Download - Potholes and Politics

7/31/2019 Potholes and Politics

1/36

SURFACETRANSPORTATIONPOLICYPROJECT

W O R K I N G G R O U PT M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Potholes

and

Politics

SURFACETRANSPORTATIONPOLICYPROJECT



How Congress

Can Fix

Your Roads


2/36

AcknowledgmentsPrincipal authors ofPotholes and Politicswere Brian A. Cohen, Richard Wiles, and Marshall Hendricks of Environ-mental Working Group, and Hank Dittmar and James Corless of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP).Molly Evans designed and produced the report. Allison Daly, Laura Olsen, and Bianca DeLille coordinated therelease ofPotholes and Politics.

We wish to thank Roy Kienitz, Laura Olsen, Don Chen, Amanda Kreiss, Ken Cook, and Mark B. Childress for their

reviews and assistance in the writing ofPotholes and Politics

, and their assistance in improving the final version.

Potholes and Politicswas made possible by grants to Environmental Working Group from the Surdna Foundation,the Energy Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation; and grants to STPP from the SurdnaFoundation, the Energy Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, the Joyce Foundation; the Nathan Cummings Founda-tion and the Turner Foundation. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not neces-sarily reflect the views of the supporters listed above. Needless to say, any errors of fact or interpretation are theresponsibility of the authors.

Potholes and PoliticsCopyright September 1997 by the Environmental Working Group/The Tides Center.All rights reserved.Manufactured in the United States of America.

Environmental Working GroupThe Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.EWG is a project of the Tides Center, a California Public Benefit Corporation based in San Francisco that providesadministrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and projects. This and other reports are avail-able on the World Wide Web at .

Kenneth A. Cook, President Environmental Working GroupMark B. Childress, Vice President for Policy 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research Washington, DC 20009

202-667-6982 (phone) [email protected] (e-mail)

Surface Transportation Policy ProjectSTPP (www.transact.org) is a nonprofit coalition of roughly 175 groups devoted to ensuring that transportationpolicy and investments help conserve energy, protect environmental and aesthetic quality, strengthen theeconomy, promote social equity, and make communities more livable.

Hank Dittmar, Executive Director STPP1100 17th Street, N.W. 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20036202-466-2636 (phone) [email protected] (e-mail)

To order a copy

Copies of this report are available at a cost of $20.00, plus $3.00 shipping and handling and 6% sales tax for salesin the District of Columbia. Please send check or money order to:

Environmental Working Group1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600

Washington, DC 20009202-667-6982 (phone) [email protected] (e-mail)

World Wide WebThis and other EWG publications are available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org


3/36

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1. THE DIVERSIONOF ROAD REPAIR FUNDS ................................. 9

CHAPTER 2. ROADSARE CRUMBLING BECAUSE STATES

ARE MISSPENDING FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS......................... 13

CHAPTER 3. FIXIT FIRST ..................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGYAND DATA SOURCES ................................... 27

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 43

Contents

Potholes and Politics


4/36

1EN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P/SU R FA C E TR A N S P OR TA T I ON POL I C Y PRO JECT

Executive Sum m ary


Urban and suburban h igh-ways account for less than threepe rcent of road miles in me tro-po litan are as, yet the y carrymo re than o ne third of all ve-hicle m iles traveled in o ur

na tion s cities an d sub urb s. AsCongress tackles reau thorizationof the nations transp ortationlaw, the 1991 Interm od al SurfaceTransportation and Efficiency Act(ISTEA), the se interstates, free -ways, and exp resswa ys thevital core of the countrys roadnetwo rk are crum bling. Themain reason is that each yearstate Departments of Transporta-

tion (DO Ts) divert billion s o fdo llars available for road rep airto the con struction of new high-ways, typically on the suburbanfringe.

Since the en actmen t of ISTEAin 1991, mo ne y available forhighway repair that was insteadspent on new highway construc-tion in major metro areas alone

could have resurfaced almo st5,000 miles of existing urbanhighway repairing every mileof urban highway currently inpo or or me diocre cond ition. Be-cause fixing a highway in p oorcondition can cost ten timesmore than routine maintenanceof roads in fair or better condi-

tion, diverting repair money tonew construction further in-creases long-term road repaircosts. It also increa ses mainte-nance costs to the tune of bil-lions of dollars each year for

drivers wh ose cars are batteredby failing roads.

Findings

Our analysis of federal Depart-ment of Transportation (U.S.DOT) records on spending androad conditions reveals that:

W el l over ha lf (58 percent )

of the nations urban high-w ays are in fair to poorcondi tion. M ore than onequarter (26 percent) are inpoor or m ediocre condi -t ion, and by d ef init ion, arein need of repair im medi -ately, or in the n ear future(Table 1) . On e ou t of every15 miles traveled each yearby the average American

driver are on u rban h igh-ways in poor or mediocrecon dition. This is theeq uivalen t of a trip fromNew York City to St. Louis,Missouri, (about 950 miles)on pothole-plagued high-ways in urgen t need of re-pair. (Road s in po or or me-

Each year stateD epartments ofTransporta t ion (D O Ts)divert bil l ions ofdollar s available forroad repair to the

construct ion of newhighways, typically onthe suburban fringe.

Since the enactm ent

of ISTEA in 1 99 1 ,m oney avai lable forhighway repair thatw as instead spent onnew h ighw ayconstruct ion in m ajorm etro areas alonecould have resurfacedalmo st 5,00 0 m iles ofexisting ur banhighway.


5/36

2 PO T H O L E SA N D PO L IT I C S: H O W C ON GR E S S C A N FIX YO U R RO A D S

Percent of Total Percent

U rban H ighw ays Percent of of H ighw aysI n Poor or U rban H ighw ays N ot in

State M ediocre C ondition I n Fair C ondition G ood C ondition

Io w a 5 6 % 2 9 % 8 5 %

Il l i n o i s 4 7 % 3 4 % 8 1 %

Flo ri d a 4 7 % 2 1 % 6 8 %O k l ah o m a 4 5 % 4 0 % 8 5 %

A rk an sas 4 4 % 2 9 % 7 3 %N ew M ex i co 4 2 % 2 7 % 6 9 %

N o rth Caro l i n a 4 2 % 3 1 % 7 4 %

Ken tu c ky 4 2 % 3 2 % 7 4 %Co lo rad o 3 9 % 4 1 % 8 0 %

M issi ssip p i 3 8 % 3 8 % 7 6 %

O rego n 3 7 % 4 9 % 8 6 %N ew Yo rk 3 7 % 3 6 % 7 2 %

N ew Jersey 3 6 % 3 8 % 7 4 %Pen n sy l van ia 3 4 % 4 5 % 8 0 %

W est V i rgin i a 3 4 % 2 8 % 6 2 %

W ash in gto n 3 2 % 5 7 % 8 9 %V i rgin ia 3 1 % 4 9 % 8 0 %

Cal i fo rn ia 2 9 % 4 4 % 7 4 %

In d i an a 2 9 % 3 5 % 6 3 %Ten n essee 2 8 % 3 2 % 6 1 %

M ich igan 2 6 % 3 4 % 6 1 %M isso u ri 2 4 % 5 6 % 8 1 %

W i sc o n sin 2 3 % 5 3 % 7 7 %

Rh o d e Isl an d 2 1 % 5 0 % 7 1 %M assac h u setts 1 6 % 4 1 % 5 7 %

M ary lan d 1 6 % 3 5 % 5 1 %

M in n eso ta 1 5 % 3 3 % 4 8 %So u th Caro l i n a 1 3 % 2 2 % 3 5 %

Kan sas 1 2 % 5 0 % 6 3 %U tah 1 2 % 2 5 % 3 7 %

N evad a 1 0 % 3 3 % 4 4 %

Tex as 1 0 % 8 % 1 7 %O h io 9 % 3 1 % 4 0 %

Co n n ec ti cu t 8 % 4 % 1 2 %

Lo u isian a 6 % 1 2 % 1 8 %A ri zo n a 5 % 2 9 % 3 4 %

A lab am a 1 % 5 % 5 %G eo rgi a 0 % 9 % 9 %

U nited States 2 6 % 3 2 % 5 8 %

Table 1. M ore than one fourth of the nat ions urban highw ays are in poor or mediocrecondit ion.

Sourc e : EW G , 1997 . R oad c ond i t i on da ta c om p i led f r om D O T H PM S da tabase (199 5) , spend ing da ta i s f o r FY 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 6 , c o m p i l e d f ro m D O T FM I S d a t ab a se .


6/36


Annual Cost to D rivers

D ue to U rban Annual Spending

H ighw ays I n Poor or By State D O Ts on

State M ediocre Condition U rban H ighw ay Repair

A l ab am a $ 2 ,9 2 8 ,5 8 2 $ 1 0 ,6 1 8 ,7 8 4

A r i z o n a $ 2 0 ,5 3 6 ,0 6 2 $ 2 0 ,9 5 7 ,5 6 9

A rk an sas $ 4 4 ,7 5 5 ,9 9 7 $ 1 ,6 4 9 ,1 7 8

C al i fo rn i a $ 1 ,1 9 5 ,9 2 1 ,3 6 1 $ 1 8 6 ,2 1 8 ,5 8 0

C o l o rad o $ 1 0 5 ,8 5 6 ,3 7 7 $ 1 7 ,5 8 5 ,3 3 5

C o n n ec ti cu t $ 2 9 ,1 1 0 ,7 2 9 $ 3 9 ,5 3 4 ,8 9 5

Fl o r i d a $ 2 1 2 ,1 7 3 ,5 2 0 $ 2 2 ,7 9 5 ,6 9 5

G eo rgia $ 9 ,4 8 1 ,4 6 9 $ 3 2 ,3 4 8 ,2 8 6

Il l i n o i s $ 2 4 4 ,9 6 2 ,3 5 8 $ 5 9 ,0 8 1 ,4 0 9

In d i an a $ 8 2 ,5 0 9 ,6 8 7 $ 3 3 ,3 5 1 ,6 9 8

Io w a $ 2 2 ,6 6 0 ,5 8 3 $ 1 3 ,5 4 6 ,4 6 5K an sas $ 2 4 ,1 9 4 ,3 4 0 $ 1 0 ,8 3 0 ,1 3 7

K en tu c k y $ 7 6 ,2 9 2 ,8 7 4 $ 2 2 ,6 3 5 ,6 2 3

Lo u i si an a $ 1 2 ,2 5 4 ,2 7 3 $ 8 ,5 7 7 ,5 0 6

M ary lan d $ 1 0 0 ,2 2 3 ,4 5 2 $ 2 6 ,7 8 5 ,4 2 5

M assac h u setts $ 9 9 ,6 1 8 ,9 1 6 $ 4 2 ,3 9 6 ,9 3 6

M i c h igan $ 1 4 5 ,1 5 7 ,0 9 1 $ 2 9 ,5 0 2 ,7 8 2

M i n n eso ta $ 5 2 ,4 7 9 ,3 4 1 $ 1 9 ,9 8 7 ,4 4 4

M i ssi ssi p p i $ 2 1 ,1 5 1 ,0 2 4 $ 1 ,7 1 7 ,2 2 0

M i sso u r i $ 1 2 8 ,7 8 2 ,2 0 0 $3 7 ,6 2 1 ,6 6 8

N ev ad a $ 9 ,9 0 0 ,5 2 3 $ 1 0 ,3 0 5 ,2 4 1

N ew Jersey $ 2 0 7 ,2 8 1 ,5 0 9 $ 3 3 ,0 1 1 ,7 1 9

N ew M ex i c o $ 1 7 ,6 5 8 ,7 5 9 $ 4 ,6 1 2 ,5 3 4

N ew Yo rk $ 4 8 4 ,1 5 4 ,6 9 9 $ 6 0 ,3 8 4 ,9 4 3N orth C aro l i n a $ 1 4 1 ,9 7 3 ,0 5 7 $ 1 4 ,0 1 6 ,6 3 8

