period will be lower than the average
annual; and the investment required for each year during the second
half of the analysis period will be higher than the average annual.
Exhibit 5-2 compares the investment required in 1994 to maintain or
improve highway, bridge, and transit conditions with the comparable
1993 capital outlay. Readers will note that the highway and transit
investment required in 1994 is indeed lower than the average annual.
Bridge investment is generally directed at system preservation and is
therefore assumed to be insensitive to travel growth estimates.
__________
PART II: MARITIME
Chapter 6: Waterborne Transportation
The U.S. waterborne transportation system serves the needs of both
international and domestic commerce and also includes the port
infrastructure and shipbuilding industry. Together its segments play a
critical role in meeting national security requirements and
contributing to economic growth.
The world merchant fleet amounts to over 25,000 vessels with a
capacity of 686 million deadweight tons (DWELL. The U.S. ranks tenth
among countries of registry with 20 million DWT. The domestic fleet
includes nearly 40,000 vessels with a cargo capacity of more than 67
million short tons.
The January 1, 1995, world orderbook for merchant vessels consisted
of 1,527 vessels totaling 66.6 million DWT. The Major U.S. Shipbuilding
and Repair Base is comprised of 101 private building and repair
shipyards, and the U.S. ranks 26th among the world's shipbuilding
nations.
U.S. oceanborne foreign trade amounted to 898 million long tons
with a value of $566 billion in 1994 and is projected to grow 4.5
percent annually through 2005.
The cargo carried on U.S.-flag vessels increased steadily from 25.1
million long tons in 1970 to 35.2 million long tons in 1994, a 40
percent increase, reflecting the deployment of larger, more productive
vessels.
Total domestic trade amounted to approximately 1.1 billion short
tons annually during the 1987 through 1993 period.
There are 1,917 major U.S. seaport terminals, and 1,789 river
terminal facilities located in 21 states on the 25,000-mile U.S. inland
waterway system. Of the 343 ports that handled waterborne trade during
1993, the 50 leading coastal and inland ports accounted for 89 percent
of the total traffic. In 1994, 44 percent of the world merchant fleet
tonnage called at U.S. ports.
World oceanborne trade is projected to approach 5 billion tons by
2005. The demand for new buildings worldwide will approximate $267
billion in current dollars over the next 5 years, $150 billion
attributable to replacement requirements and $117 billion to trade
growth.
Future investment in the U.S. waterborne transportation system will
need to continue to be a blend of public and private money, as the
industry remains essentially privately capitalized.
system characteristics and condition
The U.S. waterborne transportation system serves the needs of both
international and domestic commerce. It includes the international
liner (scheduled), nonliner (unscheduled dry cargo) and tanker
segments, the domestic inland waterways, Great Lakes and ocean
segments, the port infrastructure, and shipbuilding industry. Together
these segments play an important role in both the global and domestic
economy, and a critical role in meeting our national security
requirements and contributing to economic growth.
World and U.S. Oceangoing Fleets
Characteristics The world merchant fleet of oceangoing vessels
1,000 gross tons and over, as of January 1, 1995, amounted to just over
25,000 vessels with a capacity of 686 million deadweight tons (DWT).
Only 15 nations have more than 10 million DWT registered under their
flags, and together these 15 account for 75 percent of the world total.
The five largest registry 'days are Panama, Liberia, Greece, Cyprus,
and the Bahamas, accounting for 46 percent of the total world fleet.
The U.S. ranks tenth with 20 million DWT. Tanker vessels make up the
largest part of the world fleet, accounting for 5,994 vessels and 297
million DWT. Dry bulk carriers account for 5,291 vessels and 250
million DWT. The United States has a significant presence in the world
intermodal fleet; its containership fleet ranks third in the world.
Condition
The U.S. oceangoing fleet is older and less fuel efficient than the
overall world fleet.
U.S. Domestic Fleet
Characteristics
The domestic fleet includes nearly 40,000 vessels with a cargo
capacity of more than 67 million short tons. The predominant vessel in
the domestic fleet is the dry cargo barge, 87 percent of which operate
on the inland waterways. Total capacity of the 26,953 dry cargo barge
fleet is 39 million short tons.
In 1993, the tank barge fleet consisted of 3,862 vessels with a
capacity of nearly 11 million short tons. About 82 percent of these
operated on the inland waterways. The domestic towboat/tugboat fleet
amounted to 5,224 vessels in 1993, 62 percent operating on the inland
waterways. The self-propelled U.S.-flag Great Lakes fleet consists
almost exclusively of dry bulk vessels, most of which carry ores.
Ferries constitute a small segment of the domestic fleet, 150 in
number, with a total passenger capacity of just over 87,000 (580 per
vessel average).
Condition
An age profile of selected portions of the domestic fleet is shown
in Exhibit 6-3.
Port Infrastructure
The U.S. port system is comprised of deep-draft seaport and Great
Lakes port facilities and the inland waterway system. Each of these
elements include both publicly and privately owned marine terminal
facilities which are the interface between water and surface
transportation modes.
There are in total 1,917 major U.S. seaport terminals comprising
3,173 berths. The general cargo class is the predominate berth type in
all regions except the Great Lakes, where the majority of facilities
are for dry bulk cargoes.
There are 1,789 river terminal facilities located in 21 states on
the 25,000-mile U.S. inland waterway system. The inland system is less
concentrated geographically and provides almost limitless access points
to the waterways.
U.S. Shipbuilding
The Major U.S. Shipbuilding and Repair Base is comprised of 101
private shipbuilding and repair shipyards--21 shipbuilding yards, 32
major repair yards, and an additional 48 yards that are capable of
performing topside work on large vessels.
drawing conclusions
Intermodal Transportation
Intermodal transportation uses sophisticated equipment (vessels and
inland delivery systems) linked through information technology to meet
shippers' needs. Compared to traditional breakbulk services, Intermodal
transportation provides shippers with lower transportation costs,
reduced inventory and warehousing costs, just-in-time logistics
support, reduced damage and pilferage, and increased market
opportunities. U.S.-flag carriers pioneered the development of marine
container terminals, double stack trains, and cargo and equipment
tracking systems to provide the total logistics support required for an
efficient transportation network.
U.S.-flag Shares
U.S.-flag vessels carried approximately 3.8 percent of U.S.
waterborne foreign trade in 1994, down from 5.3 percent in 1970.
However, the cargo carried on U.S.-flag vessels has increased steadily
from 25.1 million long tons in 1970 to 35.2 million long tons in 1994,
a 40 percent increase. This absolute increase in cargo carried on U.S.
flag vessels reflects the deployment of larger, more productive U.S.-
flag vessels in the in the 1970's and 1980's.
system performance
International Trade
In 1994, world oceanborne trade (imports) amounted to about 3.1
billion long tons, with the United States accounting for 18 percent.
Total oceanborne U.S. foreign trade (exports and imports) in 1994
amounted to 898 million long tons with a value of $566 billion, an
increase of 3.2 percent in tonnage and 12.8 percent in value from the
previous year.
U.S. finer trade expanded at an annual rate of 6.8 percent between
1985 and 1994. In 1994, approximately 78 percent of all U.S. liner
cargoes gong tons) were containerized. Highly specialized line-haul/
feeder services, connecting carrier services and vessel-sharing
arrangements have become the norm in these trades.
U.S. non-liner shipments declined at an annual rate of 1 percent
between 1985 and 1994. The U.S. tanker trade grew at an average annual
rate of 7 percent between 1985 and 1994, due largely to rising U.S.
petroleum imports (occasioned in part by declining domestic crude oil
production).
In 1994, 7,206 vessels, or 29 percent of the world merchant fleet,
called at U.S. ports. In terms of capacity, these ships represented 44
percent of the deadweight tonnage in the world fleet.
U.S. Domestic Trade
Total domestic trade (inland waterways, Great Lakes, and domestic
ocean services) amounted to approximately 1.1 billion short tons
annually during the 1987 through 1993 period.
The total volume of cargo carried on the Great Lakes has been quite
stable over the last several years, and amounted to nearly 110 million
tons in 1993. More than 90 percent of this traffic moved in dry bulk
ships.
One out of every eight tons of goods transported domestically moves
via the inland or intracoastal waterway systems, and more than half of
U.S. states are tied to a waterway system.
Total cargo moving in the domestic ocean trades, which include
Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, has been declining steadily for the
past several years, reflecting the decline in Alaska North Slope crude
oil shipments.
Port Traffic
The movement of domestic and foreign waterborne commerce through
the U.S. port system is highly concentrated. A total of 343 ports
handled waterborne trade during 1993. The tonnage handled by the 50
leading coastal and inland ports amounted to 89 percent of the total
water-borne trade in that year. Despite the high degree of
concentration, there were 145 ports that handled over 1 million short
tons of cargo, which demonstrates the broad base on which the U.S. port
system is built.
Container traffic through U.S. ports, which increased by 12 percent
from 1993 to 1994, is also highly concentrated. The top ports accounted
for 79 percent of the total. In terms of port calls, the top ports
accounted for approximately 75 percent of the vessel calls to all U.S.
ports in 1994.
Shipyard Production
As of January 1, 1995, the world orderbook for merchant vessels
1,000 gross tons (GRI) and over consisted of 1,527 vessels totaling
million DWT. Japan and South Korea are by far the leading world
merchant shipbuilders with combined 64 percent share (based on DWT) of
the January 1, 1995 orderbook. The United States ranks 26th among the
world's shipbuilding nations.
U.S. shipbuilding industry has a long history of commercial
construction. However, as a result of the suspension of Federal
construction assistance, the U.S. shipbuilding industry's commercial
orderbook fell from 77 vessels (approximately 4.7 million GRT) in the
mid-1970's to zero by 1988. Since the enactment of the National
Shipbuilding and Shipyard Conversion Act of 1993, U.S. shipyards have
been aggressively competing for re-entry into the domestic and foreign
commercial shipbuilding markets. The newly expanded Federal mortgage
guarantee program Title XI) has been a major impetus to the shipyards.
National Security Aspects
In the past, the United States relied on a huge fleet of relatively
small commercial ships to provide sealift support; now, that fleet has
been superseded by an infinitely more sophisticated network of
interrelated, intermodal equipment and large vessels. These assets,
located throughout the world, serve both U.S. commercial and military
requirements.
Demand for Water Transportation and Shipping Capacity
Oceanborne Trade
World oceanborne trade expanded from 2.3 billion long tons to 3.1
billion long tons between 1985 and 1994 (3.9 percent annually), and is
projected to grow at 4.3 percent annually to approach 5 billion tons by
2005. U.S. oceanborne foreign trade grew at a slightly slower rate over
the last 10 years, but is Projected to grow 4.5 percent annually
through 2005. Oceanborne trade is expected to grow at higher rates than
gross domestic product due to reduction in trade barriers and advances
in transportation and communications. Countries will be trading a
larger share of what they produce.
Demand for Ocean Shipping Capacity
Demand for shipping capacity is largely a function of world trade.
However, given the age profiles of the existing world fleet, the
principal new building demand in the 1990's will come from the
requirement to replace existing vessels. Thus, total shipbuilding
demand has a replacement component and a trade-induced component. Since
trade forecasts may vary widely, there is much more certainty
associated with the replacement component, which reflects the physical
deterioration of ships over time. Exhibit 6-7 shows the world demand
for newbuildings in the 1995-2000 period. Nearly two-thirds of the
total demand for newbuilding through the year 2000 will be for
replacement vessels. The demand for newbuildings worldwide will
approximate $267 billion in current dollars over the next 5 years, $150
billion attributable to replacement requirements and $117 billion to
trade growth.
Considering the high percentage of the world fleet that serves the
U.S., this demand for newbuilding is important to the Nation, as both a
shipbuilder and a consumer of transportation services.
System Investment Requirements
Future investment in the U.S. waterborne transportation system will
need to continue to be a blend of public (Federal, State, and local)
and private money, as the industry remains essentially privately
capitalized.
Significant investment in replacement tonnage will be required.
Where the replacements are built and what flag they fly will be largely
a function of the level of Federal commitment to maintaining a U.S.flag
presence in international trade and a U.S. shipbuilding capability.
Federal funds invested in the maritime industry tend to be highly
leveraged. Thus, an annual investment of $100 million in the proposed
Maritime Security Program would maintain an operating liner fleet of 50
U.S.-flag ships operating in international trade (a small fraction of
the total operating costs of such a fleet). Similarly, the Title XI
ship financing program (which guarantees up to 87.5 percent of vessel
cost) requires that only a small portion of the guarantee amount (5
percent to 10 percent) be held as a reserve against default.
__________
Statement of Andrew Card, Jr., President, American Automobile
Manufacturers Association
Good afternoon, I am Andrew Card, President and CEO of the American
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA). AAMA's members are
Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General Motors
Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA).
The automotive industry has a keen interest in and a unique
perspective on a safe and efficient highway system: good roads are
vital for both the production and use of our products.
The automotive industry sells ``mobility.'' Some years ago, a
former GM chairman characterized the role of the industry in this way:
``We may think we sell cars and trucks. But what we are really selling
is mobility. Our cars and trucks must be well designed and well built,
but if they cannot be used efficiently and enjoyably, they will be of
no more value than a canoe in the desert.''
While our customers need good roads for the safe and efficient use
of our products, we as manufacturers must also have good roads to build
and distribute our products. Global economic competition has changed
the way we conduct every aspect of our business and that includes how
we use our highways. U.S. maps may show that Interstate 95 runs from
Maine to Florida and that Interstate 80 goes from New York to San
Francisco. However, for America's car companies, these roads extend
directly from our 276 manufacturing facilities to Europe, to Asia and
beyond.
In order to compete in our global economy, AAMA member companies
have instituted quality control and lean manufacturing processes to
reduce costs and increase productivity. These improvements have
resulted in a significant change in the auto industry's material
delivery network. Auto manufacturers now ship the majority of their
parts and components just-in-time to meet very precise production
schedules. The data dramatically illustrate this change: in a decade,
just-in-time deliveries have increased, on average, from 25 percent to
95 percent of all deliveries.
For example, at one of our member companies, 32 plants operate on a
just-in-time inventory system. That means that throughout every single
working day, about 2,500 trucks travel more than one million miles on
the nation's highways delivering parts and components to those 32
plants just at the point they re needed in the production process.
At another one of our member companies, one typical plant receives
and unloads an average of 120 truckloads of component parts and
supplies daily. The plant then ships approximately 480 vehicles (one
half of its daily production) directly to dealers using 60 haulaway
trucks. An additional 480 vehicles leave the plant site loaded on
multilevel rail cars destined to rail unloading ramps located in major
market areas. Upon arrival, the rail cars are unloaded and the 480
vehicles are delivered to dealers by another 60 haulaway trucks.
Finally, another manufacturer uses a scheduled delivery process to
assure that parts and materials are delivered to its plants in just the
right quantity, at the right time. Trucks must pick up parts at
suppliers within a 30 minute window and deliver them to the
manufacturer's plant under the same time constraints. The objective is
to have no more than 2 hours inventory on the line at any one time.
It is clear that any disruption in highway service, such as
congestion or bad roads, will cause disruption in the manufacturing
cycle, resulting in lost production and sales. As Henry Ford put it:
``Ordinarily, money put into raw materials or into finished stock is
thought of as live money. It is money in the business, it is true, but
having a stock of raw materials or finished goods in excess of
requirements is WASTE which, like every other waste, turns up in high
prices and low wages.''
Just-in-time was a goal in the 1980's, but in the 1990's, it is a
necessity in order to be internationally competitive.
Mr. Chairman, I would like now to address some specific issues
related to ISTEA. One of the most crucial responsibilities for Congress
in the reauthorization process is to provide adequate funding for the
highway program. There are sufficient funds in the Highway Trust Fund
but they have not been spent in the past several years, to the
detriment of our roads and bridges. I know the subcommittee is well
aware of this problem. In fact, all of you signed the recent letter to
Budget Committee Chairman Domenici urging the committee to provide a $6
billion increase in highway funding for fiscal year 1997. AAMA's
members strongly support and appreciate your efforts.
As a global industry, the automobile industry also believes that
future U.S. competitiveness must address global transportation trends.
With the national commitment in some major overseas markets to advanced
surface transportation modes and to Intelligent Transportation Systems
programs, continued U.S. development of innovative highway
transportation approaches is important in assuring the long-term
viability of the U.S. transportation system. In this context, the
automobile industry supports development of Intelligent Transportation
Systems, or ITS, a mix of both vehicle and highway technologies which
are designed to assist all roadway users in the smooth movement of
traffic in congested areas. ITS can help improve air quality, increase
safety for highway users, as well as help reduce fuel use.
America's car companies believe that maintaining and improving our
nation's highway system must be one of our national priorities if we
are to compete internationally in the 21st century. We know you will
work toward that same goal as you authorize ISTEA this year.
______
Responses of Andrew H. Card, Jr., to Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Do you see the EPA's proposed ozone and particulate
matter standards as having an economic effect on transportation trends
in this country in general? And specifically on the transportation
industry?
Response. If EPA's proposed standards for ozone and particulate
matter are adopted, there is likely to be a significant increase in
non-attainment areas in the country. Any area in non-attainment would
be restricted in how it allocates Federal highway funds, so there would
clearly be a negative effect on transportation. In addition, there
would likely be additional controls imposed on mobile source emitters
which would have a negative effect on both personal mobility and the
just-in-time delivery system on which manufacturers depend.
Question 2. What would you like to see in an ISTEA reauthorization
proposal concerning the CMAQ program?
Response. The CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) program
currently does little to reduce congestion on America's highways and
therefore little to improve air quality. The CMAQ program should be
reformed so that funds could be used for highway projects which would
allow traffic to move more freely and provide improved access from
highways to our manufacturing facilities.
Responses of Andrew H. Card, Jr., to Questions from Senator Chafee
Question 1. I think we can all agree that investments in
transportation yield a high return in terms of economic productivity,
efficiency and job creation. However, we are unlikely to have adequate
public resources to address all transportation needs. Strategic
transportation investment is therefore critical. In your opinion, which
transportation investments will yield the greatest rate of return in
the future?
Response. The best return on our investments in transportation
comes from highway expenditures, especially where funds are used to
mitigate traffic congestion and improve access to our manufacturing
facilities.
Question 2. Your testimony recommends that the reauthorization
should provide increased funding for highways and innovative highway
programs. What about other modes of transportation? How much does your
industry rely on rail and other modes to build and distribute your
products?
Response. The auto industry is heavily dependent on all modes of
transportation, including rail. As a result, intermodal connectivity--
efficient connections between modes--is also very important to the
industry.
______
Prepared Statement of Alan E. Pisarki, Author of Commuting in America
II
introduction
It is an honor to be here at this first Senate hearing on ISTEA
reauthorization, with the opportunity to address important
transportation trends in America today. I recall with great pride that
I participated in the first Senate hearing in the advent of ISTEA 6
years ago.
My focus today will be on commuting trends, their economic and
demographic determinants, and their implications for our transportation
future. This will be based largely on my recent study, Commuting in
America II. At the outset, I want to thank the 14 sponsoring
organizations and other agencies that assisted in this effort,
particularly the leadership of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
The materials provided are in two parts: this testimony, and a set
of supportive graphics. Copies of the complete report, Commuting in
America II, have also been made available.
the worker boom
Previous study has identified three factors operative in the worker
boom of the seventies: large job increases, the baby boom, and the
rapid increases in women's participation in the work force. Each of
these three forces has diminished. The trends depict a clearly visible
``bubble'' of growth in both the labor force age population and the
actual labor force over the past period that explains the great
commuting surge of the seventies and early eighties and its relative
decline in the nineties.
Although the rates of change show a sharp drop, the total increase
for the period is still substantial, over 18 million workers, actually
about 300,000 more than in the seventies yielding two decades of very
substantial increase with which our transportation system has had to
deal.
There is substantial foundation for the belief that the 1990 census
results may have signaled the closing of the worker boom. Future trends
depict a period of relative calm low overall growth in total population
and population of working age for the remainder of the decade and into
the next century. Labor force growth rates will decline to about half
of the rate in the eighties, but are still projected to produce an
absolute increase in labor force of between 17 and 18 million for the
decade, or only a little less than the number in the eighties.
Some key points:
The 1980-1990 decade saw the lowest rate of population
increase in our nation's history, save for the depression decade, and
the only other time that growth over a decade has been below 10
percent. Absent extensive levels of immigration that rate would have
been much lower.
There is a period of relative calm ahead about 10 percent
overall growth in population and population of working age for the this
decade moving in tandem with continuously declining rates of growth out
to the year 2050.
Women's labor force growth rate surged through the sixties
and seventies and is just now tapering off, but still remains at high
rates relative to men. Total labor force increase in the 1980-1990
decade was clearly down from the previous decade, for both men and
women, with women contributing 11 million to the labor force in
contrast to about 14 million in the previous decade.
Women's share of total employment rose from below 30
percent in 1950 to 45 percent in 1990.
It is expected that the 18 year old age-group, the source
of new workers, new commuters and new drivers, will have declined to
its nadir in 1995 and then slowly begin recovering, but will not reach
4 million again until 2008 under present projections.
In many respects the fundamental unit of metropolitan
travel is the household. There are about 100 million households in
America today. The average household size in 1950 was 3.37 persons,
declining rather dramatically to 2.63 persons by 1990, with the
greatest changes occurring in the sixties and seventies.
There continues to be a close parallel between household
and labor force growth; the overall growth rate from 1950 to 1990 for
the labor force was 200 percent and for households, 211 percent,
indicating that labor force (or workers) per household changed little
in the period.
Seventy percent of workers live in households with two or
more workers, suggesting that tradeoffs between home and work locations
are critical.
The effect of all this is to say ``yes,'' but to the
question of the influence of the worker boom in the future of
commuting. The strong growth rates characteristic of the boom period
are over, but given the large size of our national work force resulting
from the strong growth of the past, future growth will continue to
yield large numbers of new commuters that will challenge our
infrastructure and public policy.
the auto boom
As in the worker boom, there is a qualified answer to the question
of the persistence of the trend in private vehicle ownership and use.
Arrayed on one side is the astonishing fact that we added more
vehicles than people to our population in the eighties. Beyond the
surge in ownership is the fact that the private vehicle continued to
absolutely dominate the choice of mode of transportation to work. All
alternatives to driving alone to work by private vehicle declined
between 1980 and 1990. The increase in the number of commuters in
single occupant vehicles exceeded the total increase in commuters.
About 19 million workers were added, and over 22 million single
occupant vehicle drivers. Effectively, all new workers chose to drive
alone and a few million additional workers shifted from other modes to
the single occupant vehicle. Some alternatives, such as walking and
carpooling, declined precipitously, while others, such as transit,
declined less dramatically. Only working at home showed growth.
Arrayed on the other side, it is difficult to see continued shifts
to the private vehicle, on average, across the Nation beyond the
present surge. A number of factors are involved in this:
The shares of auto ownership by households show clear
signs of stabilization at very high levels.
The ratio of cars to workers has actually declined
slightly.
Most significantly, the number of vehicles available
exceeds the number of drivers; and there is apparent saturation, on
average, of drivers licenses. The important exception to these points
will be treated later.
The prospects for further shifts to the private vehicle seem minor
if only because commuting travel is now so overwhelmingly oriented in
that direction. It seems infeasible to believe that carpooling or
transit levels could drop further fewer than one in ten cars has an
occupant other than the driver, and transit is used by one in 20
commuters. On the other hand the precipitous declines in carpooling in
the last decade were unanticipated as well.
The forces that impel personal vehicle use continue. Among the
factors that will govern private vehicle use for commuting in the
future are these:
continued dispersion of jobs and population to the suburbs
and beyond;
continued pressures of time on multi-worker households;
continued low levels of vehicle operating and ownership
costs.
Of these, the pressures of time, particularly on working women, has
immense influence. The fact that 70 percent of commuting households
have two or more workers suggests that living near work is no longer a
simple option, and the trip chain taking care of household needs on the
way to and from work (children, food, laundry, etc.) is central in
contemporary lifestyles.
Among the key findings were:
Vehicle Ownership
While population grew by less than 10 percent and
households by about 14 percent between 1980 and 1990, total vehicles
available to households jumped by over 17 percent. Nothing depicts
better the scale of vehicle growth than that the number of vehicles
added in the decade exceeded the number of people added.
The majority of U.S. households have two or more vehicles,
with an average vehicle availability of 1.66 vehicles per household, up
from 1.61 in 1980. It is more impressive when it is recognized that
these increases in vehicles per household are occurring against a
backdrop of declining persons per household.
The case for stabilization of vehicle ownership can still
be made despite the significant growth numbers just cited; there has
been a decrease in the share of households with three or more vehicles
from 1980 to 1990
It will not matter how many vehicles people own as long as
the number of driver's licenses are stable.
The proportion of all households that are without vehicles
has been in continuous decline since at least 1960. In 1960 21 percent
of households were without vehicles, dropping to just above 11 percent
by 1990.
In absolute numbers, the number of zero-vehicle (vehicle-
less) households has remained roughly constant for 30 years at about 10
to 11 million.
Census data indicate that about 5.3 million workers live
in vehicle-less households. Thus at most half of the vehicle-less
households have workers.
The New York metropolitan area held about 20 percent of
all zero-vehicle households in 1980. Despite the fact that New York
lost zero-vehicle households in the 1980-1990 decade, it still obtained
approximately a 20 percent share of a fifth of all such households.
The American vehicle fleet is aging rather substantially.
The present fleet's average age is approaching 8 years (7.7 years), in
contrast to less than 5.6 years in 1969.
New cars typically have less than 20 percent of their
travel allocated to commuting whereas older vehicles have upwards of
24-25 percent of their travel in commuting.
Trends in the transportation cost index, composed of the
cost trends in owning and operating private vehicles, and with
proportional inputs from taxi, transit, and airline fares, as well as
other transport costs closely track the general consumer price index,
composed of a weighted ``marketbasket'' of all consumer purchase items.
The cost of vehicles in terms of the number of weeks of
median family earnings needed to pay for them showed a stable pattern
throughout the seventies at about 20 weeks pay, rising to about 25
weeks pay, a 25 percent increase, by 1991. Thus, the average vehicle
costs about half a years pay to the family earning the median national
income.
If improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency are added to
declines in fuel costs the price of fuel per mile of travel has dropped
substantially. Fuel costs have dropped from above nine cents a mile in
the high cost 1980-1982 period to the 5\1/2\ cent range in 1992.
Modal Shares
The short description of the long term trend is that there
is a continuation of the increasing orientation to personal vehicles
for commuting. The number of single occupant private vehicle users
increased by over 22 million between 1980 and 1990 exceeding the number
of new commuters. The pattern is uniform across the Nation by region,
State, and metro area.
The linking together of trips serving the household as
part of the journey to work trip, so called work-trip chains, such as
dropping children at child-care facilities, dropping off cleaning,
picking up fast-foods, etc., is very much a family/household
characteristic, and an increasingly important factor in choice of
transportation.
Auto use increases with age until the mid-fifties age
group and then slowly tapers. This pattern is replicated when men and
women are analyzed separately.
There are only slight differences between men and women in
mode choice that are still discernible; these differences have tended
to diminish over time as women's work characteristics have become more
like men's.
The most evident effect of income is that driving alone
increases from about 60 percent to over 80 percent with increasing
income; correspondingly, carpooling decreases.
Central city renters, constituting about 17 percent of
households, are the least auto-oriented group, although still with a 70
percent private vehicle share. While all home owners are highly private
vehicle-oriented, suburban home-owners are the most, with over 90
percent use of the private vehicle.
The number of carpoolers has dropped from 19 million in
1980 to less than 15.4 million carpoolers in 1990 out of a total of 115
million declining to 13.4 percent of commuters. A major factor in the
decline of carpooling, accounting for two-thirds of the loss, is the
decline in large carpools.
Carpooling is increasingly a household activity.
Public transit use remained relatively stable from 1980 to
1990 with almost exactly 6 million riders in 1980, declining by about
100,000 to roughly 5.9 million users in 1990. Transit's share of
commuters declined from 6.3 percent to 5.1 percent.
While bus, the major mode used in transit, lost ridership,
other transit modes, specifically subway and commuter railroad, gained
riders. Much of the total increase, almost 40 percent of it, occurred
in New York.
Metro area size is a critical factor in transit use. Metro
areas of over one million population, which account for half the
national population, are responsible for 88 percent of the nation's
transit use; areas over 5 million account for 61 percent. New York
alone accounts for 37 percent. The concentration of transit use in the
largest metropolitan areas has increased since 1980.
Working at home was the only category, other than the
single occupant vehicle, that increased in share. The overall gain was
dramatic, over a 50 percent increase, growing from 2.2 million in 1980
to 3.4 million in 1990.
Among the groups that are most oriented to working at home
are women, home owners, older populations, non-metropolitan residents
and the white non-Hispanic population. Non-metropolitan residents, with
20 percent of all commuters, constitute 30 percent of those who work at
home.
Commuting Times and Travel Trends
Overall, commuting travel time for all modes averaged 22.4
minutes one way in 1990, up by only about 3 percent, from 21.7 minutes
in 1980 an increase of roughly 40 seconds.
Seventy percent of Americans reach work in less than half
an hour.
Metropolitan size is also a major factor in travel times,
varying from an average of 17 minutes for those areas below 100,000 in
population to over 27 minutes for those over 3,000,000 in population a
10-minute swing. The average for the areas over 1 million is just above
25 minutes.
Most States cluster around the national average with the
greatest deviations being New York State (1.24 times the national
average) and North Dakota (58 percent of the national average).
On average, a suburban resident commuting to the same
suburb has a 7 to 8 minute travel time advantage over commuting to the
central city of the same metro area.
The central city oriented trip appears to increase in
travel time far more rapidly as metro size increases than do trips to
suburbs or to other central cities or suburbs. This suggests one reason
for the growing significance of suburbs in large metro areas.
Reverse commutes, at 23 minutes, take about 3 or 4 minutes
less in the non-peak direction than does the inbound direction.
Suburb to same suburb travel is almost completely
explained by driving alone, walking and working at home.
Suburban and non-metropolitan flows are very similar in
regard to the dominant share of the private auto and two-person
carpools. After that, larger car pools are key in non-metropolitan to
central city flows, while transit plays a bigger role in suburb to
central city flows.
The flow between central cities shows a striking use of
larger carpools and of railroads. This is a major role for commuter
rail.
The percentage of commuters with travel times beyond 60
minutes is just below 6 percent. The average for all metro areas over a
million is 7.5 percent. Three areas have percentages over 10 percent
New York (16.5), Chicago (10.7), and Washington, DC. (10.7).
The 60-or-more minutes travel time group has the lowest
drive alone share, while still significant, but with extensive use of
large carpools and transit, especially commuter railroad.
There is an even peak from 7 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from
7:30 a.m. to 8 a.m., consisting, of a male-oriented worker peak and
then a female oriented peak.
Even in the peak period, the period from 7:30 a.m. to 8
a.m., the majority of travelers have trip times of under 20 minutes.
The half hour segment just before it has many more long distance (in
time) travelers.
The early morning hours are much more heavily oriented to
long distance travelers. A high proportion of workers with trips longer
than 60 minutes leave for work before 5 a.m.
Travel time changes support the changing flows patterns observed
earlier. While both increased in average travel time, the time
advantage of suburb to suburb commuting over suburb to central city
commuting has actually increased.
The average trends tend to imply that things are going relatively
well in commuting, but that is clearly not the case everywhere. Nothing
is so distorted by averages as measures of travel time. Many areas,
particularly those undergoing substantial growth, notably the
metropolitan South and West, have seen sharp increases in travel times.
One part of the explanation for the small increases in average travel
times is provided by the shifts from slower modes to faster, e.g. from
transit to carpooling or from carpooling to driving alone. This is
obviously a one-time solution that will be available to only a few in
the nineties. Neither will the surplus system capacity be available to
absorb additional travelers. As a result the search for reasonable
commuting times will likely lead to further dispersal.
the surbanization boom
In regard to the geographic flow patterns of commuting the trends
are unequivocal; the suburban boom continues. Because of Bureau of the
Census definitional changes, this trend requires some statistical
manipulation to confirm.
Overall, the suburbanization of population and jobs not only
continues but has accelerated in pace. Today the dominant commuting
flow pattern is suburban, with half of all the nation's commuters
living in suburbs and over 41 percent of all jobs located there, up
from 37 percent in 1980.
Suburban areas, defined here as the balance of metropolitan areas
after subtraction of the central city, are now the main destination of
work trips. The suburbs were the location of 13 million of the 19
million new jobs created between 1980 and 1990; about a 70 percent
share of all job expansion. This is an increase in share of job growth
from the 1970 to 1980 period.
If the focus shifts to commuting within metropolitan areas only,
and non-metropolitan areas are excluded, suburbs contain two thirds of
all metropolitan workers and slightly more than half of metropolitan
job destinations.
The flow patterns with a suburb as a destination account for
substantial shares of growth in recent times. Suburb to suburb
commuting accounted for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows in
1990. That share is destined to increase given that suburb to suburb
commuting obtained more than 58 percent of all commuting growth from
1980 to 1990 as it did in the 1970 to 1980 period.
A substantial increase in growth share was also obtained by central
city to suburb commuting, so-called ``reverse commuting,'' rising from
a 9 percent share of growth to over 12 percent. Its share of growth
actually exceeded the share of central city to central city flows.
Of further note is that the ``traditional commute,'' the suburb to
central city component of flows, decreased its share of growth,
accounting for less than 20 percent of all increase in the 1980-1990
period, down from a 25 percent share in the previous decade.
Inter-metropolitan commuting has shown substantial growth. In both
1980 and 1990 the dominant part of inter-metropolitan commuting was
``cross suburb commuting''--that is, commuting from one suburb to the
suburb of a different metropolitan area. This flow pattern grew at more
than twice the rate of suburban commuting growth in general.
As one measure of the suburban effect, the number of Americans who
commute outside their county of residence has almost tripled since
1960.
Some key trends:
population patterns
If the geographic definitions that applied in 1980 are
retained for 1990, central city population across the Nation has
actually declined, all of the metropolitan growth of 17 million
therefore was in the suburbs. In this structuring of the data non-
metropolitan areas gained 5.2 million. Some of the key points in the
suburbanization trend are:
In the 1980-1990 period, using 1980 definitions,
central cities showed a slight decline of .7 percent, losing
roughly half a million people.
Central cities lost in the range of 2.5 to 3 million
persons per year in net terms to the suburbs during the
eighties. These flows were somewhat softened by foreign
immigration to central cities in the range of 750,000 per year.
Thus central cities continue to experience net outward
population shifts, almost exclusively to suburbs, in excess of
2 million per year.
The 1980 to 1990 growth pattern contributed to a
further increase in suburban population share; the 1990
suburban share of metropolitan population now stands at over 60
percent.
Metropolitan population growth rates have been highly
variable from area to area. All of the high growth metro areas were
Western or Southern, with the exception of Minn.-St.Paul. Conversely
almost all of the low growth areas were Northeastern.
As in the seventies, all areas losing population still
show substantial overall worker growth and even more dramatic suburban
worker growth, although not as extreme as in the earlier decade.
Non-metropolitan areas are again experiencing something of
a growth renaissance. Although less than half of the nation's non-
metropolitan counties were growing in the eighties, almost three-
quarters were gaining population in the nineties, with a major factor
being in-migration. Many of these growth areas seem to be recreational
and retirement based.
Actual domestic migration rates appear to have continued
unslackened in the eighties, despite the aging of the population, with
most moves remaining in the same area.
There is evidence of a lessening of the shift to the
sunbelt that has dominated national migration patterns since the
1950's. Taken together the South and West, with 52 percent of the
nation's 1980 population, obtained 94 percent of population growth in
the 1980-1985 period, dropping off to about 83 percent of growth in the
1985-1990 period. In the nineties the rate has dropped further to an
estimated 76 percent of all growth by 1993, but their share of the
nation's population still rose to 56 percent.
Job/Worker Patterns
Suburbs now house half of all workers in the country. Most
of the workers reside within the heavily urbanized inner ring of the
suburbs.
The data indicate that there has been a significant
alteration in the location of jobs over the 10 year period. Suburban
areas constituted 42 percent of the job locations in 1990, up from 37
percent in 1980, obtaining a two-thirds share of national job growth in
the period, (equivalent to 75 percent of metropolitan job growth). The
remarkable point is the substantial share of growth taken by the
suburbs and central cities outside the metropolitan area of residence
of the commuter. One quarter of the growth was obtained by such areas.
Of 115 million commuters, about 90 million are in
metropolitan areas, of which 80 million commute internally and 10
million leave the metropolitan area, often bound for other metropolitan
areas.
The remaining 25 million commuters are non-metropolitan,
for the most part remaining in non-metropolitan areas to work, with
about 3 million entering metropolitan areas every day to work.
The tendency to work within one's home county declines as
the size of the metropolitan area increases. Seventy-six percent of all
commuters work within their county of residence, with a remainder of
somewhat more than 27 million who leave. This is almost triple the
number who commuted beyond their county of residence in 1960.
Intercounty commuting varies sharply by metropolitan area as a function
of the local geography.
Central city residents are more home-area oriented, with a
percentage approaching 85 percent working in their home county, while
suburbanites are much less so-oriented, with slightly more than 71
percent remaining in their residence county. Those living in places of
above 5,000 population in non-metropolitan areas, i.e. small cities and
towns, are the most locally oriented, with 85 percent remaining in
their county to work.
The dominant flow pattern is suburban, with half of all
metropolitan commuters living in suburbs; and with suburb to suburb
commuting accounting for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows.
Suburban areas are now the main destination of work trips.
The available data indicate that outbound flows to other
metropolitan areas and to non-metro areas amounted to about 5.4 percent
of all commuting in 1980 and rose to over 7.5 percent in 1990.
Moreover, inter-metropolitan commuting increased at a rate more than
double that of metropolitan growth.
In both 1980 and 1990 the dominant pattern of inter-
metropolitan commuting was ``cross suburb commuting,'' that is
commuting from one suburb to a suburb of a different metropolitan area.
It amounted to about 31 percent of all inter-metropolitan commuting in
1980, rising to almost 39 percent in 1990. This flow pattern grew at
more than twice the rate of suburban commuting growth in general.
Overall the national job/worker ratio for central cities
is 1.36, i.e., 136 jobs for every 100 workers. The overall national
job/worker ratio for suburbs is 0.83 and for non-metro areas 0.92.
Review of national patterns suggests that something closer to balance
is occurring in both central cities and suburbs.
emerging trends
In addition to the persistence, in varying degrees, of the trends
of the past, new trends are emerging that will sharply modify commuting
patterns into the future.