O h i o $ 9 7 ,1 1 7 ,2 2 4 $1 0 7 ,2 2 2 ,3 3 0

O k l ah o m a $ 9 3 ,5 5 2 ,6 9 2 $9 ,3 6 0 ,8 5 2

O rego n $ 5 1 ,1 5 5 ,7 5 8 $ 7 ,0 2 7 ,8 8 6

Pen n sy l v an i a $ 2 0 6 ,6 7 5 ,3 3 4 $ 7 5 ,4 3 2 ,5 8 0

Rh o d e Isl an d $ 2 1 ,5 6 2 ,1 5 3 $ 1 0 ,2 2 4 ,7 5 6

So u th C aro l in a $ 1 4 ,3 4 5 ,2 0 2 $ 1 ,3 1 8 ,4 0 7

Ten n essee $ 8 0 ,4 5 7 ,1 3 5 $ 1 0 ,0 4 4 ,0 6 9

Texas $ 1 7 9 ,6 7 4 ,7 9 6 $ 9 0 ,7 1 8 ,7 0 1

U tah $ 1 4 ,5 8 0 ,1 9 0 $ 1 1 ,6 7 2 ,7 2 6

V i rgin i a $ 1 6 4 ,9 7 8 ,7 8 0 $ 9 ,7 2 6 ,5 8 0

W ash in gto n $ 1 8 4 ,3 7 4 ,6 1 3 $ 1 6 ,1 5 6 ,3 3 6

W est V i rgi n i a $ 1 3 ,3 8 3 ,3 8 4 $ 8 ,6 3 1 ,0 7 0W i sc o n si n $ 6 0 ,1 1 9 ,1 0 0 $ 1 1 ,7 3 5 ,1 8 6

U n i ted States $ 4 ,7 6 7 ,3 7 3 ,8 8 8 $ 1 ,1 2 9 ,3 4 5 ,1 8 8

diocre condition are inneed of repair immedi-ately, or in the near future.But even roads currentlyrated in fair condition will

need repair in the nearfuture according to thedefinitions used by theFederal Highway Adminis-tration.)

D rivers spend four t imesmo re ($4 .8 bi l l ion peryear) repairing the dam ageto th eir cars caused bycrumbl ing urban highways

than state highw ay depart-m ents spend each year($1 .2 bi l l ion per year) f ix-ing these same roads. Infourteen states, auto dam -age from decaying urbanhighways costs driversmore than $100 million peryear in rep air costs. In 31of 38 states (tho se w ithsignificant urban highway

mileage), drivers spendmo re each year repairingauto dam age (shocks, sus-pension, tires and fuel)from poorly maintainedurban highways than statetranspo rtation dep artme ntsspent fixing these sameroads (Table 2).

Since the passage of ISTEA

in 199 1, m ore than hal f ofthe highw ay mon ey avail -able for r epairs, and spentin m etropol i tan areas, hasbeen diverted by stateD O Ts to pay for the con-struct ion of new highw ays($6 .1 bi l lion out of $11 .9bill ion from Fiscal Years

Table 2. Cru m bling urban highways cost Am erican driversover $4 .8 bi l l ion per year .

So u r c e : EW G , 1 9 9 7 . Ro a d c o n d i t i o n d a ta c o m p i l e d fr o m D O T H P M S da tabase (199 5) , spend ing da ta i s f o r FY 1992 -199 6 , c om p i led f r om D O TFM IS datab ase.

* In o rde r t o ensure adequ a te sam p le s i z es, sta tes w i t h l es s t han 1 00 m i les o f u rban h igh w ay w ere ex c luded f r om th i s ana ly s i s.


7/36


1 9 9 2 - 9 6 ) . ISTEA can becredited for dedicating somefund s to road a nd b ridge re-pair, and em ph asizing m ain-tenance of the existing sys-

tem as a matter of nationalp olicy. But the 1991 law alsoallow ed state DO Ts to spe ndfederal fund s available forroad repairs on otherp rojects. Using the discretionallowed in ISTEA, state DOTshave diverted billion s of do l-lars away from the urban andsuburban highway repair to-wards co nstruction of new

highw ays, typically on the farflung edges of existing met-ropolitan areas.

In 15 states, m ore than on ethird of al l urban highw aym iles are in poor to m edio-cre condit ion and thereforein need of repair im m edi -ately, or in the near future(Table 1) . States with the

highest percentage of urbanhighway miles in po or orme diocre condition areIowa, Illinois, Florida, Okla-hom a, and Arkansas. (Toensure that a significant num-ber of highw ays weresampled at the state level,this analysis was limited tostates with more than 100miles of urban highways.)

Som e states are sp end ing asignificant pe rcentage of thehighway funds available forrepair on maintenanceprojects. Others have a hugedisparity between the needto repair urban h ighw ays andspen ding to add ress thisneed .

The states with the highestPothole In dex, thosespend ing the least on ur-ban highway repair perm i le of urban highway in

poor or m ediocre condi -t ion, w ere Ar kansas, M is-sissippi, V irginia, N orthCarol ina and South Car o-l ina (Table 3) . Thesestates have a significantnum ber of urban h ighwaymiles in poo r or med iocrecondition, yet DOTs arenot d evoting the nece ssaryresources to fix the prob-

lem.

In 2 7 large m etropol itanareas, m ore than on e thirdof al l highways are in poo rto mediocre condit ion andin imm ediate need of re-pair. The large metropoli-tan areas w ith the h ighestpe rcentage of highw ays inthe w orst condition are

Tamp a-St. Petersburg,Florida, Louisville, Ken-tuck y, Chicago, Illino is,Ok lahom a City, Oklahom a,San Diego, California andGreensboro-Winston Sa-lem-High Po int, NorthCarolina.

The metropol i tan areasrankin g highest on th e

pothole index, w herestates are spending theleast per m ile of urbanhighw ay in poor or medio-cre condi tion are N orfolk,V irginia; Charlotte-G astonia, N orth C arol ina;O rlando, Florida; andRichmond, Virginia (Table

ISTEA does not requirethat existing highwaysbe m aintained in goodcondit ion beforerepair funds can be

diverted to newconstruction.


8/36


Annual U rban Repair

U rban H ighw ay Total U rban Repair Spending Per H ighw ay Rank on

M ileage I n Poor Spending M ile I n Poor or Pothole

State O r M ediocre C ond. (1 9 9 2 -1 9 9 6 ) M ediocre C ondit ion I ndex

A rk an sas 1 0 8 $ 8 ,2 4 5 ,8 9 2 $ 1 5 ,2 7 5 1

M i ssi ssi p p i 6 4 $ 8 ,5 8 6 ,0 9 8 $ 2 6 ,8 8 3 2

V i rgi n i a 1 9 6 $ 4 8 ,6 3 2 ,9 0 1 $ 4 9 ,6 2 5 3

So u th Caro l i n a 2 6 $ 6 ,5 9 2 ,0 3 3 $ 5 0 ,2 4 8 4

N o rth Caro l i n a 2 5 6 $7 0 ,0 8 3 ,1 9 0 $ 5 4 ,7 4 7 5

O k l ah o m a 1 5 4 $ 4 6 ,8 0 4 ,2 6 2 $ 6 0 ,9 8 3 6

Ten n essee 1 2 4 $ 5 0 ,2 2 0 ,3 4 5 $ 8 0 ,7 1 4 7

Fl o r i d a 2 8 1 $ 1 1 3 ,9 7 8 ,4 7 3 $ 8 1 ,1 9 9 8

W ash i n gto n 1 8 5 $ 8 0 ,7 8 1 ,6 8 1 $ 8 7 ,4 7 1 9

O rego n 7 4 $ 3 5 ,1 3 9 ,4 2 9 $ 9 5 ,4 2 9 1 0

Table 3 . Ar kansas, M ississippi, and V irginia rank highest on the poth ole index.

4 ). In these metropolitanareas, state DOTs are notspending the resourcesnecessary to repair crum -bling u rban infrastructure.

Co ngress Is Rewr iting The

N ations Transportat ion Law

The passage of ISTEA in1991 was a watershed in trans-portation policy in the UnitedStates. ISTEA ha s he lpe d sus-tain a slow but steady improve-men t in the cond ition of thenations urban highways. How -ever, ou r findings indicate thatroad m aintenan ce is a continu-

ing, expe nsive prob lem , andthat ISTEA must be strength-ened to prevent state DOTsfrom diverting precious roadrepair dollars to n ew highwayconstruction.

Altho ugh ISTEA em ph asizesthe maintenance of roads and

bridges as an imp ortant nationalneed, it does not actually requirestate DOTs to spend an adequateamoun t of mon ey on road repair .Minimum spen ding requireme ntsfor repairs exist, but beyond thisminimu m level decisions abou t

which projects to fund are left upto the states. Nor do es ISTEArequire that existing highways bemaintained in go od cond itionbefore repair fund s can be di-verted to new construction.Since 1991, state DOTs have di-verted billions of dollars of tax-payer funds available for high-way repair to new road construc-tion p rojects. This costs drivers

billions per year in auto mainte-nance e xpenses and increasesfuture road repair costs by asmu ch as tenfold.

New road construction oftengets priority over maintenanceprojects, because of ribbon-cut-ting p ressure from p oliticians and

So u r c e : EW G , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a ta c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T H P M S d a ta b a se (1 9 9 5 ), sp e n d i n g d a t a i s f o r FY 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 6 , c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T FM I S d a t ab a se .

* In o rde r t o ens ure adequa te sam p le si z es, sta tes w i t h l es s t han 10 0 m i les o f u rban h igh w ay w ere ex c luded f rom th is analys is .


9/36

6 POTHOLESAND POLITICS: HOW CONGRESS CAN FIX YOUR ROADS

increased profits for highwaycontractors. As North CarolinaSenator Lauch Faircloth, formerdirector for the North CarolinaDOT, explained at a Congres-sional hearing in 1995: the totalpressure is on new roads...andnew highway-building, not onthe maintenance of the systemthat we have.

Recommendations

Instead of weakening ISTEA,Congress should strengthen it.To ensure that the nations high-ways are properly maintainedand that state DOTs do not in-crease future road and automo-bile repair costs by divertinghighway maintenance money to

new construction projects, anamended ISTEA should:

Require states to certifythat they have adequatefunds available to maintaina new road or highwayover its useful life beforeallowing federal highway

Table 4. The Norfolk, Charlotte, and Orlando metro areas rank highest on the pothole index.

funds to be spent on itsconstruction. The FederalTransit Act requires agen-cies proposing new transitprojects to show the finan-cial capacity to maintainnew facilities over the lifeof the projects, and tocommit to funding futuremaintenance needs. There

is currently no similar re-quirement for new high-ways built with federalmoney, and it shows.

Require states to certifythat at least 90% of exist-ing urban and suburbanhighways are in good con-dition before allowing newconstruction. Drivers con-

sistently indicate that theirtop priority is improvingthe condition of existingroads. A reauthorizedISTEA must first ensurethat states are adequatelymaintaining the roads thatare currently in use.

Source: EWG, 1997. Road condition data compiled from DOT HPMS database (1995), spending data is for FY 1992-1996,compiled from DOT FMIS database.