Immigration
The scale of foreign immigration has become prodigious; perhaps,
the dominant factor in national population growth patterns. Total
immigration to the United States in the 1980-1990 period was about 8.7
million persons; thus the foreign born share was almost 40 percent of
total population growth. Recent data indicate the pace continues at
that rate, with 4.5 million arriving in the 5 year period from 1990 to
1994, twice the rate of the 1970's.
Foreign immigrants tend to go to where Americans are, but with a
somewhat greater focus on central cities. It is the most populous
States that receive immigrants.
The arrival of immigrants has affected the numbers of households
without vehicles in the areas with major foreign immigration. Many
sunbelt cities had greater percentage increases in population than in
vehicles; all had significant increases in the number of households
without vehicles. Even the suburbs of many of these areas saw large
increases in households without vehicles.
In obvious contrast to new births most immigrants arrive at labor
force participation age; they are instantaneous additions to the
traffic scene. About 80 percent of immigrants were of labor force age.
Thus immigrants impact the commuting scene in many ways. They are a
direct addition in population, and an even more substantial increment
to labor force, equaling greater than a third of all new commuters, and
their volatile modal patterns will affect future flows in several
modes. Of acute interest will be the timeframe in which they shift from
initial patterns of behavior upon arrival to patterns more like the
national average.
The fact that immigration factors can be altered by congressional
action at any time tends to create additional uncertainties with
respect to future commuting patterns.
Ethnic and Racial Patterns
Previous discussion has emphasized the tendency toward saturation
in many areas vehicle ownership, driver's licenses, and the use of the
auto to work. These tendencies can be overstated because of a failure
to examine these patterns in sufficient demographic detail. Saturation
is a characteristic almost exclusively among the white non-Hispanic
population. There is still substantial room for growth in these
characteristics among the Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations.
The key factor is households without vehicles. The proportion of
all households that are without vehicles has been in continuous decline
since at least 1960 dropping from 21 percent to just above 11 percent
by 1990. In terms of absolute numbers, the number of zero-vehicle
(vehicle-less) households has remained roughly constant for 30 years at
about 10 to 11 million. The slight increase in this number from 1980 to
1990 is almost certainly attributable to immigrant population effects.
Census data indicate that about 5.3 million workers live in vehicle-
less households. Thus at most half of the vehicle-less households have
workers.
In stark contrast, the black population averages over 30 percent
non-vehicle owning households and in central cities the number is over
37 percent. Many individual central cities have extraordinary levels of
black vehicle-less households New York with 61 percent, Philadelphia 47
percent, Chicago and Washington, DC, 43 percent.
Hispanics, with an overall rate of vehicle-less households of 19
percent, have a rate of 27 percent in central cities. Among the central
cities in metropolitan areas with very high levels of Hispanic vehicle-
less households are New York with over 62 percent and San Diego with 37
percent.
It is clear that central city renters are the predominant group of
non-vehicle owning households; and as a general rule renters are more
likely to be zero vehicle households than home owners. The New York
metropolitan area held about 20 percent of all zero-vehicle households
in 1990.
One of the most pertinent aspects of this is the variation among
racial and ethnic groups with regard to availability of driver's
licenses. The White, non-Hispanic population is near, or at, effective
saturation, especially among men (circa 96 percent); whereas the rate
among all other racial and ethnic groups of men is on the order of 80
percent.
The disparities among women of different racial and ethnic groups
and between women and men, are even greater. A point worth focusing on
is that the sharp disparities between men and women among Hispanics and
Asians is considerably greater than that between either Black or White
men and women.
All of these differences have effects on the opportunities for work
locations, travel times, choice of mode, etc. A predominant part of the
population that walks to work, or uses transit, and taxi are drawn from
the households without vehicles.
These groups constitute the major sources of growth in vehicle
ownership and use in the future. It cannot be assumed that the
differences between these groups and the national average are racial,
or ethnic, or gender-based in character. Rather, age, income level,
household size, and the location and type of residence will be the
governing factors in future commuting patterns. It must be assumed that
as the socio-economic profile of these groups change there commuting
behavior will shift accordingly. That is likely to mean an auto-
oriented suburban-based working style.
Some key findings:
Black and Hispanic drive-alone commuters have very similar
patterns, with White non-Hispanics exhibiting a similar pattern but
with a higher overall utilization rate.
A major difference is the exceptional use of transit modes
by the black population. The pattern is similar in both suburban and
central city locations.
Black households lag both white non-Hispanic and Hispanic
households in the use of bicycles, motorcycles and working at home.
closing
Mode Choice
There is little basis for adopting any view that suggests that
there will be a significant reversal in the private vehicle orientation
of commuters based on present patterns of behavior and demography. The
dominant factor here is the continued dispersal of populations out from
our metropolitan areas and the pressures of time on workers. As long as
the private vehicle remains at all affordable to own and operate the
pattern will continue. The shifts in age structure of commuters abets
this trend.
This does not suggest that all is lost for public transit or other
alternatives. The cases where transit, carpooling, walking and biking
have been successful need to be studied and clues found regarding the
appeal to the commuters that have proven effective. Those areas where
transit is a major factor, predominantly in the center of our major
metropolitan areas, need to sustain and intensify services. Where
transit use is significant, most users indicate happiness with the
services provided, which is a sound starting point. This market needs
to be preserved. Transit providers will need to be very innovative to
sustain or gain in markets. Some of the innovative work responding to
suburban demands in the Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Jersey areas may
yield successful models.
It is difficult to be optimistic regarding a renaissance in
carpooling. Most carpooling today is not carpooling in the sense we
knew it just a few years ago a voluntary arrangement among co-workers
or neighbors. That is dying most of the surviving ``carpool activity
consists of family members with parallel destinations and timing. Maybe
these need a new name ``fampools''? The advantages in carpool lanes are
significant where average traffic speeds are very poor, but there are
time costs to carpooling as well. Thus it is a changing environment
which needs continuous exertion, as jobs change, work patterns shift
and travel times change.
Density and Dispersal
Continued dispersal toward the fringes of our metro areas seems a
given for both jobs and population. Rapid growth on the metropolitan
fringes has been masked by definitional changes. Census modified
definitions shifted 6 million of the new population growth in the
eighties from the suburbs to the central city and four million from
non-metro to metro areas.
Variations on a Theme
We are becoming increasingly conscious of a set of developments
that add to the volatility of commuting. Simply described, this is a
tendency for greater variability in the location, path, time and mode
of travel to work. It is difficult to say whether this tendency is
increasing or that it has just become more evident to researchers in
recent times. Our data collection approaches focusing on 1 day's travel
by a set of selected individuals or households would typically not
catch this kind of phenomenon. Surveys would have to track daily travel
of an individual over the course of several weeks to establish some
sense of the scale and character of variation.
Economic and Social Factors
The nature of work is changing. More work can be done in small work
units of a few people or even one. This adds to the potential for
dispersal of jobs. It also adds to the greater freedom in many cases of
people to set their hours of work to match their personal preferences.
Paralleling this factor is that many jobs are services oriented,
where workers must be available to customers, requiring odd hours of
work and weekend schedules. This adds to the greater potential
dispersion of jobs in time as well as space.
The powers of communications and data processing are only beginning
to be felt. They are becoming ubiquitous.
All of the power of telecommunications is focused unintentionally
on permitting greater dispersal of populations and jobs. It
fundamentally reduces the penalty of distance.
The effects of women in the work place has been unmistakable and
will further influence trends in the future. There seems to be a
greater understanding of people's needs to care for children, and to
take time off for other family needs as well. This has led to greater
work scheduling flexibility in many firms, both large and small. That
flexibility supports variation in work arrivals, and departures, as
well as work days. Certainly, part of this is the sharp competition
among firms for highly skilled employees, many of them women.
It is to be expected that this willingness to be flexible on the
part of management will only increase in the future as some skills
become even scarcer and firms compete for the best. This also means
that firms will tend to relocate where their scarcest resource, skilled
employees, are located. Being a short commute away will be a benefit
that firms can offer. This will tend to push firm locations to where
people want to be, generally pushing employers toward higher income
neighborhoods, and leading to longer commutes for lower income workers.
Regionally, it means the outer edges of the metropolitan area;
nationally, it means those areas that are pleasant and attractive to
live in. This will keep national growth focused on the sunbelt and
West. This could lead as well to increasing growth in smaller areas,
university towns, for instance, rather than in the very large
metropolitan areas of the Nation.
Immigration
The scale of immigration, and in some respects its character, is a
product of a stroke of a pen in Washington. Immigration will be the
dominant population factor in many areas of the Nation, in the large
population centers in general, and in particular in the centers of the
West and South. Material presented earlier shows that immigrants are
heavily oriented to the labor force years. Their bimodal distribution
in education will create strange frictions in the national labor force,
competing both at the highest and lowest skill levels.
Not surprisingly, their orientation to the private vehicle is less
than that of other Americans. The question is how long will it take
before their behavior patterns are symmetric with others of similar
income and age characteristics. Or, are there substantial cultural
variations that will manifest themselves?
The Democratization of Mobility
The private vehicle has become the tool of mass mobility. While we
tend to think of auto ownership as all-pervasive in this society, this
study has shown that this is strongly skewed by race and ethnicity, and
other factors. One has to believe that the expansion of opportunity in
America to immigrants and those born here will expand ownership and use
of private vehicles as well. This will provide the great sources of
growth of private vehicle ownership and travel in the coming years.
The growth in vehicle travel in the remaining years of this decade
and into the next century will be predominantly a product of new access
to personal vehicle use on the part of young people, the older
population, women in general and racial and ethnic minorities the
mobility ``have-nots'' of our society.
Just as we have cited the competition for skilled workers at the
high end of the job spectrum, there will likely be more workers than
jobs at the low end. This will mean workers traveling great distances
for not particularly attractive jobs. The dramatic growth in
intermetropolitan travel and in reverse commuting from the city out to
the suburbs are both products of that reality.
Society then is faced with an unpleasant challenge. So much of
current public policy in commuting is aimed at suppressing auto
ownership and use. Those policies are unintentionally aimed squarely at
those on the margin of the ability to own and operate a vehicle,
particularly those policies aimed at increasing the cost of driving. It
is clear that those most affected by such policies will be those on the
lower rungs of the economic ladder. Often these people will be those
who are most auto-dependent.
Public Policy and Commuting
Much of public policy today is focused on modifying societal
behavior in commuting, specifically the preference for driving alone.
These policies have proven at best dramatically ineffective. At worst
they can be directly antagonistic to the goals they are intended to
support.
It must be clear by now that the notion that there is an American
``love-affair'' with the automobile is missing the point. Those who
promote this idea seem to imply that love is some kind of aberration,
and with enough psychiatrists we can solve America's commuting
problems. Americans love their automobiles about as much as they love
their microwave ovens. They have them and use them because they are
very efficient tools they are time saving devices. The desire for the
personal vehicle in other countries follows this same pattern.
The center of all of these issues is the burden of time pressures
that most Americans feel. It is time pressures, particularly on women,
that increases personal vehicle use trip chaining, and many of the
other patterns we have examined. Decisions regarding household location
and mode to work are not made frivolously. People have sound reasons
for their choices.
Public policies that try to increase the costs of auto use or
increase travel times and congestion to force behavioral shifts to more
preferred modes of behavior or locational densities will simply force
people to make painful decisions. Many of these will result in the
shift of households and jobs to areas where congestion is less
obtrusive and where other costs are less; inevitably this will mean
greater dispersion of the population, not less. The American commuter
is a resilient and innovative character.
Those who see the solution of so many of our present ills by
reorganizing society into living at higher densities miss the point.
People do not live ``efficiently'' in order to optimize some imposed
societal goal, certainly not commuting. Residential density is one of
the most fundamental of choices that households make. It is clear that
most people, given the choice, opt for lower density living when income
permits. As the society changes and choice patterns evolve, the market
place must be ready to respond with development that is responsive to
household choices. Any public policies that inhibit a market trend
toward higher densities must be addressed. But the market place must be
the final arbiter in a free society.
The focus of public policy in this area must be on improving
commuting for all workers with better walking and biking opportunities,
better transit, and better roads. My proposed goal would be to reduce
commuting to an unimportant topic of conversation and public policy.
One effect that needs identification in closing is that many of
these trends lead to room for greater optimism regarding commuting
solutions. Technological responses increasingly respond effectively to
energy and environmental concerns, and congestion, while still a major
problem, in many areas is addressable in its new patterns. The
beginning of the solutions lie in recognizing that the American public
is in charge.
It would be attractive to think that commuting will eventually
become an activity of no particular personal or public policy interest.
It would be quick and effortless with no detrimental public side-
effects. That day will not be arriving soon.
COMMUTING IN AMERICA II
(Prepared by Alan E. Pisarski under the direction of the Steering
Committee for the National Commuting Study)
Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc. Lansdowne, VA
foreword
This report, titled Commuting in America II, is a followup to the
first national report on commuting patterns and trends in the United
States, published in 1987 and titled Commuting in America. As such, it
is subtitled The Second National Report on Commuting Patterns and
Trends. The 1987 report was based on data gathered during the 1980
Federal census, and this report makes use of similar data obtained in
the 1990 Federal census. The 1990 census data show substantial changes
in how and why Americans moved about in their daily activities over the
decade.
Both reports were prepared at the initiative and under the
direction of a group of public and private-sector organizations
concerned with national transportation issues, with the member
organizations for this report differing somewhat from, and being larger
in number than, the organizations that sponsored the 1987 report. Each
of the cooperating organizations is active in the development and
implementation of public policy. The basic purpose of the report is to
provide information that will be of use to them and others in the
establishment of transportation policies affecting our metropolitan
areas and states.
The list of sponsoring organizations is contained in the report,
together with the names of the persons serving on the Steering
Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee in early 1996 that
directed and guided the effort. The report was prepared by Alan E.
Pisarski, who served as both consultant and author. During his many
meetings with the two committees, he repeatedly displayed his extensive
command of transportation data, his penchant for both accurate and
understandable presentations, and his seemingly endless patience.
Funding for preparation of the report was provided by several of the
sponsoring organizations, which are also identified in the report.
Some of the trends in national commuting between the 1980 census
and the 1990 census have persisted in some cases, shifted in character
in others, and have been affected by emerging new patterns in still
others. Commuting continues to grow and to change. This study is
intended to be an objective, factual resource that presents and
analyzes key trends, without drawing programmatic or policy judgments.
It is a working resource document designed to inform its users.
An extensive array of specialized resources were utilized in the
preparation of the study. The primary source was the decennial Federal
census of 1990. All of the historical census material, going back to
the first statistics of commuting in 1960, was also employed. The
Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) products were made
available from the census, with funding and support from the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and
the Federal Highway Administration. This document is larger than the
1987 report mainly because of the extensive new material made available
by the 1990 Federal census and its specialized tabulations prepared for
local, state, and national use. All interested persons and
organizations are encouraged to use these data further. They are major
national statistical resources.
The editing and publication of Commuting in America II was
undertaken on behalf of the sponsoring organizations by the Eno
Transportation Foundation Inc., which also published the 1987 report.
The contributions made by the foundation toward release of the study
have permitted the document to be broadly distributed at reasonable
cost. The foundation has the deep appreciation of the sponsors.
In conclusion it should be noted that this report was undertaken
only to provide an information base from which varied interests can
work. It does not purport to reflect the policy positions of any of the
sponsoring organizations, and it should not tee interpreted in this
manner. Furthermore, where the author has expressed his personal views
in the report, it is to be understood that such views are his and are
not necessarily subscribed to by the sponsoring organizations.
The extent to which the sponsoring organizations, with often
disparate views of policy, have been able to come together to prepare
this report is a measure of its success in providing a substantive,
unbiased source of information. The report is intended to serve as a
common resource of factual information upon which policymakers can draw
in developing and implementing transportation policy and decisions, as
our nation moves into the next century.
Francis B. Francois
Chairman of the Steering Committee for Commuting in America;
Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials
__________
acknowledgments
This document really qualifies as a group effort. From the funding,
to the data development needed for input, to the planning and
preparation of the document and its final production, many thoughtful
and dedicated people have been involved.
The document had many sponsors. They are listed in the report, and
most of them had representatives on the Steering Committee. It is a
hallmark of the document that many organizations see value in it and in
what it can contribute to public understanding. I deeply appreciate
their faith in the document and wish to thank them all for their
support--financial and otherwise.
The document received valuable technical support. Agencies such as
the Bureau of the Census and the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) provided specialized data development from which the document
benefited greatly. Phil Salopek and his staff at the Journey to Work
Division of the Bureau of the Census have produced a valuable national
analytical data base that many will use in the future. Richard
Forstall, perhaps America's most knowledgeable scientist in matters of
commuting and urban geography, and now retired, gave graciously of his
time and interest.
The work of the Office of Information Management of the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) of USDOT in the production of specialized
tabulations from the 1990 census was a giant step ahead for national
understanding of the commuting phenomenon. I thank Elaine Murakami and
Bryant Gross. David McElhaney, former director and now retired, was, as
always, a great supporter.
The Technical Advisory Committee formed by the Steering Committee
provided valuable support and patient interest over a long period of
data development, design, and review. Its leader, George Wickstrom,
kept us pointed in the right direction. Thank you, George.
Of all the players in this process over the years, the late Jim
McDonnell was the most responsible for forging the consortium of US
DOT, Bureau of the Census, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and others to make the Census
Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) a reality. He never diverted his
attention from the goal of a national CTPP, and he would not let the
rest of us get too far away from that goal either. The strong,
continuing program relationship between the Bureau of the Census and US
DOT, dedicated to providing better transportation planning data, is his
legacy.
The process that produced the document enjoyed tremendous
leadership. To Frank Francois, his incredible staff, and AASHTO, I am
especially grateful. During the report's almost 5 years in the making,
Frank was unstinting in his support. Tom Brahms of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers and all the people at the Eno Transportation
Foundation and their editor, Kathryn Harrington-Hughes, who helped put
the document together, were wonderful. I thank you all.
Alan E. Pisarski
executive summary
The first Commuting in America, published in 1987, discussed the
need to replace the public's stereotypical images of commuting with a
more appropriate picture. Most of the images derived during the 1950's
and 1960's and involved a suburban worker leaving a dormitory-like
suburban neighborhood to go to an office downtown. Although some
commuters still fit that pattern in 1987, a more current picture of
commuting was required to make possible the kind of substantive
understanding needed for sound public policy.
Commuting in America sought to replace that image with one that was
more sound--one that was based on the realities of contemporary
commuting characteristics and patterns. The new understanding had three
parts: a boom in workers, often from two-worker households; a boom in
suburb-to-suburb commuting, becoming the dominant flow pattern; and a
boom in the use of private vehicles, as America's vehicle fleet
exceeded the number of drivers.
As Commuting in America II comes to print, that fundamental pattern
shift is widely recognized by public officials and the general public.
To further dispel wornout perceptions is one of the goals of this
report.
Commuting's impact on land use patterns, urban form, and society in
general has been discussed extensively in the policy literature and the
public press. The questions then become: ``Are the patterns observed in
the 1980's still effective descriptors of contemporary patterns of
commuting?'' and ``Are new patterns emerging?'' These are important
questions that this report seeks to answer.
Amajor part of this report reassesses the strength of these trends
as we move into the mid-1990's, to determine whether they are still
strong forces in defining the character of commuting patterns and
whether new forces of change have come forward, either replacing, or
joining, previous trends.
the persistence of past themes
The Worker Boom
The previous study identified three factors operative in the worker
boom of the 1970's: large job increases, the baby boom, and rapid
increases in women's participation in the work force. These three
forces have diminished. The trends depict a clearly visible ``bubble''
of growth in both the working-age population and the actual labor force
during the 1970's and 1980's that explains the great commuting surge of
that period and its relative decline in the 1990's. Although the rate
of change shows a sharp drop, the total increase for the period is
still substantial, over 18 million workers, actually about 300,000 more
than in the 1970's--yielding two decades of very substantial increase
with which our transportation system has had to deal.
There is reason to believe that the 1990 census results may have
signaled the closing of the worker boom. Trends depict a period of
relative calm--low overall growth in total population and working-age
population for the remainder of the decade and into the next century.
Labor-force growth rates will decline to about one-half of the rate in
the 1980's, but are still projected to produce an absolute increase in
the labor force of between 17 million and 18 million for the decade, or
only a little less than the increase that took place in the 1980's. It
is expected that the 18-year-old age-group, the source of new workers,
will have declined to its nadir in 1995 and then slowly begin
recovering; but it will not reach 4 million again until 2008, under
present projections.
The growth rate for women in the labor force surged through the
1960's and 1970's and is just now tapering off, but still remains high
relative to that for men. Total labor-force increase in the 1980-1990
decade was down from the previous decade, for both men and women, with
women contributing 11 million to the labor force in contrast with about
14 million in the previous decade.
The effect of all this is to say ``yes, but--'' to the question of
the worker boom influence in the future of commuting. The strong growth
rates characteristic of the boom period are over, but given the large
size of our national work force resulting from the strong growth of the
past, future growth will continue to yield large numbers of new
commuters that will challenge our infrastructure and public policy.
The Private Vehicle Boom
Again, as in the worker boom, there is a qualified answer to the
question of the persistence of the trend in private-vehicle ownership
and use.
Arrayed on one side is the astonishing fact that we added more
vehicles than people to our population in the 1980's. In addition, the
private vehicle continued to absolutely dominate the choice of mode of
transportation to work. All alternatives to driving alone to work by
private vehicle declined between 1980 and 1990. The increase in the
number of commuters in single-occupant vehicles exceeded the total
increase in commuters. About 19 million workers were added, and over 22
million single-occupant vehicle drivers were added. Effectively, all
new workers chose to drive alone, and a few million additional workers
shifted from other modes to the single-occupant vehicle. Some
alternatives, such as walking and carpooling, declined precipitously,
while others, such as transit, declined less dramatically. Only working
at home showed growth.
Arrayed on the other side, it is difficult to see continued shifts
to the private vehicle, on average, across the Nation beyond the
present surge. A number of factors are involved in this:
The shares of automobile ownership by households show clear signs
of stabilization at very high levels.
The ratio of cars to workers has actually declined slightly.
Most significantly, the number of vehicles available exceeds the
number of drivers; and there is apparent saturation, on average, of
driver's licenses.
The prospects for further shifts to the private vehicle seem minor,
if only because commuting travel is now so overwhelmingly oriented
toward that direction. It seems unfeasible to believe that carpooling
or transit levels could drop further--fewer than 1 in 10 cars has an
occupant other than the driver, and transit is used by 1 in 20
commuters. On the other hand, the precipitous declines in carpooling
during the last decade were likewise unanticipated.
The forces that impel personal vehicle use continue. The factors
that will govern private vehicle use for commuting in the future
include the following:
Continued dispersion of jobs and population to the suburbs
and beyond
Continued pressures of time on multiworker households
Continued low levels of vehicle operating and ownership
costs
Of these factors, the pressures of time have immense influence. The
fact that 70 percent of commuting households have two or more workers
suggests that living near work is no longer a simple option, and the
work trip chain--taking care of household needs--daycare, food,
laundry--on the way to and from work is central in contemporary
lifestyles.
The Suburban Commuting Boom
In regard to the geographic flow patterns of commuting, the trends
are unequivocal: the suburban boom continues. Because of changes in the
Bureau of the Census definitions, confirmation of this trend will
require some statistical manipulation.
Overall, the suburbanization of population and jobs not only
continues but has accelerated in pace. Today the dominant commuting
flow pattern is suburban, with 50 percent of the nation's commuters
living in suburbs and over 41 percent of all jobs located there, up
from 37 percent in 1980.
Suburban areas--defined here as metropolitan areas outside of the
central city--are now the main destination of work trips. The suburbs
were the location of 13 million of the 19 million new jobs created
between 1980 and 1990--about a 70 percent share of all job expansion.
This is an increase in share of job growth from the 1970-1980 period.
If the focus shifts to commuting within metropolitan areas only and
nonmetropolitan areas are excluded, suburbs contain two-thirds of all
metropolitan workers and slightly more than one-half of metropolitan
job destinations.
The flow patterns with a suburb as a destination account for
substantial shares of growth in recent times. Suburb-to-suburb
commuting accounted for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows in
1990. That share is destined to increase, given that suburb-to-suburb
commuting obtained more than 58 percent of all commuting growth from
1980 to 1990, as it did during the 1970-1980 period.
Asubstantial increase in growth share was also obtained by central
city-to-suburb commuting, so-called ``reverse commuting,'' which rose
from a 9 percent share of growth to over 12 percent. Its share of
growth actually exceeded the share of flows from central city to
central city.
The ``traditional commute,'' the suburb-to-central city component
of flows, decreased its share of growth, accounting for less than 20
percent of total increase during the 1980-1990 period, down from a 25
percent share in the previous decade.
Intermetropolitan commuting has shown substantial growth. In both
1980 and 1990, the dominant part of intermetropolitan commuting was
``cross-suburb commuting''--that is, commuting from one suburb to the
suburb of a different metropolitan area. This flow pattern grew at more
than twice the rate of suburban commuting growth, in general.
As one measure of the suburban effect, the number of Americans who
commute outside their county of residence has almost tripled since
1960.
Emerging Trends
In addition to the varied persistence of past trends, new trends
are emerging that will sharply modify future commuting patterns.
Immigration
The scale of foreign immigration has become prodigious. It is a
major, if not the dominant, factor in national population growth
patterns. Total immigration to the United States during the 1980-1990
period was about 8.7 million persons; thus the foreign-born share was
almost 40 percent of total population growth. Recent data indicate the
pace continues at that rate, with 4.5 million arriving during the 5-
year period from 1990 to 1994, twice the rate of the 1970's.
Foreign immigrants tend to locate where Americans reside, but with
a somewhat greater focus on central cities. It is the most populous
states that receive immigrants.
The arrival of immigrants has affected the number of households
without vehicles in the areas with major foreign immigration. Many
sunbelt cities had greater percentage increases in population than in
vehicles; all had significant increases in the number of households
without vehicles. Even the suburbs of many of these areas saw large
increases in households without vehicles.
Most immigrants (80 percent) arrive in the United States at labor-
force participation age. They are instantaneous additions to the
traffic scene.
Immigrants thus impact the commuting scene in many ways. They are a
direct addition in population and an even more substantial increment to
the labor force, equaling greater than one-third of all new commuters.
Their modal patterns will affect future flows in several modes. Of
acute interest will be the rate at which these households
``mainstream,'' i.e., obtain vehicles and begin moving to the suburbs.
The fact that immigration factors can be altered by congressional
action at any time tends to create additional uncertainties regarding
future commuting patterns.
The Democratization of Mobility
Previous discussion has emphasized the tendency toward saturation
in many areas--vehicle ownership, driver's licenses, and the use of the
automobile to commute to work. These tendencies can be overstated
because of a failure to examine these patterns in sufficient
demographic detail. Saturation is a characteristic almost exclusively
found among the White non-Hispanic population. There is still
substantial room for growth in these characteristics among the Black,
Asian, and Hispanic populations.
The key factor is households without vehicles. The proportion of
all households that are without vehicles has been in continuous decline
since at least 1960, dropping from 21 percent to just above 11 percent
by 1990. In terms of absolute numbers, the number of zero-vehicle
(vehicle-less) households has remained roughly constant for 30 years
(10 million to 11 million). The slight increase from 1980 to 1990 is
almost certainly attributable to the immigrant population. Census data
indicate that about 5.3 million workers live in vehicle-less
households. Thus at most one-half of the vehicle-less households have
workers.
On average, more than 30 percent of Black households do not own
vehicles, and in central cities the number is over 37 percent. Many
central cities have extraordinary high levels of Black households that
do not own vehicles--New York City with 61 percent, Philadelphia with
47 percent, and both Chicago and Washington, D.C., with 43 percent.
Hispanics have an overall rate of vehicleless households of 19
percent; that rate rises to 27 percent in central cities. The central
cities in metropolitan areas with very high levels of Hispanic
households without vehicles are New York City (more than 62 percent)
and San Diego (more than 37 percent).
It is clear that renters in central cites are the predominant group
of nonvehicle-owning households; as a general rule, renters, rather
than homeowners, are more likely to be zero-vehicle households. About
20 percent of all zero-vehicle households were in the New York City
metropolitan area in 1990.
One of the most pertinent aspects of this is the variation among
racial and ethnic groups regarding the availability of driver's
licenses. The White non-Hispanic population is near, or at, effective
saturation, especially among men (circa 96 percent); whereas the rate
among all other racial and ethnic groups of men is about 80 percent.
All of these differences have effects on the opportunities for work
locations, travel times, choice of mode, and so forth. A large part of
the population that walks to work or uses transit or taxi is drawn from
households without vehicles.
These groups constitute the major sources of growth in vehicle
ownership and use in the future. It cannot be assumed that the
differences between these groups and the national average are racial,
ethnic, or gender-based in character. Rather, age, income level,
household size, and the location and type of residence will be the
governing factors in future commuting patterns. As the socioeconomic
profiles of these groups change, their commuting behavior will shift
accordingly. That shift will likely mean an auto-oriented, suburban-
based commuting style.
Closing
One element of change in commuting that needs to be addressed in
closing is the effect of increased commuting on travel times.
Surprisingly, with the sharp increases in automobile use, average
travel times did relatively well; average travel times to work
increased by 40 seconds, from 21.7 minutes in 1980 to 22.4 minutes in
1990. Seventy percent of Americans reach work in less than 30 minutes.
Only about 6 percent of commuters take longer than an hour to get
to work, rising to about 7.5 percent in metropolitan areas with
populations over 1 million. In only three areas--Washington, D.C.,
Chicago, and New York City--do 10 percent or more of commuters travel
for more than an hour. This is strongly affected by mode choice;
commuter rail and large carpools make up the bulk of this group.
Metropolitan size is also a major factor in travel times, varying from
an average of 17 minutes for those areas below 100,000 in population to
more than 27 minutes for those over 3 million in population--a 10-
minute swing. The average for areas over 1 million is just above 25
minutes.
Travel time changes support the changing flows patterns observed
earlier. Although both increased in average travel time, the time
advantage of suburb-to-suburb commuting over suburb-to-central city
commuting has actually increased.
The average trends tend to imply that things are going relatively
well in commuting, which is clearly not the case everywhere. Nothing is
so distorted by averages as measures of travel time. Many areas,
particularly those undergoing substantial growth--notably the
metropolitan South and West--have seen sharp increases in travel times.
One reason for the small increases in average travel times is because
of the shifts from slower modes to faster modes--for example, from
transit to carpooling or from carpooling to driving alone. This is
obviously a one-time solution that will be available to only a few in
the 1990's. Nor will surplus system capacity be available to absorb
additional travelers. As a result, the search for reasonable commuting
times will likely lead to further dispersal.
It would be attractive to think that commuting will eventually
become an activity of no particular personal or public policy interest
and that it would be quick and effortless with no detrimental public
side effects. That day will not be arriving soon.
__________
Chapter One: Understanding Commuting Patterns and Trends
The introduction to the first edition of Commuting in America,
published in 1987, talked about the need to replace stereotypical
images of commuting with a more appropriate picture. Most of those
images derived from the 1950's and 1960's and involve a a suburban
worker leaving a suburban neighborhood for an office downtown. While
there were still those who fit that pattern in 1987, the first edition
of Commuting in America sought to replace that image with one that was
more sound--one that was based on the realities of contemporary
commuting characteristics and patterns. This updated view of commuting
had three parts:
A boom in the number of workers, accompanied by an increase
in worker households;
A boom in suburb-to-suburb commuting, which had become the
dominant flow pattern; and
A boom in the use of private vehicles, with the number of
vehicles having exceeded the number of licensed drivers.
Now, with Commuting in America II, that fundamental shift in
commuting patterns is widely recognized by both public officials and
private citizens. Commuting's impact on land use, urban form, and
society in general has been discussed extensively by policymakers and
the media. The questions have become, ``Are the patterns observed in
the 1980's still effective descriptors of contemporary patterns of
commuting? Are new patterns emerging?'' This report seeks to answer
those questions.
report structure
This chapter introduces the subject of commuting. Its purpose is to
provide an understanding of commuters and commuting, given the
complexities of the subject and the vagaries of the available data. The
first concern of this chapter is to place commuting activity in context
with other travel, so that the role of commuting in the overall
structure of transportation policy and planning can be understood. The
second concern is to provide definitions for the terminology used in
this study.
Data sources that form the basis for this report are identified,
including a discussion of their particular strengths and weaknesses in
terms of this report. The final part of this chapter discusses the
difficult topic of geography. Because of its spatial character,
commuting analysis is especially sensitive to the geographic units used
to aggregate and present data. This is particularly a concern in a
national analysis, where comparability between areas is crucial.
Understanding commuting and commuters requires knowledge of
demographics, economics, geography, and other tools. Because commuters
are a moving target, they are difficult to capture statistically.
Commuting, like all passenger travel, is a social phenomenon, an
economic phenomenon, and a technological phenomenon. Each has its
influences, and they interact to create new and fascinating behavioral
patterns.
Commuters and commuting activity can be described from one of three
vantage points:
The origin of a work trip, usually the home.
The destination end--the job site.
The patterns formed by trips between a multitude of origins
and destinations.
Each of these perspectives is almost an area of study in itself.
Chapter 2, Commuters in the 1990's, addresses commuters and their
characteristics. It includes a discussion of whether the growth that
has occurred since World War II, paralleling the post-war baby boom,
has slowed. Chapter 2 also focuses on the changes in demographics of
job holders, particularly whether the explosive increases in working
women seen in the 1980's will persist into the 1990's. Immigration is
also considered, in the context of declining overall rates of
population growth. This is followed by a look at where most commuters
now live and where their jobs are located in the nation's regions and
metropolitan areas. A key issue to be discussed is whether the suburban
boom in population and jobs has slackened and whether there are signs
of a new revitalization of central city growth. Has the 1980's been
like the 1970's, or more like the 1960's? Where do we go from here? The
``demography'' of the automobile and the other vehicles that are so
much a part of our commuting lives is also discussed.
Chapter 3, Commuting Flow Characteristics, looks at commuting
flows--their patterns and scale. Commuting patterns are examined from
the perspective of how commuters travel between central cities,
suburbs, and exurban areas. Modes of transportation used for commuting
in different markets are described. The emerging boomlet in working at
home is examined. The availability, for the first time, of census data
on worker starting times permits a discussion of the new patterns of
job schedules. Finally, the distances, travel times, and speed
characteristics of the new commuting patterns are discussed.
Chapter 4, Closing Perspectives, looks at how these changes might
affect commuting itself, the infrastructure that supports commuting,
and the broader community. This chapter contains the author's views and
speculations on the character of the trends identified and the future
directions of commuting, with the goal of encouraging further
discussion and analysis of this important topic.
commuting and overall travel
In this report, ``commuting'' refers to travel to and from a
workplace, including trips to temporary work sites, which are
customarily taken by construction workers, household workers, and
others with no fixed work location. It does not include travel
associated with related work activities--going to a meeting, seeing
clients, delivering goods, and so forth.
Although a crucial part of passenger travel, commuting is by no
means the entire picture. It is only one of a large number of purposes
that generate daily travel activity. It is important to place commuting
in the proper overall context so that the material presented here can
be fully appreciated.
Commuting exists in a continuum of transportation activities. While
it often dominates public discussion about transportation, commuting is
just one part of the demand that we make on our transportation system.
In a metropolitan area, transportation activities include the following
eight categories:
Commuting
Other resident travel
Visitor travel
Public vehicle travel
Urban services
Urban goods movement
Passenger through-travel
Freight through-travel
It is uncertain what commuting's share of this total activity is,
because of the mix of freight and passenger activities. For instance,
there are no comprehensive sources of data on freight movement or
visitor travel. The mix of transportation activities will clearly vary
with a metropolitan area's size and levels of activity. Despite
existing pressures for comprehensive planning and data collection at
the state and metropolitan level, there is probably no metropolitan
area in the country that can comprehensively describe all eight
transportation activities in their region.
Commuting can be placed in context with travel by residents in
metropolitan areas by focusing on only the ``commuting'' and ``other
resident travel'' categories. The Nationwide Personal Transportation
Survey conducted in 1990, the same year as the population census,
permits timely analysis of commuting in the context of other travel
demand. According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey,
work travel constitutes just under 20 percent of all persontrips (Table
1-1).
Work travel can be measured as a proportion of person-trips or as a
proportion of person-miles of travel, which weights the trio shares by
the distance of the trip. Because work trips tend to be longer than
most other local trips, the work trip share of travel is greater than
its share of trips. The share for work trips has evidenced a slight
downward trend over the years, from about 20.7 percent in 1983 to 19.3
percent in 1990. Yet the share of person-miles increased significantly,
from 20.1 percent to 23.2 percent, during that time, apparently as a
result of increases in average trip length.
Work travel can also be measured as a share of personal vehicle
trips or as a proportion of the total miles traveled by personal
vehicles. As a proportion of vehicle trips, work travel amounts to
slightly above 26 percent of activity; as a proportion of vehicle miles
traveled, it is about 33 percent. These numbers reflect the heavy
utilization of personal vehicles for longer work trips, and work trips
are typically longer than other local trips.
Work travel is even more important to transit, accounting for about
43 percent of all transit travel.
Commuting bears an importance to transportation beyond its share of
total travel for a number of reasons. The first is attributable to the
impact it has on the economy and on the development of communities. The
second is due to the concentration of work travel in certain time
periods and locations, in contrast to the more dispersed patterns of
other trips. Commuting is a major factor in determining peak travel
demand and therefore serves to define the capacity and service
requirements of our transportation system. In certain climates and
under certain weather conditions, morning travel generates more air
pollution, particularly ozone. In the peak morning hours (6-9 a.m.),
work-related travel, which includes work trips and work-related trips,
accounts for more than 47 percent of all person-trips and for about 62
percent of vehicle trips and vehicle-miles of travel. Both the morning
and afternoon peaking characteristics of work travel seem to be abating
both in location and duration. The Nationwide Personal Transportation
Survey data and the patterns discernible from the census indicate that,
perhaps as a product of work-pattern shifts or congestion pressures,
the proportion of work travel in the peak hours is declining; work
travel is now spreading into other time periods. The spatial dispersion
of the origins and destinations of work trips is a fundamental aspect
of contemporary work travel.
Other aspects of commuting are changing in ways that affect other
parts of travel and the transportation system serving it. One of these
is the increased tendency for commuters to make a work trip part of a
trip chain--i.e., taking children to school, picking up necessities,
and running household errands in an effort to more efficiently use time
(Figure 1-1). Although this increases the efficiency of overall travel,
it also increases the number of non-work-related trips occurring in the
peak period.
Two other matters are important to an understanding of the commuter
and commuting. The first is the information source--the statistics
needed to fully understand the complex character of commuting. To
identify and analyze trends, comprehensive, detailed information on a
national scale is needed.
The second matter is the geography used to assemble and present the
statistics. Commuting is a spatial phenomenon, and the geographic units
used to aggregate individual trips are key to a correct representation
of its character.
terms and definitions
One of the obstacles to a better understanding of American
commuting is the technical language used by the statisticians and
analysts who work in the field. Although that language has value to
those professionals, it can hinder the average reader's understanding
of the subject. The glossary that begins on page 5 should help in that
regard. The more formal definitions of these terms are contained in
special guides prepared by the Bureau of the Census for the 1990
census.
data sources
The fundamental sources for this report are the journey-to-work
data and related characteristics from the 1990, 1980, 1970, and 1960
decennial censuses. These are the sole nationwide sources of detailed
data on commuting patterns, and hence the starting point for all
credible evaluations of commuting. The census data are a rich source of
work travel characteristics, including auto availability, mode,
detailed residence and workplace geography, and associated
socioeconomic descriptors of travelers and households.
Although these data support national scale reports, such as this
one, they are a minor function of the census journey-to-work data set.
The main strength of the data set is that it provides small-area
statistics, including neighborhoods and even blocks, to support local
planning and analysis. While a broad national sample would probably be
adequate for this report, small-area statistics are invaluable for
local planning.
The work-related travel questions in the census survey are limited
because of constraints on the length of the survey and the broad range
of topics covered. The questions represent a minimum data set,
particularly for those accustomed to the richer information derived
from traditional urban transportation surveys.
glossary
Demography
Household--A group of persons sharing a separate housing unit,
characterized by eating together and sharing other activities, as
differentiated from persons living in ``group quarters,'' such as
barracks or dormitories. Families constitute the majority of
households. Single individuals living alone, or unrelated persons
sharing a housing unit, also constitute households.
Immigrants--As used here, immigrants include foreign-born persons
who entered the United States between 1980 and 1990. Persons born
abroad of American parents are not considered immigrants. As of 1990,
the United States had a foreign-born population of 19.8 million, of
whom 8.7 million arrived between 1980 and 1990.
Jobs--In this report, the count of workers is sometimes used as a
surrogate for the count of jobs. This is useful only as an estimate.
Because multiple jobs are not counted in the census, the number of jobs
and therefore of commuters is sometimes underestimated.
Labor Force--The labor force is defined as that part of the
noninstitutionalized population aged 16 or over that is working,
temporarily absent from work, or actively seeking work.
Vehicles--Between 1960 and 1980, vehicle counts were determined by
the number of automobiles available at occupied housing units. In the
1980 census, vans and trucks of 1-ton capacity or less were, for the
first time, also counted in a separate category. The 1990 census merged
the two counts into one. All vehicles available at home for use by
household members, including company cars and leased vehicles, are
counted. Accordingly, the count does not necessarily conform with the
number of vehicles owned by the household, but rather with the broader,
more valid concept of vehicles available to the household. The census
survey separately identifies households with 1 through 6 vehicles and
then aggregates households with 7 or more vehicles.
Workers--Workers are defined as that part of the population at work
or temporarily absent from work. In the U.S. census, a person is
defined as a worker if he or she worked full- or part-time during the
week prior to the taking of the census. A worker is counted once,
regardless of the number of jobs held. Multiple jobs are not counted
separately.
Working Age Population--That part of the population of an age
considered to be eligible for the labor force. In this report, the
working age population is defined as being between the ages of 16 and
65. Although other studies define this category as all persons over the
age of 16, the age-group from 16 to 65 is a very useful estimator of
the potential labor force.
Geography
Census Region--The United States is subdivided into four main
regions, and the regions are further subdivided into nine divisions
(Figure 1-2).
Census Tract--The Bureau of the Census defines a census tract as a
relatively homogeneous area within a metropolitan area containing about
1,000 households. The geographic size of each tract is dependent on
population density.
Central Business District--The central business district is the
commercial core of a central city. This term is no longer used by the
Bureau of the Census.
Central City--In general, the central city is defined as that part
of the city with the densest population, around which the metropolitan
area is structured. There have been some cases where more than one
central city existed within a metropolitan area. The 1990 census
defined any city inside a metropolitan area having a population greater
than 25,000 as a ``central city'' if it met certain other criteria.
This resulted in an increase in recognized central cities (525 central
cities in 1990 versus 429 in 1980).
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA)--The term
consolidated metropolitan statistical area refers to large metropolitan
complexes with populations over 1 million that comprise identifiable,
separate metropolitan groups that might otherwise be freestanding. Each
individual component of these clusters is called a primary metropolitan
statistical area. For instance, the New York consolidated metropolitan
statistical area consists of 12 separate primary metropolitan
statistical areas. There are now 20 consolidated metropolitan
statistical areas with 71 component primary metropolitan statistical
areas.
Metropolitan Area--The definitions and names for metropolitan units
were revised in 1983 for use in the 1990 census. This statistical
aggregation of counties around a major city or cities identifies areas
with strong social and economic interrelationships, serving as a
``commutershed'' for the central city. The building blocks of
metropolitan areas are counties, and a metropolitan area's
configuration may thus vary substantially. Changes in the criteria for
a county to be included in a metropolitan area have resulted in 49
counties no longer being considered part of metropolitan areas since
1980; 60 other counties have, however, taken their place. This makes it
difficult to compare data from the 1980 census with that from the 1990
census.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)--Metropolitan statistical areas
are freestanding, as distinguished from clusters of metropolitan areas
known as consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. The 1990 census
identifies 264 metropolitan statistical areas.
Rural Area--As defined by the Bureau of the Census, the term rural
area is almost devoid of useful meaning. Parts of metropolitan areas
may be rural. Nonmetropolitan areas are predominantly rural, but they
may also contain urban nonmetropolitan units.
Traffic Zone--Metropolitan transportation planning agencies
designate traffic zones based on the configuration of the road system
and traffic patterns--i.e., a traffic-based neighborhood. At about one-
third to one-quarter the size of a census tract, traffic zones do not
evidence specific population characteristics, but tend to have
populations of about 1,000.
Urbanized Area--An urbanized area consists of the built-up area
surrounding a central core, generally exhibiting a density of at least
1,000 people per square mile. The area is defined by development and
population, without respect to jurisdictional boundaries. Urbanized
areas are thus generally wholly contained within a metropolitan area,
which uses county boundaries. That area of the metropolitan area
outside the urbanized area may be quite rural in character, although
still metropolitan by definition.
Transportation
Auto/Vehicle Occupancy--The number of people in a vehicle,
including the driver. This number is generally lower for work trips
than for other trips. An auto occupancy of 1.5 means that a vehicle
would, on average, carry a driver and half a passenger. The 1990 census
tracked occupancy singly through 6, then grouped vehicles with 7 to 9
occupants and with more than 10 occupants. Increasingly, the term
``single-occupant vehicle'' is used to describe a vehicle containing
only the driver.
Carpool--This term is increasingly used to describe any vehicle
carrying more than one person to work, rather than in the more specific
sense of a group of persons sharing the cost of the trip or taking
turns driving.
Mode--A transportation mode refers to a means of transportation.
Mass transit can be considered a mode, with bus, subway, and commuter
rail as submodes, or each can be considered modes of travel in their
own right. In this report, the categories used by the Bureau of the
Census to identify how people usually get to work are treated as
separate modes. The census data do not permit identification of
multimodal work trips, such as auto to bus to train--which are
sometimes referred to as intermodal trips. In such cases, the mode used
for most of a trip distance is used to describe the total trip. Walking
is considered a mode only if it is the sole means of travel to work.
Origin-Destination--Trips are described in terms of their starting
(origin) and ending (destination) points. For most, but not all, the
origin is the home, and the workplace is the destination. Exceptions
include situations involving students working after school and workers
traveling to various client locations or construction sites.
Reverse Commute--This term is often used by transportation
professionals to denote travel from the center city to suburban
locations in the suburbs, going counter to the main volume of traffic
flow.
Start Time--A new data item in the 1990 census, start time
identifies the time (to the minute) at which the commuter left home for
work. This information permits better analysis of traffic loadings
around peak periods for local traffic modeling of travel demand and air
quality analysis.
Traditional Commute--The pattern of commuting from a suburb-like
area outside the city to a downtown work location.
Travel Time--A commuter's estimate of the time (in minutes) it
``usually'' took to get from home to work in the previous week. This
data item was first collected in 1980; the 1990 census thus allows an
opportunity to evaluate trends for the 10-year period.
Trip End--A trip end is either end of a trip. The term is used to
describe trips in terms of their common origins or destinations, such
as all work trips with a destination in the suburbs.
Work at Home--In the census survey, a person who said his or her
residence was the usual place of work in the week prior to the census
was counted as working at home. Workers who have variable work
locations or who periodically work at home are not included in the
work-at-home group. A related, increasingly popular term is
telecommuter, which refers to someone who has a regular workplace away
from home, but occasionally works at home (for instance, once or twice
a week).
______
The census travel data are something of a compromise. Data quality
and scale of coverage are unequaled, but there is less detail than
desirable. For example, no information is obtained on:
work trips using more than one mode of travel,
travel to a second job, for those with more than one job,
variations in ``usual'' travel patterns, such as occur with
workers who work at home 1 day per week, or
other trips linked to the work trip--a ``trip chain,'' such
as dropping children off at school picking up laundry, or shopping
for groceries.
Nonetheless, the census data are a rich source of fundamental
national work travel characteristics. Each census has yielded more
comprehensive data on commuting. In 1980, questions on time spent
commuting were added to the survey, and questions on vehicle ownership
and mode of travel to work were expanded. In 1990, a question about the
starting time of the work trip was added, and a question that
separately identified trucks and vans was deleted.
There are serious questions about the design of the next census
(2000) and its ability to provide crucial journey-to-work data. The
census data set has become embedded in the transportation planning,
analysis, and policy review fabric of national, state, and metropolitan
governments. The 1990 data were compiled in a large-scale package of
tabulations to meet both state and metropolitan needs.' Viewed at a
very fine level of detail, such as down to small traffic zones, the
data permit the kind of detailed analysis required in our contemporary
policy framework for both transportation planning and energy and air
quality evaluations. Loss of these data would impede progress toward
many of the goals in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, as well as other
national priorities, such as the National Energy Policy. Work is
already under way to define the needs for the data set in 2000.
This report is based on information provided by the Bureau of the
Census, as well as data compiled by the Bureau of the Census and the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to summarize national trends.
The Bureau of the Census data have changed over time, but the
definitions have not; thus it is possible to make meaningful
comparisons of commuter travel over the 30 years that the Bureau of the
Census has collected commuting data.
Although the primary source of data for this report is the
decennial census, other data sets have been used as necessary. Among
these data sets are those from the Nationwide Personal Transportation
Survey, conducted by the U.S. DOT in 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995.
The American Housing Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census and
the Consumer Expenditure Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics have also provided important information. Together, the
three surveys provide information useful in depicting trends for such
important factors as trip lengths, travel speed, and vehicle operating
costs.
geography
Perhaps no aspect of the commuting topic creates more confusion and
difficulty than questions of geography. Several aspects of geography
need to be considered:
The geographic units into which commuting data are
aggregated;
The level of detail in trip patterns;
The comparability over time of areas defined by the Office
of Management and Budget; and
The comparability at the national level between various area
systems in use from place to place.
The main geographical unit used in this report is metropolitan
area. In this report, metropolitan area refers to the metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) and consolidated metropolitan statistical
areas (CMSAs) identified in 1990, when the census data were collected.
This report uses current definitions to summarize data for
metropolitan areas, and it separates data on the central city from data
on the remainder of the metropolitan area. The non-central-city area,
often called the suburbs or the suburban ring, may evidence
considerably different kinds of development and travel behavior from
one metropolitan area to the next. Areas outside metropolitan areas are
referred to as nonmetropolitan or exurban areas.
To allow consistent comparisons and to minimize any misleading
effects of changes in geographic definitions, the 1990 data were
tabulated using the definitions in place when the 1980 data were
collected.
When referring to work trips in the metropolitan area, three terms
are used in this report--central city, suburbs, and surrounding
nonmetropolitan area--to create a matrix that tracks nine movements.
Although something of an oversimplification, the matrix keeps the
constituent parts of the metropolitan commuting phenomenon readily
understandable. In addition, sophisticated tabular analyses conducted
by the Bureau of the Census make it possible to distinguish trips
ending in the suburbs or central city of a metropolitan area other than
the one in which the commuter resides.
In the decennial census, both origins and destinations of work
trips in metropolitan areas are identified at very fine levels of
detail, such as individual blocks, which permits assembly to differing
area units. Worktrip origins (the home) are relatively easy to
identify. The census data are based on households, and each respondent
is identified by address.
Work locations are, however, another matter. Because transportation
planners need detailed identification on work locations, an entirely
separate system is needed to locate and identify work addresses,
according to a set of geographic codes compatible with other census
geography and computer operations. The system is not perfect. For
example, some workers fail to provide sufficient information on their
work location; a Bureau of the Census system is thus used to distribute
work locations in proportion to known destinations.
For small-area statistical needs, the Bureau of the Census
aggregates the block level data into areas called census tracts.
Transportation planners use similar areas--called traffic zones--keyed
to the configuration of the road system. A large metropolitan area
might have more than a thousand such zones or tracts. Trip origins and
destinations must be sufficiently detailed to be assigned within one of
these areas, in order to be useful for traffic planning and many other
local purposes, such as school redistricting and development zoning.
The detailed data are assembled in a format facilitating comparison by
local agencies.
Although these detailed data are crucial to transportation models,
they are not very useful to an understanding of what is happening in a
city or region. For that purpose, the detail needs to be aggregated
into larger areal units, such as metropolitan areas or urbanized areas.
This must be done with great care, for the process of aggregation can
conceal as well as reveal.
There are fundamentally two choices when it comes to aggregating
data at the national level:
Aggregate to areas that have boundaries demarcating a legal
geographic unit such as a county, township, or state.
Let the shape and size of the areas be defined by the nature
of the data.
Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, it is
necessary to use political units of geography for many purposes--for
instance, to relate to other data and to match the boundaries of
jurisdictional authority. On the other hand, modern conditions have
demonstrated that many problems, such as pollution and transportation,
do not respect political boundaries. For transportation purposes it is
clear that a metropolitan region does not stop at the city, county, or
state line.
The Bureau of the Census and the Office of Management and Budget
have responded to these needs with a number of systems of aggregation.
They have sought to clearly define a metropolitan area. The definition
has changed over time, but the key elements are a major central city
and the surrounding related counties. Because it is composed of
political units (counties), a metropolitan area will evidence
substantial variation in size, shape, and features.
The 1990 census designated 284 metropolitan areas, representing all
of the major and some of the relatively minor metropolitan units in the
United States. Of these areas, 71 were grouped into 20 larger units
called consolidated metropolitan statistical areas, reflecting the
immense scale some metropolitan complexes have reached. Over time, the
concept of the metropolitan area has become imbedded in Federal
programs well beyond any statistical role. Concurrently, the definition
of what constitutes a metropolitan area has been relaxed, thus
qualifying more and more areas for that title. As a result, the concept
of a metropolitan area has lost meaning. Almost 80 percent of the U.S.
population now resides in a metropolitan area. With anything remotely
urban now being defined as an official metropolitan area, new
constructs are needed to more clearly discriminate what is actually
happening.
New terminology and new definitions for metropolitan areas were
adopted by the Office of Management and Budget in 1983. These were more
nomenclature changes than definitional modifications, but several of
the changes have severely impacted the ability to analyze trends in
transportation.
Most serious of these changes is the redefinition of what is meant
by a central city.
On average now there are two central cities for every metropolitan
area. This means that many metropolitan areas have several so-called
central cities, often small suburban centers that were once
freestanding units but that have been engulfed by suburban expansion.
To include these in the central cities classification corrupts the
concept of metropolitan area. Many users of the census data, not
realizing the implications of the redefinition of central city, have
noticed that the data indicate a revitalization of central city growth
beyond what is actually happening. In this report, the notion of a
central city as the major place at the center of the region has been
maintained, and other cities have been subsumed under the suburban or
noncentral city label. In many cases, 1980 definitions have been
retained for 1990 data to avoid the misleading effects of the new
definitions. Ultimately, we will need to recognize the rise of suburban
activity centers, in some better form, as elements of the metropolitan
fabric.
The other areal unit used extensively by the Bureau of the Census
is the urbanized area, which takes the second approach to area
definition. An urbanized area is the area surrounding a central city
and comprising all of the built-up parts of the region, generally
defined as that area within which the average population density
exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile. The key point about this
definition is that it is independent of political boundaries. Its
extent is determined by the data itself. Although urbanized area
statistics are not extensively used in this report, they have real
value--particularly in transit analysis, which often predominantly
focuses on the densely built-up parts of a metropolitan area. An
attractive concept is the joining of metropolitan areas and urbanized
areas to establish a ring-like geography. Until recently, this was not
feasible except in special cases because of difficulties in identifying
work trip destinations within urbanized areas. Such joined areas are
used here whenever the data permit their use.
Figure 1-3 shows the ``typical'' structures and relationship of a
standardized metropolitan statistical area and an urbanized area. But
it cannot depict all the potential problems caused by the definitions
and their interrelationships with local political boundaries. The
following issues can affect the statistical conclusions drawn from data
using these typical units:
Many metropolitan areas extend into two or more states, thus adding
additional boundaries.
Counties, which vary widely in size, are generally larger in the
West, with the result that a Western metropolitan area may wholly
reside within one county. Such large counties will often contain vast
rural territories within the metropolitan construct.
Boundaries and sizes of cities are often dependent on rules about
annexation.
As metropolitan areas grow, they increasingly come into contact
with other metropolitan areas also expanding from a distant center, so
that the outer areas of metropolitan complexes may serve as a
commutershed for more than one center. The growth of suburban
complexes, or once-minor towns and cities on the periphery of an urban
center, into major centers of economic activity creates multicentered
regions that are not easily statistically defined.
These issues suggest that the concept of a metropolitan area is
probably clearer than its definition. This further suggests that great
care must be used when examining data based on metropolitan aggregates,
and particularly when data from all metropolitan areas, with all their
local variations in character, are summarized and analyzed at the
national level.
One of the more serious consequences of these issues is that the
concept of the suburb is not clearly defined. Current definitions are
simply inadequate for capturing the spatial boundaries of a suburb. In
this report, the suburbs are defined as that part of the metropolitan
area outside the central city. This is a rather arbitrary construct
determined by the nature of the geographic identification of available
data. If a city is large, a large amount of suburb-type development
will exist within its boundaries. If the city and surrounding counties
are small, the suburbs may extend out through two or three counties.
Depending on their size, counties outside the metropolitan area may
generate substantial amounts of commuting to the metropolitan area.
These areas may constitute an increasingly important ``exurban ring''
beyond the suburban area, because suburban areas are increasingly
becoming the major destination of work trips. These exurban ring
counties are prospective additions to the metropolitan area. These
realities are not readily captured statistically.
new concepts in the geographic representation of travel data
Much of the logic used to define metropolitan areas is based on
commuting patterns. In fact, one of the many justifications for
collecting commuting data is the Office of Management and Budget's use
of the data in defining and determining metropolitan areas. It is
ironic that these geographic constructs are not very useful for
commuting analysis.
If we were not restricted to geographical boundaries, we would
probably define a commutershed around important economic and social
centers that serve as destinations for most commuters. Rings at given
radii from the center would be defined based on their degree of focus
on the center, an increasingly tenuous quality of the large
contemporary metropolitan unit. This would still leave problems of
overlap between the areas of commuting influence on large urban
complexes and would probably generate new problems. A series of
overlapping rings with different centers would result.
New geographical information system techniques and capabilities
make possible very impressive analytical tasks, which have been decades
in development. Grid systems using latitude and longitude coordinates
provide a strong graphical capability, and they have been used as the
basis for planning in some major metropolitan areas, including New York
and Chicago.
Overall, the areal units used in this report--jurisdictionally
based geographical units, consisting of counties as building blocks--
are substitutes for that yet-to-be-defined more-perfect system. We must
be conscious at all times of the potential ``tyranny of geography'' and
its ability to mislead, as well as to enlighten.
______
Chapter Two: Commuters in the 1990's
The 1970's and the 1980's saw volatile demographic change. Today,
some of these trends are losing steam and are having less of an
influence on commuting. These trends include population growth, labor
force growth, vehicle growth, and geographic shifts of workers and
jobs. Although not at peak level, some of these trends still have
substantial impact, notably labor-force growth trends. And there are
other trends that are just emerging as potential major forces of
change. Notable among these is the growth in immigration; however,
other trends, particularly the aging of the population and the
disparate travel needs of different racial and ethnic groups, will also
be factors of great concern in the future.
end of the worker boom
The first edition of Commuting in America described at some length
the great job boom of the 1970's that contributed so forcefully to the
dramatic increase in commuters. A major factor behind that boom was the
tremendous increase in persons of labor-force age--as a product both of
the coming of working age of the baby-boom generation and of the surge
in women's participation in the labor force. Of course, the U.S.
economy deserves the greatest credit--by creating jobs on such a
mammoth scale, it permitted persons of working age to find jobs. For
almost 20 years, between 1970 and 1990, the work force grew by an
average 2 percent a year in the United States far exceeding the total
job growth in all other developed nations combined.
The 1940 census may have documented the high point of the growth
period of population and workers and signaled the end of the worker
boom. The number of workers grew to 115.1 million in 1990, an increase
of 18.4 million workers from the 1980 census and about 300,000 more
than the number of new jobs generated between the 1970 and 1980 census
periods (Table 2-1). The 19.2 percent increase in workers was
substantial, but down significantly from the 23 percent growth rate
seen in the 1970's. By the mid-1990's, job growth had been slowed by an
economic recession, but also because there were fewer people in the
labor force. Overall, the number of workers (and thus prospective
commuters) has almost doubled since 1950.
Workers and Population
Population change contributed to the decreasing labor force. Table
2-1 shows the continuing decline in the pope growth rate from the baby-
boom years to the present. The 1980-1990 decade saw the lowest rate of
population increase in our nation's history, except for the depression
of the 1930's, which was the only other time that population growth
fell below 10 percent.
More significant for commuting concerns is the rate of population
growth by age-group (Figure 2-1). The increase in total population is
gradually declining, but the increase in working-age population (16 to
65 years of age) and the labor force is dramatically subsiding. As
shown in Figure 2-1, a clearly visible ``bubble'' of growth in the
working-age population and the actual labor force in the 1970's and
1980's explains the substantial surge in commuting during that period.
The sharp drop-off in both labor force and working-age population
signals the last of the baby boomers entering the labor force in the
mid-1980's and the tapering of the surge of women joining the labor
force later in the decade.
Although the rate of increase sharply dropped, the total increase
for the period is still substantial (more than 18 million workers).
The Bureau of the Census projected increases in working-age
population growth and labor-force growth for the 1990's are also shown
in Figure 2-1. It depicts a period of calm--about 10 percent overall
growth in population and in the working-age population for the decade
moving in tandem. In fact, this is the product of a brief growth blip
of about 1.1 percent a year for the first 5 years of the decade, and
then a return, based on projections, to the same rate as the late
1980's, with continuously declining rates of growth to the year 2050.
Labor-force growth rates continue to decline to a rate of just below 15
percent, about half of the rate in the 1980's, but are still projected
to produce an absolute increase in labor force of between 17 and 18
million for the decade, or only a little less than the increase that
took place in the 1980's.
Figure 2-2 makes this more apparent by differentiating the labor-
force growth rates of men and women. The growth in male workers has
moved in tandem with the growth in the working-age population. The
growth in female workers, on the other hand, has followed a separate
course, surging through the 1960's and 1970's and just now tapering
off, but with rates of increase considerably higher than those for men.
Looking at the actual changes, rather than rates of change,
provides a clearer understanding of what is happening. Figure 2-3 shows
the slow tapering in population increases, the precipitous drop in the
population aged 16-65 between 1980 and 1990, and the labor-force surge
and decline. Of special note is that in 1980 the actual increases in
each of the three factors were almost identical.
The most direct way to make the point concerning the end of an era
of rapid working-age population growth is to depict the number of
people reaching 18 years of age (Figure 2-4). These are the new
entrants to the labor force, the new workers, and the new auto drivers
who fuel the economy. Figure 2-4 shows the number of persons turning 18
years old in this decade. The number of 18-year-olds peaked at slightly
above 4 million in 1990 and had declined almost 5 percent by mid-1993.
The age-group is projected to decline to its nadir in 1995 and then
slowly begin recovering, but it will not reach 4 million again until
2008.
Furthermore, census projections \1\ indicate that those aged 18-
21--the primary group of entrants into the work force--peaked at 17.4
million in 1980, declined to 15.2 million in 1991, and declined further
to 14 million in 1995; the group is expected to increase to 15.5
million by 2000 and to reach 18 million by 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This study always uses middle series projections. Current
Population Reports, 1992, J. Chesseman Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion has identified the trends in the labor force age-
group and the actual labor force, as background to a discussion of
workers and job locations. \2\ As shown in Table 2-1, the number of
workers almost doubled between 1950 and 1990, adding more than 56
million workers to reach a total of 115.1 million workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This document continues a convention adopted in the first
edition of Commuting in America, in which the counts of work trips at
their destination ends, as measured by the census, are considered to be
a count of jobs. But they are in fact an incomplete measure of jobs.
Holders of multiple jobs reported only one job in the census. Thus the
journey-to-work data undercount actual jobs. However, they are the most
comprehensive national source of at-workplace statistics on the
demographics of workers and their travel behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau of Labor Statistics places 1990 employment at about 120
million; it dipped sharply to below 117 million in the second quarter
of 1991. Employment did not return to 120 million until 1993, reaching
122 million in the second quarter of 1994. Thus in census terms the
Nation in mid-1994 was just about 2 percent ahead of the 1990
employment level. It will be difficult, but not impossible, for job
growth in the 1990's to reach the 18 million per decade levels seen in
the 1970's and 1980's.
An Aging Working Population
The baby boom has been a bubble making its way through the nation's
demographic structure, sharply affecting society at each stage. The
baby boomers clogged our grammar schools in the 1950's and our high
schools and colleges in the 1960's and 1970's; they are now clogging
our transportation system. The baby boomers are in their most
productive years, and from a transportation point of view, their most
active years. According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation
Survey (NPTS), people in the 35-55 age-group, which is the group the
baby boomers fall into in the 1990's, have the highest propensity to
travel.
The long-term population trends by age-group, including Bureau of
the Census projections to 2000, are shown in Figure 2-5.
The population below 16 years of age clearly rose during the baby-
boom years and dropped to a stable level of about 50 million. All
growth has been attributable to the over 16 years of age population.
The median age of the population has shifted from 28 in 1970, to 30
in 1980, to 32.9 in 1990, and to over 33 in 1992. \3\ Census
projections indicate that the median age will reach 35.7 by 2000 and
will hover between 36 and 37 through the first half of the next
century.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The median is that number which is the central item in a
distribution when ranked from low to high--thus half the numbers are
higher and half lower than the median. It is often used instead of the
average in cases where a few high numbers have the potential to distort
understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Figure 2-6, population declined in all age-groups below
25-29, except for those below school age. All but six states (Alaska,
Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and New Hampshire) had fewer people
in the 20-24 age-group in 1990 than in 1980. Worth noting is the
arrival of the ``depression babies'' at the 65-year-old age point. This
group was exceptionally small because of the bad economic times when
they were born and then the war years; its size accentuates the size of
the baby-boom bubble.
The older population of working age is of interest. In 1980 there
were 21.7 million persons aged 55 to 65. This number dropped slightly
to 21 million by 1990, but is projected to reach 23.7 million by 2000
and to jump to 34.5 million by 2010, as the baby boomers begin to reach
retirement age.
Women in the Workforce
Earlier, this chapter noted that women had been the major factor
behind the surge in the labor force from 1960 to 1990. Between 1950 and
1990, the number of workers in the Nation almost doubled. In that
period, women's share of total employment rose from under 30 percent to
45 percent.
In 1990 about 192 million people were 16 or older; about 99.8
million (52 percent) were women. Of that group, 56.6 million women were
in the labor force--an all-time high for women. These figures mask the
participation rates for women in the younger age groups--over 77
percent of women aged 35 to 44 worked, in contrast to about 40 percent
in 1960. Furthermore, the number of working women with children is very
high--almost 75 percent of married women who work have children over 5
years of age, and almost 60 percent have children under 6. In contrast,
74.4 percent of men were in the labor force at that time.
Since 1990 the labor-force participation rate for women has
continued to increase whereas that for men has continued to decline.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the participation rate for
women reached 59.2 percent in August 1995.
The relative contribution of men and women to the labor force in
the latter half of this century is shown in Figure 2-7. The total
labor-force increase in the 1980-1990 decade was clearly down from the
previous decade, for both men and women; women contributed 11 million
to the labor force, compared with 14 million in the previous decade.
Women's share of the labor force increase in the different periods grew
from 58 percent in the 1970-1980 period to 61 percent in the 1980-1990
period.
The 56.6 million women in the labor force in 1990 represented about
46 percent of the total labor force. Figure 2-8 traces women's share of
the labor force throughout the period.
residential and job patterns
Population Distribution Patterns
The nation's population grew by only 22.2 million (9.7 percent)
between 1980 and 1990, about 1 million less than the number added
between 1970 and 1980. Since 1990 that pattern has continued, with
about 2.8 million persons added each year. The estimated population
reached 265 million in dune 1996, with 2.7 million additional people
added in 1995. The population is projected to reach more than 276
million in 2000, yielding a growth rate for the decade of just above 10
percent, with declining growth rates in all decades thereafter until
mid-century. Table 2-2 summarizes long-term national population trends
and their distribution by metropolitan geographic category.
Metropolitan Patterns
Using current metropolitan definitions, the 22.2 million increase
in population between 1980 and 1990 occurred almost exclusively in
metropolitan areas, with 21 million of the growth occurring there. Of
that amount, 15.6 million, or about 75 percent, occurred in suburbs,
and the remaining 5.4 million occurred in central cities--a substantial
improvement in growth rates for central cities. However, the adjusted
column in Table 2-2 clarifies that all of this growth is a statistical
artifact. If the definitions that applied in 1980 are retained for the
1990 data, the data show that central city population has actually
declined and that all the metropolitan growth of 17 million was in the
suburbs. In this restructuring of the data, the nonmetropolitan areas
gained 5.2 million rather than 1.2 million. Of most interest is that
overall population growth in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas was
effectively identical to the national average. Given that the suburban
share of the metropolitan population was 58 percent in 1980, the 1980-
1990 growth pattern contributes to a further increase in suburban
share. As a result, the 1990 suburban share now stands at almost 62
percent.
The national long-term distribution between the three major
groupings is presented in Figure 2-9 (using adjusted 1990 figures),
showing that the suburban share of total national population continues
to grow--from 43 percent to 47 percent between 1980 and 1990. \4\ The
central city share of population declined to 29 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The share held by suburbs varies little under either
definition: 46 percent under standard 1990 definitions, 31 percent for
central cities, and 23 percent for nonmetropolitan areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall migration flows are instructive. In the late 1980's
nonmetropolitan areas lost small amounts (100,000-250,000) each year to
metropolitan areas. Otherwise, nonmetropolitan areas held constant with
flows to and from central cities roughly in balance. The flows between
central cities and suburbs were more substantial. Central cities lost
in the range of 2.5 to 3 million persons per year to the suburbs. These
flows were somewhat softened by the 750,000 or so immigrants arriving
in the central cities each year. Thus in net terms, central cities
continue to experience outward shifts, almost exclusively to suburbs,
in excess of 2 million per year. Recent data indicate that
nonmetropolitan areas are again experiencing something of a growth
renaissance. Less than half of the nation's nonmetropolitan counties
were growing in the 1980's. In the 1990's almost three-quarters were
gaining population, spurred by immigration. \5\ Many of these growth
areas are in recreational and retirement communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ K. Johnson and C. Beale. American Demographics, July, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual domestic migration rates appear to have continued
unslackened in the 1980's, despite the aging of the population. Most
moves involve remaining in the same general area. Three-fourths of
suburban of nonmetropolitan moves are within the same geographic
category. Central city movers are less devoted to category, with only
about two-thirds remaining in a central city.
Figure 2-11 takes this a step further by dividing the suburbs into
two zones. The first, the urbanized ring, is defined as the census-
defined urbanized area minus the central city; the second, the metro
ring, is the metropolitan area minus the urbanized area. The urbanized
ring consists of the highly built up areas around the central city,
i.e., the inner suburbs; the metro ring is that area outside the
urbanized area, but still within the metropolitan area, which can be a
large area given the shape of the county boundaries that define
metropolitan areas. It typically consists of lower-density developing
areas, which often contain heavily rural populations. In fact, 75
percent of this ring's population is defined as rural.
One further point of interest is the shifting in population growth
between metropolitan areas of different sizes. An important question is
whether population growth is concentrating in the largest metropolitan
areas or in smaller geographic areas. This will have implications for
the feasibility of certain modes and policies, choice of mode, and
commuters' comfort level.
Figure 2-12 shows the population trend by size of metropolitan
area. More has happened than is apparent in the figure, because of
compensating shifts among the groups. A major shift occurred when San
Francisco joined the over 5 million population group in 1980. In 1990,
another compensating change occurred when Atlanta and Seattle moved
into the over 2.5 million group. A large number of metropolitan areas
are poised to join the over 2.5 million group in the 2000 census
(Phoenix, Baltimore, St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and San Diego).
No change, absent a joining of the Washington-Baltimore areas, would
move any area into the over 5 million club.
The change in population of the major metropolitan areas is shown
in Table 2-3. With the national growth rate from 1980 to 1990 at 9.7
percent, the five metropolitan areas with over 5 million population
barely held their share in the 1980-1990 period. However, it should be
noted that the growth rate for the group was the product of three
eastern areas (New York City, Philadelphia, and Chicago) with minuscule
growth rates (approximately 2 percent for the three areas combined) and
two western areas (Los Angeles and San Francisco) with a combined
growth rate more than double the national average. Future growth in
this group will thus clearly be a product of the growth rates in the
Western areas, unless some major reversal of trend occurs in the East.
The nine metropolitan areas in the 2.5 to 5 million range grew the
most rapidly of all size groups, increasing by over 14 percent. The
West-East dichotomy was again crucial to understanding the underlying
character of the trend. In particular, two metropolitan areas in the
group from the East (Detroit and Cleveland) placed a drag on the group
with population losses. Otherwise, the Western areas in the group had
very high growth rates.
The two groups in the 0.5 to 2.5 million range had almost identical
rates of change, about midway between the national average and the rate
for the 2.5 to 5 million group. All areas less than 0.5 million had
rates close to the national average.
This suggests that there has been little change in shares of
metropolitan population among the different population-size groups.
There has been a small shift, less than a 1 percent change in share,
from the over 5 million group to the 2.5 to 5 million group.
There was also a small shift from the smallest groups, those below
0.25 million, toward the middle-size groups. The groups from 0.5 to 2.5
million gained slightly in share. All of these overall gains are at the
expense of nonmetropolitan areas.
Signs of Moderation in the Sunbelt
The long-term trend in population growth by census region has
continued without substantial change since 1970, as shown in Figure 2-
13. Notably, the Northeast, showing little growth, has been surpassed
in total population by the West. The West appears likely to surpass the
Midwest, which has shown similar lack of growth. The South continues to
grow and to lengthen its lead over all other regions; it now represents
more than 35 percent of the U.S. population.
Examination of the regional growth rates shows that no region has
been immune to the decline in growth rates, but the South is the only
region with its current growth rate approximating that observed in the
19501960 period. The West, with higher rates of growth than the South,
has also held steady, after a sharp decline in rates from 1960 to 1970.
These shifts provide some evidence of a lessening of the shift to the
sunbelt that has dominated national migration patterns since the
1950's. Together, the South and West, with 52 percent of the nation's
1980 population, obtained 94 percent of population growth in the 1980-
1985 period. This growth dropped to about 83 percent in the 1985-1990
period, as the Northeast and Midwest showed some growth, primarily a
result of foreign immigration. The South and West, together, still
represented over 55 percent of the national population by 1990. In the
1990's the rate has dropped further, to an estimated 76 percent of all
growth by 1993, but the regions' share of the nation's population still
rose to 56 percent.
Further recent evidence of slowing occurred when California, for
the first time in 20 years, grew at a slower rate than the Nation as a
whole. Between July 1992 and July 1993, California grew 1 percent,
slightly less than the national rate; it was the slowest growing state
in the West, contrasting with the overall rate of 1.7 percent for the
Western states as a group. To place this in perspective, in the 1980's
California grew at double the national rate.
If detailed data for annual immigration and emigration are examined
by region, the picture is rather glum for the Northeast and the
Midwest. In no year in the 1980-1990 decade did the Northeast have a
positive net flow of migrants, excluding immigration from abroad. (In 6
of the 10 years foreign immigration overcame negative net domestic
flows to create an actual increase in population.) The Midwest picture
was not quite as bleak. For the first 5 years of the decade, migration
flows were negative despite positive migration from abroad. In the more
recent 5-year period, migration flows were positive. In 2 of the 5
years they were even positive in purely domestic terms.
The New Factor of Immigration
Changing population and labor-force growth rates and changing
patterns of internal distribution of the population have been, and will
continue to be, strongly affected by the size and character of foreign
immigration. Because these trends are fundamentally a product of
congressional and administrative policies, they make reliable
projection of future trends virtually impossible.
The scale of foreign immigration has become prodigious. It is a
major, if not the dominant, factor in national population growth
patterns. According to the Census Bureau, about 8.7 million immigrants
entered the United States in the 1980-1990 period. Given a total
population increase of about 22 million, the foreign-born share was
almost 40 percent of total growth. \6\ Recent data indicate the pace
continues at that rate, with 4.5 million arriving in the 5-year period
from 1990 to 1994, twice the rate of the 1970's. Figure 2-14 traces the
historical trend in immigration using a more conservative estimate
based on Immigration and Naturalization Service statistics. This figure
does not show the peak decade of American immigration, 1900-1910;
almost the same number of immigrants arrived--8.8 million--in the 1900-
1910 period as in the most recent decade, but they arrived to a nation
consisting of approximately 75 million--less than one-third of today's
population. In 1910 almost 15 percent of the population was foreign
born, dropping to only 4.8 percent in 1970. It has now returned to 8.7
percent, well below the peak immigration years but substantially above
the post-war years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National statistics are not usually presented in this way.