ISTEA must bestrengthened toprevent state DOTsfrom divertingprecious road repairdollars to newhighway construction.

Total State DOT Average Annual

Spending on Urban Repair Spending PerUrban Highway Highway Repair Mile of Urban Highway

Mileage In Poor Or in Metro Area In Poor or Rank onMetropolitan Area Mediocre Condition (1992-1996) Mediocre Condition Pothole Index

Norfolk--Virginia Beach--Newport News, VA 81 $0 No Repair Spending 1

Charlotte--Gastonia--Rock Hill, NC--SC 34 $410,293 $2,399 2

Orlando, FL 26 $911,555 $6,889 3

Richmond--Petersburg, VA 66 $6,844,507 $20,875 4

Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood--Pompano Beach, FL 10 $1,159,042 $22,128 5

Memphis, TN--AR--MS 32 $6,143,214 $38,669 6

Albany--Schenectady--Troy, NY 47 $9,272,219 $39,306 7Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater, FL 75 $15,703,914 $42,077 8

West Palm Beach--Boca Raton--Delray Beach, FL 36 $7,612,243 $42,161 9

Seattle, WA 86 $26,321,164 $61,553 10


10/36


Keep the existing systempreservat ion funding pro-grams the In terstateM aintenance and Bridgefunding categories and

increase funding for theseprogram s by thirty per-cent . A num ber of DOTstudies indicate that moreresources are needed inorder to ensure adeq uatemaintenance of our urbanand suburban h ighways.Under ISTEA, states havemad e small imp rovemen ts,but have not dedicated

adequate funds to main-taining road s. New legisla-tion mu st ensure that ad-equ ate mo ney is available,and that it is used effec-tively.

Establish a national goalfor impr oving the condi-t ion of our In terstate H igh-w ay system, and pr ovide

incentives to states to m eetthese goals.States w ithmo re than one -half of theirInterstate system in lessthan fair condition should

be req uired to d edicate apo rtion of their flexible Na-tion al Highw ay Systemfunds to interstate mainte-nan ce. Conversely, states

which have done a goodjob p ro te ctin g th e con d itio nof the Interstate systemshould b e rew arded w ithbonus funding.

St r en gt he n p r o gr a m s t ha treduce the dem ands fornew roads and ensure thatthey w il l be adequatelymaintained. A new Land

Use and Transpo rtation pi-lot program could fundstates and metropolitan ar-eas that wish to attem ptinnovative programs to linktranspo rtation and land usethrough transit or pe des-trian-oriented developm ent,state or local programs forcollaborative land use andtranspo rtation planning an d

ma in stree t p rograms.These can reduce the de-mand for new roads by re-ducing spraw l.

As N orth Carol inaSenator LauchFaircloth, form erdi rector for the N orthC a r ol in a D O T ,

explained at aCo ngressional h earingin 199 5: the totalpressure is on newroads...and newhighway-bui lding, noton the maintenance ofthe system that wehave.


11/36



12/36


The D iversion of

Road Repair Fund s

Ch apter O n e

I spent a good bit of time with the North Carolina Depart-ment of Transportation, and ran it for 4 years. It was so longago, I still kee p calling it the Fede ral Bureau of Pub licRoads, but I see something that the Federal Highway Admin-istration has failed to address. You have no requirement thatthis mo ne y be use d to ma intain road s. Thats totally at the

discretion of the State. Well, having watched highway de-partments for a pretty good while, I can tell you that the to-tal pressure is on new roads . . . and new highway-building,not on the maintenance of the system that we have, and par-ticularly the Interstate system. It truly is an Interstate system,and w e ha ve allow ed it to d eteriorate. . . I think its up tothe Federal Highway Administration to set some sort of Stateand national policy that money be used to maintain this sys-tem on some sort of a nationw ide level before we go intobu ilding ne w h ighwa y system s. We bu ilt this as an interstatesystem , but the p ressure o n the highway com missione rs, the

Gove rnors, and e ven the local highw ay administrators is tobuild new roads. Thats always more impressive: a new by-pass, circle the circle, loop the loop, build another one. Ithink its time w e ge t back to bringing all of it up to a stan-dard, and b efore we let any State bu ild a n ew road theyshould be required to bring the current interstate system upto present-day standards.

Statement of Senator Lau ch Faircloth (R-North Carolina), Environ-

ment and Public Works Committee Hearing, U.S. Senate, February 23,

1995.

Drivers agree that their toppriority for use of federal gastaxes is fixing the cracked andcrumbling road s and bridges thatthey drive on every day. In re-spon se, the land mark 1991Intermodal Surface Transporta-tion and Efficiency Act (ISTEA),

dedicated about $5.5 billion peryear (ou t of $20 billion p er yea rfor all federal-aid highways) tointerstate maintenance and bridgerepair, an increase of almost 25pe rcent from the h ighw ay law sthat were in effect prior to 1991.Unfortunately, ISTEA did not go

Before w e let anyState bui ld a new roadthey should berequired to br ing thecurrent interstatesystem up to p resent-

day standards.

Senator LauchFaircloth (R-N orthCarol ina)


13/36

1 0 PO T H O L E SA N D PO L IT I C S: H O W C ON GR E S S C A N FIX YO U R RO A D S

far eno ugh. State dep artmen ts oftranspo rtation (D O Ts) are stillallowed to spend this flexiblemo ney o n o ther projects, even ifthere is a pressing n eed for road

rep airs. Using this discretion inISTEA, state DOTs have divertedbillion s of do llars aw ay from th eurban and suburban h ighwaysmost in need of repair, insteadusing it for co nstruction of ne whighways, typically on the subur-ban fringe.

There are 21,285 miles o f ur-ban and suburban highways in

the United States, and Americandrivers drive mo re tha n 480 tril-lion miles on these roads e achyear an average of more than3,650 miles p er year p er d river.These aging highw ays handlemore traffic than anticipated, andheavier and bigger trucks than

projected, and are wearing outfaster than exp ected . Twe nty-sixpercent of urban an d suburbanhighways over 5,550 miles ofh ighway were found to b e in

po or to me diocre condition in1995. This me ans that morethan o ne in four m iles of urbanhighway are in need of imm edi-ate or imminen t rep air. In 1993,the Federal Highway Administra-tion estimated that it would re-quire $88.2 billion over 20 yearsto bring m etropolitan h ighw aysand associated b ridges u p tosmo oth and safe status. This

would require an investment of$4.4 billion pe r yea r. Since thep assage of ISTEA in 1991, stateDO Ts have sp en t just $1.2 bil-lion per year on repair of thenations urban highway miles.In fact, since 1991, states havediverted the majority of ISTEA

There are near ly four m i l l i on m i les o f st ree ts,roads, and h ighw ays in the U n i ted Sta tes.The Interstate h i ghw ay system co nsists of45 ,744 m i les o f r oadw ay , and ca r ri es ove r23% o f al l veh ic le m i les t rave led . Theurban h ighw ay system c on sists o f ov er21 ,000 m i les o f road. Freew ays andexpressw ays are no n- in te rsta te h i ghw aysthat have l im i ted access, m ean ing they are

usua l l y en te red and ex i t ed w i t h on and o f f -ramp s; o ther roads in te rsect ing w i thf reew ays and exp ressw ays usua l ly run abov eo r be low them, and the re a re no t ra ff i cl ights.

The h ighw ays descr ibed i n th is repor t -kno w n as urban in te rsta tes, f reew ays and

exp ressw ays (gener ic al ly referred to asu rban h ighw ays) r un th rough bo th u rbanand subu rban areas as w e l l as a l l tow nsw i th a popu la ti on g rea te r than 50 ,000 .These roadw ays ca r ry m ore than 33% o f a l lveh ic le m i les t r ave led w i th in m e tropo l i t anareas.

These h ighw ays are a lso u n iq ue becau se

they are alm ost a lw ays co nt ro l led by s tate ,no t loc a l , governm ents. Sta te D epar tmentso f T ranspo r tat ion rece ive federa l fund s tom a in tain t hese u rban and subu rbanh igh w ays. I t i s thus a lm ost a lw ays theresponsib i l i ty of the states, not localgovernm ents, to repa i r these im po r tan troadways .

FACTSA B O U T U RBAN I N TERSTATES, FREEW AYSAN D EXPRESSW AYS

O ver 5 ,550 mi les o furban highw ay werefound to be in poor tomediocre condit ion in1 9 9 5 .


14/36

1 1EN V I R O N M E N T A L W O R K I N G G R O U P/SU R FA C E TR A N S P OR TA T I ON POL I C Y PRO JECT

mo ney available for highwayrepair to construction of newmetropo litan area highways,typically on the suburban fringe.

States divert money from re-pair to new construction largelyin respo nse to p ressure fromdevelopers and highway contrac-tors, and p olitical pressure forribb on -cutting pro jects. In theCharlotte, North Carolina me tro-politan area, where 33% of theregions urban and suburbanhighways are in poor or medio-cre condition, the state Depart-

ment of Transportation (DOT) isusing funds that could be spenton repair to co nstruct a con tro-versial ne w $23 billion ou terloop around the far edges ofthe metropolitan area. The Indi-ana D ep artmen t of Transpo rta-tion in a state where 29% ofurban highway miles are in pooror me diocre cond ition isbacking a $1 billion proposal to

bu ild a 140 mile e xtension of I-69 from Indianapolis to Evans-ville th at is part of a m uch largerMid-Contine nt Highw ay. O therne w be ltw ays, loop s andconn ectors are being p lanne daround Washington, DC, Atlanta,Houston, Denver, Pittsburgh,Charlottesville, Virginia, andGrand Rap ids, Michigan, tonam e just a few.

Building a new road costs farmo re pe r mile than repairing anexisting one. Proper road main-tenance can b e labor-intensive,but at most there are only a fewdifferen t types o f discipline s an dcomp anies that can get involved old pavement is torn up, and

new pavem ent laid dow n. Build-ing brand new roads, or evenwidening a two lane road to afour lane highway, involves amuch greater expense an d amuch larger profit for those whoget in on the action . Beside s thecostly purchase of new right-of-w ay, the res a m yriad of ex-pe nses associated w ith planning,design, engineering, landscaping,

building bridges and culverts,earth re mo val, mitigation etc.New roads in metropo litan areas where houses as well as land-scape often have to be m oved ortorn dow n have been es ti-mated to cost as much as $100million a mile (California Assem-bly Office of Rese arch 1993). Incontrast, FHWA estimates that itcosts app roximately 1% of this

$1.26 million for one mile ofpavement reconstruction on ur-ban highways (FHWA 1993b).

As this report goes to press,Congress is rew riting theIntermodal Surface Transporta-tion Efficiency Act (known asISTEA), the law that establishes

V O TERS PRIORITY: FIX I T FIRST

The dr iv ing (and vo t in g) pu b l i c sees f ix in g the roadsthey d r i ve on eve ry day as a m uch h ighe r p r i o r i t y than

bu i l d ing new roads . I n a r ecen t po l l cond uc ted by LakeResearch , vo te r s ove rw he lm ing ly cho se f i x i ng roadsand b r idges (49 % ) as a pr io r i t y fo r the i r lo ca lcom m un i t y . I ncen t i ves f o r ca rpoo l i n g andr idesha r ing cam e in second (25% ), fo l l o w ed byim prov in g l oca l pub l i c t ranspo r ta ti on (22% ). T ied fo rf o u rt h p l a c e w e r e b u i l d i n g n e w h i g h w a y s (1 7 % ) a n d bu i l d ing m ore sidew a lks and b i cy c le t ra i l s (17% ).