Generally, they are expressed net of emigration by U.S. citizens. These
figures are from the 1990 census and are considerably larger than
official immigration statistics, which place immigration for the period
at 7.3 million. The official percentage of foreign-born people in the
United States for the decade is closer to 34 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several ways in which immigration may be critical to
transportation in general and commuting in particular. The first
obvious point is that without immigration, the total population
increase would have been much smaller in the decade. A somewhat less
obvious point is that additions to the population in 1995 via births
will produce prospective commuters in 2011 or later, but most
immigrants are old enough to join the labor force when they arrive in
the United States, and most are intent on becoming commuters and
vehicle drivers. They are instantaneous additions to the traffic scene.
For example, almost 80 percent of the 1.5 million arrivals from abroad
in the years 1990-1994 were of labor-force age. The median age of
arrivals in that period was 26 years.
Another factor to consider is the immigrants' geographic location.
Where do these immigrants go? To what parts of the country? What parts
of metropolitan areas?
Previous discussion has stated that immigrants from abroad have
been a factor in all census regions of the country, acting to reverse
losses in the East and Midwest (the number of foreign immigrants
arriving in the East and the number of persons leaving the East for
other regions are generally symmetrical) and, in the South and West,
acting to substantially expand existing growth trends. The states that
received more than 200,000 foreign immigrants in the period from 1985
to 1990 are shown in Figure 2-15. The chart can be characterized in
this way: Foreign immigrants tend to go to heavily populated areas. The
most populous states tend to receive immigrants.
Foreign immigrants have had direct impact on the growth patterns of
many states. Some traditionally rapidly growing states, such as
California and Florida, have had their growth expanded--in the case of
California, dramatically so. Other states, such as Texas, Pennsylvania,
and Massachusetts, have had their population losses reversed by
immigrants. Others, such as New York and Ohio, have had their declines
reduced, but not reversed. National migration trends differentiated by
domestic net flows and foreign immigration are shown in Figure 2-16.
Domestic net flow is the difference between flows into and out of a
state. Changes in population due to births and deaths are not included
in the figure.
The case of California is worth detailing. It has consistently
received one-third of all immigrants. In the 5-year period 1975-1979,
California received 1.1 million foreign immigrants, more than one-third
of the nation's arrivals. In the 1980-1984 period, California received
almost 1.5 million immigrants, again more than one-third of national
arrivals. In the 5-year period 19851990, it received almost 2 million
immigrants, well above one-third of national arrivals. In the most
recent 5-year period (1990-1994), California received more than 1.5
million immigrants, almost exactly one-third of all immigrants.
The current group of immigrants tend to locate in central cities,
as did the many immigrant groups before them. This acts to balance the
emigration of the resident populations. In recent years, more than 90
percent of foreign immigrants were destined for metropolitan areas,
with a preference favoring central cities over suburbs--roughly a 55/
45 split in favor of the central cities. Some metropolitan areas, such
as New York City and Chicago, had their population losses reversed by
foreign immigration.
One effect of the arrival of immigrants has been the number of
households without vehicles in cities with large numbers of foreign
immigrants. For instance, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Houston,
and Dallas all had greater percentage increases in population than in
vehicles. And all had significant increases in the number of households
without vehicles. The places with highest increases in zero-vehicle
households were Miami, San Diego, and Phoenix. The suburbs of many of
these areas saw large increases in households without vehicles.
Of great interest will be the rate at which these households
``mainstream,'' i.e., obtain vehicles and begin moving to the suburbs.
Historical data indicate that foreign-born persons reach levels of
income approximately the same as native-born citizens in about 15
years. Foreign immigrants are not unlike others moving within the
United States. The average foreign immigrant had 12.9 years of
education in 1989-1990, almost identical to the average years of
schooling for all migrating residents. More recent data indicate that
this average has an unusual distribution because foreign-born persons
over 25 years of age have a greater likelihood of having a college
degree than native-born citizens; however, they are also more likely
not to have a high school degree.
Job and Worker Patterns
Worker and job location data from the 1990 census indicate that the
patterns have continued to follow their historical trends. Workers are
counted at their residences, and jobs are counted at their work
locations (which could be the residence). The number of workers equals
the number of jobs.
A simple way to summarize the locations of workers and jobs is
shown in Table 2-4. This breakdown of metropolitan area worker data
also depicts a suburban division between the urbanized ring (urbanized
area minus the central city) and the metro ring (metro area minus the
urbanized area).
Aseries of figures portrays the patterns behind these data. Figure
2-17 shows the distribution of workers by major geographic area. Half
of all workers reside in the suburbs. Figure 2-18 shows these data in
greater detail, indicating that most of the workers reside within the
urbanized ring. Figure 2-19 compares the share of workers with share of
population by jurisdiction. Central cities have a lesser share of
workers than population; this is sharply reversed in the urbanized
ring, which has a high proportion of workers to population. The
nonmetropolitan area also has a low population/worker relationship.
Figure 2-20 shows the growth in workers between 1980 and 1990 by
broad geographic areas. As can be seen from comparison with Figure 2-
17, growth in workers has Predominantly occurred in suburban areas,
with two-thirds of all worker growth there; although the growth is in
excess of its present share, it is still not as strongly
disproportionate as its share of population growth. Both central cities
and nonmetropolitan areas shared the remaining worker growth about
evenly, but both areas lost share to the suburbs.
Figure 2-21 provides similar data for worker growth at the work
location end (i.e., jobs). The first chart represents the distribution
of job locations in 1980; the second chart shows job locations in 1990,
and the third chart shows how the distribution of shares of jobs
changed from 1980 to 1990.
These figures use a slightly different geographic structuring of
the data than in the preceding discussion--one that recognizes how
commuting patterns work in the 1990's. It differentiates those who work
in the central city of a different metropolitan area from those who
work in the central city of their own area, and similarly
differentiates suburbs. The data indicate that there has been a
significant alteration in the location of jobs over the 10-year period.
When the two suburban areas are added, they constitute 42 percent of
the job locations in 1990, up from 37 percent in 1980, obtaining a two-
thirds share of the growth in the period. As shown in the charts, a
substantial share of growth (one-quarter) occurs in suburbs and central
cities outside the residence area of the commuter.
Detailed Metropolitan Trends
Over 95 percent of metropolitan population growth and about 66
percent of jobs in the 1970's were absorbed in the suburbs. In the
1980-1990 period, if 1980 definitions are retained, all population
growth occurred in the suburbs, with central cities showing a slight
decline of 0.7 percent, losing roughly half a million people. Almost 75
percent of metropolitan job growth took place in the suburbs. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ If 1990 definitions are used, suburbs gained about 75 percent
of population and 51 percent of jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan growth rates have been highly variable from area to
area. Table 2-3 provided detailed population growth rates in the 1980's
by metropolitan area size group. Figure 2-22 displays the distribution
of metropolitan areas over 1 million by population growth rate. Those
areas with under 5 percent growth, roughly half the national growth
rate, are designated as ``low growth,'' and those with a growth rate
above 20 percent, roughly double the national rate, are designated as
``high growth.'' All the high-growth metro areas were in the West or
the South, with the exception of Minneapolis-St. Paul. Conversely,
almost all the low-growth areas were in the Northeast. The two
exceptions were Portland, Oregon, and New Orleans, Louisiana.
In percentage terms, overall worker growth rates exceeded
population growth rates by substantial amounts, as expected. Suburban
worker growth rates were even greater--in some cases double the
population growth rate. Figure 2-23 provides the detail on these
patterns. The general decline in the overall rates from the 1970-1980
high-growth areas is worth noting. In that period, the lowest suburban
growth rate among the high-growth areas was just about 60 percent. In
the 1980-1990 period, only two areas exceed 60 percent in suburban
growth.
The 12 low-growth areas shown in Figure 2-24 have growth patterns
more like the patterns of the previous decade, although there is
apparent softening of the extremes here as well. Many of the population
losers in the 1970's continued to be population losers in the 1980's--
Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Detroit, and Cleveland. As in the 1970's, all but
Pittsburgh showed substantial overall worker growth and even more
dramatic suburban worker growth, although the contrast in suburban
worker growth and overall worker growth rates is not as extreme as in
the earlier decade. New York and Portland actually show overall rates
equal or better than suburban rates.
Even when areas have declining or limited population growth, worker
growth (particularly suburban worker growth) is still an important
transportation growth factor. Perhaps the best example is Buffalo,
which in 1980 had seen an 8 percent population loss, but still
sustained a 7 percent increase in suburban workers. In 1990 it incurred
a loss in population, this time of about 4 percent, but again obtained
a 7 percent increase in suburban workers. New Orleans and Detroit were
also notable in this regard. Four of the areas obtained suburban worker
growth rates in the range of 20 percent. Table 2-5 summarizes the
overall data for all areas over 1 million population.
households and vehicles
Trends in Household Size
In many respects, the fundamental unit of metropolitan travel is
the household. Incomes and vehicles are typically household-based
rather than person-based. Many trips can be attributed to household
activities such as food shopping, appliance repairs, and laundry. Child
care and children's needs, such as medical visits or music lessons, are
a significant part of the pattern of travel demand. The linking of
trips serving the household to the journey-to-work trip--so called trip
chaining--is very much a family/household characteristic, and an
increasingly important factor in transportation policy issues. Also,
the potential for linking persons to form carpools is strongly related
to household size, which will be discussed later.
Given these factors, it is important that the interrelationship
among the trends in population, households, \8\ and workers be clear.
The basic relationship is shown in Figure 2-25, which portrays the
trend in growth in population, households, and labor force from 1950 to
1990, indexed to 1950. The chart shows a close parallel between
household and labor-force growth; the overall growth rate from 1950 to
1990 for the labor force was 200 percent and for households 211
percent, indicating that labor force (or workers) per household changed
little in the period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Not all of the population is in households. Those members of
the population not in households are in group quarters, such as college
dormitories, army barracks, prisons, nursing homes, and psychiatric
institutions. Only 6.7 million of the almost 250 million persons in the
1990 population were in group quarters. Between 1980 and 1990 this
group grew almost twice as fast as the population in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greater growth in households relative to population (211
percent vs. 164 percent) continues the trend toward smaller household
size. The average household size in 1950 was 3.37 persons; by 1990, it
had declined rather dramatically to 2.63 persons, with the greatest
changes occurring in the 1960's and 1970's.
Two factors that affect household size are pertinent to
transportation planning. The first factor concerns shifts in family
structure; the second concerns the changing distribution of households
by number of persons per household.
The Structure of Households
In 1990 there were 242 million people living in 91.9 million
households. Of these households, 64.5 million were families with about
204 million people. The remainder of the population was living in 27.4
million nonfamily units, 22.6 million of which were composed of single
persons living alone and 4.8 million were nonfamily units of more than
one person. Table 2-6 summarizes these patterns for 1980 and 1990 and
shows the rates of change in the elements. Several points are worth
emphasizing:
Although population increased by less than 10 percent of the
households increased by almost 14 percent.
Population in family households increased only 4 percent.
The major growth occurred in non-family households, which increased
almost 30 percent.
Of the total increase in population of 22 million, over 13
million, or 60 percent, occurred in nonfamily households. The share
of the total population represented by nonfamily households rose
from 11 percent to over 15 percent.
Great growth was registered in nonfamily households
consisting of persons living alone and, in particular, in
multiperson nonfamily households.
A significant portion of those living alone are over 65
years and female.
These trends suggest that the notion that incomes and vehicles are
household-based rather than person-based may be changing somewhat,
because if increasing shares of households are nonfamily households, it
would be more likely that incomes and possessions could remain separate
and not function as a shared asset.
Since 1990, family households with children have grown at the
minuscule rate of 0.2 percent per year, while nonfamily households grew
at the rate of 1.2 percent per year. The impacts of these changes are
just being revealed in terms of travel patterns. Although considerably
greater than the rate for family households with children, the rate for
nonfamily households has declined considerably from its high levels in
the 1970's, which were almost 6 percent per year.
If households are distinguished by the number of persons per
household, as depicted in Figure 2-26, it is evident that large
households--those of five, six, or more persons--are declining as a
component of all households. Most growth in households is occurring
among one- and two-person households. This is confirmed by the previous
discussion of nonfamily households.
These household trends tend to have negative effects on the
potential for family carpooling and support increased use of single-
occupant-vehicular travel. But remember, a significant portion of those
in single-person households are over 65 years of age and therefore not
likely to be commuters. The following discussion expands on this point.
Workers Per Household
Figure 2-27 shows the number of workers per household, according to
location. This chart says a great deal about commuting and commuting
possibilities:
Seventy percent of workers live in households of two or more
workers. This indicates that the option for workers to live closer to
work is a two-way or more tug-of-war, even if workers were interested
in living closer to work.
It tells us a great deal about carpooling potential among
households.
Most households with workers have two workers.
Workers Per Family
Although nonfamily households have distinct worker characteristics,
with many single-person/single-worker households, the family household
is of special interest. Only 13 percent of family households have no
workers, while more than 40 percent of those living in single-person
households are over 65 and are therefore less likely to be working.
Table 2-7 shows the distribution of workers in family-based households,
and also identifies the subset of those family households containing a
husband and wife.
Stabilization of Vehicle Ownership Trends
Although population grew by less than 10 percent and households by
about 14 percent between 1980 and 1990, total vehicles available to
households jumped by over 17 percent.
Nothing better depicts the scale of vehicle growth than the fact
that the number of vehicles added in the past decade exceeded the
number of people added. The majority of U.S. households have two or
more vehicles, with an average vehicle availability of 1.66 vehicles
per household, up from 1.61 in 1980. These increases in vehicles per
household are occurring against a backdrop of declining number of
persons per household.
At the same time there are indications that the rate of growth in
vehicles in America is diminishing. As shown in Table 2-8, the number
of vehicles grew slower than the growth in workers (17.4 percent vs.
19.1 percent), with the result that vehicles per worker actually
declined slightly, from 1.34 to 1.32, after jumping from 0.85 vehicles
per worker as recently as 1960. Still, the fact that every worker has,
on average, 1.3 vehicles available for work travel suggests that almost
everyone who wishes to commute by vehicle has the means to do so.
Source data from the 1990 NPTS indicate that the reality goes well
beyond simple averages, because the majority of one-worker households
have one or more vehicles, the majority of two-worker households have
two or more vehicles, and the majority of three-worker households have
three or more vehicles. This clearly indicates that vehicles tend to be
where the workers are. Total households by vehicles available are
identified in Figure 2-28. Note that the growth in households is almost
exclusively in households with two or more vehicles.
The case for stabilization of vehicle ownership can still be made
despite these growth numbers:
There has been a small decline in vehicles per worker, following
years of rapid growth.
The share of households with three or more vehicles decreased from
1980 to 1990. Although only a 1 percent drop, the drop is significant
after periods of extraordinary growth (jumping from 1.3 million
households in 1960 to over 14 million in 1980). Despite the percentage
drop, the number of households with three or more vehicles grew by 1.8
million between 1980 and 1990.
The number of vehicles now exceeds the number of licensed drivers,
suggesting that there is a saturation setting in because there is
saturation of the number of licensed drivers independent of the number
of vehicles. It will not matter how many vehicles people own as long as
the number of licensed drivers remains stable. There is clear evidence
of saturation in licensed drivers.
As shown in Figure 2-29, the share of households by vehicle
ownership does seem to have stabilized, remaining relatively
unchanged since 1980.
Households Without Vehicles
The proportion of all households that are without vehicles has been
in continuous decline since at least 1960. In 1960, 21 percent of
households were without vehicles, dropping to just above 11 percent by
1990. However, the percentage decline between 1980 and 1990 was just
slightly more than 1 percentage point--from 12.9 to 11.5 percent--
supporting the viewpoint regarding the trend toward stabilization.
In terms of absolute numbers, the number of zero-vehicle (vehicle-
less) households has remained roughly constant for 30 years, as shown
in Figure 2-28. In fact, the number of zero-vehicle households rose
slightly from 10.4 million in 1980 to 10.6 million in 1990--not far
from the 11.4 million households without vehicles in 1960.
Who Are The Vehicle-Less?
A number of demographic factors that are contributing to the
stability in the number of vehicle-less households also help explain
who these households are.
One of these is the increase in single-person households,
particularly those consisting of older women. In 1990 there were 22.6
million households consisting of an individual living alone, 8.8
million of which were over 65--almost 80 percent of this group were
women, who, as a group, have the lowest ownership of drivers' licensee.
These women are most likely to be vehicle-less and also in a retired or
otherwise nonemployed situation. This confirms that although vehicle-
less households represent 11.5 percent of households, they represent a
much smaller percentage of the population.
In Search of the Three-Vehicle Household
The number of households with three or more vehicles has grown by
almost 1.8 million households, despite a declining share of all
households. Almost 16 million households are in this category today.
Who are these people and where are they? For the most part they
appear to be large households with two or three drivers and are
frequently located in rural farming communities. The following table
lists the states with the highest percentage of households with three
or more vehicles.
The midwestern farm states also tend to be above the average. New
York, the state with the lowest overall level of vehicle ownership, is
lowest in this area as well, with only 11 percent of households in the
three-vehicles-and-above category. Only California seems to have high
shares of urban households with three or more vehicles.
Census data indicate that about 5.3 million workers live in
vehicle-less households, which means that, at most, one-half of the
vehicle-less households have workers.
Another factor to consider is the surge of immigrants in the
period, most of whom are unlikely to have vehicles in their first years
of residence. One way to observe this trend is to look at the patterns
in the major immigration centers. A particularly effective measure is
the ratio of population growth to vehicle growth. On a national basis,
vehicle growth exceeded population growth, but in many metropolitan
areas--including Phoenix, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Houston--the
population growth exceeded vehicle growth.
Where Are the Vehicle-Less Households?
Most households without vehicles are located in central cities.
Figure 2-30 expands on this fact by adding the factor of housing type.
In the figure, working households without vehicles are stratified by
both area and home ownership. It is clear that central city renters are
the predominant group of nonvehicle-owning households; as a general
rule, zero-vehicle households are more likely to be renters than home
owners.
The New York metropolitan area accounted for about one-fifth of all
zero-vehicle households in 1980. Despite the fact that New York lost
about 90,000 zero-vehicle households in the 1980-1990 decade, it still
accounts for one-fifth of all such households.
Another one-fifth of zero-vehicle households are located in the
seven major metropolitan areas listed in Figure 2-31. The remaining
metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million contained another
one-fifth, and the rest of the country was responsible for the
remaining two-fifths.
Another way to look at the location of the vehicle-less is
presented in Figure 2-32, which shows that almost 60 percent of
vehicle-less households are in the central places of urbanized areas,
typically the central city. Another 18 percent reside in the fringe of
these urban areas--i.e., the inner suburbs. About 11 percent reside in
urban areas too small to qualify as urbanized areas, and a similar
percentage reside in the remaining rural nonfarm areas of the country.
Farm areas account for a minuscule part of vehicle-less households.
Racial and Ethnic Factors in Vehicle Availability
The preceding discussion on vehicle availability was, for the most
part, based on national averages. Many of the perspectives require
sharp reappraisal when viewed in light of the vehicle ownership
characteristics of different racial and ethnic groups.
One of the most pertinent characteristics is the variation in
licensed drivers among racial and ethnic groups. The nation is, on
average, near saturation with regard to license holding. But as shown
in the top part of Figure 2-33, the White, non-Hispanic population in
urban areas is near, or at, effective saturation, especially among men
(96 percent); in contrast, the rate for men in all other racial and
ethnic groups is about 80 percent. The disparities among women of
different racial and ethnic groups and between women and men are even
greater. Rural license holders, shown in the same figure, exhibit a
parallel pattern, but with all groups having higher rates of license
holding than their urban counterparts.
As shown in the figure, sharper disparities exist between Hispanic
men and women and between men and women in the ``other'' groups than
between Black or White men and women. Whether this is a product of
cultural factors, such as gender-based roles, or other factors, such as
age, remains to be determined.
As noted earlier, 11.5 percent of all households are without
vehicles. Figure 2-34 shows the racial and ethnic composition of those
households. Although White, non-Hispanic households account for 59
percent of all vehicle-less households, the rates among the groups are
much more revealing. The most remarkable attribute of the table is that
the Black population as a whole averages over 30 percent nonvehicle
households, and in central cities the number is over 37 percent. Many
central cities have extraordinary levels of Black households without
vehicles--New York with 61 percent, Philadelphia with 47 percent, and
Chicago and Washington, D.C., with 43 percent. However, these
households may not be as transportation disadvantaged, given the
availability of transit services, as others in smaller areas, such as
Wheeling, W.Va., with 57 percent vehicle-less households, or Utica,
N.Y., with 44 percent.
Hispanics have an overall rate of vehicle-less households of 19
percent, and a central-city rate of 27 percent. Among the central
cities in metropolitan areas with very high levels of Hispanic
households without vehicles are New York, with over 62 percent, and San
Diego, with 37 percent. Hispanic rates tend to follow the pattern of
high rates in the East, where densities are high, and low rates in the
more spread out cities of the West.
the aging of the commuting fleet
Information on the age of the vehicle fleet is not available from
the census, but it is available from NPTS. In combination with other
data from the 1990 NPTS, insight can be gained about the vehicle fleet
used for commuting. This information could be critical in dealing with
important questions such as air quality and safety.
The main NPTS finding on vehicle age is that the American vehicle
fleet is aging rather substantially. The fleet's average age now
exceeds 8 years, in contrast to less than 5.6 years in 1969. Perhaps
more noteworthy is the fact that older vehicles not only exist but are
actively used--vehicles that are 6 or more years old account for almost
one-half of all travel.
Figure 2-35 describes the age of the vehicle fleet as observed in
the four NPTS survey cycles. The size of the fleet that is less than 2
years old has changed little over the 20-year period. The immense
increases in the vehicle fleet since 1969 are not so much the result of
increasing vehicle sales, but the result of fewer aging vehicles being
scrapped. Older vehicles are being retained and used as second or third
cars by more-affluent households or are being sold as used cars,
fueling the supply of low-cost vehicles that is making vehicle
ownership accessible to lower income groups.
The NPTS data show that the high-income segments of the population
own most of the older cars, which serve as second or third vehicles
(i.e., not the primary vehicle). Older vehicles owned by lower income
groups are usually the only house hold vehicle. For instance, 60
percent of all travel by persons with incomes under $10,000 in 1990 was
produced by vehicles of 1983 vintage or older, whereas such vehicles
provided only about 30 percent of the travel of those households
earning more than $40,000. Black and Hispanic households tend to also
own older vehicles than do White households.
The NPTS data indicate that older vehicles are used differentially
for commuting--not surprisingly, the older the vehicle, the more it is
used for commuting. Many work trips are reasonably short and over known
terrain, making commuters more willing to use a car that is ``reliable
transportation'' and that can be left all day on the street or in a lot
or garage without concern. The data indicate that newer vehicles tend
to be used for longer trips, such as vacations, and by women
transporting children (safety concerns and the new family van designs
are undoubtedly factors here). On average, commuting accounts for 21.6
percent of vehicle travel. New cars typically have less than 20 percent
of their travel allocated to commuting, whereas older vehicles have
upwards of 24 percent of their travel allocated to commuting. This is a
significant concern because the older fleet is more likely to release
more pollutants and to be less fuel efficient.
commuting costs
A major part of the cost of commuting is associated with the cost
of owning and operating a vehicle. Roughly 100 million of the 115
million commuters each day use a private vehicle, and the cost of
owning and operating a personal vehicle is one of the major factors in
determining the financial viability of the other commuting
alternatives.
Except for some special cases, it is not possible, or appropriate,
to separate vehicle commuting costs from general vehicle operating
costs. Therefore, most of the following vehicle cost discussion is
based on total annual averages. Special commuting costs are discussed
later in this chapter.
Figure 2-36 provides an overall context for an investigation of
household-based transportation costs. The two lines that closely track
one another are the consumer price index, composed of a weighted
``marketbasket'' of all consumer purchase items, and the transportation
cost index, composed of the costs of owning and operating private
vehicles and also proportional inputs from taxi fares, transit fares,
airline fares, and other transport costs. Since 1986, transport costs
have been rising slower than overall consumer costs. By 1992,
transportation costs had risen to 3.5 times 1970 costs.
The other two lines in the figure trace new and used vehicle
purchase costs. New car costs have risen appreciably less rapidly than
general costs and far less rapidly than used car costs. New car costs
increased about 2.5 times since 1970, while used car costs rose 4
times. This increase is largely attributable to the increased longevity
of the typical vehicle. With the average vehicle age approaching 8
years today, a 3- or 4-year-old vehicle is only part way through its
useful life rather than close to its end.
New Car Costs
Average new car prices are traced in Figure 2-37. In current
dollars (the price in dollars prevalent in each year of the 22-year
period observed), the price of the typical new car rose from around
$4,000 in 1970 to almost $18,000 in 1992. Restating these values in
1990 dollars, after inflation has been removed, shows that the prices
hovered around $12,000 throughout the 1970's and rose to around $16,000
by 1992. Thus, in constant dollar terms, the increase in price was only
about 33 percent.
Figure 2-38 helps to explain the rising trend in vehicle prices.
The lower tier of the area depicted in the chart tracks the slowly
rising price trend of a basic vehicle, comparable in design and
equipment to a 1967 vehicle. This trend takes vehicle prices from
around $3,600 to about $8,400. The second layer, bringing the price to
about $11,500, is the increased cost due to the modifications and added
equipment required to bring the vehicle into compliance with mandated
safety and pollution emissions regulations. The final tier represents
the price increases attributable to improvements and amenities that
consumers increasingly demand be standard items on new vehicles, such
as air conditioning, power-assists, and sound systems.
Figure 2-39 places all of these patterns and trends in perspective
by expressing new car prices in terms of the number of weeks of median
family earnings needed to pay for them. This figure shows a similar
pattern to the constant 1990 dollar pattern in Figure 2-37--a stable
pattern throughout the 1970's at about 20 weeks pay, rising to about 25
weeks pay (a 25 percent increase) by 1991. Thus, an average vehicle
costs about 6 months pay for the family earning the median national
income.
Vehicle Operating Costs
The major component of operating costs that varies per mile of
travel is the price of fuel. The price of unleaded regular fuel has
substantially declined in both current dollars and inflation-adjusted
dollars. In 1990 dollars, the price of unleaded regular gasoline
reached an effective price of $2 per gallon after the oil shortages in
1979-1980. Since then, it has descended to almost half that value.
If improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency are taken into account,
the cost of fuel per mile of travel drops even farther. Figure 21 shows
that fuel costs per mile of travel dropped from above 9 cents a mile in
the high-cost 1980-1982 period to 5.5 cents in 1992.
The overall operating costs of automobiles are shown in Figure 2-
42. Variable costs are shown in three categories: gas and oil,
maintenance, and tires. As shown in the figure, fuel costs dominate
variable costs. Fixed costs, including the depreciation of vehicle
purchase costs, interest costs, insurance, and other fees, are the
dominant factor in total costs. This chart may be somewhat misleading
because assumptions about depreciation were modified after 1984,
shifting from 4 years to 6 years, to respond to the increase in
longevity of new vehicles. Of note is that fuel and oil costs, as a
percentage of total vehicle operating costs, declined from over 26
percent in 1975 to about 13 percent by 1992.
Commuting Vehicle Costs
One way to allocate overall vehicle costs to commuting would simply
be to allocate the percentage of total vehicle miles traveled for
commuting relative to all vehicle travel in a household. This would
yield a value of 23 percent of total costs. This could be understating
the cost to the user in a number of ways:
Because commuting often occurs in congested peak periods,
fuel and other costs per mile would tend to be higher than average
vehicle costs. If relative time shares were used to allocate costs,
the values would vary sharply; roughly two-thirds of time spent in
vehicles would be attributable to commuting.
Because vehicle ownership is closely linked to workers and
commuting needs, it may be argued that a greater share of the fixed
costs of owning a vehicle should be allocated to commuting, rather
than simply using its proportionate share of total travel as the
basis for allocation.
If only out-of-pocket costs are considered, as the typical commuter
seems to do, then daily commuting costs would consist of variable
vehicle costs, as identified above, plus any toll and parking costs.
National statistics are not available on either parking or toll costs
for commuters that can be reliably reported. It can be generally stated
that these factors are small and, in most cases, do not figure into
commuting costs. For example, according to NPTS, only about 5 percent
of commuters pay to park.
The Federal Highway Administration's most recent study (1991) of
overall operating costs places parking costs at about 4 percent of
total costs, or roughly 1 cent per mile. The 1992 Economic Census
places total annual parking revenues in tax-paying establishments at
about $3.66 billion per year, which is a relatively minor sum compared
with the scale of the fleet. Of course these costs are highly variable
geographically. In central cities, parking would be a far greater
factor, both in terms of the prevalence of paid parking and, more
particularly, the price.
Tolls have a similar characteristic: in most cases, they are not
significant, and where they do exist, they are not high cost. However,
where they exist in large metropolitan areas, such as New York and San
Francisco, they clearly are a factor. However, the total national
revenue of toll roads and bridges, even including major intercity
routes, is not substantial alongside the national scale of commuting.
Table 2-10 summarizes these data as of 1993. Most of the state-
administered toll revenues are produced on intercity routes, such as
the New York Thruway and the Pennsylvania and Ohio turnpikes, which do
not serve as key commuter routes.
The American Automobile Association (AAA) provides detailed vehicle
operating cost information every year, which many organizations and
government agencies use in their work. In the second quarter of 1994,
AAA placed total average operating costs at 39.4 cents per mile for a
vehicle traveling 15,000 miles per year. These costs vary by region of
the country, with the lowest costs typically in the Midwest and the
highest costs in New England. The detailed elements of that cost for
selected years in the 1990's are shown in Table 2-11. Costs have risen
appreciably over the 5 years since 1990 and are roughly the result of
proportionate increases in all cost areas.
Transit Costs
Transit fares are presented in Figure 2-43. The rates shown in this
figure represent a composite fare based on weighted averages of fares
by type of transit and location. Between 1960 and 1992 transit fares
grew fivefold. Tracing the pattern since 1970 would place it just below
the range of the overall consumer price index and transportation cost
index. Fares operated well below the consumer price index and remained
almost constant throughout the 1970's, but gained rapidly in the
1980's.
Time Costs
One of the real costs of commuting is the amount of time spent in
the activity. Only the broad aspects of travel time trends are
summarized here. Detailed travel time data are presented in Chapter 3,
which traces travel times for each mode of transport for specific
commuting flow categories and socioeconomic groups.
Overall, commuting travel time for all modes averaged 22.4 minutes
one way in 1990, up by about 3 percent, from 21.7 minutes, in 1980--an
increase of roughly 40 seconds. This qualifies as a trivial amount
given that the total increase in travel was prodigious--an increase in
total commuting vehicles of 30 percent. First, of all the statistical
measures that may be distorted by using national averages, average
travel times are the most obviously susceptible to this problem. Many
areas showed large swings in travel times, both upward and downward.
The most pertinent fact about these relationships is the more specific
the area of observation--that is, the smaller the area--the more likely
it is that large swings will be observed. For example, the average for
the 39 metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million was 25.2
minutes, in contrast to 19.3 minutes for the balance of the nation. The
State of New York had the worst travel time, at 27.8 minutes; the New
York metropolitan area was at 31.1 minutes and New York City itself was
at 35.3 minutes.
At the broadest scale, most states cluster around the national
average, with the greatest deviations being New York State (1.24 times
the national average) and North Dakota (13 minutes, 58 percent of the
national average). Several states showed actual improvements in overall
travel times between 1980 and 1990, including New York, Pennsylvania,
Alabama, Kentucky, Wyoming, and North Dakota. These improvements in
travel times were often not positive events, because they often
accompanied declining populations and economic difficulties.
The rates of change are also volatile. Although travel times
increased nationally by only 3 percent, some areas saw substantial
increases; for example, California, Hawaii, and New Hampshire all had
gains above 10 percent.
Overall national patterns are shown in Table 2-12. About 3 percent
of commuters work at home and thus have effective travel times of zero.
The travel times in the table are for those who work away from home.
About 16 percent of the nation's commuters, roughly 13 percent in
metropolitan areas and 26 percent in rural areas, are at work within 10
minutes of leaving home. It may be overstatement, but it does not seem
inappropriate to infer that for these people commuting is not much of
an issue. If we add those who work at home, commuting is thus a minor
factor for about one-fifth of the worker population. It is difficult to
know where to draw the line and say that any time spent in commuting
less than a specified amount is a ``reasonable commute.'' If one
accepts less than 15 minutes, then another roughly 16 percent of the
population is added to the ``no problem'' category. If less than 20
minutes is the threshold of acceptability, then one-half of the
population (almost two-thirds in rural areas) is enjoying a reasonable
commuting situation, as far as time goes.
If we shift to the other end of the table and begin to work down
from the longest trips, we see 12.5 percent of the population has a
commute of more than 45 minutes; in fact, the average for these people
is 58 minutes. For those in rural areas who commute more than 45
minutes, the average is over 1 hour, suggesting that rural commuters
have the best and the worst of commuting. That group of rural commuters
who work locally have very short work trips, but those who commute the
long distances into metropolitan areas have very long travel times.
The proportion of commuters with travel times beyond 60 minutes is
just below 6 percent. The average for all metropolitan areas over 1
million population is 7.5 percent. Three areas have percentages over 10
percent--New York (16.5), Chicago (10.7), and Washington, D.C. (10.7).
the notion of acceptable travel times
Attitudes toward commuting travel times are relative. Anecdotally,
at least, it is clear that people can complain about unacceptable
commuting times at almost any level of actual travel time. Much of the
problem is a product of what the actual travel time is versus what it
``ought to be,'' as determined by the commuter. Thus a 1hour commute
can be acceptable, and a 10-minute commute can be unacceptable. In many
instances the commuter has made the mental tradeoff of what nominal
travel time is acceptable in relation to housing costs or other
amenities, and when that perceived time is violated, dissatisfaction
becomes evident. This is evidenced by the different speeds people find
acceptable in using different modes for the same trip. If a commuter
walked to work in 10 minutes 1 day and drove the same distance in 10
minutes another day, that would probably be cause for serious
dissatisfaction.
A better public policy question is, ``Is there an acceptable travel
time or speed that governments owe their electorate?'' Stated another
way, ``At what speed do commuters start voting against elected
officials?''
There are very real issues. Travel times have important economics
and social consequences, involving household tradeoffs between housing
location and cost and with other activities such as community
participation. On the business side, they impact employers' access to a
pool of skilled employees in an acceptable travel time range. It is
clear that in a world that places increasing value on time, even the
same levels of travel time from one period to the next will be less
tolerable.
__________
Chapter Three: Commuting Flow Characteristics
modal share
Commuters' choice of mode of travel and the resultant split among
the different modal sectors is a key issue in commuting analysis. The
data on modal share are often viewed as the ``Dow-Jones average'' for
commuting and are closely watched for changes or evidence of a new
trend. This is largely because modal share is seen as having
substantial bearing on energy consumption, environmental quality,
facility operation, and investment needs. In no other area of commuting
is public policy so focused on affecting commuter behavior; modal choke
data are thus seen as a barometer of the effectiveness of that policy.
The data are not always easy to decipher because of the inherent
measurement complexity of the subject.
Deficiencies in the Data on Modal Share
Modal choice is a complex topic, with variations that are difficult
to capture statistically.
In the Bureau of the Census data, the single mode used for most of
the distance is recorded as the mode choice for the total trip.
However, in some areas, the use of multiple modes to get to and from
work (e.g., automobile to transit and rail transit to taxi) can be a
significant factor. The Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey found
that the use of multiple modes (excluding walking, which is a part of
every trip) is a small factor at the national level, but can be
significant in selected large metropolitan areas. Part of this issue
has particular bearing on the submodes within transit (bus versus
rail).
Where workers have more than one job, the census survey collects
travel data for only the main job. Mode choice for trips to second jobs
is unknown, although it is probably very similar to the choice for the
primary job.
The census survey collects information on the mode usually used
last week. This precludes the counting of modes that are only
occasionally used, which, given the heavy orientation toward the
automobile, can have substantial impact on other modes with small
shares. The incidental and occasional use of transit by auto users,
such as when vehicles are in repair, will have a much greater effect on
transit share than will the incidental use of autos by transit users.
In some areas, this can add 15 percent to transit and carpool used,
Census responses can be misconstrued to lead to the assumption that
everyone in the United States who has a job goes to work every day,
when of course they do not. Total reported commuting travel must be
adjusted downward because of absenteeism, vacations, illness, and so
forth. These factors reduce total work travel to about 85 percent of
the total for all workers, varying by month. It does not appear to vary
significantly by mode on average, but can vary substantially on any
given day. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Studies by the Washington, D.C., Council of Governments and the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Philadelphia) adjust
carpools and transit upward by about 15 percent and single-occupancy
auto use downward by about 8 percent for a given day's actual travel
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broad Modal Share Trends
The increasing orientation toward private vehicles for commuting is
continuing Figure 3-1). Between 1980 and 1990 the number of total
commuters increased by almost 19 million; in the same period, the
number of commuters using single-occupant private vehicles increased by
over 22 million. One way to understand what has happened is to consider
that even if all the new commuters are assumed to be exclusively using
single-occupant vehicles, about 4 million commuters (almost 12 percent
of all commuters that do not drive alone) must have shifted from other
modes to the single-occupant vehicle. The statistical reality in net
terms follows this characterization very closely. No other mode of
travel increased in the period. Some modes, such as carpooling,
motorcycles, and walking, saw dramatic reductions; others, such as
transit and bicycling, evidenced less reduction.
The one category of behavior (not a mode of travel) that gained in
absolute numbers and in share was working at home, which is evidence,
perhaps, of what has been the long-expected boom in working at home,
brought on by the microcomputer. Figure 3-2 shows the broad modal
changes in net terms between 1980 and 1990.
The swing to single-occupant vehicles raised the share of this mode
from 64.4 percent to 73.2 percent. The overall personal vehicle share
only shifted from 84.1 percent to 86.5 percent as a result of the
extraordinary decline in carpooling shares (from 19.7 percent to 13.4
percent, about a one-third loss in share). Other significant swings in
shares were a loss of 1.1 percentage points for transit (from 6.4
percent to 5.3 percent) and a loss of 1.7 percentage points for walking
(from 5.6 percent to 3.9 percent). In relative terms, the roughly 17
percent loss in share for transit was better than the results among
other alternatives to the auto, as indicated by the 30 percent loss in
walking share. Figure 3-3 shows the overall modal shares for 1980 and
1990.