15/36


the nations transpo rtation po licyand provides over $150 billion forhighways, mass transit, and othertranspo rtation op tion s. O ur find-ings indicate that ISTEA must be

strengthened in order to preventfurther deterioration and improvethe condition of the nations ur-

ban an d suburban h ighways.Federal funds have largely paidfor the construction of ourInterstates and man y of ourothe r freew ays. Now , ISTEA

mu st ensure that these sam e fed-eral dollars are used to maintainour national highways in safeand adequate condition.

TH E C O STO F W A I T I N G : H I G H E R PRICESFO R D EFERRED M A I N T E N A N C E

Just as the n eg l igent m otor is t w ho do esn tt ake ca re o f a sm a l l p rob lem w i th t he i r ca reng ine co u ld soo n hav e a m assive repa i r b i l l

on the i r han ds, po stpon ing regu larm ain tenanc e o f roads and f reew ays car r iesw i th i t a sim i la r expon ent ia l increase in cost.A s tu d y b y t h e A m e ri c a n Pu b l i c W o r k sAssoc ia t i on conc luded tha t typ i ca lpavem ent de ter io ra tes 40 p ercent in qua l i t yin th e f i rst 75 p ercent of i ts l i fe (12 years). Inthe next 12 percent o f i t s l i fe cyc le (2 -3years), pavem ent con d i t io n can d eter io ra teanother 40 percent . The cost d i f fe rencebe tw een unde r tak ing rou t i ne ma in tenance

before th is rap id d e ter io ra t ion in q ua l i t y isd rama t i c . APW A est ima tes t ha t a do l l a r sw or th o f r epa i rs du r ing t he i n i t i a l 40%dec l i ne i n pavemen t qua l i t y w i l l cost

be tw een $4.0 0 and $ 5.00 i f de fer red (seechart ) .

I n t he 198 0s, t he Fede ra l H ighw ayA dm in i st rat ion est im ated the cost o f rou t in em a in tenance o f pavemen t i n good con d i t i onat about 8 cents per squ are foo t w hereas thecost o f rehab i l i ta t ing fa i led pavem ent w asc lo ser to 80 cents per squ are foo t . As M ikeShef l in , T ranspo r tat ion C om m ission er fo rO t taw a-Car le ton , C anada , pu t i t , Tho sew ho ca r r y ou t l ow -cost re juvena t ion andresur fac ing be fore rap id d e ter io ra t ion b eg insextend the pavem ent l i fe fo r a f rac t ion o f the

cost to t hose w ho ju st w a i t a cou p le o fyea rs. Ask w hy they w a i t ed and theun iversa l answ er is, to save fun ds.


16/36


Roads are Crumbling Because

States A re M isspen ding Federa lTransportat ion D ol lars

Chapter Tw o

In this report, we analyzedstates use of e xisting flexiblehighway funding for road repair federal highway dollars thatare n ot p resen tly restricted to

road construction, clean airprojects or n on-mo torized formsof transpo rtation 1 and foundthat many states, even w hereurban and subu rban h ighwaysare in poor shape, are failing toinvest sufficient federal funds tokeep them from further de terio-ration. The an alysis is restrictedto urban highways interstates,freew ays and exp resswa ys in the

nations urban an d sub urbanareas be cause they carrynearly a third of all miles drivenin m etropolitan areas and arefunded primarily by federal dol-lars. In addition , in orde r to en-sure a significant samp le size atthe state level, we excluded allstates w ith less than 100 miles o furban highways from a llrankings2.

Repair of urban highways isalmo st always unde r the author-ity of state departments of trans-portation , w ho spend a comb i-nation of federal and state fundson the se projects. All ana lysesof highway spending and high-way condition are based on data

repo rted to the U.S. Dep artmen tof Transportation by state au-thorities.

States and metropolitan areas

are ranked to determine howmuch s tates spend on h ighwayrepair in com parison to the n eed ,as indicated by the rep air spend -ing p er mile o f highw ay in n eedof repair immediately or in thene ar future. This is referred to asthe Poth ole Ind ex. States w itha high Pothole Index are ne glect-ing b asic maintenance, e ven asthey often divert repair funds to

building new roads instead.States spen ding mo re mo ney tofix roads in need of repair have alow score on the Pothole Index.

Any driver can attest that driv-ing on pot-hole filled roads isexpensive. Cracked and bumpyroads increase m aintenan ce costsand tire w ear, cause cars to we arout soo ner, and reduce fuel effi-

cien cy. Drivers pa y bo th forroad rep air and for the d amagethat roads in disrepair cause tothe ir cars. In ou r an alysis, usingU.S. DO T cost mo de ls, we esti-mated the costs of rough roadsin terms of increased we ar andtear, repair expenses and de-creased fuel economy.

U rban highways carrynearly a third o f al lmiles driven inmetropol i tan areasand are funded

prim ari ly by federaldollars.


17/36


Percent of Total Percent

U rban H ighw ays Percent of of H ighw ays

I n Poor or U rban H ighw ays N ot inState M ediocre C ondition I n Fair C ondition G ood C ondition

Io w a 5 6 % 2 9 % 8 5 %Il l i n o i s 4 7 % 3 4 % 8 1 %

Flo r i d a 4 7 % 2 1 % 6 8 %

O k lah o m a 4 5 % 4 0 % 8 5 %A rkan sas 4 4 % 2 9 % 7 3 %

N ew M ex i c o 4 2 % 2 7 % 6 9 %

N o rth Caro l i n a 4 2 % 3 1 % 7 4 %Ken tu c ky 4 2 % 3 2 % 7 4 %

Co lo rad o 3 9 % 4 1 % 8 0 %M issi ssip p i 3 8 % 3 8 % 7 6 %

O rego n 3 7 % 4 9 % 8 6 %

N ew Yo rk 3 7 % 3 6 % 7 2 %N ew Jersey 3 6 % 3 8 % 7 4 %

Pen n sy l van ia 3 4 % 4 5 % 8 0 %

W est V i rgin i a 3 4 % 2 8 % 6 2 %W ash i n gto n 3 2 % 5 7 % 8 9 %

V i rgi n ia 3 1 % 4 9 % 8 0 %Cal i fo rn i a 2 9 % 4 4 % 7 4 %

In d ian a 2 9 % 3 5 % 6 3 %

Ten n essee 2 8 % 3 2 % 6 1 %M ic h igan 2 6 % 3 4 % 6 1 %

M isso u ri 2 4 % 5 6 % 8 1 %

W isco n sin 2 3 % 5 3 % 7 7 %Rh o d e Isl an d 2 1 % 5 0 % 7 1 %

M assach u setts 1 6 % 4 1 % 5 7 %M ary lan d 1 6 % 3 5 % 5 1 %

M in n eso ta 1 5 % 3 3 % 4 8 %

So u th Caro l i n a 1 3 % 2 2 % 3 5 %Kan sas 1 2 % 5 0 % 6 3 %

U tah 1 2 % 2 5 % 3 7 %

N evad a 1 0 % 3 3 % 4 4 %Texas 1 0 % 8 % 1 7 %

O h io 9 % 3 1 % 4 0 %Co n n ec ti c u t 8 % 4 % 1 2 %

Lo u isian a 6 % 1 2 % 1 8 %

A ri zo n a 5 % 2 9 % 3 4 %A lab am a 1 % 5 % 5 %

G eo rgia 0 % 9 % 9 %

U nited States 2 6 % 3 2 % 5 8 %

Table 5. M ore than one fourth of the nat ions urban highw ays are in poor or mediocrecondit ion.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a ta c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T H P M S d a t ab a se (1 9 9 5 ) ,spend ing da ta i s f o r FY 1992 -199 6 , c om p i led f r om D O T FM IS da tabase .

* In o rde r t o ensure adequa te sam p le si z es, sta tes w i t h l ess t han 10 0 m i les o f u rban h ighw ay w ere ex c luded f r om th i s analys is .


18/36


Percentage of

Spending on Repair of Spending on N ew Spending on U rban

State U rban H ighw ays U rban H ighw ays H ighw ay Repair

So u th C aro l i n a $ 6 ,5 9 2 ,0 3 3 $ 8 4 ,0 0 6 ,6 7 6 7 %

V i rgi n i a $ 4 8 ,6 3 2 ,9 0 1 $ 3 2 0 ,7 6 5 ,2 4 6 1 3 %

A rk an sas $ 8 ,2 4 5 ,8 9 2 $ 3 5 ,8 8 2 ,0 2 4 1 9 %

M issi ssi p p i $ 8 ,5 8 6 ,0 9 8 $ 3 0 ,7 1 1 ,3 6 5 2 2 %

N o rth Caro l i n a $ 7 0 ,0 8 3 ,1 9 0 $ 2 3 7 ,0 4 7 ,2 6 9 2 3 %

N ev ad a $ 5 1 ,5 2 6 ,2 0 5 $ 1 4 5 ,9 8 6 ,6 6 7 2 6 %

W ash in gto n $ 8 0 ,7 8 1 ,6 8 1 $ 2 0 4 ,2 0 8 ,7 7 2 2 8 %

G eo rgia $ 1 6 1 ,7 4 1 ,4 3 2 $ 3 2 8 ,1 1 9 ,6 6 3 3 3 %

O rego n $ 3 5 ,1 3 9 ,4 2 9 $ 6 8 ,7 4 1 ,8 8 7 3 4 %

Fl o r i d a $ 1 1 3 ,9 7 8 ,4 7 3 $ 2 1 2 ,1 7 1 ,2 6 3 3 5 %

N ew M ex i c o $ 2 3 ,0 6 2 ,6 6 8 $ 4 1 ,9 7 6 ,9 4 0 3 5 %

Kan sas $ 5 4 ,1 5 0 ,6 8 6 $ 9 7 ,7 9 5 ,4 0 9 3 6 %Ten n essee $ 5 0 ,2 2 0 ,3 4 5 $ 8 6 ,2 1 7 ,8 0 9 3 7 %

Lo u i si an a $ 4 2 ,8 8 7 ,5 2 9 $ 6 7 ,0 7 9 ,7 2 5 3 9 %

A ri z o n a $ 1 0 4 ,7 8 7 ,8 4 5 $ 1 4 6 ,2 4 8 ,1 6 8 4 2 %

Cal i fo rn i a $ 9 3 1 ,0 9 2 ,9 0 1 $ 1 ,2 0 8 ,6 1 1 ,1 5 6 4 4 %

M ary lan d $ 1 3 3 ,9 2 7 ,1 2 5 $ 1 6 4 ,7 6 9 ,6 3 2 4 5 %

Tex as $ 4 5 3 ,5 9 3 ,5 0 7 $ 5 5 7 ,4 5 0 ,5 1 4 4 5 %

Co n n ec ti c u t $ 1 9 7 ,6 7 4 ,4 7 6 $ 2 4 1 ,3 6 6 ,1 7 0 4 5 %

A l ab am a $ 5 3 ,0 9 3 ,9 1 8 $ 5 3 ,4 2 2 ,5 4 7 5 0 %

M assac h u setts $ 2 1 1 ,9 8 4 ,6 7 8 $ 1 8 4 ,8 8 2 ,3 1 0 5 3 %

Co lo rad o $ 8 7 ,9 2 6 ,6 7 4 $ 7 1 ,4 4 5 ,4 7 5 5 5 %

Pen n sy l v an ia $ 3 7 7 ,1 6 2 ,8 9 9 $ 3 0 2 ,2 6 3 ,4 5 9 5 6 %

W est V i rgi n i a $ 4 3 ,1 5 5 ,3 4 9 $ 3 3 ,3 2 3 ,3 4 9 5 6 %N ew Jersey $ 1 6 5 ,0 5 8 ,5 9 5 $ 1 2 0 ,7 8 8 ,0 1 0 5 8 %