When these trends are investigated below the national level, it is
clear that the patterns are not the product of distorting events in one
area of the country; they are consistent across the nation. Figure 3-4
shows the broad modal share patterns for the nation's four census-
defined regions for 1990. The four regions closely track the national
values. The exception is the greater use of transit in the older,
denser Northeast.
Overall, the modal shift pattern is consistent nationwide. Figure
3-5 makes this clearer by showing the net changes from 1980 to 1990.
This chart must be interpreted with some care. It shows the difference
in percentage points from 1980 to 1990, thus measuring the depth of the
swings observed. For example, single-occupant vehicles in the Northeast
gained almost 10 percentage points from 1980 to 1990 (from 58 percent
to 68 percent, as previously shown in Figure 3-4). The chart does make
clear that the pattern is uniform. The only case that could be made for
deviation from the pattern is that the West does not exhibit as strong
a pattern of change as the other regions.
Current Detailed Modal Shares
In broad outline, the current \2\ statistics on modal share are as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although these data are for 1990, the decline in workers in the
early 1990's and the slow recovery afterward brought the number of
workers only back to 1990 levels by early 1994.
There are about 115 million commuters, based on the Bureau
of the Census definition.
About 100 million commuters use a private vehicle--roughly
85 million in single-occupant vehicles and 15 million in carpools.
Of the remaining 15 million commuters, about 8 million walk
to work or work at home, 6 million travel by transit, and 1 million
use other alternatives.
The national values and percentage shares for the most detailed
modal categories are shown in Table 3-1. Because of changes in the
census questions on travel mode, there is not strict comparability
between the two periods. Most of the differences are the result of
attempting to clarify the various submodes of transit uses.
The remainder of this topical area will focus on the significant
demographic variables that affect mode choice and then undertake
individual treatment of each modal area. It will describe the nature of
the trends in each area, and examine the factors that formed the
foundation for the trends. It is hoped that this examination will
permit isolation of those factors that will guide the trends in the
future.
major demographic factors in mode choice
This report can only begin to examine the major demographic factors
involved in mode choice. The availability of new data sources provides
an exciting opportunity to expand our research and analysis and hence
our understanding.
The dominance of the private vehicle, with almost a 90 percent
share in many areas, often overwhelms the ability to depict other
patterns effectively. The approach that is least misleading is to
provide overall coverage and then treat the smaller modes as a group.
These data include many surprises that suggest the variety in behavior
that constitutes national commuting patterns.
Mode Choice Patterns by Age and Sex
As shown in Figure 3-6, the private vehicle, whether used for
driving alone or carpooling, predominates in all age-groups. Its use
increases with age until the mid-fifties age-group and then slowly
tapers off. This pattern is repeated when men and women are analyzed
separately. As auto use declines among the older age-groups, walking to
work and working at home gain. Although auto use has tended to decline
with age, it is not apparent that the pattern will be repeated by
today's workers.
The discernible differences between men and women's mode choice
have tended to diminish over time as women's work characteristics have
become more like men's. Figure 3-7 provides a comparison of mode choice
behavior. Men and women have very similar tendencies to drive alone and
to carpool. Men show a greater tendency to commute by rail and are the
predominant users of motorcycles and bicycles, while women more
frequently use transit and taxis and are more likely to work at home.
The only areas where there are enormous differences are in motorcycling
and bicycling.
Older Commuters
As the general population ages, commuting travel patterns will
undergo related shifts. Auto use tends to decline with age, and walking
and working at home tend to take its place. Figure 3-8 details that
pattern, with the patterns displayed as percentage shares of travel in
each age-group. Thus, although the over-75 age-group shows a greater
than typical tendency toward working at home, that age-group, because
it is such a small component of total workers, represents only a very
small share of all those who work at home. The heavy shift among older
workers toward walking to work and working at home is accentuated by
the heavier participation of nonmetropolitan workers in the older work
force, among whom these modes are heavily used. This may also have some
effect on transit. In metropolitan areas, transit use shows some
tendency to increase with age of the commuters. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ There is a semantics problem with these descriptions. We
usually say that this tendency increases with age. This is accurate as
far as the graph is concerned--that is, as one's eyes traverse the age-
groups, the factor does increase. However, this does not mean
causality--namely, that as an individual ages, his use will increase.
People over 75 years of age may have the same characteristics that they
had at 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mode Choice Patterns by Household Structure
A number of variables can be included under the household structure
label. Among those examined here are the type of housing, the number of
workers, and the number of vehicles available to the household.
One element of Figure 3-9 presents modal travel choices by a
segment of the population that is often overlooked--namely, the 1.6
million people that do not live in households but rather in group
quarters, such as college dormitories and military barracks. (People
who are in institutionalized group quarters, such as prisons or health
care facilities, are not included.) This group evidences an
extraordinary use of walking.
The mode choices of renters and homeowners are also shown in Figure
3-9. When the overall owner-renter choices are stratified by
metropolitan area category, there is clearly a strong interaction
between the categories. Figure 3-10 shows how renters and homeowners
are distributed across the metropolitan rings.
Figure 3-11 depicts the mode choice shares by the six own-rent
groups. As a group, renters drive alone less and use transit more than
homeowners, wherever they are. But location is an important intervening
factor. Central city dwellers are less auto oriented and more transit
oriented than suburbanites and those in nonmetropolitan areas. Thus, as
expected, central city renters, constituting about 17 percent of
households, are the least auto-oriented group, yet still with a 70
percent private-vehicle share. Although all homeowners are highly
oriented toward the use of private vehicles, suburban homeowners are
the most so, with over 90 percent use of private vehicles. The
importance of working at home to nonmetropolitan workers (often
farmers), whether renters or owners, is also evident.
The number of workers in the household also has some bearing on
selective elements of mode choice. Driving alone is not one of them,
with only a slight tendency to drive alone less as one reaches three-
and four-worker households. Carpooling, transit, and some other modes
are more affected. To understand these patterns it is necessary to go
back to the demography of these households, and perhaps best to see
them from the perspective of the household with two workers. This is
often the husband-and-wife, both-working household, with or without
small children. Three- and four-worker households tend to be households
with working parents and their grown working children. One-worker
households are more difficult to characterize: they can be younger or
older and central city oriented, or fit the standard 1950's suburban
commuter image.
Mode choices reflect this demographic structuring. Two-worker
households, representing 50 percent of all workers, are slightly more
likely to carpool and to carpool together, and much less likely to use
transit or any other auto alternative, except for working at home.
Three- or four-worker households, with 20 percent of workers, are the
most likely sources of carpooling (typically within the family) and,
particularly among four-worker households, the source of transit users
and bicyclists.
The one-worker household is the most difficult to characterize
because of its varied composition. The worker is highly unlikely to
carpool (30 percent of workers and only 20 percent of carpoolers). One-
worker households compensate for the carpooling void by a mix of
means--with some greater emphasis on transit, much greater reliance on
taxicabs (accounting for over 45 percent of taxicab users), and
somewhat greater than typical use of motorcycles, bicycles, and
walking. One reason for the complexity of patterns in one-worker
households is the sharp division between those in central cities, about
one-third of all such households, and all other one-worker households.
Those in central cities are much more likely to use transit and not to
use an auto, while the reverse is true among the suburban and
nonmetropolitan one-worker households. Figure 3-12 shows the carpooling
pattern for households by number of workers per household.
Another facet of household structure that affects mode choice is
the number of vehicles per household. The presence of vehicles tends to
parallel the number of workers, and it adds an additional dimension to
modal choice. As depicted in Figure 3-13, after the first vehicle,
modal choice shows little variation, being almost exclusively oriented
to the private vehicle. Transit use and walking, as expected, are
almost exclusively concentrated among the zero-vehicle and one-vehicle
households. Households without vehicles depend on transit for 40
percent of their work travel, dropping dramatically to 8 percent among
one-vehicle households. The one-vehicle ownership pattern is most
typical of one-worker and central city households.
A closer inspection of the mode choices of those without vehicles
is imperative, especially when mode choices for households without
vehicles are disaggregated geographically by residence. Not
surprisingly, those in central cities are more heavily oriented toward
transit than the average of 40 percent cited above; more than 51
percent of work travel by those in central cities without vehicles is
by various transit modes. Even suburban zero-vehicle households show
extensive use of transit (almost 20 percent). Nonmetropolitan use
remains limited (about 3 percent). Walking is of great importance to
those without vehicles, with rates between 15 percent and 20 percent in
the different geographic areas. Taxicab use in each of the three
geographic areas, while still small in share, is 10 times the level of
all workers. With the exception of central city dwellers, the private
vehicle still provides the majority of work travel for households
without vehicles; even in central cities, it handles about 25 percent.
Figure 3-14 compares the mode choice pattern at the central city,
suburban, and nonmetropolitan levels for households without vehicles.
Mode Choice Patterns by Income Group
Figure 3-15 shows the mode choice distribution by income category.
The most evident effect of income is that as income increases, so does
driving alone (from about 60 percent to over 80 percent);
correspondingly, carpooling decreases. However, it is worth noting that
after the $25,000 level, the differences are minor. The detailed chart
(Figure 3-16) for nonprivate-vehicle-oriented modes shows some
surprises. As expected, walking and biking decline with income, but
working at home and to some extent taxicab use are more prevalent at
the extremes of income. Interestingly, transit does not appear to be
oriented toward the low-income population, as is commonly thought.
Although bus use does decline with income, the use of other transit
modes, particularly commuter railroads, increases with rising income.
The very high income groups represent very small segments of the
population and therefore do not substantially affect total ridership in
any mode.
Mode Choice Patterns by Race and Ethnicity
The topic of racial and ethnic mode choice patterns takes on a
different dimension than the previous demographic perspectives on the
subject. The value of this dimension is to develop a status report on
the choice patterns of different racial and ethnic groups; it is not to
suggest that these choice patterns are either racially or ethnically
determined.
The factors that affect modal choice--age, income, geographic
location of residence and workplace, and household structure--all vary
substantially by race and ethnicity. A question of some interest is
whether, after all these factors are taken into account, any residual
difference in behavior can be attributed to race or ethnicity. The more
important function here is to identify the linkages that support the
trends and to understand them better.
The variations by race and ethnicity in licensed drivers and in
vehicle age and availability were presented and discussed in Chapter 2.
Location is another key factor in modal choice. The distribution of the
nation's population by location of residence for selected racial and
ethnic groups is shown in Figure 3-17, which basically provides a sense
of scale. Figure 3-18 shifts these data to a distribution of the
selected racial and ethnic groups for the same geographic areas. With
this figure, the percentage shares of each group by residence area can
be established. As shown in the figure, American Indians are the most
oriented toward nonmetropolitan areas; Asians, on the other hand, are
the least oriented toward nonmetropolitan areas. Black households are
least oriented toward the suburbs and most likely to reside in central
cities. Hispanic and Asian households tend to have relatively similar
geographic locations.
When driving alone is examined for the main racial and ethnic
groups, the patterns follow similar tracks. Black and Hispanic drive-
alone commuters have very similar patterns, with White non-Hispanics
exhibiting an identical pattern but with a higher overall utilization
rate. Carpooling shows a similar pattern except for the stronger
tendency to carpool among Black nonmetropolitan residents. Figure 3-19
depicts the drive-alone and carpooling tendencies for White non-
Hispanics, Hispanics, and Blacks.
Shifting the analysis to the nonprivate-vehicle modes reveals an
exceptional use of transit modes by the Black population. Hispanics,
and particularly White non-Hispanics, lag in overall transit use by
considerable margins. The pattern is similar in both suburban and
central city locations. Black households also lead in taxicab use in
both locations. Black households lag both White non-Hispanic and
Hispanic households in the use of bicycles and motorcycles and in
working at home. Figure 3-20 shows these patterns in detail. Figure 3-
21 adds a depiction of mode choice among nonmetropolitan workers.
American Indians are included in the nonmetropolitan areas. The strong
role of walking is noticeable, but the predominance of the private
vehicle is the main characteristic.
mode usage
This segment addresses each major modal group and summarizes some
key demographic and geographic factors. Figure 3-22 provides an overall
guide to the income distribution of users of each mode. Note that the
bar labeled ``All Commuters'' shows the income distribution for the
entire commuting population and serves as a gauge as to whether a given
mode serves certain income segments more than others.
Each modal discussion follows a relatively standard format,
identifying key user groups in the following two ways: those that are
more oriented toward the mode than the average for all groups, and
those that make up a dominant share of users of the mode.
Private Vehicle
Private vehicles dominate commuting travel, used by 100 million of
the 115 million commuters. Between 1980 and 1990, more than 18 million
private vehicle users were added to the commuting ranks, about a 22
percent increase; however, because the number of carpoolers decreased
substantially, almost 21 million cars were added during that time. The
number of vehicles used in the commuting fleet reached over 91 million
vehicles, a 30 percent increase from 1980.
The overall male/female split in the use of the private vehicle has
now become almost exactly proportional to each group's share of all
commuters. Men, who compose 54.8 percent of all workers, account for
55.3 percent of private vehicle users.
The single-occupant vehicle category most closely parallels the
general income distribution of the worker population (as shown in
Figure 3-22), indicating that its large user group is drawn in almost
equal proportions from all income segments. This group is the
predominant mode for commuting travel in almost all demographic
sectors. Among the exceptions are those workers in group quarters and
those workers in households without vehicles. The drive-alone mode is
no longer dominated by men.
The drive-alone shares for the nation, metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas, central cities, and suburbs are shown in Table
3-3. When individual metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million
are reviewed, several areas stand out at either end of the spectrum
(Table 3-4). Most notable is that after New York City, drive-alone
shares look more alike than not. The average drive-alone rate for all
metropolitan areas over 1 million population is 71 percent, which is
not that different from the national average of 73.2 percent. Excluding
New York, the variation across all 39 areas with populations over 1
million is very narrow, from 11 percent below average to 17 percent
above. There is a tendency for areas to decrease in drive-alone share
as area size increases, but with significant exceptions, such as Los
Angeles, Detroit, and most of the larger cities in the West.
Carpooling
One of the central questions in this review of commuting modal
choice is, what happened to carpooling in the 1980's? There were over
19 million carpoolers in 1980--almost 20 percent of all commuters. By
1990 that number had dropped to less than 15.4 million carpoolers,
accounting for 13.4 percent of all commuters (Table 3-5). What accounts
for this one-fifth decline at a time when the total number of commuters
increased by one-fifth? Table 3-6 shows the auto occupancy rates for
1970 through 1990.
Table 3-6 indicates that the downward trend in vehicle occupancy
rates is long term and widespread, reaching across metropolitan
boundaries and accelerating. Carpooling in America is now fundamentally
a two-person phenomenon, as shown in Figure 3-23. Although two-person
carpools account for 10.1 percent to 11.4 percent of all commuting,
depending on the area, all other groupings of persons in carpools
account for only another 2.8 percent to 3.8 percent of activity,
depending on the area of residence. More to the point, the decline in
carpooling seems most pronounced among the larger carpools (Table 3-7).
In fact, the larger the carpool category, the more decline is
sustained. While two-person carpools had less than a 10 percent
decrease, three-person carpools declined by over 40 percent, four-
person carpools by more than 50 percent, and carpools with five or more
people by 40 percent.
It is clear that a major component in the decline of carpooling,
accounting for two-thirds of the loss, is the decline in large
carpools. That loss can be partially explained by the fact that
residents of nonmetropolitan areas are heavily involved in carpooling,
and in particular large carpools. These residents showed the largest
decrease in carpooling. This may be a product of rising incomes, which
make vehicles more accessible, or of declining operating costs, which
encourage driving alone. Or it may be that as employers and residences
become more dispersed, it is more difficult for nonmetropolitan
residents to match up with other commuters traveling in the same
direction at the same time.
Another component behind the decline is that workers are less
likely to join a carpool of strangers. The Nationwide Personal
Transportation Survey data indicate that carpools are usually composed
of workers from a single household, and that carpooling among nonfamily
members is increasingly unlikely. This favors smaller carpools, most
likely two-person groups. Two-person carpools are the only carpool
group in which persons in two-worker households are disproportionately
likely to participate. They are underrepresented in all other carpool
groups.
In the 1983 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, two persons
from the same household constituted about one-half of all two-person
carpools; by 1990, the percentage had increased to over 60 percent.
Households with more workers are responsible for a large share of
carpoolers. A person in a four-worker household is more than twice as
likely to carpool than a person who is the sole worker in a household.
Three- or four-worker households, which account for 20 percent of
workers, are the source of 26 percent of all carpoolers. Almost 60
percent of commuters in three-person carpools are all from the same
household, and more than one-half of four-person carpools are from the
same household.
Some metropolitan areas seemed to counter the national trend and to
limit the decline in carpools. Salt Lake City was the only area that
actually saw an increase in carpool average occupancy (from 1.07, well
below the average of 1.15 in 1980, to 1.09, the national average, in
1990). Notably, Salt Lake City has the highest household size of all
metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million (3.04 persons/
household versus the national average of 2.63). The other area that
managed to limit the decline was Los Angeles (with 2.91 persons/
household), where the occupancy rate managed to stay above the national
average, dropping only from 1.12 to 1.11. Washington, D.C., had mixed
results: it is the national carpool leader, with an average occupancy
of 1.13, but it lost the greatest share (down from 1.23 in 1980).
Public Transit
Public transit use remained relatively stable from 1980 to 1990.
About 6 million riders used transit in 1980; by 1990, the number had
dropped by only 100,000, to roughly 5.9 million. Overall, the transit
share of all commuters declined from 6.3 percent to 5.1 percent (Table
3-8). Table 3-9, which provides summary data, shows that although bus
service, the major mode used in transit, lost riders, other transit
modes, specifically subways and commuter railroads, gained riders. Much
of the total increase (40 percent) occurred in New York City. The
remaining gains were largely attributable to new or expanded systems in
San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Miami, and Atlanta.
The size of the metropolitan area is a critical factor in transit
use. Areas with populations over 1 million, which account for one-half
the national population, are responsible for 88 percent of the nation's
transit use; areas over 5 million account for 61 percent. The
concentration of transit usage in the largest metropolitan areas has
increased since 1980. For instance, New York had a 32 percent share of
all transit in 1980 and now has a 37 percent share. In Figure 3-24,
transit shares are compared by population size for 1980 and 1990. Most
notable is the decline in transit usage in areas with populations below
1 million (from 18 percent of transit to 14 percent).
Figure 3-25 places these changes in perspective by showing the
actual transit share in metropolitan areas with populations over 1
million in 1990. The New York area stands alone at over 26 percent;
Chicago and Washington, D.C., are in a second cluster at roughly one-
half that level, and Boston and Philadelphia round out the number of
areas with a share greater than 10 percent. Seven areas are in the 5
percent to 10 percent range, with all others below 5 percent. Of these
39 metropolitan areas, about two-thirds lost total transit riders and
one-third gained. Overall, there was almost no change.
Among the gainers were important markets such as New York, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Most of the gainers were
areas that had added rail service. Some important exceptions were
rapidly growing Western areas, such as Houston, Phoenix, and San Diego,
which saw their very small bus systems achieve substantial percentage
gains. Areas losing riders mostly encompassed large Eastern areas, such
as Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit. Figure 3-26 shows the net
changes for bus riders for the major metropolitan areas of the nation.
Figure 3-27 provides the bus and rail detail for areas with more than
10,000 rail transit users.
In terms of share of total commuting, two areas did not have a loss
in transit share in the 1980-1990 period; Houston gained share (from
2.85 percent to 3.67 percent), as did Phoenix (from 1.96 percent to
2.01 percent). All major East Coast areas saw their shares decrease;
notably, New York's share declined from 29.61 percent to 26.85 percent.
Other East Coast areas also lost about 3 percentage points.
If transit shares are examined by geographic area of residence, the
patterns show negative shifts in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas and in the central cities and suburbs of the metro areas, as
shown in Figure 3-28. Although the central city loss looks larger, the
suburbs had a greater proportionate loss, and nonmetropolitan areas had
the greatest proportionate loss of all. The figure also shows the
variation in use of transit by area type. Central cities, with 20
percent of workers, account for 69 percent of transit use, while
suburbs account for 29 percent of transit users, in contrast to their
50 percent share of workers.
Many of the key points regarding the composition of transit users
have already been made. Transit users disproportionately do not own
vehicles, and they are also disproportionately renters, central city
residents, female, and non-White. They frequently are drawn from
single-person households or from households with many workers. Given
the influence of New York City on the averages, this characterization
is not surprising. Table 3-10 identifies the socioeconomic factors that
generate higher proportions of transit users.
Walk to Work
Commuters in several groups are more likely to walk to work--
namely, the young and the old, women, third and fourth workers in a
household, and those living in group quarters. Between 1980 and 1990,
the number of people who walked to work declined by almost 1 million
(from 5.4 million to 4.5 million). As a share of commuters, walkers
dropped from 5.6 percent to 3.9 percent (Table 3-11). As shown in
Figure 3-29, about two-thirds of the losses were in nonmetropolitan
areas, where walkers declined by about one-third. The remaining losses
were almost entirely in the suburbs; central cities showed almost no
decline at all, with a loss of less than 2 percent.
Walkers are heavily represented in the lower income ranges. More
than one-half of walkers earn less than $10,000 per year, and 80
percent of walkers earn less than $25,000 per year. Much of this may be
a product of young workers with limited work schedules. Slightly more
women than men walk to work; this is partly attributable to the fact
that women seem to prefer walking over bicycling, which is the other
mode commonly used for short distances.
Work at Home
Working at home (Table 3-12) was the only category, other than the
single-occupant vehicle, that has increased in share since 1980. The
overall gain was dramatic--a 50 percent increase (from 2.2 million in
1980 to 3.4 million in 1990).
The groups most oriented toward working at home include women,
homeowners, older people, Nonmetropolitan residents, and the White non-
Hispanic population. Nonmetropolitan residents, who compose 20 percent
of all commuters, constitute 30 percent of those who work at home.
Suburbanites have a slightly greater share of those who work at home,
compared with their proportion in the total population. However, in
terms of growth, the picture was quite different. Nonmetropolitan areas
showed little growth, exhibiting only an 8 percent increase, while
central city workers, who had been the smallest component of the work-
at-home group, more than doubled, from 400,000 in 1980 to more than
800,000 in 1990. Suburban workers also exhibited substantial growth,
increasing more than 80 percent. Almost 60 percent of the 1.2 million
increase occurred in the suburbs. Figure 3-30 depicts these trends.
In every metropolitan area with a population over 1 million and
with comparable data for 1980 and 1990, the increase in people working
at home outpaced the total increase in workers. Several high-growth
areas, such as San Diego, Phoenix, and Atlanta, saw the percentage of
home workers double.
Working at home appears to be a lower income activity. This
seemingly contradicts the generally held belief that those working at
home are involved in high-tech, computer-based activities.
Women, who constitute 45 percent of all workers, make up 52 percent
of those working at home. Given the following, it can be inferred that
working at home is often a secondary activity:
Neither female nor male workers living alone are an
important component of those who work at home; the percentage of
single individuals who work at home is much lower than the national
average.
Persons identified as ``the householder'' have work-at-home
rates that are just about average, but the persons listed as
``spouse of householder'' have work-at-home rates twice the
national average.
Other
Although the share of commuters using motorcycles is very small,
the number has precipitously declined since 1980. Motorcycling as a
mode of commuting declined more than any other mode in the 1980-1990
period (from 419,000 to 237,000 users and from a 0.4 percent share to a
0.2 percent share) (Table 3-13). Some of this decline is certainly due
to the aging of the population, because most motorcycle riders are in
the younger age-groups. In addition, the decline in the relative cost
of owning and operating an automobile, and particularly small pickup
trucks, could be a factor.
The aging population also certainly affected the number of
commuters opting to bicycle to work. Most bicyclists are young, male,
and the third or fourth worker in a household. Bicycle use declined
only slightly between 1980 and 1990, to about 468,000, equaling about
0.4 percent of all commuters, down from 0.5 percent in 1980.
Location is a major factor in bicycling. Certain areas of the
country, particularly metropolitan areas with large concentrations of
university students or military personnel, tend to have higher than
typical usage rates. Metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million
that have significant amounts of bicycle commuters (more than 1
percent) include San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Phoenix, and
Tampa. Among non-Black central city dwellers, commuters without access
to an automobile have a greater tendency to travel by bicycle.
Taxi use is also worth a brief reference, particularly because of
its nonintuitive use characteristics. The 180,000 taxi riders are
largely female, Black, and residents of central cities. Low- and high-
income groups make greater than average use of taxis. The most notable
fact about taxi use is that more than one-third of all taxi commuters
are in New York City.
Summary Data
If the walking, bicycling, and working at home categories--i.e.,
the categories that do not rely on motorized conveyance--are
aggregated, they provide some insight into the range of energy
efficiency in American commuting. Figure 3-31 depicts this distribution
for metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million. Notably, the
areas with heavy military employment--San Diego and Norfolk--lead in
share, with San Diego's 10 percent exceeding the national average of
7.3 percent. Figure 3-32 shows the sharp break in these categories by
income class, with households with $10,000-$15,000 incomes at one-half
the level of those below $5,000. However, a notable increase in both
walking to work and working at home is evident in the higher income
brackets.
Another measure of overall modal distributions is the average
vehicle ratio, which indicates the ratio of all commuters to the total
number of private vehicles used to transport them. This value was about
1.26 nationally in 1990 (down from 1.37 in 1980)--i.e., the total
number of coTrnuters amounted to 1.26 times the number of private
vehicles used to get people to work. In 1990, the average vehicle ratio
for all metropolitan areas over 1 million was 1.31, varying from 1.76
in New York City to 1.14 in Detroit. This value is interesting because
it has many components. New York City clearly leads because of heavy
transit use; other areas gain from higher carpooling levels. Despite
the highest level of nonmotorized vehicle use, San Diego did not score
high because of low transit and carpool use.
The average vehicle ratios for the largest metropolitan areas are
listed in Table 3-14. All areas other than New York City fall roughly
in a band of 1.30+10. In fact, without New York City, the average for
all metropolitan areas drops to the national average of 1.26.
current commuting patterns
This section of Chapter 3 presents a detailed picture of commuting
patterns and trends. The first edition of Commuting in America
described how commuting patterns in metropolitan regions had shifted
from an orientation on the metropolitan center to a more dispersed and
circumferential pattern, heavily influenced by the travel of suburban
workers to suburban jobs. This edition examines the persistence of that
pattern and seeks to quantify its growth. \4\ Furthermore, it describes
the shares of commuting gained by each available mode of transport,
based on the flow ``markets'' identified, describes the socioeconomic
characteristics of the users of the different modes, and examines the
travel time patterns of commuting movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 1990 data benefit from census-allocated distributions of
worker destinations in cases in which the respondent did not provide
detailed address data. These allocations are superior to the previous
process, which required that 8 percent to 10 percent of commuter trips
be dropped from the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuting flows are best described at the individual metropolitan
level. At this level, complex patterns can be individually treated and
qualified. \5\ Many readers are familiar with geography at this level,
if not with the actual routes and patterns. At the national level, the
process must be more abstract; metropolitan areas must be grouped in
convenient clusters, and the flows need to be synthesized into
homogeneous groupings that overcome the singularities of individual
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Perhaps the best example of this can be found in Census Mapbook
for Transportation Planning, published by the Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pattern analysis system employed includes the following four
flows within metropolitan areas, which form a two-by-two flow matrix:
Central city to central city
Suburb to suburb
Central city to suburb
Suburb to central city
This basic matrix expands to include the following patterns flowing
beyond the metropolitan area:
Central city to nonmetropolitan area
Central city to other metropolitan area--Central city--
Suburb
Suburb to nonmetropolitan area
Suburb to other metropolitan area--Central city--Suburb
The matrix includes residents of nonmetropolitan areas who work in
their own area or commute into a metropolitan area:
Nonmetropolitan area to central city
Nonmetropolitan area to suburb
Nonmetropolitan area to nonmetropolitan area
These elements can be displayed in a comprehensive matrix, such as
shown in Figure 3-33. The increase in commuting from one metropolitan
area to another requires this more extensive treatment. The flow
elements are treated in logical parts: first, commuting within
metropolitan areas; second, commuting across metropolitan borders; and,
third, commuting to a nonmetropolitan area.
Table 3-15 provides a breakdown of workers by location of
residence. The table indicates that about 90 million of the 115 million
commuters live in metropolitan areas, with the remaining 25 million
living in nonmetropolitan areas. \6\ Almost 80 percent of workers live
in metropolitan areas, with the remainder residing in nonmetropolitan
areas. America's suburbs are now the residence of one-half of all
workers, up from 47 percent in 1980. Most of the shift came from
central cities, where the share of commuters declined from 30 percent
to 28 percent; nonmetropolitan areas declined in share from 23 percent
to 22 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For purposes of comparability in flow measurements, these
numbers vary from those appearing elsewhere. They are based on the 1980
definitions, rather than the revised 1990 definitions that distort
geographic flow patterns. They also exclude the small number of U.S.
workers who work outside the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3-16 identifies the major internal patterns of metropolitan
travel.
In this flow pattern, suburb-to-suburb commuting accounts for 44
percent of metropolitan commuting activity; commuting from suburb to
central city, the ``traditional'' commute, accounts for 20 percent.
Central city commuting accounts for 28 percent, and commuting from
central city to suburb, known as ``reverse commuting,'' accounts for 8
percent. The suburbs now account for the majority of metropolitan job
destinations, with more than 41 million of the 80 million
intrametropolitan flows.
Almost 9 million commuters cross metropolitan borders as they
travel to work (1.94 million leave the central city and 6.79 leave the
suburbs). The details on cross-metropolitan commuting are provided in
Table 3-17.
The largest segments of these flows center on suburbs and may
include short trips from one suburb to the nearby suburb of an adjacent
metropolitan area; however, they could also represent very long trips.
Trips from one central city to another, presumably in an adjacent
metropolitan area, involve a very small contingent of travelers taking
long trips. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Some of these travelers might be temporarily working in cities
other than their home residence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining group of commuters to consider is that group living
in nonmetropolitan areas. These commuters' travel destinations are
shown in Table 3-18.
The overall metropolitan pattern indicates that the typical
commuter travels within his or her own central city or suburban area,
with most residents working in the same area as their residence. The
Nonmetropolitan pattern further accentuates the point that residents
tend to stay in their local areas for work, with 87 percent of
Nonmetropolitan residents working in Nonmetropolitan areas.
Although the proportion of commuters staying in their own area is
high, the number of those leaving the area is increasing rapidly; they
are important beyond their numbers alone because their long trip
lengths have a disproportionate effect on total travel. For example,
the approximately 1.4 million commuters from nonmetropolitan areas who
have destinations in central cities traverse an entire suburban ring to
get to work. So do the 1.9 million central city residents who work
outside their metropolitan area. Commuters who leave a metropolitan
area and commute to a job location within an adjacent metropolitan area
are significant not only for the length of their trips, but also
because their trips have an impact on two areas, once outbound and once
inbound. When all individual crossmetropolitan-area flows are tallied,
metropolitan borders are found to be crossed 10.6 million times in the
inbound direction each morning--which represents a major commuting
segment.
These tabular segments are assembled to produce Table 3-19 (The
Table is presented in map form in Figure 3-34).
County-to-County Flows
A different statistical approach helps refine our understanding of
the tendency to commute to other areas. In this case, the home area is
defined as the county of residence, and all commutes crossing the
county boundary are tallied. These data indicate that 76 percent of
commuters work within their county of residence. The percentage for
metropolitan counties and for nonmetropolitan counties mirrors the
national average. However, significant variation exists among those
living in central cities or suburbs. Central city residents are more
home-area-oriented, with almost 85 percent working in their home
county, while suburbanites are much less oriented in this way, with
slightly more than 71 percent remaining in their home county. Within
nonmetropolitan areas, those living in small cities and towns
(populations above 5,000) are the most locally oriented, with 85
percent working in their home county.
The tendency to work within one's home county declines as the size
of the metropolitan area increases. Figure 3-35 demonstrates that point
for both central city and suburban counties, showing that the
percentage of commuters leaving their home county roughly doubles in
areas with populations below 100,000 or over 1 million. This is
significant because crossing county boundaries implies that trips are
longer than trips wholly inside the county borders, although it is not
conclusively determined.
Commuting Pattern Summary
About 90 million of the 115 million workers live in metropolitan
areas; about 80 million work within the metropolitan area and 10
million work outside it, often in other metropolitan areas.
The remaining 25 million workers live in nonmetropolitan areas and
for the most part work within the same nonmetropolitan areas; about 3
million enter metropolitan areas every day to work.
Most travel takes place in the suburbs, with one-half of all
metropolitan commuters living in the suburbs and with suburb-to-suburb
commuting accounting for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows.
Suburban areas are now the destination of most work trips.
Commuting Flow Pattern Trends
More than 87 million commuters--76 percent of all commuters--work
within their county of residence. More than 27 million leave their
county of residence--almost triple the number who commuted beyond their
county of residence in 1960. The percentage of those commuting outside
their residence county has risen steadily from 14 percent to 24 percent
since 1960.
Metropoutan Area Trends
As a group, the 88.4 million commuters who both live and work in a
metropolitan area are more than double the number of metropolitan
commuters in 1960. The top portion of Figure 3-37 depicts the long-term
growth trend in metropolitan commuting, divided into its four flow
elements.8 The dominant growth element has been suburb-to-suburb
commuting, as shown in the bottom portion of Figure 3-37. Suburb-to-
suburb commuting has almost quadrupled since 1960.
Figure 3-38 presents the share of 19801990 growth in commuters
obtained by the individual flows and indicates flows with significant
growth. By comparing the shares of growth to the shares of current
total flows, the flow categories that are the prospective growth areas
in the future can be determined.
Suburb-to-suburb commuting, with 44 percent of metropolitan
commuting, accounted for more than 58 percent of the growth.
Commuting from central city to suburb, which had an 8
percent share in 1990, accounted for 12 percent of the total
increase in metropolitan commuting.
Commuting from central city to central city, which
represents 28 percent of all commuting, accounted for only 10
percent of the overall increase in commuting.
The ``traditional'' commute (suburb to central city)
accounted for about 20 percent of the growth in commuting.
The suburbs obtained an overall share of 78 percent of commuting
growth--a decline from the 83 percent share in the 1970-1980 period.
But it is the changes in the components that are of most interest. The
suburb-to-suburb share of growth (58 percent) was identical to its
share of growth from 1970 to 1980, but the suburb-to central-city share
of growth was significantly less--a 20 percent share, in contrast with
the 25 percent share in the 1970-1980 period. The suburb-to-central
city commute thus kept pace with overall growth, but did not gain share
in the period. The suburbs were the location of 13 million of the 19
million new jobs, or about a 70 percent share of the growth in jobs--an
increase from the 1970-1980 period.
Intermetropolitan Area Trends
The geographic detail is not available to permit extensive
historical analysis of intermetropolitan trends. It is clear, however,
that the pace of activity has clearly accelerated since the 1970's. The
data indicate that outbound flows to other metropolitan areas and to
nonmetropolitan areas amounted to about 5.4 percent of all commuting in
1980 and rose to over 7.5 percent in 1990. Moreover, intermetropolitan
commuting increased at a rate more than double that of metropolitan
growth.
One-half of all intermetropolitan commuting was to a suburb, with
the remainder split between central cities (two-thirds) and
nonmetropolitan areas (one-third). This contrasted with about a 41
percent share in 1980. In both 1980 and 1990, the dominant pattern of
intermetropolitan commuting was cross-suburb commuting--that is,
commuting from one suburb to a suburb of a different metropolitan area.
It amounted to about 31 percent of all intermetropolitan commuting in
1980, rising to almost 39 percent in 1990. This flow pattern grew at
more than twice the rate of suburban commuting growth in general.
Trends by Metro Area Size Groups
Commuting flows vary significantly among metropolitan areas of
different sizes, as shown in Table 3-20. If each flow category is
considered a commuting market, then the scale of the different markets
begins to emerge. As noted earlier, the suburb-to-suburb flow is the
predominant metropolitan market, but the table shows this to be true
only in the larger metropolitan areas. Areas with populations below
one-half million are central city dominant, but in more populated
areas, suburb-to-suburb travel predominates. This confirms earlier
observations about declining orientation to the central city as a
function of the size of the metropolitan area.
The pattern between areas can be better observed when the values in
Table 3-20 are converted to percentages, as shown in Figure 3-39.
As a share of total commuting, the flow from central city to
central city tends to decline as an area's size increases, with the
dramatic exception of metropolitan areas over 3 million in
population. This pattern is consistent with 1980 findings.
The reverse pattern occurs in suburb-to-suburb commuting,
increasing with area size and with a sharp drop in the largest area
grouping--again a parallel to the 1980 pattern.
The other flows from central cities are most significant
among the smallest size areas, as might be expected, although
patterns from central city to suburb are more stable across size
groups.
Suburb-to-central-city patterns are more variable than in
the past. In 1980 all areas tended to cluster around 20 percent of
all commuting. There was greater variability across areas in 1990.
If all the different commuting flows in each metropolitan area size
group are viewed as distinct markets, the major markets in commuting
can be identified. Table 3-21 presents the top 10 markets in descending
order of size. The biggest market is the suburb-to-suburb market within
metropolitan areas with populations ranging from 1 million to 3
million. The top-10 pattern has been very stable. The top 4 markets
have the same ranking as in 1980, and the only changes are that the
markets in fifth and sixth place have switched places and the market
that was in ninth place has jumped to seventh place. The two markets
moving up in rank are both suburb-to-suburb markets. As in 1980, only 1
of the top 10 markets has a suburb-to-central city commuting flow,
dropping from fifth to sixth place. The top-10 markets' share of total
commuting has declined slightly from roughly 70 percent in 1980.
Commuting Destination Patterns
When commuting flows are summarized at the destination end they
provide a unique demographic perspective. \9\ Table 3-22 summarizes
total flows by commuter destination to establish the basic perspective
on destinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Socioeconomic analysis is based almost exclusively on the
residence of the subjects. Commuting analyses permit an inversion of
the data so that the working population can be studied in groups, based
on their workplace. This opportunity is only mildly realized here. The
census data permit aggregation by age, sex, race, income, numbers of
vehicles, occupation, industry, etc., at the workplace. Daytime
population estimates differ from all other population data, which are
based on counts where people sleep.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If these categories are subdivided into their intermetropolitan
elements, the 38 percent of commuters who work in a central city
consist of those traveling within the same metropolitan area (34
percent) and those commuting to the central city from outside the
metropolitan area, including both nonmetropolitan areas and other
metropolitan areas (4 percent). Similarly, the suburban destination
category consists of 36 percent from the same metropolitan area and 6
percent destined to a suburb from outside their residence area.