M isso u r i $ 1 8 8 ,1 0 8 ,3 4 1 $ 1 3 5 ,0 1 1 ,0 1 3 5 8 %

O k lah o m a $ 4 6 ,8 0 4 ,2 6 2 $ 3 0 ,5 3 9 ,8 9 8 6 1 %

Io w a $ 6 7 ,7 3 2 ,3 2 6 $ 4 0 ,0 7 6 ,2 5 6 6 3 %

O h io $ 5 3 6 ,1 1 1 ,6 4 8 $ 2 7 7 ,0 8 0 ,0 5 8 6 6 %

M ic h igan $ 1 4 7 ,5 1 3 ,9 1 0 $ 5 6 ,5 0 8 ,6 2 0 7 2 %

N ew Yo rk $ 3 0 1 ,9 2 4 ,7 1 6 $ 1 0 6 ,5 0 4 ,1 9 4 7 4 %

Ken tu c k y $ 1 1 3 ,1 7 8 ,1 1 5 $ 3 7 ,8 1 7 ,3 5 8 7 5 %

W isc o n sin $ 5 8 ,6 7 5 ,9 2 8 $ 1 4 ,3 5 5 ,3 9 1 8 0 %

In d ian a $ 1 6 6 ,7 5 8 ,4 8 8 $ 3 4 ,7 9 0 ,3 7 6 8 3 %

Il l i n o i s $ 2 9 5 ,4 0 7 ,0 4 7 $ 5 6 ,2 6 8 ,9 8 2 8 4 %

U tah $ 5 8 ,3 6 3 ,6 3 0 $ 1 0 ,7 3 3 ,6 2 5 8 4 %

Rh o d e Isl an d $ 5 1 ,1 2 3 ,7 8 0 $ 7 ,9 7 0 ,0 9 6 8 7 %

M in n eso ta $ 9 9 ,9 3 7 ,2 2 0 $ 3 ,8 6 7 ,7 2 1 9 6 %

U ni ted States $ 5 ,8 4 3 ,0 7 6 ,8 9 7 $ 6 ,1 1 1 ,8 4 1 ,4 9 1 4 9 %

Table 6. States are spending m ore on con struct ion of new urban and suburb an highw ays thanthey are f ixing existing highw ays in ur ban an d subu rban areas.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a ta c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T H P M S d a t ab a se (1 9 9 5 ),spend ing da ta i s f o r FY 1992 -1996 , c om p i led f r om D O T FM IS da tabase .* In o rde r t o ensure adequa te sam p le si z es, sta tes w i t h l es s t han 10 0 m i les o f u rban h ighw ay w ere ex c luded f r om th i s analys is .


19/36


Table 7 . Am ong large m etropol i tan areas, Tam pa-St . Petersburg-Clearw ater has the highestpercentage of roads in poor or m ediocre condit ion.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a t a c o m p i l e d f ro m D O T H P M S d a t ab a se (1 9 9 5 ), sp e n d i n g d a t a i s f o r FY 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 6 , c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T F M I S d a ta b a se .

Percentage

Percentage of U rban Percentage of U rban of H ighways

H ighw ays I n Poor H ighw ays N ot in G ood

M etropolitan A rea or M ediocre Condit ion Fair C ondit ion Condition

Tam pa--St. Petersburg--Cl earw ater , FL 60% 29% 8 9 %

Lou isv i l le , KY- - IN 55% 29% 8 5 %

Chicago , IL 55% 32% 8 7 %

O k l a h o m a C i t y , O K 54% 32% 8 6 %

San D iego , CA 51% 39% 9 0 %

Greensboro - -W ins ton-Sa lem- -H igh Po in t , NC 50% 32% 8 2 %

N o r fo l k -- V i r g i n i a Bea c h - -N e w p o r t N e w s , VA 48% 42% 9 1 %

St. Lou is , MO - - IL 46% 39% 8 5 %

Los Angeles--Long Beach, CA 46% 32% 7 8 %

Albany - -Schenec tady - -Troy , NY 45% 25% 7 0 %

N e w Yo r k , N Y - - N o r th e a ste rn N J 43% 39% 8 1 %

Por t land- -Vancouver , O R- -WA 43% 52% 9 5 %

Phi lade lph ia , PA- -N J 42% 39% 8 1 %

D enver , CO 41% 38% 7 9 %

W est Pa lm Beach- -Boca Ra ton- -De l ray Beach , FL 40% 55% 9 5 %

Buf fa lo - -N iagara Fa l ls, N Y 39% 39% 7 8 %

M i l w a u k ee , W I 38% 41% 7 9 %

N ashv i l le , TN 38% 45% 8 3 %

Richm ond- -Pe te rsburg , V A 37% 45% 8 2 %

Roches te r , N Y 37% 38% 7 5 %

M e m p h i s , T N - - AR - -M S 37% 21% 5 8 %

Pittsburgh, PA 36% 38% 7 5 %

Jacksonvi l le, FL 35% 35% 6 9 %

Seat t le , W A 34% 59% 9 4 %

D e t ro i t , M I 34% 36% 7 0 %

Ind ianapo l i s , IN 34% 38% 7 2 %

Char lo t te - -Gaston ia - -Rock H i l l , N C- -SC 33% 23% 5 7 %

San Jose, CA 30% 61% 9 1 %

San Franc isco- -Oak land , CA 30% 46% 7 5 %

Bo sto n , M A 29% 52% 8 0 %

Rivers ide--San Bernardino, CA 28% 47% 7 5 %

W a sh i n g to n , D C - -M D - - VA 23% 50% 7 2 %

H o n o l u l u , H I 23% 27% 5 0 %Sacramento , C A 22% 57% 7 9 %

C i n c i n n a t i , O H - - KY- - IN 19% 27% 4 6 %

M i a m i - - H i a l e ah , F L 18% 60% 7 8 %

Ba l t i m o r e , M D 18% 32% 5 0 %

O r l a n d o , FL 18% 70% 8 8 %

Sal t Lake C i ty - -O gden , U T 18% 38% 5 6 %

Prov idence- -Paw tucke t - -Fa l l R ive r , R I - -M A 18% 48% 6 6 %

C l e v el a n d , O H 17% 40% 5 7 %

Kansas C i ty , M O - -KS 16% 61% 7 6 %

M i n n e a p o l i s- - St . Pa u l , M N - - W I 13% 30% 4 2 %

H ous ton , TX 11% 9% 2 0 %

For t Lauderda le - -H o l lyw ood- -Pom pano Beach , FL 10% 55% 6 5 %

D al las- -For t W or th , TX 8% 8% 1 6 %

San An ton io , TX 8% 2% 1 0 %

Phoen ix , AZ 6% 45% 5 0 %C o l u m b u s , O H 6% 26% 3 1 %

Aus t in , TX 3% 8% 1 1 %

N e w O r l e an s, L A 3% 13% 1 6 %

D ay ton- -Spr ing f ie ld , O H 1% 25% 2 7 %

Bi r m i n g h a m , AL 1% 6% 7 %

N e w a rk , N J 0% 36% 3 6 %

At lan ta , GA 0% 11% 1 1 %


20/36


Among our major findings:

M ore than one- fourth (26percent) of the nat ionsurban highw ays are inpoor or m ediocre condi -t ion, requiring repair im-m ediately or in the nearfuture (Table 5) . In an av-erage year, an Americandriver will drive a distance

Annual M ileage Annual Cost to D r ivers

% of U rban H ighw ays D riven on U rban D ue to U rban A nnual Spending

I n Poor , M ediocre or H ighw ays In Poor H ighw ays I n Poor or By State D O T's on

State Fair Condition O r M ediocre Condit ion. M ediocre C ondit ion U rban H ighw ay Repair

A l ab am a 5 % 1 9 $ 2 ,9 2 8 ,5 8 2 $ 1 0 ,6 1 8 ,7 8 4

A r i zo n a 3 4 % 1 3 6 $ 2 0 ,5 3 6 ,0 6 2 $ 2 0 ,9 5 7 ,5 6 9

A rkan sas 7 3 % 1 ,5 9 8 $ 4 4 ,7 5 5 ,9 9 7 $ 1 ,6 4 9 ,1 7 8

Cal i fo rn i a 7 4 % 1 ,9 3 6 $ 1 ,1 9 5 ,9 2 1 ,3 6 1 $ 1 8 6 ,2 1 8 ,5 8 0Co l o rad o 8 0 % 1 ,6 2 1 $ 1 0 5 ,8 5 6 ,3 7 7 $ 1 7 ,5 8 5 ,3 3 5

Co n n ec tic u t 1 2 % 3 6 3 $ 2 9 ,1 1 0 ,7 2 9 $ 3 9 ,5 3 4 ,8 9 5

Fl o ri d a 6 8 % 1 ,3 2 9 $ 2 1 2 ,1 7 3 ,5 2 0 $ 2 2 ,7 9 5 ,6 9 5

G eo rgi a 9 % - $ 9 ,4 8 1 ,4 6 9 $ 3 2 ,3 4 8 ,2 8 6

Il l i n o i s 8 1 % 1 ,2 5 9 $ 2 4 4 ,9 6 2 ,3 5 8 $ 5 9 ,0 8 1 ,4 0 9

In d ian a 6 3 % 6 8 7 $ 8 2 ,5 0 9 ,6 8 7 $ 3 3 ,3 5 1 ,6 9 8

Io w a 8 5 % 5 4 0 $ 2 2 ,6 6 0 ,5 8 3 $ 1 3 ,5 4 6 ,4 6 5

Kan sas 6 3 % 4 0 3 $ 2 4 ,1 9 4 ,3 4 0 $ 1 0 ,8 3 0 ,1 3 7

Ken tu ck y 7 4 % 1 ,4 5 9 $ 7 6 ,2 9 2 ,8 7 4 $ 2 2 ,6 3 5 ,6 2 3

Lo u i si an a 1 8 % 1 7 0 $ 1 2 ,2 5 4 ,2 7 3 $ 8 ,5 7 7 ,5 0 6

M ary l an d 5 1 % 8 0 7 $ 1 0 0 ,2 2 3 ,4 5 2 $ 2 6 ,7 8 5 ,4 2 5

M assac h u setts 5 7 % 6 8 9 $ 9 9 ,6 1 8 ,9 1 6 $ 4 2 ,3 9 6 ,9 3 6

M i ch i gan 6 1 % 8 2 1 $ 1 4 5 ,1 5 7 ,0 9 1 $ 2 9 ,5 0 2 ,7 8 2

M i n n eso ta 4 8 % 5 1 3 $ 5 2 ,4 7 9 ,3 4 1 $ 1 9 ,9 8 7 ,4 4 4

M i ssi ssi p p i 7 6 % 5 0 5 $ 2 1 ,1 5 1 ,0 2 4 $ 1 ,7 1 7 ,2 2 0

M i sso u r i 8 1 % 1 ,1 2 6 $ 1 2 8 ,7 8 2 ,2 0 0 $ 3 7 ,6 2 1 ,6 6 8

N evad a 4 4 % 4 2 1 $ 9 ,9 0 0 ,5 2 3 $ 1 0 ,3 0 5 ,2 4 1

N ew Jersey 7 4 % 1 ,2 6 9 $ 2 0 7 ,2 8 1 ,5 0 9 $ 3 3 ,0 1 1 ,7 1 9

N ew M ex i co 6 9 % 7 8 4 $ 1 7 ,6 5 8 ,7 5 9 $ 4 ,6 1 2 ,5 3 4

N ew Yo rk 7 2 % 1 ,4 2 4 $ 4 8 4 ,1 5 4 ,6 9 9 $ 6 0 ,3 8 4 ,9 4 3

N o rth C aro l i n a 7 4 % 1 ,1 2 0 $ 1 4 1 ,9 7 3 ,0 5 7 $ 1 4 ,0 1 6 ,6 3 8

O h io 4 0 % 2 7 8 $ 9 7 ,1 1 7 ,2 2 4 $ 1 0 7 ,2 2 2 ,3 3 0

O k lah o m a 8 5 % 1 ,5 1 1 $ 9 3 ,5 5 2 ,6 9 2 $ 9 ,3 6 0 ,8 5 2

O rego n 8 6 % 1 ,0 5 3 $ 5 1 ,1 5 5 ,7 5 8 $ 7 ,0 2 7 ,8 8 6

Pen n sy l van i a 8 0 % 8 6 0 $ 2 0 6 ,6 7 5 ,3 3 4 $ 7 5 ,4 3 2 ,5 8 0

Rh o d e Islan d 7 1 % 8 4 2 $ 2 1 ,5 6 2 ,1 5 3 $ 1 0 ,2 2 4 ,7 5 6

So u th C aro l i n a 3 5 % 2 3 9 $ 1 4 ,3 4 5 ,2 0 2 $ 1 ,3 1 8 ,4 0 7

Ten n essee 6 1 % 6 2 6 $ 8 0 ,4 5 7 ,1 3 5 $ 1 0 ,0 4 4 ,0 6 9

Texas 1 7 % 5 0 3 $ 1 7 9 ,6 7 4 ,7 9 6 $ 9 0 ,7 1 8 ,7 0 1

U tah 3 7 % 5 9 7 $ 1 4 ,5 8 0 ,1 9 0 $ 1 1 ,6 7 2 ,7 2 6

V i rgi n ia 8 0 % 1 ,1 1 4 $ 1 6 4 ,9 7 8 ,7 8 0 $ 9 ,7 2 6 ,5 8 0

W ash in gto n 8 9 % 1 ,4 1 5 $ 1 8 4 ,3 7 4 ,6 1 3 $ 1 6 ,1 5 6 ,3 3 6

W est V i rg i n i a 6 2 % 5 4 2 $ 1 3 ,3 8 3 ,3 8 4 $ 8 ,6 3 1 ,0 7 0W i sc o n sin 7 7 % 5 0 9 $ 6 0 ,1 1 9 ,1 0 0 $ 1 1 ,7 3 5 ,1 8 6

U n i ted States 5 8 % 9 4 2 $ 4 ,7 6 7 ,3 7 3 ,8 8 8 $ 1 ,1 2 9 ,3 4 5 ,1 8 8

Table 8. Crum bling urban freew ays cost Am erican drivers over $4 .8 bi l l ion annual ly.

equ ivalent to that betwee nNew York City to St. Lou is

(more than 940 miles) onurban highways in poor ormed iocre cond ition. In ad-dition, an other 32 p ercentof the nations urban high-w ays are in fair con dition ,meaning that they will soonreq uire rep air. Iow a, Illi-nois, Florida, and Okla-

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a ta c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T H P M S d a t ab a se (1 9 9 5 ),spend ing da ta i s f o r FY 1992 -199 6 , c om p i led f r om D O T FM IS da tabase .* In o rd e r t o ensure adequa te sam p le si z es, sta tes w i t h l ess t han 10 0 m i les o f u rban h ighw ay w ere ex c lud ed f r om th i s analys is .


21/36


hom a are the states w ith thehighest percentage of urbanhighways in poor or medio-cre condition.

Less than half of all m oneyavai lable for urban highw ayrepair was actually spent

on repai r by sta te D O Ts(Table 6) . Since the pas-sage of ISTEA, state DOTshave spe nt $6.1 billionbuilding new urban andsuburban highways, andon ly $5.8 billion o n rep airof urban an d suburbanhigh w ays (Tab le 6). ISTEAcan b e credited for dedicat-ing some funds to road and

bridge repair, and empha-sizing maintenance of theexisting system as a matterof national policy. But the1991 law a lso a llow ed stateDOTs to spend federalfunds available for road re-p airs on othe r p rojects. Us-ing th is discretion in ISTEA,

Percent of Total Cost To

H ighw ays in Poor Average Annual M ileage D rivers D ue To Average Cost

Fair , or M ediocre D riven on Roads in H ighw ays I n Poor Per C ar

M etropolitan Area Condition Poor or M ediocre Condition or M ediocre Condition (Life of the C ar)

L o s A n g e l e s- - Lo n g B e a ch , C A 7 8 % 4 , 5 0 5 $ 6 7 6 , 2 1 2 , 4 5 2 $ 1 , 8 3 1

Sa n D i e g o , C A 9 0 % 4 , 0 5 4 $ 1 5 5 , 1 3 8 , 8 6 6 $ 1 , 4 9 1

O k l a h o m a C i t y , O K 8 6 % 3 , 4 0 8 $ 5 8 , 2 2 9 , 7 4 3 $ 1 , 4 5 8

Sa n Jo s e, C A 9 0 % 2 , 3 2 2 $ 8 9 , 1 1 3 , 3 9 3 $ 1 , 4 2 8

Se a tt l e, W A 9 4 % 2 , 7 2 5 $ 1 1 5 , 7 0 6 , 8 6 8 $ 1 , 4 0 8

L o u i sv i l l e , K Y - -I N 8 5 % 3 , 7 1 4 $ 5 0 , 2 2 2 , 3 0 4 $ 1 , 2 6 5

D e n v e r , C O 7 9 % 2 , 6 4 6 $ 8 5 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 2 $ 1 , 2 5 9

Sa n F ra n c i sc o - - O a k l a n d , C A 7 5 % 2 , 5 6 9 $ 1 7 6 , 1 0 4 , 5 4 4 $ 1 , 1 4 6

R i c h m o n d - - Pe t er sb u r g , V A 8 2 % 2 , 8 4 1 $ 4 0 , 3 3 8 , 5 4 0 $ 1 , 1 1 8

St . L o u i s, M O - - IL 8 5 % 3 , 2 6 8 $ 1 1 1 , 8 2 2 , 3 7 1 $ 1 , 0 9 8

C h i c a go , I L 8 7 % 2 , 9 2 9 $ 2 6 5 , 4 6 1 , 2 2 7 $ 1 , 0 5 0

W e st P a lm B e ac h - - B o c a R at o n - - D e l ra y B e a ch , F L 9 5 % 2 , 3 8 4 $ 3 6 , 9 8 3 , 5 6 7 $ 1 , 0 2 8

G r e e n sb o r o - - W i n s t o n -Sa l em - - H i g h P o i n t, N C 8 2 % 2 , 3 6 6 $ 3 9 , 8 6 6 , 2 8 5 $ 1 , 0 1 6

Table 9. D rivers in the Los Angeles, San D iego, and O klahom a City metro areas face thegreatest expense because of crumbling urban and suburban highways.

state DOTs have divertedbillion s of d ollars aw ayfrom the urban and subur-ban highway repair to-wa rds construction of newhighw ays, typically on thefar flung e dge s o f existingme trop olitan areas.

In 2 7 large m etropol itanareas, m ore than on e thirdof al l urban h ighw ays arefair to poor condit ion(Table 7) . Tampa-St. Pe-tersburg-Clearwater,Florida , w ith 60% of itsurban highways in poor ormediocre condition, is thelarge metropolitan area

with the highest percent-age of roads in p oor con di-tion . In five othe r largeme tropo litan areas Lou -isville, Chicago, OklahomaCity, San Diego, andGreensboro-Winston Sa-lem-High Po int, NorthCarolina at least 50% of

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a t a c o m p i l e d f ro m D O T H P M S d a t ab a se (1 9 9 5 ),

sp e n d i n g d a t a i s fo r F Y 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 6 , c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T F M I S d a ta b a se .


22/36


Table 1 0. Ar kansas, M ississippi, and V irginia rank highest on the Pothole Ind ex.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a ta c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T H P M S d a t ab a se (1 9 9 5 ),spend ing da ta i s f o r FY 1992 -199 6 , c om p i led f r om D O T FM IS da tabase .

* In o rd e r t o ensure adequa te sam p le si z es, sta tes w i t h l ess t han 10 0 m i les o f u rban h ighw ay w ere ex c lud ed f r om th i s analys is .

Annual Urb an Repair

Percentage of U rban U rban H ighw ay Total U rban Repair Spending Per H ighw ay Rank on

H ighw ays I n Poor M ileage I n Poor Spending M ile I n Poor or Pothole

State O r M ediocre C ond. O r M ediocre C ond. (1 9 9 2 -1 9 9 6 ) M ediocre C ondit ion I ndex

Ar kansas 44% 1 0 8 $ 8 , 2 45 , 8 92 $ 1 5 ,2 7 5 1

M ississ ippi 38% 6 4 $ 8 , 5 86 , 0 98 $ 2 6 ,8 8 3 2

V i r g i n i a 31% 1 9 6 $ 4 8 ,6 3 2 , 90 1 $ 4 9 ,6 2 5 3

Sou t h Car o l ina 13% 2 6 $ 6 , 5 92 , 0 33 $ 5 0 ,2 4 8 4

N o r th C a r o l i n a 42% 2 5 6 $ 7 0 ,0 8 3 , 19 0 $ 5 4 ,7 4 7 5

O k l a h o m a 45% 1 5 4 $ 4 6 ,8 0 4 , 26 2 $ 6 0 ,9 8 3 6

Tennessee 28% 1 2 4 $ 5 0 ,2 2 0 , 34 5 $ 8 0 ,7 1 4 7

F lo r ida 47% 2 8 1 $ 1 1 3 ,9 7 8 ,4 7 3 $ 8 1 ,1 9 9 8

W ash ing t on 32% 1 8 5 $ 8 0 ,7 8 1 , 68 1 $ 8 7 ,4 7 1 9

O r e g o n 37% 7 4 $ 3 5 ,1 3 9 , 42 9 $ 9 5 ,4 2 9 1 0

N e w M e x i co 42% 4 7 $ 2 3 ,0 6 2 , 66 8 $ 9 8 ,2 2 1 1 1

N e w Y o rk 37% 5 5 5 $ 3 0 1 ,9 2 4 ,7 1 6 $ 1 0 8 ,7 1 8 1 2

C o l o r a d o 39% 1 5 6 $ 8 7 ,9 2 6 , 67 4 $ 1 1 2 ,8 6 1 1 3

W i sc o n s i n 23% 7 9 $ 5 8 ,6 7 5 , 92 8 $ 1 4 7 ,6 2 3 1 4

N ew Jersey 36% 2 2 1 $ 1 6 5 ,0 5 8 ,5 9 5 $ 1 4 9 ,5 6 0 1 5

M i c h i g a n 26% 1 9 1 $ 1 4 7 ,5 1 3 ,9 1 0 $ 1 5 4 ,6 2 2 1 6I o w a 56% 8 2 $ 6 7 ,7 3 2 , 32 6 $ 1 6 5 ,2 8 0 1 7