Central Cities as Destinations
The top part of Figure 3-40 provides a sense of scale as to where
commuters to central cities live. The details are provided in Table 3-
23, which indicates that about 24 million of the roughly 44 million of
those who work in a central city, or about 55 percent, are residents of
that city. An additional 10 percent arrive from outside the
metropolitan area, with the balance from the suburbs of the same
metropolitan area. These locational characteristics have implications
for workers' trip lengths and choice of travel mode.
Suburbs as Destinations
The middle part of Figure 3-40 illustrates commuting flows into the
suburbs. Suburbs are more self-contained than central cities because
almost 75 percent of commuters to a suburb are residents of the
suburban portion of the same metropolitan area in which they work. The
inflow is almost equally divided between central city residents
commuting outbound and inbound commuters from other metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan areas.
Of course, suburbs are large places, often spreading out from the
central city across several counties and even tiers of counties. One
mechanism that can help qualify the high percentage of intrasuburb
workers is to examine county-level data from metropolitan areas with
populations over 1 million. Such an examination reveals that 60 percent
of those working in suburbs work in the same suburban county as their
residence, with 15 percent working in a different suburban county. The
60 percent figure is not that different from the 55 percent figure for
central cities. The intercounty figure indicates an increase in share
of intercounty commuting since 1980, when that share was just above 13
percent. Areas vary significantly in intersuburban county commuting;
for example, in the New York City area, almost 25 percent of commuters
travel between suburban counties, while in Los Angeles, fewer than 7
percent do. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Obviously this is sharply affected by the size and number of
counties in the area. New York City has more than 20 suburban counties;
Los Angeles has 4 very large counties. Seattle and Orlando are perhaps
the most exceptional in geography, with each having 2 suburban counties
separated by the central city county; less than 1 percent commute
between suburban counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonmetropolitan Areas as Destinations
Figure 3-40 illustrates that the pattern in Nonmetropolitan areas
is relatively straightforward--almost 94 percent of workers in
Nonmetropolitan areas are residents of a Nonmetropolitan area.
commuting balance
The concept of ``balance'' in commuting has gained importance in
recent years. Balance refers to the relationship of the number of jobs
to the number of workers in a selected area. This relationship is
clearly a product of scale. In a metropolitan region the ratio is
generally close to one--that is, one job per worker--which might be a
viable mechanism for defining a metropolitan area. But the broad-scale
use of the job-worker ratio is rather meaningless in this case. The
statistic is significant because of its variation in relatively small
areas (counties or smaller units, such as individual communities or
emerging centers).
Historically, small towns in nonmetropolitan areas evidenced a
rough balance between jobs and workers. This pattern holds true today.
Central cities nearly always had more jobs than workers, which could be
construed as the definition of a city. Cities were job rich, importing
workers each day. Suburban counties tended to be, and still are,
bedroom communities with more workers than jobs. The metropolitan
pattern has changed as suburban job growth has dominated development in
recent decades. More important, skills-mix issues became more
significant as employers competed for skilled employees and sought to
locate in areas most attractive to employees with skills that are in
short supply. Communities in suburban residential areas more readily
accepted these new employment centers because the jobs were generally
technical services that were cleaner and more attractive than the
noisy, polluting jobs of the past.
New York's central county, Manhattan, has a job-worker ratio of
over 2.5; Washington, D.C., has a ratio of about 2.3. Overall, the
national job-worker ratio for central cities (note the differentiation
from central counties) is 1.36. The overall national job-worker ratio
for suburbs is 0.83 and for nonmetropolitan areas 0.92. Review of
national patterns suggests that something closer to balance is
occurring in both central cities and suburbs. The number of workers is
increasing faster than the number of jobs in central cities, and the
number of workers is increasing slower than jobs in the suburbs.
The physical conjunction of jobs and workers does not reveal
everything we need to know about the linkage between residences and job
sites. It does not answer the critical question about the match-up of
skills with job requirements. If the workers do not have the necessary
skills, it does not matter that jobs are nearby. Skill levels and
salary levels do not necessarily correspond with job requirements.
People tend to not limit their job searches to only those jobs close to
home, nor do they necessarily seek to live near work. One reason for
this is that workers do not change their residences as frequently as
they change their jobs. Few workers, and particularly those in
households with two or more workers (70 percent of worker households),
hold much hope for a job located close to home. Some workers may even
still hold the view that living too close to work has negative
connotations, associated with unattractive living conditions and
factory-spawned pollution. Today's high-mobility workers have the
option to live and work where they choose. How they exercise that
option and how tradeoffs are made between home and job locations
requires more extensive research. Nonetheless, the key point is that
decisions on where to work and live are often viewed and made
independently, with commuting an implication of those decisions.
Figure 3-41 seeks to provide some understanding of the balance
question by using a specific example. In this case, the example is
Fairfax County, a rapidly developing Virginia suburb in the Washington,
D.C., metropolitan area. The figure provides the basis for the
following key statistics for the county.
The job-worker ratio is almost 0.79 (79 jobs per 100
workers). \11\ Thus, if all jobs were taken by residents, 21
percent of workers residing in the county would have to leave the
county to travel to work each day. This is a dramatic increase over
1980, when the ratio was 0.54; jobs in the county have increased by
about 100,000, a substantially greater increase than in the number
of workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In this example, ``job'' is defined as a commuter destination
in the county ``Destination'' only counts those residents in the
metropolitan area who had a job destination in Fairfax County. The
actual job count would be slightly higher if residents from outside the
metropolitan area were counted. ``Workers'' equals the number of
commuters counted in the 1990 census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, county residents do not work exclusively in the
county. In reality, about one-half of working residents work in the
county, a considerable increase from the 35 percent in 1980. The
share of all jobs in the county filled by residents has changed
little as job growth outpaced worker growth. In 1980, about 64
percent of county jobs were filled by residents of the county; in
1990, this figure was down slightly, to about 62 percent. The
remainder of county jobs are filled by nonresident workers, who
travel to the county every day.
The net effect is that about 240,000 Fairfax County
residents work outside their home county each day, and at least
140,000 people come into the county to work. These numbers
represent significant changes from 1980 (206,000 leaving the county
to work and 61,000 entering the county to work), but the changes
are small compared with overall growth.
Many believe that if the job-worker balance were closer to one and
a larger share of workers worked in their home counties (that is, if
more of those 240,000 workers leaving each day filled some of the
140,000 jobs now filled by nonresidents), then commuting,
infrastructure, and other costs could be appreciably reduced. Fairfax
County is moving closer to that pattern, whether as a result of
conscious planning or the play of market forces.
Figure 3-42 shows the central county job-worker ratios for the
major metropolitan areas. Surprisingly, few central counties have high
job-worker ratios; 18 have ratios below 1.1, and some counties have
ratios around 1. \12\ Of course, central counties, in contrast with
central cities, generally have more territory and encompass part of the
suburbs. This supports the idea that suburban job development is
shifting metropolitan job location patterns to bring job-worker ratios
in all areas closer to being in balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ San Diego and Phoenix are one-county metropolitan areas, but
Providence, San Antonio, Sacramento, and Buffalo are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modal Shares by Flow Pattern
The destinations of commuting trips, and more particularly the
origin-destination flow patterns involved, can reveal a lot about why
particular modal choices are made and what travel times those choices
will yield. This part of Chapter 3 addresses these questions.
The majority of commuters work in the same area in which they live.
Figure 3-43 illustrates this point, showing that 56 percent of those
who work in a central city are residents of that central city, 74
percent of those who work in a suburb are residents of that suburb, and
94 percent of those who work in a nonmetropolitan area are residents of
that nonmetropolitan area. These factors are affected by the population
of the metropolitan area, which also has a significant effect on mode
choice and travel times. As shown in Figure 3-44, the role of the
central city declines and the role of suburbs increases as the
population of the metropolitan area increases.
Central City Destinations
Significant differences appear when the five categories of flow
into central cities are examined for modal choice patterns, as shown in
Figure 3-45. Note that the relative share of total commuters for each
flow segment is shown at the top of each bar. This helps to maintain a
sense of scale about the relative role of each flow. In each case, the
private automobile is dominant, but the variances are of interest.
Private automobile use is least dominant in the flows from central city
to central city, where transit and walking are more visible. The
suburban and nonmetropolitan flows have very similar shares of private
automobile use and two-person carpools. Larger carpools are key in
central city flows from nonmetropolitan areas, while transit plays a
larger role in the flow from suburb to central city. The flow between
central cities shows a striking use of larger carpools and railroads.
Modal Composition. Figure 3-46 shows each mode of travel into the
central city, where its users come from, and what part of total travel
they represent. The drive? alone and carpool segments have similar
compositions, except the carpool segments show a greater share of
intermetropolitan components as the size of the carpool increases.
Transit origins and destinations are heavily oriented toward the
central city, with the dramatic exception of railroad commuting, which
is dominated by suburban and other metropolitan flows. The ``bicycle or
walk'' and ``other'' categories dominate the central city flow.
Suburban Destinations
Figure 3-47 shows the modal shares of the commuter flows to
suburban areas. One factor is immediately clear--namely, the greater
similarity among the modal choice patterns of the suburban flows than
among comparable central city flows. Variation occurs in the modes that
supplement the vehicle use pattern. Travel within the same suburb is
almost completely represented by driving alone, walking, and working at
home. Carpool use is greater in all flows except travel within the same
suburb. The reverse-commute flow (i.e., from central city to suburbs)
shows some variation in carpooling and transit use. The commute from
central cities of other metropolitan areas also exhibits stronger use
of transit and carpools.
Modal Composition. The modal composition chart for suburbs, which
parallels that for central cities, is shown in Figure 3-48. This figure
supports some of the observations above. The role of the central city
becomes more important as carpool size increases. The role of the
central city in transit is substantial, and the role of other areas
becomes a major element in the rail modes. Figure 3-49 shows the
relative scale of each mode.
Nonmetropolitan Destinations
The nonmetropolitan destination pattern is easier to depict and
describe, as shown in Figure 3-50. Nonmetropolitan destinations have
only three elements, dominated by flows from one nonmetropolitan area
to another (94 percent of all commuters). Central city flows to
nonmetropolitan destinations are heavily oriented toward private
vehicles, with a strong carpool component and some bus use.
Modal Composition. Modal composition is overwhelmed by the trips
within the same area. Only transit modes have some significant role in
flows from central city or suburban areas. All other modes have less
than a 10 percent component for travel from other areas.
Destination Summary
Table 3-24 summarizes mode use by destination from all origins.
Only flows to the central city show drive-alone shares of less than 70
percent; carpooling tends to be relatively stable among all
destinations, with a somewhat greater tendency exhibited by the
intermetropolitan flows. Transit use is center-oriented, as noted
previously. The short-distance and work-at-home modes exhibit the
expected patterns, with greatest shares in nonmetropolitan areas.
A final depiction of modal patterns is presented in Figure 3-51.
This three-dimensional figure provides a relative scale of national
patterns. Modal shares are presented in absolute terms, grouped by size
of metropolitan area. A number of points stand out. The focus on
driving alone in private vehicles is obvious, but more significant
perhaps is the limited role of all other modes, such as carpooling and
transit, except in the largest areas. Work at home is not shown in this
figure.
travel time overview
Aspects of travel time as a component of commuting costs were
identified earlier in this chapter. The following discussion takes a
more extensive look at travel times, although hardly exhausting the
topic.
General statements about travel time are not very useful. On the
average, the capacity of the U.S. transportation system is excellent,
and travel times, on average, are also excellent. But the average is
not a particularly good guide to commuting--most people do not go to
work at 3 a.m., when there is a lot of spare capacity in the
transportation system. It is the variation--in mode, flow pattern, size
of metropolitan area, area, and time of day--that is the key to
understanding.
modal distribution
Table 3-25 summarizes the census information on travel time for the
major modes. The average travel time for all modes is strongly
influenced by the drive-alone travel time, given the high proportion of
the population that drives alone. Carpool travel time increases as the
size of the Carpool increases--partially because of the time spent
picking up members of the carpool. Transit modes tend to have longer
travel times than automobile modes, with railroad the longest of all.
Walking and bicycling tend to have the lowest travel times, indicating
upper limits on the use of those modes.
There is a certain self-selection in these travel times that may
not be apparent. For instance, people are more likely to join large
carpools when they have very long distances to traverse; a similar
situation applies to railroads. These modes are rarely selected for
very short trips. Thus it is partially the typical trip distances for
these modes that are being observed, rather than the effects of
relative speeds.
Figure 3-52 illustrates this point by looking at the modal
composition of different travel-time groups. For example, the 10
minutes-or-less range is characterized by drive-alone commuters, two-
person carpools, and walking; in contrast, the 60 or more minutes
category has the lowest (but still significant) drive-alone share, with
extensive use of large carpools and transit, especially commuter
railroad. Driving alone is most dominant in the 15-30 minute
categories; its share declines with travel times above 30 minutes.
Male-Female Differences
Table 3-25 lists the travel times by mode for men and women, as
well as the ratios of men's travel time to women's. In almost every
case, men's travel times exceed women's, most likely because men's work
trips tend to be longer in distance than women's.
The ratios for the private vehicle modes place men at about 20
percent greater travel time than women. Transit modes place them at
very similar levels of travel time.
Within-Mode Travel Distributions
Figure 3-53 displays the elements of the modes used by travel time.
Note that the travel time distribution by all modes parallels the
drive-alone mode. Both modes show about 16 percent of users in the less
than 10 minutes travel range and exhibit similar values throughout all
travel times. As carpool size increases, the distribution shifts toward
the high end. The bus mode exhibits very few users in the less-than-15-
minute categories. More than 60 percent of railroad commuters spend
more than 60 minutes traveling to work. Just over one-half of walkers
and bicyclists have travel times under 10 minutes. The median travel
time for each mode can be estimated by tracing the 50 percent point in
the figure. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The median is a measure of central tendency, like the average.
It is the central item in the high to low distribution--i.e., half of
the items in the distribution are higher and half lower. It is free of
the distorting effects of a few high values. In a travel time
distribution, the median will be lower than the average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
travel time by metropolitan area size
The size of the metropolitan area is critical to travel time
characteristics. Previous figures have shown that commuters are heavily
centered in the larger metropolitan areas, which tend to be areas with
long travel distances and times, significantly affecting overall
averages. In particular, the transit modes are disproportionately
centered in the largest areas, where travel times by all modes tend to
be high. Travel times for all modes range from less than 17 minutes in
areas with populations under 100,000 to approximately 27 minutes in
metropolitan areas with more than 3 million population--a 10-minute
difference. Figure 3-54 shows the almost linear trend in travel time
for all modes and for some of the major modes of travel. The stability
of walking times is noteworthy, ranging above 10 minutes only in the
largest areas. Also to be noted is that the slope of change is greatest
for bus.
Figures 3-55 and 3-56 provide additional detail on the individual
modes. The carpool travel time factors are addressed later and are
shown to be a product of travel flow patterns. The transit figure must
be considered in light of the sharply skewed locations of transit
users, particularly rail commuters.
Figure 3-57 shows the distribution of drive-alone travel times by
metropolitan area population. The percentage of commuters driving alone
for more than 60 minutes is small, except in areas with populations
over 3 million.
The significance of the over-60-minutes group is displayed for all
modes in Figure 3-58, which shows the percentage of commuters traveling
over 60 minutes for all areas with populations over 1 million. Only
about one-third of those areas have more than 5 percent of commuters
traveling more than 60 minutes, and only three areas (Washington, D.C.,
Chicago, and New York) have above 10 percent. Metropolitan areas are
ranked in descending order of population in the figure, which points
out that although population size is a factor, it is certainly not the
only factor, in determining long travel times. In a number of areas
(New Orleans, Baltimore, Houston, and Washington, D.C.), the percentage
of commuters traveling for more than 60 minutes is inappropriate for
the population size. Other areas, particularly the so-called rust-belt
cities of the Northeast--Milwaukee, Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland--
exhibit very low values for their size. This may be a product of
declining jobs in the central city or a heavier than typical
orientation to the private vehicle.
traveltime by flow patterns
Auseful way to further understand these patterns is to look at the
flows that were identified earlier in this chapter and examine their
effect on travel times. Table 3-26, which uses the same standard
summary form used earlier to depict commuting flows, presents the
average travel times for various flow patterns. The following factors
in the table are of interest:
Internal flows have the lowest travel times, with flows from
one nonmetropolitan area to another the shortest (16.5 minutes),
followed by flows within the same central city (18.iS minutes) and
then within a suburb (19.4 minutes).
On average, a suburban resident who commutes to a job within
the same suburb has a 7--minute travel time advantage over a
commuter to the central city of the same metropolitan area.
With an average travel time of 23 minutes, reverse commutes
take 3 or 4 minutes less in the nonpeak direction than in the peak
direction.
All other moves (i.e., between metropolitan areas and
nonmetropolitan areas) involve average travel times well above 30
minutes and above 40 minutes in some cases.
Figure 3-59 presents the travel time distribution of commuters
destined for central cities, suburbs, and nonmetropolitan areas. The
nonmetropolitan areas are notable in that more than 25 percent of
commuters arrive in less than 10 minutes, whereas only 10 percent in
central cities enjoy that travel time. Eight percent of commuters to
central cities travel more than an hour; in the nonmetropolitan areas,
the proportion is about 4 percent. Suburban arrivals occupy a position
midway between the extremes of the central city and the outer rural
areas.
Flows and Modes
One effect of metropolitan flows on modal travel times is shown in
Figure 3-60, which compares travel times by area of trip origin. For
all modes but ferry, taxi, and bike/ walk, the suburban trips take the
longest. For most modes, nonmetropolitan trips are shorter than either
suburban or central city trips. The exceptions are important. For each
of the carpool modes, nonmetropolitan area trips are quite long
relative to other areas, indicating the long distances traveled by
carpools in nonmetropolitan areas.
Figure 3-61 further traces the effect of carpool size on travel
time, with revealing results. The four private-vehicle modes are traced
by travel time for each of the nine flow categories. The flows tend to
group into two distinct families. One family consists of the internal
flows (nonmetropolitan area to nonmetropolitan area, central city to
central city, suburb to suburb, and central city to suburb) and centers
around 20 minutes of travel time for driving alone. Another group
centers around 35 minutes and consists of the intermetropolitan flows.
In each case, carpooling adds about 3 to 4 minutes for each person
added to the carpool, regardless of flow category. The internal flows
reach an average of about 32 minutes for large carpools, and the
intermetropolitan flows reach almost 50 minutes.
Flows and Metropolitan Area Size Group
The combination of trends in flows and in metropolitan area size is
difficult to depict clearly. But useful observations can be made. Trips
to the central city appear to increase in travel time far more rapidly
as metropolitan size increases than do trips to suburbs or to other
central cities or suburbs, as shown in Figure 3-62. This suggests one
reason for the growing significance of suburbs in large metropolitan
areas.
travel time trends
The 1980 census was the first census to collect travel time data.
The travel time data collected in 1990 allows trends to be compared
across the 10-year period. The overall national average travel time in
1980 was 21.7 minutes, rising by 40 seconds to 22.3 minutes in 1990.
This is a tribute to the American transportation system, given the
prodigious increases in the number of commuters in the period.
Table 3-27 shows the 1980 and 1990 flow trend travel times; note
that the 1980 data did not differentiate between central cities and
suburbs in the same or other metropolitan area.
These numbers are interesting, if not astonishing. They convey the
following messages:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, travel times have not
changed much, despite large increases in commuting, particularly
with private vehicles.
Some travel flows have seen improved travel times, albeit
only as related to Nonmetropolitan flows.
Flows from one Nonmetropolitan area to another saw no change
in travel time.
The greatest increases in travel time occurred in the flow
from suburbs to central city (a 3.6 minute increase)--a larger
increase than in the flow from suburb to suburb (a 2.5 minute
increase).
The 7-minute advantage of the suburb-to-suburb trip over the
suburb-to-central-city trip increased to 8 minutes.
Central city trips within the central city or to the suburbs
increased little (about 1.3 minutes), gaining some advantage over
the suburb-to-suburb trip.
Although it is hard to accept that travel times have improved, it
must be remembered that the shift to the automobile, particularly to
driving alone, by former carpoolers, transit users, and walkers led to
improved travel times for many, despite the fact that actual travel
speeds on roadways may have declined.
Drive-alone travel times are perhaps the best basis for comparing
travel times between periods. They do not involve dealing with other
people or a mix of modes that can vary the time of travel. Figure 3-63
compares 1980 and 1990 drive-alone travel times by flow pattern. The
figure shows that travel times for a number of flow patterns actually
improved. In general, driving alone increased in travel time, but not
as much as other modes. Drive-alone travel times for flows from suburb
to suburb and from suburb to central city increased, but not as
significantly as did other modes. Drive-alone travel times for other
flows decreased.
Figure 3-64 shows the average travel times for 1980 and 1990 for
metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million. Many of the
metropolitan areas show only limited increases in travel times, with no
apparent pattern. Some of the largest increases in travel time occurred
in areas with significant population increases in the period. Areas
such as San Diego, Sacramento, Orlando, and Los Angeles had increases
of over 12 percent. Several areas had small decreases in travel times,
including Pittsburgh, New Orleans, and Salt Lake City. The most notable
improvement was New York City, with almost an 8 percent decrease in
overall travel times.
starting times and travel times
For the first time, in 1990 the Bureau of the Census collected
starting times--that is, the time the commuter left home, rather than
the time the commuter began working. There was considerable interest in
obtaining data on the time the commuter left for work because of its
effect on congestion. The peaking characteristics of commuting have
tremendous bearing on travel congestion, facility planning, and so
forth. Moreover, there was suspicion that congestion was pushing
travelers into earlier or later ``shoulder'' periods of the peak, thus
broadening the peak.
Figure 3-65 shows the commute starting times for men and women.
Men's starting times are considerably earlier than women's. As more men
and women enter the work force, the peak tends to broaden. The causes
are open for further analysis. One factor is women's shorter trip
distances, which allow them to depart later than men yet arrive at
about the same time at the work site. Occupational differences in work
hours and family needs are also factors. The data presented in the
figure are absolute quantities. If the data are looked at as percentage
distributions, there is a small but significant shift in the shapes of
the distributions. The peak period for women commuters, from 7:30 a.m.
to 8 a.m., contains a greater share of total women's travel than does
the peak period for men. Men's travel is spread more throughout the
peak. Surprisingly, women's total travel from noon to midnight is less
than men's, yet as a percentage of total travel is greater than men's--
i.e., a higher percentage of women's work trips take place from 4 p.m.
to midnight. The reasons for this may include a statistical artifact,
because women have such a small share of their starting times from
midnight to 5:30 a.m.
Figure 3-66 shows the travel time distributions for all commuters
by start time. Although complex, the chart is worth inspection. There
are two equal peaks (from 7 a.m. to 7:29 a.m. and from 7:30 a.m. to
8:59 a.m.), consisting of a male-worker peak followed by a female-
worker peak. Even in the peak period, the majority of commuters travel
less than 20 minutes. The half-hour segment just before the peak period
has many more long-distance (in time) travelers. After 8 a.m., the
pattern follows the short time trend. The early morning hours are much
more heavily oriented to long-distance travelers.
Another way to reveal some of the factors at work here is to invert
these data and show the start time composition of different trips by
trip length and by sex. The tendency of these patterns to rise to the
right for both men and women is because a greater share of total travel
in each travel time period begins early in the morning. For example, a
high proportion of workers with commutes longer than 60 minutes leave
for work before 5 a.m.
__________
Chapter Four: Closing Perspectives
In this report, we have examined the dominant trends in commuting
today. While this examination may have seemed comprehensive, it is
clear, to me at least, that a wealth of information that can bring
light on the subject remains to be tapped. Even if we restrict our
focus to data already available, there is valuable material waiting to
be examined. If the data that are needed but that are not now available
are brought into consideration, the work to be done is monumental.
Throughout this report, I have rigorously tried to stay within the
bounds of what the data can tell us. The sponsors of this research
recognize the benefit to public policy in assembling the facts
regarding commuting into a common resource, which each organization can
employ for its own purpose. While the sponsors may disagree from time
to time on policies regarding commuting, their sponsorship of this
report affirms their belief that public policy can only benefit from a
common understanding of the basic facts of the matter.
This final section is a bit more relaxed in content and tone. It
allows me to speculate on what the trends mean and where they are
going. Any perspectives or interpretations of trends contained herein
are mine alone.
direction of the trends
In 1987 the trends were readily discernible, summarized as three
dominant patterns: a boom in workers; a growing orientation to the
suburbs; and increased use of the automobile. The trends now seem less
clear in some respects, perhaps because the patterns are so much a part
of us that they no longer seem exceptional.
But it is also true that the course of some of those patterns are
no longer so clear. Furthermore, as new patterns emerge, they modify or
even replace the dominant patterns.
New Commuters
The boom in workers is at an end. The two demographic surges that
fed it--the baby boomers coming of working age and the entry of large
numbers of women into the working world--have run their course. This by
no means suggests that there will be a sharp decline in annual
increases in workers, only that the scale of the trend will not be so
extreme, particularly as a proportion of the population. It will not
stress the transportation system so dramatically. The oft-discussed
baby-boom echo is but a pale shadow of the original. The total numbers
of workers expected to be added each decade in the future are not that
different from past numbers.
Notions that there would be a great swing of women out of the labor
force and back to the home have not been substantiated by events. It
has been more a case of younger women drifting in and out of the labor
force in response to educational activities and childbearing events,
rather than a permanent shift in labor force status.
The great question mark is the factor of immigration, which could
dramatically change the number of commuters in some areas and modify
the nature of commuting patterns.
New Auto Users
There is little in present patterns of behavior and demography to
suggest that there will be a significant reversal in the private
vehicle orientation of commuters. The dominant factor here is the
continued dispersal of populations out from metropolitan areas and the
pressure of time on workers. As long as the private vehicle remains at
all affordable to own and operate, the pattern will continue. The
shifts in age structure of commuters abet this trend.
This does not suggest that all is lost for public transit or other
alternatives. The cases where transit, carpooling, walking, and biking
are successful need to be studied for clues to their appeal to
commuters. Those areas where transit is a major factor (predominantly
in the center of major metropolitan areas) need to sustain and
intensify transit service. In areas with significant transit use, users
are generally happy with the services provided. This market needs to be
preserved. Transit providers will need to come up with innovative ways
to sustain or gain market share. Some of the innovative responses to
suburban demands in the Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Jersey areas may
yield successful models.
It is difficult to be optimistic regarding a renaissance in
carpooling. Most carpooling today is not carpooling as we knew it just
a few years ago--a voluntary arrangement among coworkers or neighbors.
That type of carpooling is dying; most of the surviving ``carpool''
activity consists of family members with similar destinations and
timing. Maybe these need a new name--fampools? Carpoolers using
restricted carpool lanes have significant advantages on roads with low
average traffic speeds, but as noted in Chapter 3, there are time costs
to carpooling as well. Carpooling is a changing environment that
requires continual attention from the commuter as jobs change, work
patterns shift, and travel times change.
Density and Dispersal
Continued dispersal toward the fringes of metropolitan areas seems
a given for both jobs and population. The cloaking of these patterns by
the vagaries of redefinition of metropolitan boundaries has not helped
our understanding of these trends. Rapid growth on the metropolitan
fringes has been masked by definitional changes. By modifying
geographical definitions, the Bureau of the Census shifted 6 million of
the new population growth in the 1980's from the suburbs to the central
city and 4 million from nonmetropolitan areas to metropolitan areas.
Prospects for a reformation in land preferences toward higher
densities are limited, but have several avenues of potential
development. The first is that as the population ages, there may be
greater interest in higher density housing clusters, where walking is
convenient and automobiles are not a necessity. The second is the
growing interest in family oriented communities that provide more
opportunities for walking and greater control over vehicle access.
Developers are responding to both these interests. If these concepts
are successful, they will be quickly copied by others in the
marketplace. Whether this becomes a minor market niche or the basis for
retrofitting our suburbs remains to be seen. There still seems to be a
strong aversion to high-density development on the part of most
households, which becomes a motivator in housing choice as soon as
family finances permit.
The future of local nonwork travel belongs to the auto and to
walking. The American public will embrace opportunities to visit areas
where walking is pleasant and secure. Shopping malls, the new main
streets of America, have responded to this need. These preferences
could begin to have substantial bearing on work travel patterns as
well.
Variations on a Theme
We are becoming increasingly conscious of a set of developments
that add to the volatility of commuting. Simply described, this is the
tendency for greater variability in the location, path, time, and mode
of travel to work. It is difficult to say whether this tendency is
increasing or whether it has just become more evident to researchers in
recent times. Our data collection approaches, which focus on 1 day's
travel by a set of selected individuals or households, would typically
not catch this kind of variability. Surveys that track an individual's
daily travel over the course of several weeks would be needed to
establish some sense of the scale and character of variation.
Locational Variability
There have always been those whose workplace is not fixed.
Construction workers and cleaning people come to mind. The new factor
is the worker who occasionally works at home. Although there have
always been those who work at home--and this group is growing--the
interest here is in those who have a workplace elsewhere, but who
occasionally work at home, either as a regularly scheduled event (e.g.,
once a week) or sporadically, as events demand. Much has been made in
the press and elsewhere of the ``boom'' in telecommuting. Many of the
reports have been overstated and exaggerated out of all sense of scale,
raising very unrealistic expectations. But there is still an important
element in telecommuting that we need to get a better sense of,
preferably without all the hyperbole. If 10 percent of workers work at
home once a week, that would cut commuting flows by 2 percent. The
result would be a reduction in peak-hour commuting conflicts--and a
greater dispersion of population.
Working at home (where home is not a farm) is a factor to be
considered in future transportation planning, even when it is only an
occasional activity. We need to know more about it. Part of the
stimulus for working at home is that knowledge workers can function
readily at home and may in fact be more productive there. Another
factor centers on concern about child care. The costs and frustrations
of commuting may also be factors for many, especially those commuting
long distances. As noted earlier, workers who have more than an hour's
commute have a higher propensity to change jobs than others.
Time. There is a sense, supported by limited research, that the
public is increasingly aware of congestion bottlenecks and its effects.
There are also increasingly better means to communicate to travelers
information about emergencies and other incidents affecting travel
times. This has led many workers to start for work and to return home
at times that are more responsive to actual traffic patterns than to a
fixed schedule. This is in many ways the goal of the intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) programs--namely, to permit the traveling
public to respond to events based on better information.
Path. The same point made just above can be made regarding the
choice of path to work, specifically for private vehicles. As people
become more aware of the effects of congestion, they are more able to
consider alternate paths to work. This again is one of the elements of
ITS technology, wherein new techniques are employed to direct travelers
to less congested routes. But it is unlikely that computers will
surprise commuters with new ways to get to work that they hadn't
already tested. Particularly for work trips, people generally know all
of the available alternates and understand their characteristics.
The more significant factor in path determination may be the
phenomenon of trip chaining--the linking of the work trip with trips to
meet household needs. This has the effect of shifting the direction and
path of work trips as events dictate, creating situations, for
instance, where the trip to work and the trip back home are not
symmetric.
These trip patterns have proven highly time efficient to commuters
and may be energy efficient and environmentally efficient as well. They
are the key to understanding future commuting behavior.
Mode. Variability in modal choice is not a major factor in overall
commuting patterns. Nonetheless, as a product of the increasingly
disproportionate relative shares of travel obtained by the private
vehicle, relatively small shifts out of the private vehicle, even on
the most sporadic and limited basis, can have substantial effects on
other modes. For instance, transit operators have long been aware that
a significant part of their ridership is composed not of regular users
but of those who use transit only a few times a year--such as when a
household vehicle is unavailable. If 1 percent of the vehicle fleet is
in the shop for repairs on a given day, that can cause a 10 percent to
20 percent swing in transit use. Similar factors affect carpooling, and
even walking and bicycling.
Planners need to be more conscious of these variabilities in
behavior, whether they are tending to grow as a factor or not, and what
implications they might have for transportation planning.
Sources of Change
Economic and Social Factors. The nature of work is changing. More
work can be done in small work units of a few people, or even one. This
adds to the potential for dispersal of jobs. It also adds to the
greater freedom, in many cases, for people to set their hours of work
to match their personal preferences.
Paralleling this trend is the fact that many jobs are services-
oriented, requiring workers to work odd hours and on weekends. This
adds to the greater dispersion of jobs in time, as well as in space.
The power of communications and data processing are only beginning
to be felt. These tools are becoming ubiquitous. [I recall a recent
experience in which an upscale, national chain restaurant had to send
diners away because the ``computers were down.'' I wonder how many
restaurants had computers 5 or 10 years ago.] The power of
telecommunications is accidentally focused on permitting greater
dispersal of people and jobs; it reduces the penalty of distance.
The effect of women in the workplace has been unmistakable and will
further influence trends in the future. One of these effects is the
growing humanization of work activities. There seems to be a greater
understanding of people's needs to care for children, and to take time
off for other family needs as well. This has led to greater work
scheduling flexibility in many firms, both large and small. That
flexibility supports variation in work arrival and departure times, as
well as work days. Certainly, part of this is the sharp competition
among firms for highly skilled employees, many of them women.
It is to be expected that this willingness to be flexible on the
part of management will only increase in the future as some skills
become even scarcer and firms compete for the best workers. This also
means that firms will tend to relocate where their scarcest resource--
skilled employees--is located. Being a short commute away will be a
benefit that firms can offer. This will tend to push firm locations to
where people want to be, generally pushing employers toward higher
income neighborhoods and leading to longer commutes for lower income
workers. Regionally, this means the outer edges of the metropolitan
area; nationally, it means those areas that are pleasant and attractive
to live in. This will keep national growth focused on the sunbelt and
on the West. This could also lead to increasing growth in smaller
areas, such as university towns, rather than in the very large
metropolitan areas of the nation.
Immigration. Immigration is the great wild card in all this. The
scale of immigration, and in some respects its character, is a product
of a stroke of a pen in Washington. Immigration will be the dominant
population factor in many areas of the nation, in the large population
centers in general, and in particular in the centers of the West and
South. Immigrants are heavily represented in the labor force. Their
bimodal distribution in education will create strange frictions in the
national labor force, competing at both the highest and the lowest
skill levels.
Not surprisingly, their orientation to the private vehicle is less
than that of other Americans. The question is, how long will it take
before their behavior patterns are symmetric with others of similar
income and age characteristics? Or are there substantial cultural
variations that will manifest themselves?
The Democratization of Mobility. The private vehicle has become the
tool of mass mobility. While we tend to think of auto ownership as all-
pervasive in this society, this study has shown that this is strongly
skewed by race, ethnicity, and other factors. One has to believe that
the expansion of opportunity in America to immigrants and to those born
here will expand ownership and use of private vehicles as well--
generating growth in private vehicle ownership and travel in the coming
years.
The growth in vehicle travel in the remaining years of this decade
and into the next century will be predominantly a product of new access
to personal vehicle use on the part of young people, the older
population, women, and racial and ethnic minorities--the mobility
``have-nots'' of our society.
Just as we have cited the competition for skilled workers at the
high end of the job spectrum, there will likely be more workers than
jobs at the low end. This will mean workers traveling great distances
for not particularly attractive jobs. The dramatic growth in
intermetropolitan travel and in reverse commuting (from the city out to
the suburbs) is a product of that reality.
Society then is faced with an unpleasant challenge. Much of current
public policy on commuting is aimed at suppressing auto ownership and
use. These policies are unintentionally aimed squarely at those on the
margin of the ability to own and operate a vehicle, particularly those
policies aimed at increasing the cost of driving. It is clear that
those most affected by such policies will be those on the lower rungs
of the economic ladder. Often these people will be those who are most
auto-dependent.
Public Policy and Commuting. Much of public policy today is focused
on modifying societal behavior in commuting, and specifically the
preference for driving alone. These policies have proven dramatically
ineffective, at best. At worst, they can be directly antagonistic to
the goals they are intended to support.
It must be clear by now that the notion that there is an American
``love-affair'' with the automobile is missing the point. Those who
promote this idea seem to imply that that love is some kind of
aberration, and with enough psychiatrists we can solve America's
commuting problems. Americans love their automobiles about as much as
they love their microwave ovens. They have them and use them because
they are very efficient tools--they are time-saving devices. The desire
for the personal vehicle in other countries follows this same pattern.
At the center of all of these issues is the burden of time
pressures that most Americans feel. It is time pressures, particularly
on women, that increase personal vehicle use, trip chaining, and many
of the other patterns we have examined. Decisions regarding household
location and mode to work are not made frivolously. People have sound
reasons for their choices.
Public policies that try to increase the costs of auto use or
increase travel times and congestion to force behavioral shifts to more
preferred modes of behavior or locational densities will simply force
people to make painful decisions. Many of these will result in the
shift of households and jobs to areas where congestion is less
obtrusive and where other costs are less; inevitably this will mean
greater dispersion of the population, not less. The American commuter
is a resilient and innovative character.
Those who see the solution of so many of our present ills by
reorganizing society into living at higher densities miss the point.
People do not live ``efficiently'' in order to optimize some imposed
societal goal, certainly not commuting. Residential density is one of
the most fundamental of choices that households make. It is clear that
most people, given the choice, opt for lower density living when income
permits. As society changes and choice patterns evolve, the marketplace
must be ready to respond with development that is responsive to
household choices. Any public policies that inhibit a market trend
toward higher densities must be addressed. But the marketplace must be
the final arbiter in a free society.
In this environment, transit has to compete with speed,
reliability, and security. The focus of public policy in this area must
be on improving commuting for all workers, with better walking and
biking opportunities, better transit, and better roads. My proposed
goal would be to reduce commuting to an unimportant topic of
conversation and public policy.
Many of these trends leave room for greater optimism regarding
commuting solutions. Technological responses increasingly respond
effectively to energy and environmental concerns, and congestion, while
still a major problem, in many areas is addressable in its new
patterns. The beginning of the solution lies in recognizing that the
American public is in charge.
patterns to watch
There are a number of patterns that bear watching over the coming
years, as they signal the direction some of the trends will take. The
patterns to watch are:
1. Will the force of immigration continue, or taper off?
2. Will immigrants join the typical patterns of vehicle ownership
and travel behavior, or will new patterns emerge?