Ken t ucky 42% 1 3 2 $ 1 1 3 ,1 7 8 ,1 1 5 $ 1 7 1 ,3 0 3 1 8

I l l i n o i s 47% 3 3 7 $ 2 9 5 ,4 0 7 ,0 4 7 $ 1 7 5 ,2 1 2 1 9

Pennsy lvan ia 34% 3 4 7 $ 3 7 7 ,1 6 2 ,8 9 9 $ 2 1 7 ,5 6 2 2 0

M issour i 24% 1 5 4 $ 1 8 8 ,1 0 8 ,3 4 1 $ 2 4 4 ,5 5 9 2 1

W est V i r g in ia 34% 3 4 $ 4 3 ,1 5 5 , 34 9 $ 2 5 1 ,3 1 0 2 2

I nd iana 29% 1 2 9 $ 1 6 6 ,7 5 8 ,4 8 8 $ 2 5 9 ,1 5 5 2 3

Kansas 12% 3 8 $ 5 4 ,1 5 0 , 68 6 $ 2 8 4 ,0 3 4 2 4

Ca l i f o r n ia 29% 6 0 8 $ 9 3 1 ,0 9 2 ,9 0 1 $ 3 0 6 ,0 4 7 2 5

M a r y l an d 16% 7 7 $ 1 3 3 ,9 2 7 ,1 2 5 $ 3 4 9 ,4 8 9 2 6

M i n n e so t a 15% 5 4 $ 9 9 ,9 3 7 , 22 0 $ 3 6 7 ,2 6 7 2 7

Texas 10% 2 1 5 $ 4 5 3 ,5 9 3 ,5 0 7 $ 4 2 2 ,2 1 9 2 8

Rhode I sland 21% 2 4 $ 5 1 ,1 2 3 , 78 0 $ 4 2 3 ,7 3 4 2 9

Lou is iana 6% 1 9 $ 4 2 ,8 8 7 , 52 9 $ 4 4 4 ,3 5 8 3 0

M assachu set ts 16% 8 8 $ 2 1 1 ,9 8 4 ,6 7 8 $ 4 8 2 ,6 9 7 3 1

U t a h 12% 2 1 $ 5 8 ,3 6 3 , 63 0 $ 5 6 1 ,4 6 7 3 2

N e v a d a 10% 1 1 $ 5 1 ,5 2 6 , 20 5 $ 9 7 4 ,8 6 5 3 3

O h i o 9% 1 0 0 $ 5 3 6 ,1 1 1 ,6 4 8 $ 1 , 06 8 , 2 09 3 4

C o n n e c t i c u t 8% 3 3 $ 1 9 7 ,6 7 4 ,4 7 6 $ 1 , 18 2 , 0 70 3 5

A r i z o n a 5% 1 2 $ 1 0 4 ,7 8 7 ,8 4 5 $ 1 , 74 3 , 7 82 3 6

A l a b a m a 1% 2 $ 5 3 ,0 9 3 , 91 8 $ 4 , 98 9 , 5 21 3 7

G eor g ia 0% - $ 16 1,7 41 ,4 32 N o M i l eage In Po or o r M ed . 3 8

U nited States 26% 5 , 5 4 6 $ 5 , 8 4 3 , 0 7 6 ,8 9 7 $ 2 1 0 , 6 9 5

the areas urban highwaysare in poor or mediocrecondition (Table 9).

D rivers spend four t imesm ore every year ($4 .8 b i l -l ion) repairing dam age totheir cars caused by crum-

bl ing urban h ighways thanstate D O Ts spend each year($1 .2 b i l l ion) to f ix thesesame roads (Table 8).Driving o n road s in p oorcondition is expensive.Cracked and bum py roadsincrease m aintenan ce co sts


23/36


Table 11. The N orfolk, Charlotte, and O rlando m etro areas rank highest on the Pothole Ind ex.

So u r c e : En v i r o n m e n t al W o r k i n g G r o u p , 1 9 9 7 . R o a d c o n d i t i o n d a t a c o m p i l e d f ro m D O T H P M S d a t ab a se (1 9 9 5 ),sp e n d i n g d a t a i s fo r F Y 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 6 , c o m p i l e d f r o m D O T F M I S d a ta b a se .

Total State DO T

Spending on U rban Average Annual

Percentage of U rban U rban H ighw ay H ighw ay Repair Repair Spending Per M ile

H ighw ays I n Poor or M ileage I n Poor O r in M etro Area of U rban H ighw ay Rank on

M etropolitan Area M ediocre C ondition M ediocre Condition (1 9 9 2 -1 9 9 6 ) I n Poor or M ediocre C ondit ion Pothole I ndex

N o rfo l k --V i rgin ia Beac h --N ew p o rt N ew s, V A 4 8 % 8 1 $ 0 N o Rep ai r Sp en d i n g 1

Ch arl o t te--G asto n ia--Ro c k H i l l , N C--SC 3 3 % 3 4 $ 4 1 0 ,2 9 3 $ 2 ,3 9 9 2

O r lan d o , FL 1 8 % 2 6 $ 9 1 1 ,5 5 5 $ 6 ,8 8 9 3

Ric h m o n d --Petersb u rg, V A 3 7 % 6 6 $ 6 ,8 4 4 ,5 0 7 $ 2 0 ,8 7 5 4

Fo rt Lau d erd al e--H o l l y w o o d --Po m p an o Beac h , FL 1 0 % 1 0 $ 1 ,1 5 9 ,0 4 2 $ 2 2 ,1 2 8 5

M em p h is, TN --A R--M S 3 7 % 3 2 $ 6 ,1 4 3 ,2 1 4 $ 3 8 ,6 6 9 6

A lb an y --Sc h en ec tad y --Tro y , N Y 4 5 % 4 7 $ 9 ,2 7 2 ,2 1 9 $ 3 9 ,3 0 6 7

Tam p a--St . Petersb u rg--C learw ater , FL 6 0 % 7 5 $ 1 5 ,7 0 3 ,9 1 4 $ 4 2 ,0 7 7 8

W est Pal m Beac h --Bo c a Rato n --D el ray Beac h , FL 4 0 % 3 6 $ 7 ,6 1 2 ,2 4 3 $ 4 2 ,1 6 1 9

Seattl e, W A 3 4 % 8 6 $ 2 6 ,3 2 1 ,1 6 4 $ 6 1 ,5 5 3 1 0

G reen sb o ro --W in sto n -Sal em --H i gh Po in t, N C 5 0 % 7 1 $ 2 3 ,3 2 5 ,2 7 3 $ 6 5 ,6 7 4 1 1

Ph i l ad elp h ia, PA --N J 4 2 % 1 4 8 $ 5 7 ,1 0 2 ,9 9 7 $ 7 7 ,3 1 7 1 2

Lo u isv i l l e, KY-- IN 5 5 % 7 6 $ 3 1 ,4 2 8 ,8 0 1 $ 8 2 ,4 3 2 1 3

Bu ffalo --N iagara Fa l l s, N Y 3 9 % 5 4 $ 2 3 ,3 3 2 ,8 2 5 $ 8 5 ,8 3 5 1 4

Po rt l an d --V an c o u v er , O R--W A 4 3 % 5 8 $ 2 7 ,2 0 4 ,0 6 0 $ 9 4 ,0 9 3 1 5

San Fran c i sc o --O ak lan d , C A 3 0 % 9 9 $ 4 6 ,5 6 5 ,4 2 2 $ 9 4 ,5 4 9 1 6

N ash v i l l e, TN 3 8 % 5 2 $ 2 6 ,5 5 2 ,7 1 0 $ 1 0 1 ,9 6 3 1 7

Jac k so n v i l l e, FL 3 5 % 4 1 $ 2 1 ,1 2 9 ,2 1 9 $ 1 0 1 ,9 7 5 1 8

O k lah o m a C i ty , O K 5 4 % 7 9 $ 4 5 ,1 5 0 ,6 4 6 $ 1 1 3 ,8 5 1 1 9

Ch ic ago , IL 5 5 % 2 6 0 $ 1 4 9 ,9 1 2 ,8 1 3 $ 1 1 5 ,3 2 0 2 0

Pi t tsb u rgh , PA 3 6 % 1 0 3 $ 6 4 ,0 5 9 ,2 2 1 $ 1 2 4 ,4 8 0 2 1

San D iego , CA 5 1 % 1 1 9 $ 7 5 ,4 8 0 ,5 4 3 $ 1 2 6 ,5 2 5 2 2

Lo s A n geles--Lo n g Beac h , C A 4 6 % 2 8 8 $ 2 0 0 ,7 2 2 ,3 3 1 $ 1 3 9 ,2 7 3 2 3

N ew Yo rk , N Y -- N o r th eastern N J 4 3 % 4 8 8 $ 3 4 6 ,6 2 7 ,6 3 8 $ 1 4 2 ,0 7 6 2 4

Bal ti m o re, M D 1 8 % 4 9 $ 3 9 ,1 5 3 ,9 9 9 $ 1 6 0 ,6 5 8 2 5

Ro c h ester, N Y 3 7 % 3 7 $ 3 0 ,6 0 8 ,2 6 2 $ 1 6 4 ,1 1 9 2 6

D en v er, C O 4 1 % 8 4 $ 7 4 ,8 2 8 ,2 3 5 $ 1 7 8 ,2 4 3 2 7

M i lw au k ee, W I 3 8 % 3 8 $ 4 0 ,1 6 9 ,4 0 5 $ 2 1 0 ,3 7 7 2 8

D etro i t, M I 3 4 % 9 5 $ 1 0 0 ,5 5 7 ,0 0 6 $ 2 1 1 ,2 7 9 2 9

M iam i --H i aleah , FL 1 8 % 2 1 $ 2 3 ,9 8 8 ,9 3 5 $ 2 3 3 ,6 9 6 3 0

St. Lo u is, M O -- IL 4 6 % 1 3 6 $ 1 6 3 ,4 9 3 ,6 3 0 $ 2 4 0 ,2 9 9 3 1

Bo sto n , M A 2 9 % 6 1 $ 7 4 ,8 4 6 ,7 1 2 $ 2 4 5 ,1 2 6 3 2

Kan sas C i ty , M O --KS 1 6 % 5 6 $ 7 0 ,8 9 2 ,6 6 0 $ 2 5 1 ,9 3 7 3 3

Sal t Lak e C i ty --O gd en , U T 1 8 % 2 1 $ 2 6 ,6 7 9 ,6 6 3 $ 2 5 4 ,7 7 1 3 4

H o n o lu lu , H I 2 3 % 1 5 $ 1 9 ,4 4 6 ,2 4 3 $ 2 5 7 ,4 6 4 3 5

Sac ram en to , CA 2 2 % 2 3 $ 3 4 ,4 1 5 ,5 3 3 $ 2 9 8 ,6 1 6 3 6

D al l as--Fo r t W o rth , TX 8 % 4 6 $ 7 8 ,0 1 9 ,2 7 3 $ 3 3 7 ,9 7 3 3 7

Pro v id en c e--Paw tu c k et- -Fal l Ri v er , RI- -M A 1 8 % 2 7 $ 4 7 ,5 4 4 ,2 7 1 $ 3 4 6 ,5 5 8 3 8

San Jo se, C A 3 0 % 3 8 $ 6 8 ,2 1 8 ,7 0 3 $ 3 5 8 ,4 3 3 3 9

W ash in gto n , D C --M D --V A 2 3 % 7 0 $ 1 2 9 ,8 4 0 ,2 2 4 $ 3 7 0 ,8 3 4 4 0