3. Will greater balance of jobs and workers occur in the suburbs,
or will things stabilize at present levels?
4. Will racial and ethnic minorities fully join the mainstream car-
owning classes?
5. Will technological fixes continue to be effective in responding
to environmental concerns?
6. Will telecommunications and growth in working at home abet
dispersal and take the edge off commuting problems in many areas?
7. Will ITS technologies begin to assert an influence on travel
times or other factors of commuting?
8. Will aging commuters generate shifts in mode of commuting?
9. Will population growth shift toward the lower end of the
metropolitan size spectrum?
10. Will the public find new, higher density communities attractive
alternative lifestyles?
the sources of understanding
A final word about data is needed. There is something of a
renaissance in transportation data under way. The creation of the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) at the U.S. Department of
Transportation has reinvigorated interest in better data by many in the
profession. That influence goes well beyond BTS's own programs.
The Data
The sources of data that will be available to us for monitoring the
questions posed above are strong and improving, with one gigantic
``if.''
The Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey has been established
in a strong, steady program, and adequately sized surveys are conducted
every 5 years. Data collected in 1995 will soon be available to address
many of the questions posed here. This survey is now the preeminent
source of travel behavior information in the country.
As part of its monitoring of housing conditions, the American
Housing Survey (AHS) obtains journey-to-work data every other year for
a national sample. This provides very valuable trend information. The
cessation of journey-to-work data collection for individual
metropolitan areas in the AHS cycle is a great loss.
The 1990 census has been the dominant source of information for
this report and for metropolitan analyses across the nation. The work
of the Bureau of the Census and of the states, working through the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, has
been incredibly valuable. For the first time we have had national,
comprehensive coverage of commuting in detail.
The Future of Data
The great ``if'' is the 2000 census, which is in greater jeopardy
than any census has ever been in our era. This transcends the usual
disinterest regarding the census when it is 4 years away. There is
pressure to reduce the data collected to the absolute minimum needed
for legislative redistricting. While all would agree that streamlining
and improvements in efficiency would certainly be in order, the
collapse of the census would be a disaster for public understanding of
our society. The journey-to-work questions are of unquestioned value to
public policy and public investment decisions in the range of hundreds
of billions of dollars. But it is the fundamental small-area
demographic data that underlies the specialized questions that are most
critical to effective public policy at the local level.
There is a sense that we are on the cusp of major shifts from old
methods of data collection to new means just emerging--means that
promise greater efficiency and speed. We must not lose the continuity
of the data resources we depend on as these new techniques evolve.
__________
ECONOMIC RETURNS FROM TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
(By Jeffrey Madrick, Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Lansdowne,
VA, 1996)
preface
From the time of the nation's first transportation plan--the
Gallatin Report at the beginning of the 19th century--U.S. political
leaders have recognized the developmental and economic benefit of
investment in transportation. As different ports competed to be the
supplier of the original colonies, as different routes competed to be
the gateway to the west, as the first national system of post roads was
designated, and as the Interstate Highway System was designed, states
and regions have competed for access. Transportation facilities are
more than magnets that draw growth to one point instead of another:
they also create economic growth that is shared by the Nation as a
whole.
This national economic benefit has been measured in a recent study
by M. Ishaq Nadiri, an economist at New York University. He found that
there is a strong relationship between the capital stock of highways
and the net social rate of return. During the 1950's and the 1960's,
the net social rate of return of the nation's highway network was very
high, while in the 1970's and 1980's the returns on highway investment
were lower--roughly the same as that realized on private capital in
those decades. What led to the extremely high returns in the 1950-1970
period, and what future public investments in transportation
infrastructure might have similarly massive impacts? Can public policy
be targeted to produce such high returns in the future, and continue to
benefit the nation's economic health, its international
competitiveness, and its quality of life?
The Eno Foundation held a public policy forum on July 23, 1996 to
explore these important questions. Leaders in government and industry,
specialists on economic development, investment analysts, and other
experts came together to examine recent research on this subject, to
discuss its possible policy implications, and to identify ways to make
such analysis more useful to policymakers.
We are deeply indebted to all the thoughtful leaders, listed at the
start of this report, who contributed to these discussions. We are
especially thankful to Professor M. Ishaq Nadiri for his stimulating
analysis and his willingness to defend this work before a diverse
community of interested professionals; to Professor Jose A. Gomez-
Ibanez who chaired the forum; to Jeffrey Madrick, who prepared the
forum report; and to Jennifer Clinger, who organized the forum and
oversaw all the arrangements. We are also grateful to the Federal
Highway Administration, the relational Cooperative Highway Research
Program, and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials for their financial and professional support.
Thanks are also due to the forum participants who reviewed the draft
report and made useful corrections.
The message that came through loud and clear at the forum is that
the economic impacts of transportation are important, and that new
findings bearing on them deserves serious attention. The Eno Foundation
is pleased that the insights contributed by participants at our forum
are now publicly available, and that this report will help to give the
economic consequences of transportation the consideration that they
deserve.
Damian Kulash,
President and CEO, Eno Transportation Foundation
______
summary
Economic productivity is key to maintaining the nation's global
competitiveness and a rising standard of living. However, productivity,
along with overall economic growth, has slowed considerably in the U.S.
since the 1970's. Investments in transportation infrastructure benefit
economic productivity by allowing more efficient processes, economies
of scale, changes in distribution or logistics patterns, and reduced
costs. Although the impacts of the system surround us, few attempts
have been made to estimate the overall, program-wide economic benefits
of public investments in transportation facilities.
Recently, Dr. Ishaq Nadiri, an economist at New York University,
has found that there has indeed been a significant positive rate of
return from public investment in highways in the United States in
recent decades, although the magnitude of this return tapered off in
the 1980's. As the Nation prepares to design highway legislation for
the next 5 years, the implications of this most recent work on economic
returns could have major implications.
The Eno Transportation Foundation convened a public policy forum to
discuss the economic return on transportation investment. About 35
people with varied perspectives on this issue attended this day-long
discussion on July 23, 1996.
The Federal Highway Administrator, Rodney Slater, opened the forum
by saying that the FHWA has made fostering productivity growth through
investment in highways one of its primary goals. He emphasized the
importance of high-quality economic research to find the linkage
between highway investments and economic performance.
Professor Nadiri described that there has indeed been a significant
positive rate of return from public investment in highways in the
United States in recent decades, although the magnitude of this return
has tapered off in later decades. During the 1950's and 1960's, the
social return on these investments--the total return to business less
depreciation--far exceeded those earned on private capital. During the
1980's, these returns were roughly equivalent to the rate of return
earned on private capital investment over the same period. Investment
in national systems in particular, which usually involve larger
networks of roads and highways than local projects, had a higher rate
of return than private capital over this period.
The high rates of return in earlier years and their rapid decline
in subsequent years were largely the result of at least three factors.
First, in the 1950's and 1960's, transportation demand was strong as
the American economy expanded rapidly. The investments in the
Interstate Highway System naturally produced high returns because the
rapid growth in the post-war economy required an expansion in
infrastructure to accommodate it. Second, unlike for private capital,
the benefits of public investment in transportation were shared by many
industries. Third, as initial needs were met and the highway system
matured, it was only natural that subsequent investments produced lower
rates of return. Nevertheless, recent returns, although lower, are
positive and significant.
Nadiri also concluded that investment in highway capital made a
significant positive contribution to the economy's rate of productivity
growth. But the declining rate of growth in highway capital made only a
minor contribution to the slow rate of growth in economic productivity
in the 1980's. This refuted the conclusions of earlier studies which
showed that there was a dramatically higher contribution to
productivity from infrastructure investment than from private capital
investment.
While existing studies generally report a positive contribution
from infrastructure investment, there is a wide variety of results.
Rates of return on public infrastructure investment clearly vary
significantly over time, place, and according to the economic context
of the region or nation in which the investment is made. Future
research should be directed toward determining which kinds of
infrastructure investment will make the largest contributions to
aggregate and sector productivity growth.
An overriding issue is how to continue to make significant
investments in transportation infrastructure in an era of scarce public
resources. The use of public-private partnerships may be able to make
up for shortfalls in new capacity in the Federal, state and local
transportation programs. Innovative financing methods involving both
public and private sectors may also be effective in a time of more
limited public resources.
In general, forum participants agreed that a public awareness must
be created for thinking about how infrastructure investment can promote
the growth of the nation's productivity. These impacts are significant
and of a national, not local, character. They should be at the center
of the debate, yet public policy discourse does not yet take into
account these far reaching impacts. Participants urged policymakers to
apply the results of new economic research to their decision-making
processes and to develop new ways to present the case to legislators
and to the public that infrastructure investment can improve
productivity and economic growth.
While the results of the new research analysis are powerful and
promising, it would be self-defeating to exaggerate the new research
findings. The new research has corrected many of the flaws of earlier
studies, but its results need to be presented cautiously and
understandably.
Professor Jose Gomez-Ibanez, chairman of the forum, summarized the
main points of the forum as follows:
First, the Nadiri research shows that there have been significant
returns to public highway investment. While these returns have declined
over time, they are still significant. They are the equivalent of
returns to private capital.
Second, these returns vary significantly, and we do not always
understand why this is so. They vary over time. In the 1950's and
1960's, the interstate highways replaced the open-access roads that
came before them, which may explain much of the decline in returns. But
they also vary according to place. Additional highway investment may be
useful in some regions or areas and not in others.
Returns can also appear to vary according to where in the overall
sequence they are made. The first roads or highways in a region appear
to generate higher returns than subsequent ones.
Returns can also vary depending on the institutional context. If
trucking in a nation is a monopoly, the benefits of infrastructure
investment will accrue to truckers rather than the economy as a whole.
50, for the potential returns of transportation to be fully realized,
the context must permit the interacting institutions to exploit new
efficiencies.
Infrastructure investments can produce sizable returns, but only if
they are the right investments at the right time--investments that
create growing room. The fact that policymakers appear to have selected
such investment in the 1950's and 1960's does not tell us much about
what the best opportunities are today.
Third, we may never know the full effects of highway investment on
productivity. This is not merely because our statistical tools are not
perfect. Flew infrastructure creates a context for further innovation
that cannot usually be predicted. People are enabled by the new
infrastructure to create different ways of doing things that are subtle
and have long lead times. They are the sorts of things that can never
really be traced out beforehand--or sometimes even after the fact. For
example, we still have difficulty disentangling the effects the
railroads had on 19th century America.
Finally, how can the new research be used? To be valuable to
policymakers it must be phrased in plain English and must not
exaggerate findings, which would undermine their credibility. It must
also communicate a vision or story that is credible, specific, and
moves beyond the abstraction inherent in measures like the rate of
return. Such a vision may be more complex and harder to communicate
than the case made to Justify the interstate highway system in the
1950's. Nevertheless, the public may be prepared for a more
sophisticated vision than they were a generation or two ago.
______
forum proceedings
Background and Introduction
A national debate is gathering momentum over whether the U.S.
economy can grow faster than it has over the past two decades. During
the 1970's and 1980's, the economy's rate of growth slowed dramatically
from its historical average. Between 1870 and the early 1970's, the
best data show that the American economy grew at an average rate of
nearly 3.5 percent a year. Since 1975, the economy has grown at only
2.4 percent a year.
Whether the Nation is better off in the future depends on whether
the rate of growth of productivity can be raised. Productivity is the
main source of economic growth and a rising standard of living. Its
growth has slowed even more dramatically over the past two decades than
did overall growth. Labor productivity--the output of goods and service
per hour of work--grew at a rate of more than 2 percent a year since
just after the Civil War. Since 1973, it has managed to grow at only 1
percent a year. Total factor productivity--the output per unit of labor
and capital--has slowed down to a similar degree.
Had productivity grown at its long-term rate since 1973, another
$13 trillion in national income would have been produced by the
economy. As a consequence, tax revenues would have risen so much that
there would be no Federal deficit today. In fact, at current levels of
Federal spending, there would be a substantial budget surplus.
Investments in infrastructure, particularly transportation
projects, may have significant impacts upon economic productivity.
Governments make investments in transportation facilities to support
development, to spur economic growth, to alleviate existing
deficiencies, or to increase public convenience. In the 19th century,
the large positive economic value derived from investments in
transportation systems was taken to be self-evident, and major
investments in roads, railroads, and canals were made on this basis. As
the U.S. developed, transportation investments were used to transform
the economic environment profoundly. Similarly,historians attribute the
Industrial Revolution to various transportation investments that
preceded it. Today, developing nations view transportation investments
as key ingredients for economic development and growth.
No one living in contemporary America can overlook the profound
changes brought about by the Interstate Highway System on where people
live, work, and shop. It has expanded the range over which goods can be
marketed, has created opportunities for economies of scale and for
increased specialization, and has brought the efficiencies of just-in-
time inventory systems to businesses across the land. Although the
impacts of the system surround us, few attempts have been made to
estimate the overall, program-wide economic value of public investments
in transportation facilities.
Because of the importance of productivity growth to the economy,
and in anticipation of the reauthorization of the nation's surface
transportation programs next year, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), through the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP), asked the Eno Transportation Foundation to call a
conference of transportation experts and policymakers from the public
and private sectors and academia to discuss whether transportation
infrastructure investment can play a critical part in improving
America's productivity.
In the 1950's, the rate of growth of highway capital surged. After
declining slightly in 1950 and 1951, the capital stock grew at an
annual rate of 6.2 percent until 1959. But beginning in the 1960's and
on through the 1970's, the rate of growth slowed continuously. Since
1982, highway capital stock has been growing at an average rate of 1.2
percent a year.
This increased rate of growth has not kept pace with the increase
in demand for highway transportation. The slow rate of investment has
contributed to increased congestion and poor maintenance. It has also
resulted in fewer large-scale transportation projects, and required
proportionately more funding from state and local levels of government
for transportation improvements.
But has the lower rate of investment in transportation
infrastructure since the 1950's contributed significantly to the
general slowdown in productivity growth? Can raising the rate of
investment in transportation infrastructure enhance overall
productivity for the entire nation? The Eno policy forum addressed
these fundamental questions.
The starting place for this discussion was a new econometric study
by M. Ishaq Nadiri of New York University and the National Bureau of
Economic Research and Theofanis P. Mamuneas of the University of
Cyprus. It is a comprehensive analysis of how investment in highway
infrastructure affects the nation's output, the commercial sector's
costs of doing business, and private sector productivity in general.
The expert participants agreed that the Nadiri model had corrected the
most important flaws of earlier studies on this subject. The general
consensus, among both skeptics and supporters of this type of analysis,
was that Nadiri's analysis was one of the most comprehensive pieces of
work that has been done in the infrastructure area in the last 10
years, which is when the main growth of literature has occurred.
Approximately 35 professionals from academia and the private and
public sectors participated in the forum, including top government
officials, academic leaders, and industry executives. There were three
general areas of discussion. The first concerned Professor Nadiri's
model, and an interpretation of its results. The second concerned the
policy implications of new research, and ensuring that investments in
highway infrastructure are targeted to have the maximum net benefits.
The third area of discussion concerned how to frame public policy
issues in light of the new research, as well as how to make the public
understand potential contribution to the economy's productivity of
infrastructure investment.
The Need for this Forum
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrator Rodney Slater
introduced the topic of the forum by observing that FHWA has
traditionally focused its attention on the direct benefits to travelers
and commuters of better, faster, safer roads and highways as well as
the employment generated by construction and maintenance. But now, FHWA
is intensifying its focus on a third area: the benefits that
infrastructure investment has for industry, business and the economy in
general.
``Until recently, discussions about the relationship between public
capital, and economic performance were based on evidence that was
largely descriptive in nature,'' Slater said. However, descriptive and
anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to support public investment
decisions that have significant social, environmental, and economic
impacts. In a fiscally stringent time when every Federal expenditure
requires justification, he said, ``the objective here is to gain the
evidence we need, and to carry forth the strong message.''
Slater explained that this was why the FHWA funded the Nadiri
study. Now that it is completed, the discussion needs to focus on three
questions: ``What do these findings mean? How are industries affected
by what we discover? And what are the implications for future
transportation policy?''
Administrator Slater said that he was ready to use well-done
research to make the case for infrastructure investment if it is
justified. ``If truth was self-evident, there would be no need for
eloquence,'' he said. The Job, Slater concluded, is, ``to create a
story that people can understand, buy into, and give themselves to,
much as we have given ourselves to creating a rail system, an aviation
system, a highway system, and all of the transit facilities that exist
around this country. Many people would like to rest on those
accomplishments. Well, we are gathered here today to examine the
question of why we cannot rest on those accomplishments.''
New Research on the Economic Returns from Transportation Investment
Professor M. Ishaq Nadiri, the Jay Gould Professor of Economics at
New York University and a member of the National Bureau of Economic
Research, explained that his research in how infrastructure investment
affects economic output was initiated by several well-known studies in
the late 1980's that concluded that infrastructure investment had a
dramatic impact on the rate of economic growth. These original studies
were done, most notably by Professor David Aschauer, now of Bates
College, and later by Alicia Munnell of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank
(now on the Council of Economic Advisers). Before Aschauer, Nadiri
noted, many applied economists had not estimated how public investments
affect the nation's productive capacity. They focused almost
exclusively on how private-sector decisions with respect to output,
employment, and capital accumulation contributed to economic
productivity growth.
The methodology of these first studies was widely challenged by the
academic community and the conclusions were severely scaled back. An
extensive list of new research then followed. If criticized, however,
the Aschauer and Munnell work did serve as a challenging beginning.
Aschauer's model rested on a form of economic analysis known as a
production function. It assumes that the output of the economy (Gross
Domestic Product) is a function of the total supply of labor hours and
available private capital stock as well as the rate of technological
progress. In trying to measure the impact of infrastructure capital, a
production function can be expanded to include the supply of
infrastructure investment as a variable as well. If the relationship
between changes in infrastructure investment and the economy's output
is one possible interpretation is that infrastructure investment is an
important determinant of economic output.
The main criticism of this methodology is that even though there
may be a close relationship between the rate of infrastructure
investment and the economy's output, this does not necessarily imply a
causal relationship between the two. There can be many other reasons
why the rate of change in infrastructure investment and the economy's
output would rise and fall simultaneously. When other academic
researchers factored out the possible simultaneity and ``auto-
correlations,'' which are especially significant when comparing
investment and growth, they concluded that infrastructure investment
had a much smaller impact on the economy's output than Aschauer
initially maintained.
To avoid such ambiguities, Professor Nadiri took a different
approach to the issue that bypasses the problems usually associated
with production function studies (refer to Appendix A for the complete
study). His analysis did not use generalized production functions to
represent the economy. Rather, it used a series of cost functions for
all the individual industries that make up the economy (there are 35
industry categories in the model). This determines how the costs of
doing business are affected by many factors, one of which is the stock
of public infrastructure capital. In the case of this model, highway
capital is used. In general, this econometric research attempts to take
account of all the major factors that might potentially affect
productivity growth. It then isolates the contribution made by
investment in highways, covering the years of 1950 to 1989.
What are cost functions? The costs of an industry are a function of
several key factors, including the cost of capital and labor, the
prices of raw materials and other inputs, the level of the industry's
output, and the stock of infrastructure capital. Nadiri's analysis also
included the rate of technical change and capacity utilization rates.
As each of these elements change, so do the costs of production for an
individual industry.
But to avoid spurious correlations, the factors that affect costs
are not simply taken as constants. Just as it occurs in the real world,
a change in one variable in the model will affect the other variables
in the equation. For example, if capital stock goes up, there may be
less need for labor. The share of labor and its cost will therefore
carry less weight in the cost function. Nadiri adjusted for these
interrelated changes among all the key factors that affect an
industry's costs. In the language of economists, cost factors are
arrived at endogenously rather than exogenously.
The Nadiri research also estimated independently a demand function
for each industry, allowing for likely changes in the demand for the
output and productivity of a particular industry. If the output of an
industry changes, its costs will also change.
A complex series of regression equations were also run in several
stages to arrive at a final relationship between the factors that
determine supply and demand. Output and cost elasticities with respect
to highway infrastructure capital were calculated for each industry.
Elasticity is defined as the amount that output would rise or costs
fall for each percent increase in the nation's highway capital stock.
The analysis also calculated rates of returns for total highway
investment by relating cost reduction benefits to the opportunity costs
of public roads. These were then aggregated to arrive at results for
the entire economy, which is called the social rate of return. These
results were checked against a model for the entire economy as well.
The analysis also broke down the components of the nation's
productivity growth so that the contribution made by highway capital
could be compared to the contribution made by other factors. Total
Factor Productivity (TFP) is the output of the economy per factor of
input--specifically, per hour of work and dollar of capital. The model
decomposed TFP growth into four basic determinants. One is exogenous
demand for goods and services, which is a function of changes in
population and aggregate income on the demand side. A second is the
change in relative prices of such key inputs for an industry as raw
materials and intermediate products. A third is autonomous
technological change, a residual number that includes things that
economists usually can't specify. The fourth is, the level of the
highway capital stock. The analysis shows the degree to which each of
these factors contributes to the nation's productivity growth.
Professor Nadiri points out that his analysis is ``a work in
progress.'' As we shall see, there are still certain inconsistencies in
results that require explanations. And there is the underlying question
that all statistical studies utilizing even the most rigorous
regression analysis raises: even when a relationship is found between
infrastructure investment and productivity, we cannot be certain based
on such techniques alone whether more investment has caused
productivity to rise or whether rising demand in the economy has raised
the returns on such investments.
Annual Rate of Return by Type of Investment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950-89 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total highway capital.................................... 28 % 35 % 35 % 16 % 10 %
Non-local highway capital................................ 34 % 48 % 47 % 24 % 16 %
Private capital.......................................... 13 % 13 % 14 % 12 % 11 %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the Nadiri analysis is one of the most comprehensive
econometric studies of its kind. As noted, the study circumvents many
of the problems with former studies, including spurious correlations.
It has made key variables endogenous rather than exogenous--that is,
rather than being constant, key variables are allowed to change as they
are affected by other changes in other variables. This better reflects
the real world than do many models based on production functions.
The study's conclusions are also subject to a variety of checks.
The study aggregated both the demand and supply sides of his industries
to be sure they tally. Bottom-up industry aggregates were compared to
an economy-wide model, and they were also in accord. Statistical tests
were made to avoid basic errors about spurious correlations.
The social rates of return on public investments in highway capital
were positive and significant throughout the 1950's to the 1980's. In
the 1980's, these returns were competitive with returns on private
capital. Both the returns on highway capital and private capital
averaged 10 percent a year in the 1980's. This suggests that public
highway investment in all classes of roads should at least be increased
at the same rate as total private capital investment.
The rate of return on highway investment in the 1950's and 1960's
was much higher than in the 1980's, averaging about 35 percent a year,
much higher than the return on private capital, which averaged about 14
percent a year in this period. The average rate of return on highway
capital over the entire 40-year period was 28 percent.
Nadiri also estimated the effects of highway capital invested in
non-local roads. These larger systems of interconnected higher-order
roads make up the network that essentially serves commercial interests.
Such investments may presumably contribute more to productivity because
their benefits are shared by so many users over a wide geographical
area. These may be an example of network effects. The return on this
capital, called non-local highway capital, was significantly higher
than it was on total highway capital or on total private capital. Even
during the 1980's, it averaged 16 percent a year.
Of the four factors that determine the nation's total factor
productivity, the most important by a significant margin was exogenous
demand for goods and services. It accounted for more than half the
change in total factor productivity. Highway investment is the second
most important contributor to productivity of the four, ranking well
ahead of either changes in factor prices or autonomous technological
change as a determinant of TFP. It is noteworthy that when TFP was
growing fastest, between 1952 and 1973, infrastructure investment
accounted for a larger portion of the gain than when TFP growth slowed
between 1973 and 1989. Come interpret this as a suggestion, which still
needs further corroboration, that large infrastructure programs
resulting in added capacity may have contributed more to economic
growth and productivity than highway programs focused on preservation
and maintenance. Alternatively, the differential in TFP contribution
over time implies a synergistic effect between public policy decisions
and the general economic condition.
Nadiri also examined the elasticity of highway investments, but did
not reproduce the stunning results arrived at by earlier economists.
For every additional dollar of infrastructure capital stock, the output
of the economy (in terms of physical goods and services) rises by 5
percent (output elasticity = 0.051). The costs of doing business (cost
elasticity) fall by about 4 percent in response to a 1 percent increase
in highway capital stock (cost elasticity = 0.044). These elasticities
are significant, but they are only about one-eighth of the elasticities
previous studies estimated.
An important conclusion of the study is that an increase in
infrastructure investment reduces costs in almost all manufacturing
industries and in many service industries. In some industries, however,
costs are raised, though only slightly. This apparent inconsistency
provoked considerable discussion among the participants, as is
amplified later in the report. Nadiri and most of the forum
participants agreed that this is an area where further research should
be targeted.
Contributions of Highway Capital and Other Factors to Productivity
Annual Growth Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1952-89 1952-63 1964-72 1973-79 1980-89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Factor Productivity................................ .68 % .94 % 1.03 % .13 % .42 %
Exogenous Demand......................................... .60 % .30 % .60 % .75 % .84 %
Highway Capital.......................................... .17 % .30 % .26 % .03 % .03 %
Price Changes............................................ -.06 % -.06 % -.10 % -1.70 % .07 %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the direct local and regional benefits of highway investments
are immediately recognized, investments in a network of facilities may
produce productivity gains to entire industries nationwide. Are there
efficiencies and productivity gains that result from the fact that
resources are pooled by the government to build a broad, flexible
system of roads and highways that serves many users simultaneously
Nadiri's work suggests that they do.
What would happen to costs of production if the private sector
undertook its own infrastructure investment? Nadiri's analysis created
a counter-factual situation in which each industry is responsible for
building its own roads, bridges, and highways. For most industries, the
returns on such investment would have been negative. Therefore, most
industries would not have built the infrastructure. Based on this
counterfactual evidence, the system of infrastructure as it currently
exists would simply not have been developed.
Since the large majority of industries benefited from the
infrastructure system built by government, most industries would have
lost the advantages of such a system had it been left to themselves to
build one. Without government investment, these network benefits would
have been lost.
The forum participants generally applauded the new research. But
there were concerns. While Nadiri's analysis accounted for network
effects, it did not reflect the possibility that some network benefits
can subside over time. Early in the development of a highway system,
the second highway in a region usually makes the first highway more
valuable by efficiently feeding it traffic from a wider geographical
area. In this early stage, highway investment is usually complementary
and highly beneficial. But as new transportation investment is made,
new roads and highways eventually become substitutes for rather than
complements to existing roads and highways. The benefits of new
investment naturally diminish. 50, while infrastructure investment may
well be a public good with significant network benefits, these benefits
may diminish rapidly over time. When making new infrastructure
investments, such dynamic network effects must be taken into account.
One of the more technical concerns was that infrastructure
investment appeared to have no positive impact on the transportation
industry itself. If any industry benefits directly from such
investment, it should be the transportation industry. Yet the model
showed that infrastructure investment raised costs in this industry, if
only slightly. The seeming inconsistency had to be explained, though
analytic experts pointed out that such complex models often have some
inconsistencies; indeed seasoned analysts feel if there are no such
problems, they would question whether the analysis is intricate enough.
Nevertheless, such inconsistencies may suggest there are inaccuracies
in the model.
In fact, infrastructure investment has a negative impact on service
industries in general, according to the Nadiri model. This is counter-
intuitive, although there may be several technical explanations for
this result. One explanation is that the model is based on average
slope variables for classes of industries. The actual production
functions of each individual industry may often differ from this dummy
variable.
In some cases these negative impacts may be sensible. For example,
some kinds of services might suffer if transportation was improved.
This is because in service industries, the impacts of transportation
costs fall on the customer rather than the business itself, unlike in a
manufacturing industry. In addition, some industries do not utilize
transportation infrastructure as intensely as others, although this
does not mean that they do not benefit from highways at all. For the
most part, the negative effects for service industries found by the
model are small.
Another technical concern was that highway capital was not broken
down according to its quality or the changing nature of the investment
over the course of nearly 40 years. For example, facilities built
during the 1950's and 1960's were built using specifications that would
be considered deficient by today's standards, such as standard lane
widths, slope gradients, and curve radii. These standards impact the
total capacity of a facility, especially as it reaches congested
levels. If highway capital could be decomposed according to the types
of project or by quality, it could provide more useful information.
In general, the historical patterns of the rates of return--high in
the 1950's and 1960's, and lower but equivalent to private capital
returns in the 1980's--suggest that the types and categories of
investments undertaken may be crucial. In the first 20 years covered by
Nadiri's analysis, the Nation was making major expansions in the
highway network. The question is whether the Nation can find similarly
productive investments in terms of capacity additions in the future.
Professor Nadiri agreed that a careful assessment of future
infrastructure needs is essential. But he concluded that, because the
rates of return on infrastructure and private capital were similar, the
stock of public investment in infrastructure should at least keep pace
with the accumulation of private capital in order to achieve balanced
growth.
Methodological Issues
Dr. Randall Eberts, who has long done economic research in this
field, pointed out that earlier studies he had completed based on local
rather than national data were consistent with the findings of the
Nadiri study. In general, he found an elasticity of 0.03.
Dr. Eberts said that we need more research to find out ``what is in
the black box.'' In other words, we need to know how improved
infrastructure is specifically translated into higher productivity for
firms. Infrastructure investment in general must make business inputs
more productive. For example, companies should be able to get their
workers to the workplace more quickly. Better infrastructure should
allow them to draw from a larger labor pool. inventory can be
transported more quickly and inexpensively as well. Improved
infrastructure also attracts more companies because, he said, highway
infrastructure is probably the No. 1 attraction in the minds of local
economic developers. It should also be kept in mind that infrastructure
investment is a direct stimulus to growth for most regions. Most of the
funding usually comes from outside the community.
Companies orient themselves spatially to the infrastructure that
exists. It takes about 10 years for a metropolitan area to adjust fully
to a large infrastructure investment. There is evidence that high
levels of public capital can raise productivity locally through
economies of scale due to agglomeration, through higher land prices,
and the ability to pay higher wages.
Research on whether infrastructure investment leads or lags
economic growth has shown diverse results. One study found that
economic growth in the southern U.S. would have occurred anyway even
without infrastructure investment. That is, in the south,
infrastructure investment may have followed growth. In northern states,
however, it appeared to be the other way around. Infrastructure
investment was more influential in raising the rate of growth. Eberts
also found a correlation between infrastructure investment and openings
and expansions of business. Such infrastructure investment also seems
to also slow down the pace of business closings.
Professor Charles Hulten warned about making broad conclusions
based on what he calls ``uncut econometrics.'' The new statistical
analyses produce an average constant relationship between
infrastructure investment and productivity. But there is no reason to
think that the average relationship is actually constant. In actuality,
the relationship can vary across geographical regions, over time, and
in different segments of the economy. Depending on all these criteria,
infrastructure investment can produce high or low rates of return.
Dr. Hulten said that more research must be done in these areas. He
suggested that public policy analysts and economic researchers should
take into account three different mechanisms for determining how public
investment may specifically affect productivity. The first is location
theory. Why do companies locate where they do? Reduced transportation
costs is one reason. There are also economies of scale and scope that
accrue to agglomeration. But this might be offset if a company's demand
is spread over a large area. It will make sense to disperse locations
under such circumstances. The rate of return on infrastructure
investment may depend on the interaction of these three factors.
A second consideration is that infrastructure investments are long-
lived and ultimately serve users well into the future. In other words,
capacity being built today is partly being banked for the future. Any
correlation with contemporaneous growth is therefore questionable
because much of the capital is not expected to be consumed until the
future. Isolating such time-dependent effects will require more
research. Also, it must be kept in mind that public and private
investments may have different useful lives. This timing difference
should be factored when comparing rates of return between the two.
The third consideration is how the network effect works. It is
difficult to assess these effects. The same amount of capital devoted
to two different locations may well result in vibrant network effects
in one area and almost none in another. Early on in the development of
such a system, as noted earlier, the network effect may provide large
returns on investment as new roads make existing roads even more
valuable. But there will often come a point when capital merely
involves a substitution of new or different roads for older ones. At
this point, returns can fall dramatically or even turn negative.
Professor Jose Gomez-Ibanez noted that Professor Nadiri appeared to
have solved the essential problem associated with production-function
studies. He observed that for the study to be praised even by skeptical
and vociferous critics of previous studies, Professor Nadiri appears to
have done an excellent job. But he also noted that this was nonetheless
a pioneering effort, with some unexplainable features such as negative
returns to service industries. Additional research in the following
areas could further substantiate Nadiri's analysis:
Disaggregating total infrastructure investment by the quality of
investment to determine whether some kinds of projects, perhaps those
that are larger in nature, are likely to provide bigger economic
payoffs than others projects.
Adjusting for the longer time spans of infrastructure investment to
determine the degree of long-term payoffs that may now be mismeasured.
Assessing the many ways in which network effects can build upon each
other and the duration of network benefits as regional economies
mature.
Micro-level assessments of how transportation affects productivity
utilizing location theory, assessing economies of scale, and other
factors.
Historical and International Experience
The World Bank has been involved in more than 1,000 transport
projects throughout the world totaling about $50 billion of investment.
For the most part, the World Bank assesses these projects on a
``micro'' rather than a ``macro'' basis. The objectives are to reduce
transportation costs for the distribution of products, to improve
access to the workplace for workers from a wide geographical area, and
to improve access to the site for materials and other inputs. The World
Bank also finances projects that specifically develop links from the
farm to the factory, ports and onto international markets. To the World
Bank, transportation investment is a key engine of economic
development.
Colin Gannon, a senior transport economist at the World Bank,
provided a table (shown below) of the rates of return on World Bank
transportation investments that have been completed. ``In general,
there has been a high social value from transportation investment'', he
concluded. The projects documented below were largely undertaken in the
late 1970's and early 1980's and the disbursement of funds was
completed by 1994. The annual rates of returns are calculated at the
time the project was completed, and then brought forward by making a
forecast of supply and demand and the expected rate of return in the
future.
Estimated Returns from World Bank Transportation Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Type of Project Projects Annual Rate of Return
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airports........................... 8 21 %
Highways........................... 306 26 %
Rail............................... 72 14 %
Ports.............................. 96 20 %
All Transport Projects............. 482 22 %
All Sectors........................ n/a 15 %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average annual return for all transport projects was 22
percent, similar to that reported by Nadiri. This was higher than the
average annual return of 15 percent for all World Bank projects (within
all sectors) over this period.
In many countries the role of government is shifting from being the
provider of infrastructure to being an enabler of infrastructure
development. Creating too many governmental institutions can be
inefficient. Maintenance is being badly neglected. The best route to
the improvement of institutions may be carefully managed participation
by the private sector with appropriate regulations. The role of the
private sector as a partner or initiator of projects was embraced by
several forum participants. In recent international research, the
efficiency of local institutions appears to be highly important in
determining the rate of return on infrastructure projects. Looking
backward in time, transportation investment was a key determinant of
economic growth in the 19th and 20th centuries. During these formative
years, transportation investment contributed significantly to growth.
However, history also reveals many instances in which the Nation made
poor transportation investments. The most rewarding transportation
projects were often the first and most innovative ones, such as the
first canals end the early railroads. In retrospect, however, there has
probably never been any one optimal transportation scheme. Many
combinations of roads, canals, highways and rails lines may have worked
as well or better than what was eventually built (Appendix B contains a
bibliography of key historical works.)
An overview of international research on the effectiveness of
transportation investment since the 1940's shows that these investments
have often had substantial economic impact. This research was carried
on in the U.S. and in a variety of countries. The use of production
functions dominated the older research, but cost functions were
occasionally also used. The standard measure of results were cost and
output elasticities. Within the U.S., research was done on an aggregate
nationwide basis as well as on a state-by-state basis. Similarly,
research overseas was done on both a national and regional basis. Total
public capital, transportation and highway capital, and other
variations of infrastructure investment were the variables most
frequently measured in these studies.
Statistical research was done as early as the mid-1940's to
determine the influence of infrastructure investment on a nation's
growth. The initial studies found that infrastructure was a positive
catalyst for economic development in eastern Europe and Third World
countries. In the early 1970's, research done in Japan was the first to
show that public infrastructure investment could contribute to a
nation's productivity. This study concluded that the elasticity of
output was high. The first study to find that public capital
contributed to productivity in the U.S. was undertaken in the early
1980's. The elasticity of output was 0.05, similar to that reported by
Nadiri. Aschauer's, and similar studies, such as those based on state-
by-state research done by Alicia Munnell, were undertaken in the late
1980's. They concluded that elasticities were as high as 0.4 and 0.5.
The critical reaction to the Aschauer and Munnell studies has been
intense, but has also provided positive results. Some of the critical
studies yielded significantly lower cost and output elasticities, as
well as lower rates of return than those found by Aschauer and Munnell.
Nevertheless, many of these showed that infrastructure investment made
a positive contribution to productivity. In sum, a wide variety of
research shows that infrastructure investment is productive at the
margin. Studies in other countries reinforce this suggestion.
Nevertheless, the wide range of different results for rates of
returns and elasticities tends to diminish the confidence in this
research. Dr. T.R. Lakshmanan of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics summarized this wide variation in previous studies conducted
internationally. Appendix C contains a table which summarizes this
information, part of which is included in the exhibit below.
Variation of Elasticities Among International Studies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Sample Type of Capital Range of Elasticities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States....................... Aggregate.............. All public............ Output: .05 to .39
By States.............. Highway............... Output: .19 to .26
By States.............. All Public............ Output: .19 to .26
Japan............................... Regions................ Transport, Output: .35 to .42
Communications.
India............................... Aggregate.............. Roads, Rail, Electric. Cost: -.01 to .47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some, but probably not all, of these variations might be explained
by such effects as spill-overs from state to state and region to
region. One of the contributions of the Nadiri model has been to
resolve some of the fundamental concerns of earlier studies. Dr.
Lakshmanan predicted, based on his reading of the new study, that
``from now on there is going to be a fundamental distinction of before
Nadiri and after Nadiri'' in the literature on economic impacts of
infrastructure investments.
Investments Must Fit The Context and Create Room for Growth
Forum participants were eager to get beneath the broad, aggregate
impacts and to determine how specific infrastructure investment
decisions may affect the economy today. More complex times today stand
in stark contrast to the simpler, more straightforward decisionmaking
of the 1950's that was required to build the interstate highway system.
One major problem in applying the results of econometric research
is that even rigorous regression analyses cannot unequivocally
determine the nature of cause and effect. As noted by Robert Gallamore
of Union Pacific Railroad, the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus
said, ``I would rather discover a single causal connection than win the
throne of Persia.'' The question the forum faced is whether investment
causes productivity to rise or is fulfilling existing demand that is
generated by other forces, even though the research has demonstrated a
clear-cut relationship between infrastructure investment and economic
productivity. Citing the Princeton economist Albert Hirschman, Dr.
Molten noted that the rate of return is not necessarily what matters
most in determining how important investment is for economic growth.
What may matter most is whether investment ``leads growth or follows
it.''
A good example is the high social returns on infrastructure
investment in the 1950's and 1960's. Dr. Hulten said that the time may
have simply been ripe for such investment as the American economy
expanded rapidly toward the west and the south. How does one determine
whether the same kinds of opportunities exist today? The forum agreed
that more research into the value of specific projects and how they
improve productivity is necessary. There was also widespread agreement
that what should be avoided is a ``field-of-dreams'' approach--that is,
Just because we construct a facility does not mean that people will
automatically come to use it to its full capacity.
Tests and studies can be undertaken to try to isolate the question
of cause and effect. For example, Dr. Eberts has conducted additional
economic research to try to determine whether infrastructure investment
leads or lags economic growth. 50 far, the research has found the
effect can work both ways. According to one study, the growth in
America's south would have occurred without infrastructure investment.
In the north, however, it appeared that infrastructure investment did
produce more growth. His research has also found a significant
correlation between infrastructure investment and more openings of new
business as well as expansion of existing businesses. he found evidence
of the opposite relationship as well. Such infrastructure investment
seems to slow down the pace of business closings. In general, however,
research aimed specifically at isolating the cause-and-effect issue has
found evidence that infrastructure investment both leads and lags
economic growth, and may be both a cause and an effect.
It should be clear that the same questions about cause and effect
also apply to other types of investment, including private capital
investment. Those who claim today that America does not invest enough
in plant and equipment, for example, face the same issue. Is private
capital investment a cause of growth or a consequence of it? One
significant difference between infrastructure investment and private
capital investment, however, is the time span of economic payoffs.
Infrastructure investment creates conditions for growth that can extend
well into the future. To measure the true pay-off of such capital
investment is difficult. But it is clear that more than private capital
spending, infrastructure investment, as Professor Nadiri noted, creates
room for future growth.
What must be analyzed is whether creating conditions for future
growth will be necessitated by demand. The Interstate Highway System is
a successful example. It was underutilized initially, but created room
for rapid future growth. But we do not truly know what would have
happened had there been no such system. Further complicating these
questions is the increasing role of services and telecommunications in
the economy. This may reduce the need in the future for traditional
means of transportation. Yet, an argument can also be made that they
might increase demand more than expected.
The forum participants generally agreed that this is where the
debate about economic returns centers. How do we utilize transportation
best? Which transportation investments fit the ``growing room'' of
today? This need should be coupled with the need to invest in new
technologies--what Stanford economist Paul Romer has called
``wetwear''. One example of wetwear is the groundbreaking spreadsheet
package Lotus 1-2-3. Another is intelligent transportation systems
(ITS) technology. These new tools create whole new fields of economic
opportunity. Many argue that privatization may be the best way to
maximize the benefits of infrastructure investment.
Transportation shares many of the characteristics of new software.
It has enabled corporations to take advantage of their existing
technologies, as well as new technological developments. So investing
in it is much like investing in wetwear--such improvements have the
potential to have widespread impacts on many sectors of the economy.
The complementary relationship between transportation and
communications, as noted, also needs to be better understood. Many of
the benefits of infrastructure improvements have come from its
complementarity with the information infrastructure. Looking to the
future, particularly to the potential of intelligent transportation
systems, this link could be crucial.
How do you select those investments that offer the most growing
room for the economy? Looking to past experience, some government
investments have been quite rational, but others not at all.
Participants identified numerous examples which they felt were ill-
timed. Econometric research cannot yet distinguish between periods of
rational public infrastructure investment and irrational periods when
specific investments are not fruitful. There were many similar mistakes
made in the 19th century, often provoked by pork-barrel decisionmaking
but also simply by duplicating what had already existed or once seemed
to work. For example, many of America's early canals proved to be poor
investments.
Ms. Gloria Jeff, the associate administrator for policy in the
FHWA, pointed out that sometimes we do know what the alternatives would
have been had the government not made the kind of investments it did.
We don't always have to speculate about field-of-dreams exercises that
are fictitious in nature. ``There are living, breathing examples of
alternatives,'' she pointed out. The southeast Michigan area and the
metropolitan Toronto area were almost ``twins'' until after World War
11. But Toronto did not invest in highway infrastructure to the extent
Detroit did. Rather it invested in public transportation. ``We know the
results'', she said.
The participants noted, however, that what might be right for one
environment is not necessarily right for another. Detroit may have
suffered from highway investment, but Seattle has thrived because of
its highway system. What might be right for Phoenix is not necessarily
right for Philadelphia. Solutions must be tailored to the local
conditions that exist.
The World Bank tries to take such local considerations into account
when determining what kind of infrastructure investment to make in
developing countries. Cities in developing countries are growing
rapidly and putting in durable infrastructure capital. But will they
grow like Los Angeles or like Amsterdam? These are difficult issues to
sort out, and only time will tell the results.
The distinction between visionary targeting of ``growing room'' and
wishful ``field-of-dreams'' targeting may be even more difficult to
make in advanced industrial nations. Transportation decisions have
become extraordinarily complex in Western Europe, where roads are now
crowded with trucks. Should these nations encourage short-sea shipping
to reduce this congestion? More than at any other time in history,
participants believed that vision is now required to make the right
investment choices.
Obviously it is not always possible to accurately predict future
conditions, but economists are typically very conservative, one
participant noted. They want to know exactly what is going to happen
Nevertheless decisions must be made in real time, and in a different
framework now than in the past. Therefore some level of uncertainty
must be accepted as policymaking proceeds.
Industry Examples
Private industries must also make projections about where
transportation investments are most needed and most likely to occur. As
a manufacturer of enzymes, Glenencor International must analyze
carefully where to place its distribution centers, for example. As the
company has grown this has increasingly become an international
question. There are four criteria the firm applies when seeking a
location. The first and most pertinent is the quality of the
infrastructure that is already in place in the area. Glenencor situates
distribution centers only in locations with a highly dense
transportation infrastructure. The other criteria are the ability and
availability of the work force, the sophistication of information
systems, and taxes, customs and other trade regulations.
One reason Glenencor placed a distribution center in Rotterdam, for
example, was that it was able to find enough information to give
confidence that the infrastructure was adequate. The company could
judge the density of infrastructure, including the number of seaports
and activity in those seaports, measured for example by the number of
containers that go in and out. Information regarding the freight
tonnage handled by the airport allowed Glenencor to make an ``educated
decision'' rather than merely a guess about the merits of the location.
In sum, Glenencor will only locate where infrastructure is currently
adequate, not where it must await further development.
General Motors spends about $4 billion a year in direct outlays to
transportation companies. GM utilizes about 15,000 vehicles daily, many
of them tractor-trailers, to handle GM products in the 50 states. Speed
of delivery is now the driving force behind many of GM's decisions
because of the emphasis the industry places on inventory control and
the resulting need ``to synchronize transportation with manufacturing
cycles.''
Highway congestion is becoming an ever-bigger problem for GM as a
major shipper. GM is trying to encourage railroads to improve their
efficiencies in order to create competition for motor carriers and also
to relieve congestion on the road. Currently, shipments to GM via rail
average a speed of only about 6 miles per hour on some links. GM would
like to increase that to 25 miles per hour.
On the other hand, GM makes highly efficient use of motor transport
to meet their just-in-time inventory requirements. One truckload of
materials now travels between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit eight to ten
times a day. A truck can make the trip across the Ambassador Bridge and
through Windsor and Detroit in only 40 minutes. This is remarkable
given the density of both Windsor and Detroit. One main reason for the
efficiency are the improvements that have been made to the Ambassador
Bridge. GM is working with the city and state to improve further the
access to the highways that serve the bridge. This will not only
improve speed, but also increase safety by reducing the number of tight
turns.
Another example of how important transportation infrastructure is
to making location decisions for plants in the auto-manufacturing
industry is Toyota's decision to build in Indiana and West Virginia.
These decisions-were probably driven by transportation considerations.
Intermodal transportation promises to be increasingly important for the
auto industry in the future. GM has a joint effort underway with the
three U.S. auto companies to put up a facility that can coordinate rail
and motor vehicles.
GM is not putting more effort into trying to relieve congestion on
the roads because it believes that congestion is inescapable. For
example, some forecasts predict that Dayton, Ohio will be completely
gridlocked by the year 2000 or 2010. The ensuing discussion pointed out
that new railroad lines may still be stuck with local congestion to and
from the railhead.
Some investment firms are working with private companies to build
their own infrastructure. Lehman Brothers has teamed up with Walt
Disney Co. In Florida, for example, to put up infrastructure rather
than the local government. GM has long put in lanes and bought property
around their plants to ease access, although the company has not yet
looked into private investment in order to reduce bottlenecks along the
delivery lines.
The results of some of the research suggest that the use of general
obligation bonds to finance local and regional projects makes sense.
The research implies that there are significant network benefits, as
noted earlier. An entire community benefits from such pooled
investment. However such investments are usually financed through
revenue bonds. These bonds are often backed by toll revenue or other
user fees. But given that they may have broad benefit for the
community, as the new econometric research suggests, other ways to
finance them may be practicable. hew financial tools such as Section
1012 loans and state infrastructure banks can be used. One important
new trend is to get private industry involved, show them how they will
benefit, and encourage them to pool together to make a project.
The Stark County Intermodal Facility in Ohio is an example of such
a public-private partnership. One company in this area threatened to
move out of the community if it couldn't get a $35 million intermodal
service facility built. But this company alone could not provide
sufficient demand to convince the railroads that they should make the
investment A group of companies was ultimately combined to guarantee to
the railroads that demand was sufficient to make a $24 million
investment in the project. The remaining $11 million was borrowed from
the state DOT. Every time a box moves through the intermodal facility,
the state DOT is now paid a dollar.
One concern expressed at the forum was that much of the discussion
focused on the manufacturing industry while the U.S. economy is now
dominated by services industries. Participants noted that service
companies might well assess a location decision differently than a
company such as GM would.
But others indicated that because services industries require large
numbers of workers, or often serve many customers, efficient
transportation could Dick Budge of Apogee Research and Cameron Gordon
of the University be even more important to them than of Southern
California to manufacturers. In fact, many services companies have
benefited from better transportation systems. Walmart, for example, has
become the world's largest retailer in part because of its
transportation logistics. The slow growth in consumer price inflation
in the economy in general may partly be the consequence of improved
logistics at retail outlets.
Indeed, logistics costs as a percentage of GNP have fallen from
17.2 percent in 1980 to 10.4 percent in 1995. This has resulted in a
$68 billion a year savings to the economy. What accounted for this?
Much of it may have been attributable to the deregulation of trucking,
according to one participant. But participants pointed out several
other contributory factors. Logistics costs were driven down by the
building of hundreds of industrial parks across the country with
efficient transportation systems. High interest rates in the 1980's
especially motivated businesses to seek more efficient transportation
in order to keep inventory costs low. There are many other examples of
how industries have changed the way they do business to accommodate
their transportation needs, including new transportation systems, as
well as new technologies involving everything from electronic just-in-
time inventory controls to high-speed coordination between suppliers
and manufacturers.
Nevertheless, different kinds of transportation systems might be
necessary for services industries. The FHWA has recently initiated a
program to improve the estimates of service sector total factor
productivity. This may improve future research in this area.
Implications For Future Policy
While participants agreed that there is more research to be done,
there was widespread agreement that the new research has important
implications for future policy. Does the research change the emphasis
the government should place on its own transportation objectives? How
can the government ensure that the right kinds of infrastructure
investments are being promoted? Finally, how can the importance of
infrastructure investment to the economy as a whole be articulated to a
larger audience, especially as we face the reauthorization of ISTEA?
The new research doesn't only imply that new infrastructure
investment can promote economic growth and productivity. It also
implies that if capital stock in infrastructure falls, productivity
will be reduced. The cost and output elasticities imply that a dollar
less capital stock will reduce output, income and consumption as much
as a dollar of increased investment will raise it.
The FHWA finds that demand is vastly exceeding additions to highway
capacity, even though this capacity is rising by 3 percent a year.
Capacity is also being raised by the addition of HOV lanes and local
projects. Nevertheless, Ms. Maria Jeff of FHWA pointed out that we
don't know what will happen if the Nation doesn't invest more in
capacity but simply concentrates on maintenance and improving
efficiency. Other participants noted that we are not thinking about
requirements in 15 or 20 years, not to mention in just 5 years.
The FHWA has made economic prosperity one of its five main
principles for future transportation policy. These objectives are:
Improving the quality of life
Enhancing the environment
Raising the level of safety
Ensuring national security
Promoting economic prosperity
In determining how to meet the last objective, participants agreed
that it is not necessarily aggregate demand that is most important. The
key question is whether transportation investments are targeted in the
right locations and times in order to achieve the highest returns
within their respective contexts. Another participant urged the
government to keep economic research in ``context, context, context.''
In the current environment, he pointed out, maintenance and managerial
issues are what keep coming up. Rather than more investment, people are
increasingly talking about disinvestment.
Ms. Jeff noted that the FHWA traditionally has taken a ``micro''
view of the impact of infrastructure investment. This has usually
involved a cost-benefit analysis of specific projects and their
immediate effects on localities. In the past, FHWA asked how highway
system users would benefit directly from transportation systems.
Inflow, the agency must take a more macroeconomic point of view. The
agency asks not only how a transportation system can help companies and
workers live better and safer lives, but also how it affects their
economic well-being in general.
How can the advantages for the general economy of infrastructure
investment be better communicated both to lawmakers and the public? One
example of the difficulty is that transportation did not appear as an
issue in the Presidential primaries nor has it appeared in the
Presidential election race, either. One reason is that transportation
issues rarely if ever appear on national polls. This stands in stark
contrast to the interests of local communities, where transportation
issues do often rank high in the polls. New roads, widenings, truck
traffic volumes, congestion and related issues come alive and are
concrete at local levels. Localities often vote to finance such
projects. When they are raised to a national level, however, these
concerns become generalized, abstract, and vague.
This wasn't true historically. In the 1920's, for example, people
knew what they wanted from roads. We had to get America out of the mud.
In the 1950's, America knew it needed highways. Today, with the
Interstate system completed, it is more difficult to explain why
investment in highways makes sense. Safety and congestion are two
issues that carry weight with people in general, but little else does.
On the other hand, some participants said there is a demand for
more information that would demonstrate the impact of infrastructure
investment on economic growth. Frank Francois of AASHTO reported that
his organization believes economic returns should be part of the
argument. He has found that Congressional leaders are beginning to ask
how productivity can be improved by highway investment.
This most recent research, and the work of others, can be used to
fill this gap. In the Nadiri model, social returns for non-local
highway investments averaged well above returns on private capital
investment, as noted. In general, even though returns have fallen over
the past 40 years, they are the equivalent of returns on private
capital.
For all their encouragement, however, participants urged that the
results of the new research should not be overplayed. Credibility is
very important. The results should be neither oversimplified nor
exaggerated.
Conclusions
After several years when research about the effects of
infrastructure investment on U.S. economic growth, productivity, and
rates of return had little credibility, new research has now reinforced
the view that infrastructure investment plays a significant role in the
nation's economic health. The new work by Professor Ishaq Nadiri, in
addition to a wide range of historical and international studies, finds
that social rates of return on infrastructure investment are
significant and positive. They were very high in the 1950's and 1960's,
and comparable to returns on private investments in later decades. The
research concludes that infrastructure investment has helped raise the
nation's productivity and reduce its costs of doing business.
The impacts of transportation vary widely from time to time and
from place to place. Rates of return and cost elasticities that come
from economic analysis represent average relationships that, in fact,
usually vary over time. Most notably, social rates of return have
fallen rapidly during the period under study. These returns also vary
according to place and the economic environment. The first roads in a
region may provide especially strong returns, for example, but
eventually new roads are merely substitutes for older ones as
localities mature. Returns naturally fall. To maximize the positive
economic impacts of transportation investments, we must examine how and
when this effect is likely to occur.
Network benefits are especially hard to measure. The new research
strongly suggests that they exist--that is, that industries benefit
from shared capital investment. But there are dynamic effects that are
difficult to assess. One of the most important of these is that
infrastructure investment, more than most other types of investment,
creates conditions for future growth well into the long run. Idiot only
are these benefits especially hard to estimate: because the total
payoffs for such public investment are rarely immediate, they also do
not receive much attention from the political system. But they are the
key to making successful transportation investments.
In sum, transportation investments have had broad positive impacts
upon the economy in general. Future infrastructure investments can also
produce sizable returns, but only if they are the right investments at
the right time--investments that create growing room; investments
compatible with the institutional context. The fact that policymakers
appear to have selected such investment in the 1950's and 1960's does
not tell us much about what the best opportunities are today. The
challenge facing the Nation now is to determine how to choose the best
infrastructure projects to enhance our growth and productivity.
There are several implications of these results for future
transportation policy. First, the objective of public investment in
infrastructure is not simply to solve a locality's immediate
transportation problem--be it potholes or congestion. Rather, it is to
enhance the general prosperity of a region and the Nation as a whole.
Neglecting public investment in infrastructure can retard economic
growth and diminish the nation's productivity. Second, more analysis
should be undertaken about the specific conditions needed to maximize
the value of investment projects. Third, new means of financing can be
linked to the broader economic payoffs of such investments. Finally,
these conclusions need to be phrased in a credible, specific vision to
guide future transportation policies and investment decisions.
______
APPENDIX A
Highway Capital and Productivity Growth
(By M. Ishaq Nadiri, New York University and NBER Theofanis P.
Mamuneas, University of Cyprus June, 1996)
Recent discussions have emphasized inadequate growth of
infrastructure capital as a cause of the slowdown in productivity at
the aggregate and industry levels. Numerous studies have been
undertaken to clarify the relationship between productivity growth and
public infrastructure capital. These studies can be broadly classified
as those which estimate a neoclassical production function augmented to
include the publicly financed infrastructure capital stock as a factor
of production, and those which utilize the dual approach to production
function analysis by estimating cost or profit functions. The level of
aggregation used in estimating production and cost functions varies
considerably among the different studies. Some studies use highly
aggregate national or international data and others use regional or
state level data. Some studies use cross-section-time series data
covering metropolitan SMSAs, while others employ industry-level data.
Studies often differ in their coverage of industries, geographic
regions, modeling methodology and use of econometric estimation
techniques. Because of such analytical differences and data
limitations, the statistical results reported in the literature
measuring the effects of infrastructure capital on the economy are
often quite diverse and sometimes contradictory. Clearly, no consensus
has yet emerged on the precise causes of the productivity growth
slowdown and the specific contribution of public infrastructure capital
in this process.
To provide a context for this study, a literature review is
included in the following section. The analytical framework used in
this study possesses several advantages over existing models reported
in the literature:
The effect of aggregate demand on the productivity growth of
individual industries is explicitly taken into account. That is,
the effects of changes in aggregate income and population on
industry demand and, consequently, on its productivity growth are
estimated.
Account is taken of the contribution of changes in real
factor prices, including wages and capital rental prices, on
productivity growth;
The direct and indirect effects of an increase in highway
capital on total and industry output and productivity growth are
estimated;
The impact of highway capital, both total stock and the the
subset, on demand for inputs such as demand for employment and
private sector physical capital are estimated.
The industry level estimates are aggregated up to obtain the
determinants of aggregate productivity growth.
A unique feature of this study is its comprehensiveness.\1\ This
study estimates a model which encompasses both demand and supply
factors that may influence industry and total economy productivity
growth and uses data on 35 industries that covers the entire U.S.
economy for the period 1950-1989. The focus of the study is to identify
the contribution of highway capital to productivity growth. Two
measures of highway capital are used: total highway capital including
roads under Federal, state, and local government Jurisdiction; and the
stock of upper level roads excluding local government investments in
roads and streets.\2\ Since the results of our study did not change
much except with respect to the magnitude of some elasticities
whichever of these two measures of highway capital are used, the
discussion here after will focus on total highway capital. The major
changes in the results when non-local highway system (ICILY) capital
stock is used as a measure of highway capital will be noted at the
concluding section.
The relevant policy questions addressed in this research are as
follows:
What is the productivity of highway capital and what is its
overall social rate of return?
Is there any evidence of over- or under-supply of this
capital in the postwar period?
If a shortage of highway capital is evident, can it explain
some of the decline in the aggregate productivity growth? If so, by
how much?
What is the optimal level of highway capital from the
perspective of the private production sector and how does it
compare to its actual level?
What is the effect of highway capital on the private sector
cost of, and demand for, labor, capital, and intermediate inputs?,
and
What are the marginal benefits to the private sector of an
increase in highway capital and how do they differ across
industries?
Literature Review
A brief review of the literature on the contribution of public
infrastructure (highway) capital suggest that:\3\
1. Early estimates based on aggregate production function analyses
are likely to have overstated the magnitude of the effects of public
infrastructure capital on output and productivity growth;
2. Estimates based on state level data indicate a relatively
smaller contribution of infrastructure and that the composition of
infrastructure capital matters; some types of infrastructure may have a
greater effect on productivity than others;
3. There are serious estimation problems in both aggregate national
level time series studies and state and regional level studies that
lead to highly disparate results; and
4. Overall, it seems that the recent studies point to a positive
but lower elasticity of output with respect to public infrastructure
capital of about 0.20 to 0.30 at the national level and possibly a
lower range at the regional level.
Similarly, from the view of cost and profit function studies\4\ the
following statements may be in order:
1. There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that
infrastructure capital contributes significantly to growth in output,
reductions in cost and increases in profitability. The magnitude of
these contributions, however, vary considerably from one study to
another because of differences in econometric methodology and level of
data aggregation.
2. There appears to be a convergence toward a much lower estimate
of the magnitude of the contribution of infrastructure capital to
output and productivity growth than suggested in earlier studies.
Output elasticity estimates of infrastructure capital at the national
level in the range of 0.16 to 0.25 appear to be in order. Estimates
based on state and metropolitan level data suggest elasticities of
approximately 0.06 to 0.20.
3. Most studies indicate an under-investment in public
infrastructure capital, the degree of which varies among different
studies. Most of the cost function studies suggest a substitutional
relationship between private capital and infrastructure capital,
although some studies report a complementary relationship.
4. The available studies are either too aggregate or partial in
their coverage of the economy. Most of these studies, particularly
those at the national level, use real GDP, a value-added measure, as
the dependent variable. However, the appropriate measure for an
analysis of the contribution of infrastructure (highway) capital is
gross output. Gross output includes purchases of intermediate inputs,
along with primary inputs private capital and labor. Because highways
are used to transport intermediate inputs, the relationship between
public capital and intermediate purchases can be taken into account.\5\
5. Studies at the industry level are generally confined to the
manufacturing sector or a specific subset of this sector.
Infrastructure capital, however, may have important effects on other
industries outside the manufacturing sector as well. It is very
important to undertake a comprehensive study that includes all sectors
of an economy in order to study the role and degree of externalities
generated by publicly financed infrastructure capital such as highway
capital.
Most of the studies of both production function or cost function
have been challenged on conceptual and econometric grounds.\6\
Estimation Framework and Descriptive Data
The approach developed in our study explicitly incorporates demand
and supply forces, including the contribution of highway capital, that
may affect industry productivity performance. For each industry, cost
and demand functions are estimated separately and the parameter
estimates of the model used to decompose Total Factor Productivity
(TFP) growth. The critical estimates for decomposition of TFP are the
price and income elasticities of output demand and the degree of scale
and input substitution derived from the cost function. In formulating
industry output demand, changes in quantity demanded in an industry are
related to its own price movement in comparison to the GRIP deflator
and changes in the level of aggregate income and population of the
economy. The estimates show that the price elasticity of output demand
is negative and statistically significant in almost all industries, and
with few exceptions, less than one.
The parameters of the underlying cost function are estimated by
using a system of input-output equations which include a labor to
output equation, a capital to output equation and an intermediate input
to output equation. These input-output ratios functionally depend on
private input prices, level of industry output, industry's capacity
utilization rate, time trend, and level of total highway capital stock.
In order to capture industry specific effects we introduce industry
specific intercept terms and a limited number of slope dummy
variables.\7\ There are of course other more elaborate ways to take
account of inter-industry differences that could be undertaken in
future research.\8\
Previous studies have been criticized on modeling and econometric
estimation issues. This study has responded to these criticisms by
accounting for several estimation problems in the estimation process.
We examine the possibility of spurious correlation by estimating our
model in first difference form. A flexible form for the cost function
is used to allow interaction between highway capital and private sector
output and inputs. No a priori restrictions, such as constant returns
to scale are imposed, on the parameters of the cost function. The issue
of simultaneity is addressed by estimating the model using appropriate
econometric estimation techniques. Extensive hypothesis testing was
also carried out to test the specification of the model and the
stability of its results.
The data used in this study covers the entire U.S. economy for the
period 1947-1989. The industry coverage is derived from a detailed 80
industry classification that Jorgenson, Gollop and Fraumeni carefully
aggregated into 35 larger categories.\9\ Data for the value of gross
output and costs of labor, capital services and intermediate inputs as
well as their price indices for all industries are from Jorgenson,
Gallop and Fraumeni.\10\ Data on capacity utilization rate for the
manufacturing industries for the period 1950-1966 have been obtained
from Klein and Summers (1966) and for the period 1967-1989 from the
WEFA group (1992). Data on real GNP and population, used to estimate
the demand functions, are obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
and the Bureau of the Census, respectively.\11\
Data on net highway capital stock are from Apogee Research, Inc.,
which was constructed using Federal Highway Administration's investment
expenditure data on highways from 1921 to 1990. Total net highway
capital and non-local net highway capital (ICILY) are constructed using
the perpetual inventory method with an assumed economic rate of
depreciation of 0.9. Capital expenditures are distributed in the
following way; 52 percent to paving, 26.5 percent to grading, and 21.5
percent to structures. The average lives of paving, grading, and
structures are assumed to be 14, 80, and 50 years, respectively.
An examination of the data indicate substantial diversity among the
35 industries examined in the study. The size of the industries,
measured by total cost, vary considerably among industries. Factor cost
shares also vary considerably across industry sectors. For example,
labor's share ranges from a low of about 0.06 in petroleum refining to
a high of 0.51 in trade. Capital's share of total cost ranges from 0.04
in apparel and other textile products to 0.38 in crude petroleum and
natural gas. Generally, capital's share in total cost, with few
exceptions, is less than labor's share. Material inputs, on the other
hand, have the largest share in total cost in almost all sectors or
industries, ranging from 0.86 in petroleum refining to 0.25 it other
transportation equipment.
The growth rate of total highway capital is shown in Figure 1.
After an initial decline between 1950 and 1951, the growth rate of
highway capital surged growing at the average rate of 6.2 per cent
during 1952-1959. From 1960 onward, the growth rate declined
continuously until 1979. It grew very little during 1979-1981. Since
1982 the high way capital stock has been growing at an average rate of
1.2 percent per annum.
Results at the Industry Level
The model used in this study built up from industry-level estimates
to obtain appropriate results for the economy as a whole. Therefore,
the careful estimation of the structure and propertied of the
disaggregated industries plays a critical role in the design of this
research The following sections present some of the basic industry-
level results before describing the contribution of highway capital to
the aggregate economy. Them results include the impact of highway
investments on industry cost reductions and economies of scale; effects
upon labor, capital and material inputs; the marginal benefits of
highway capital to industries; and the analysis of growth if total
factor productivity (TFP).
Cost Reduction and Degree of Scale--The first column in Table 1
shows the elasticity of cost with respect to highway capital (hcs).
magnitudes of the cost elasticities vary among the industries. The cost
elasticities in manufacturing industries range from -0.146 to 0.220
while in the non-manufacturing industries they range from +0.02 to
+0.06. Positive cost elasticities imply that the demand for highway
capital services in these industries is less than the available supply
at the price the industries are willing to pay. This does not mean that
these industries do not demand highway capital services. What is
implied is that these industries face ``excess capacity'' in highway
capital, a situation similar to the notion of excess capacity in
private capital stock in a private firm. If the firm cannot freely
dispose of this capacity and is instead required to keep its capital
stock fully utilized, regardless of changes in demand for its product,
the cost to the firm will rise. In the case of highway capital, the
entire capital stock enters the cost function of each industry. The
optimal level of these services can be estimated from the model which
is the level at which the marginal benefit of highway capital is equal
to an industry's marginal cost or willingness to pay. As noted later,
these estimates imply a set of national subsidies and taxes that would
allow industries to use the optimum amount of highway capital services.
The cost elasticities h and h* shown in column 2 and 3 of table 1
have a returns to scale interpretation. The inverse of h represents
internal returns to scale, or the effect on output of an equal
proportional increase in all inputs except highway capital. Similarly,
the inverse of h* represents total returns to scale, meaning that an
equal proportional increase in all inputs, including highway capital,
yields a 1/h-proportional increase in output. The results show that
both 1/h and 1/h* are greater than one for all industries except
agriculture, indicating increasing internal and total returns to scale.
The degree of internal returns to scale in each industry is smaller, as
expected, compared with the degree of total returns to scale which
accounts for the contribution of highway capital.
Effects on Labor, Capital and Materials--Highway capital has both
direct and indirect effects on the productivity of the private sector.
The direct effect of infrastructure capital is measured by the
magnitude of the cost reduction due to an increase in highway capital.
The indirect effect is given by the magnitude of its effect on the
demand for private sector factors of production.
Conditional input demands refer to the demand for labor, capital,
and intermediate inputs holding output constant. Elasticities of
employment, private capital and intermediate inputs with respect to
highway capital vary considerably across industries.', The general
conclusion that arises from the empirical results is that changes in
total highway capital have significant effects on the demand for
private sector inputs in all industries. The conditional demand for
labor, private capital and material inputs in the manufacturing
industries will decline when investment in highway capital is
increased. In the non-manufacturing industries, however, demand for
labor and material is increased while demand for private capital is
decreased in response to an increase in highway capital. However, if
the level of output is free to change, the demand for employment,
capital and materials inputs in each industry will increase as a
consequence of an increase in highway capital. This arises because the
direct cost reduction effect of highway capital will in turn lead to
the expansion of output. This expansion in output will require more
inputs which will likely offset the substitutional effects at a given
level of output.\13\
Marginal Benefits--Table 2 reports the average marginal benefit
(MB) of highway capital in current dollars for each industry over the
sample period. The marginal benefits indicate how much each industry is
willing to pay for an additional unit of highway capital services. The
magnitudes of the marginal benefits yam, considerably across industries
and over time. After taking into account price changes, however, the
marginal benefits in real terms appear to increase from 1950 to 1969
but decrease from 1970 to 1989 in each industry. Another interesting
feature is that all manufacturing industries have positive marginal
benefits, i.e., they would be willing to pay a positive amount for
additional highway capital services, the amounts ranging from 0.02 in
the leather and leather products industry to 0.029 in primary metals.
Nonmanufacturing industries, on the other hand, are willing to pay
negative amounts, i.e., require a subsidy, to use the entire stock of
highway capital. That is, the estimated demand for highway capital
services in these industries at a price they are willing to pay, falls
short of the available supply.
The implied taxes and subsidies for various industries are shown in
Table 2. These refer to the differences between the amount an industry
is willing to pay for highway capital services and the actual price
required to use the entire amount of available capital. These estimates
are calculated at the optimal level of highway capital services
demanded for both manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries. The
magnitudes of taxes and subsidies vary considerably. The largest taxes
in manufacturing are in food and kindred products, chemicals and
chemical products, primary metals, machinery (except electrical), and
motor vehicles. Construction, trade, finance, insurance, real estate,
and other services require relatively large subsidies to encourage them
to use the entire highway capital. Those that would ``pay'' the lowest
taxes are tobacco manufacturing and leather and leather products. The
lowest subsidies are in three industries: metal mining, coal mining and
nonmetallic mineral mining.
More careful analysis is required to examine further the size and
pattern of these implied taxes and subsidies. It is important to note
that the benefits of highway capital vary across industries. Demand for
highway services are likely to diverge over time and the degree of
benefits of any new highway capital expansion may differ considerably
among industries. That is, there is an important distributional effect
of the public highway capital across industries
Industry TFP Growth Decomposition--The decomposition of TFP growth
estimates at the industry level are provided in Table 3. These
estimates reflect the effects of:
Exogenous Demand: This refers to increased demand due to growth of
real national income, aggregate population and changes in the
utilization rate.
Relative Input Price: This factor captures the growth of input
prices.
Highway Capital: This factor captures the combined direct and
indirect effects of the growth of highway capital.
In general, changes in exogenous demand contribute over half of TFP
growth, mainly in the manufacturing industries. Its contribution in
agriculture, extractive and mining industries and government
enterprises are rather small. In construction, instruments,
transportation equipment and trade and finance, the contribution of an
increase in demand is relatively large. The contribution of relative
input prices could be positive or negative depending on whether
industry factor price changes exceed those of the general economy. When
an industry's rate of input price inflation exceeds the national
inflation rate, productivity growth is hampered. Generally, growth in
relative input prices contributes negatively to TFP, and the magnitude
of its effect varies across industries. Compared to the contribution of
exogenous demand, the effects of relative input prices on TFP growth
are small.
The contribution of highway capital to TFP growth is positive in
all the manufacturing industries. In some of these industries its
contribution is relatively large, accounting for almost one-third of
TFP growth. In non-manufacturing sectors, growth in highway capital
contributes negatively to productivity growth. As explained earlier,
this indicates that the supply of highway capital exceeds the demand at
the prices these industries are willing to pay. When the effects of
exogenous demand, relative input price changes, and highway capital are
accounted for, the rate of technological change is much smaller than
conventionally calculated. In general, the main causes of TFP growth in
the manufacturing industries are exogenous shifts in demand, relative
price changes, and highway capital, while in the non-manufacturing
industries the dominant factor is the scale effect, or exogenous
technological change. Highway capital plays only a minor role in the
acceleration or deceleration of TFP growth at the industry level.\14\
The evidence supports the notion that total highway capital contributes
at varying degrees to the long term growth of TFP in different
industries, and its contribution to the short run acceleration or
deceleration of industry TFP growth over the sub-periods is negligible.
Contribution of Highway Capital at the Total Economy Level
To calculate the contribution of highway capital stock to the total
productivity of the aggregate economy, we explored two different
approaches: (1) the individual industry elasticity estimates were
averaged (using industry input and output shares as weights) to obtain
the ``aggregated' estimates; (2) the industry level data were summed to
the national level and the model was re-estimated with the aggregate
data to obtain the ``aggregate'' estimates for the cost and demand
equations. The results were quite similar. In what follows we present
the results based on the ``aggregated'' estimates.
Aggregate Output and Cost Elasticities--Table 4 presents the effect
of the total highway capital stock, respectively, on aggregate private
sector cost and aggregate input demand functions. The ``aggregated''
cost elasticity is about -.044, which is considerably smaller than
estimates from previous studies. The elasticity of labor with respect
to highway capital is negative, which suggests that any increase in
highway capital is labor-saving at the aggregate economy level when the
level of output is held constant. The elasticity of private capital
with respect to total highway capital is also negative and slightly
higher than that of labor. The elasticity of intermediate inputs with
respect to total highway capital is negative and very small. Cost
elasticities (h and h*) suggest increasing returns to scale and the sum
of marginal benefits (SMB), shown in last column is approximately 0.18.
The output elasticities of inputs, the utilization rate, and the rate
of technical change at the aggregate economy level show that the output
elasticity of material inputs is large (around 0.60 to 0.70), followed
by that of labor (approximately 0.40 to 0.45), and private capital
(approximately 0.20). The rate of autonomous technical change is
comparatively small (about 0.001). The output elasticity of highway
capital is also relatively small compared to materials, labor, and
private capital, averaging 0.051 for the period as a whole.
Compared to the results reported in the literature, this estimate
of output elasticity of highway capital is very small. In fact, the
elasticity estimates originally reported in Aschauer (1989), Holtz-
Eakin (1991) and Bunnell (1990) are about eight times as large as our
estimates for the national economy. Our estimates are more comparable
to output elasticities of public capital reported in Duffy Deno and
Eberts (1989) and Eberts (1986) for the highly disaggregate level of
the Metropolitan Area. In particular, the output elasticity of private
sector capital is clearly larger than the output elasticity of highway
capital. The results indicate that a 1-percent change in private
capital stock contributes almost four times as much to economic output
as a 1-percent change in highway capital stock to growth of output of
the economy.
Net Social Rates of Return--Past literature has questioned whether
public capital is over- or under-supplied. One way to determine whether
public capital is provided optimally is to compute the rate of return
to highway capital and compare it with the rate of return to private
capital for the whole economy. The optimal provision of public capital
requires that the rates of publicly provided and private capital be
equalized. Thus, if the rate of return of highway capital is higher
than that of private capital, highway capital is under-supplied and an
increase of public investment is necessary. The net social rate of
return of highway capital can be derived as the ratio of the sum of
industry marginal benefits to cost minus the depreciation rate of
highway capital. This calculation assumes that the user cost of highway
capital includes the acquisition price, the relative discount rate, the
depreciation rate of highway capital, and the price distortion effect
of taxes levied to finance highway capital.\15\
Table 5 presents the net social rate of return to total highway
capital, the net rate of return to private capital stock and interest
rates for four different sub-periods. The social rate of return on
total highway capital was very high during the 1950's and 1960's,
reflecting the shortage of highway capital stock during the 1950's when
the Interstate Highway System was under construction. This rate has
declined continuously since the late 1960's and in 1989 it is barely
above the level of the long term interest rate. The time profile of the
net social rate of return for total highway capital is presented in
Figure 2. The rate begins at a relatively high level, rises to its
maximum level in 1955, and fluctuates around 37 percent until 1968.
Thereafter, the rate starts to decline and falls from 10 percent in
1985 to about 5 percent in 1989. When the net rate of return is
compared to the long-term interest rate on government securities from
1950 to 1989, the gap between the two is very large until the 1970's.
The gap narrows considerably and almost disappears in the 1980's. The
net rate of return on private capital averaged approximately 14 percent
from 1950 to 1969, and then declined in the 1970's and 1980's. However,
it exceeded the interest rate over most of period, as shown in Figure
2.