San A n to n i o , TX 8 % 1 6 $ 3 0 ,0 5 1 ,8 3 9 $ 3 7 1 ,1 7 1 4 1

In d ian ap o l i s, IN 3 4 % 4 4 $ 9 0 ,6 7 9 ,2 5 8 $ 4 1 3 ,2 4 9 4 2

M in n eap o l i s--St. Pau l , M N --W I 1 3 % 3 8 $8 4 ,1 9 8 ,8 5 8 $ 4 4 4 ,6 1 4 4 3

Riv ersid e--San Bern ard i n o , C A 2 8 % 3 9 $9 3 ,4 2 3 ,8 0 8 $ 4 7 6 ,8 9 5 4 4

C lev elan d , O H 1 7 % 3 9 $ 1 0 5 ,8 7 1 ,4 6 5 $ 5 4 0 ,6 0 2 4 5

H o u sto n , TX 1 1 % 4 4 $ 2 0 1 ,2 7 1 ,3 1 7 $ 9 1 7 ,1 4 2 4 6

C in c in n n at i , O H -KY-IN 1 9 % 3 2 $ 1 9 8 ,5 0 3 ,2 1 4 $ 1 ,2 2 5 ,9 1 2 4 7

Co lu m b u s, O H 6 % 8 $ 6 7 ,7 0 0 ,2 9 7 $ 1 ,7 1 6 ,9 7 4 4 8

Ph o en ix , A Z 6 % 7 $ 7 0 ,1 7 3 ,1 2 1 $ 2 ,0 4 0 ,2 1 3 4 9

N ew O rl ean s, LA 3 % 2 $ 2 3 ,3 6 9 ,5 8 0 $ 2 ,1 0 2 ,5 2 6 5 0

A u stin , TX 3 % 3 $ 5 2 ,9 4 3 ,6 6 9 $ 3 ,1 9 7 ,0 8 1 5 1

B i rm i n gh am , A L 1 % 1 $ 2 7 ,7 4 3 ,6 3 0 $ 3 ,7 5 9 ,2 9 9 5 2

D ay to n --Sp r in g fi eld , O H 1 % 1 $ 5 4 ,2 4 8 ,5 3 6 $ 8 ,8 2 0 ,9 0 0 5 3

A tl an ta, G A 0 % - $ 1 0 9 ,5 2 9 ,5 5 4 N o Ro ad s In Po o r o r M ed . C o n d 5 4


24/36


and tire wear, cause cars towear ou t soone r, and re-du ce fue l efficiency. Com-pared to the costs of driv-ing on interstates in good

condition, it costs driversan extra $34 for every onethousand miles driven oninterstates in poor condi-tion . Sim ilarly, it co stsdrivers an extra $18 forevery one thousand milesdriven on roads in m edio-cre cond ition, an d a n e xtra$5 for every thousand milesdriven on roads in fair con-

dition.

Failure to f ix urban h igh-w ays adds nearly $2 ,00 0 inmaintenance costs over thel i fe of a car in som e m etro-politan areas. A driver inthe Los Angeles metro areaspends approximately$1,800 over the life of acar, wh ile d rivers in the

San Diego, Oklahoma City,and San Jose metropolitanareas spend over $1400 inadditional automobile costsbecau se of highw ays thatare in p oor, med iocre, orfair cond ition (Tab le 9).Poorly ma intained urbanhighw ays in California add$966 in costs over the lifeof a car in California as a

wh ole, and o ver $700 overthe life o f a car in Wa sh-ington, Colorado, an d NewYork.

Arkansas, Mississipp i, Vir-ginia, an d Sou th Carolinarank highest on the Po tholeInde x (Table 10). The Pot-

hole Index is based on theamoun t of mone y thatstates are spen ding, permile of roadway in immi-ne nt ne ed of rep air. States

spending the m ost moneyfor repairs have a low Pot-hole Inde x, and states thatare failing to invest in u rbanhighway maintenance havea high Pothole Index.

Th e m e tro p o lita n a re a s th a trank highest on the Po tholeIndex are Norfolk, Virginia;Charlotte-Gastonia, North

Carolina; O rland o, Florida,and Richm on d, Virginia(Table 11). In these metro-politan areas, state DOTsare failing to make neces-sary investment to ensureadequate road maintenance.

While the federal spending isoften indicative of overall spend-ing, particularly on interstates, in

most states federal spending onlyconstitutes 30-35% of all spend-ing on transportation projects.State gas taxes a ccou nt for 25-30% in m ost states, an d localproperty taxes, sales taxes andgeneral fund s make up the d iffer-ence.

Thus, som e states that app earto be acting responsibly with fed-

eral fund s may no t be acting asrespo nsibly w ith state funds. Forexample, in Wisconsin, most ofthe federal money has beenshifted to m aintenan ce w hile thestate spending on new construc-tion has ne arly dou bled in thelast ten years (in real dollars).While the state spen ding on new


25/36


A N D TH E W I N N E R I S...

Even as m ajo r f reew ays and Interstateh igh w ays reach the i r l i fe expectancy, as

they a re star ti ng t o do on I -95 , w h ich runsthe length o f the eastern seaboard , new roadcons truc t i on p ro jec t s con t i nue to w in ou tove r p reven ti ve road m a in tenanceprogram s. For exam ple , in Ph i l ade lph ia inthe 198 0s as the sta te h ighw ay agency w asund e r tak ing m a jo r capac i t y expansionpro j ec ts on the ou ter fr inges o f the c i ty , thedow n tow n Schu y lk i l l Exp ressw ay (I -76 ) hadto und ergo a m ajor reconstruc t io n a f te ryears o f n eg lec t , fo rc ing m otor is ts to

nav iga te one lane i n each d i r ec t i on . N ow ,as the rest o f I -95 th rou gh the Ci ty con t inu es

to deter io rate the state is p l ann in g a new$46 7 m i l l i on i n te rchange a t t he In te rsec t i on

of I -95 and the N ew Jersey Turnp ik e . Inadd i t i on , some p o l i t i c i ans are f o rw a rd ing anidea to do ub le -deck the Schuy lk i l lExp ressw ay.

N ew Jersey, a sta te w i th o ver a th i rd o f i t sm e tropo l i t an f reew ays i n bad con d i t i on ,recen t l y dec ided to de lay do zens o f neededm a in tenance p ro jec t s i n f avo r o f new roadc o n st ru c t i o n a n d h i g h w a y w i d e n i n g w o r k(fo r a com ple te l i s t o f de layed pro j ec ts v is i t

the Tr i -Sta te Transpo r tat ion Cam paign s w ebsi te a t w w w . tstc .o rg).

con struction increase d b y 98% (inreal dollars), the state spendingon maintenance o nly increasedby 15%. Thu s, in Wiscon sin,which already has a relatively

high pothole index because ofits use of federal funds, officialsare dedicating even less of thenecessary state funds to highwaymaintenance.

N o t e s1 We exclud ed the CMAQ, Enhan cem en ts, and Interstate Con struction pro grams from

our analysis, which do not provide flexible funds for highway repair.

2 States that we re excluded from the an alysis becau se they d id not h ave 100 miles of

urban highway w ere Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hamp -

shire, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dako ta, Vermon t, Wyoming, and Washington,

DC.


26/36


Fix it First

Chapter Three

The passage of ISTEA in 1991marked a watershed in transpor-tation law in th e Un ited States.ISTEA has led to a slow bu tsteady improvem ent in the co n-dition of the nations urban high-w ays. Yet ou r find ings clearly

indicate that road maintenance isa con tinuing, expe nsive p roblem over 26% of the nations ur-ban h ighw ays rem ain in imm edi-ate nee d of repair and thatstates are not dedicating ad-eq uate fund s to the task. If thisproblem is to be truly solved,ISTEA must be stren gthen ed toprevent state DOTs from divert-ing p recious h ighw ay repair dol-

lars to building new roads in-stead.

ISTEA currently does not re-quire state DO Ts to sp end anadequate amou nt of mone y onroad repair, nor does it requirethat existing roads be maintainedin goo d co ndition before repairfund s can be d iverted to n ewcon struction. Und er ISTEA, state

DOTs have diverted billions ofdo llars of taxpaye r fun ds avail-able for highw ay repair to n ewroad construction pro jects. Thiscosts drivers billions of dollarspe r year in au to maintena nceexpe nses and increases future

road rep air costs by as much astenfold.

As this report goes to press,Congress is in the midst of rew rit-ing ISTEA. O ur find ings clea rlyindicate that many states are do-

ing an inade qua te job of main-taining urban and suburban high-w ays. In the Hou se, legislationsponsored by Transportation andInfrastructure Comm ittee Chair-man Bud Shuster (R-PA) andRank ing Mino rity Mem be r Jam esOberstar (D-MN) is scheduled fora committee vote in mid-Septem-be r. This legislation, wh ile itdoes not dramatically improve

curren t ISTEA maintena nce re-qu irem en ts, will at least p rovidestates with dedicated funding forhighway maintenance while atthe same time creating a perfor-mance bonus program for statesthat do a good job of systempre servation . Legislation to reau -thorize ISTEA will soon be intro-duced in the Senate.

To ensure that the nationshighways are prop erly main-tained and that state D OTs donot increase future road a nd au -tomobile repair costs by divertinghighway maintenance money tonew construction projects, an


27/36


amended ISTEA should:

Require states to certifythat they have adequatefunds available to maintain

a new road or highw ay overits useful l ife befor e allow -ing federal highw ay fundsto b e spent on its construc-t ion. The Federal TransitAct requires agencies pro-posing new transit projectsto show the financial capac-ity to maintain new facilitiesover their entire useful life,and to comm it to funding

future maintenance needs.There is currently no similarrequirement for new high-ways built with federalmoney .

Require states to certifythat a t least 90 % of the irexisting urba n and subu r-ban highw ays are in goodcondit ion before al lowing

them to undertake newconstruction. Drivers con-sistently indicate that theirtop priority is imp roving thecondition of existing roads.A reauthorized ISTEA mustfirst ensure that states areadequately maintaining theroad s that are cu rrently inuse.

Keep the existin g system

preservat ion fund ing pro-gram s the Intersta te M ain-tenance and Bridge fundingcategories and increasefunding for these pro gramsby thirty percent . A num -ber o f DOT studies haveindicated that more re-

sources are neede d in orderto ensure adequate mainte-nance of our urban and sub-urban highways. UnderISTEA, states have made small

improvements, but have notdedicated adequate funds toma intaining road s. New legis-lation mu st ensure that ad-equ ate m one y is available,and that it is used effectively.

Est abl ish a na t iona l goa l forimp roving the condit ion ofour Interstate H ighway sys-tem, and p rovide incent ives

to states to meet these goals.States with more than one-halfof their Interstate system inless than fair con dition shou ldbe required to dedicate a por-tion of their flexible NationalHighway System funds to in-terstate ma intenan ce. Con-versely, states w hich h avedone a good job protectingthe condition of the Interstate

system should be rewardedwith bonus funding.

Strengthen program s w hichreduce the dem ands for newroads. A new Land Use andTransportation pilot programcould fund states and me tro-po litan areas wh o w ish to at-tempt innovative programs tolink transportation and land

use through transit or ped es-trian-oriented developm ent,state or local programs forcollaborative land use andtranspo rtation planning an dma in stree t pro grams.These can reduce the dem andfor new roads by reducingsprawl.


28/36


N EGLECTO FTH E N A T I O N S BRIDGES

The In tersta te h igh w ay sys tem a lon econ tains 54 ,726 b r idges, m ore than 3 ,000 o f

w h ic h are c lassi f ied as st ruc tura l ly d e f ic ien tby t he Fede ra l H ighw ay Adm in i st ra ti on(FH W A) . The ma in tenance o f t hese b r idgesand i ts re la ted im pact on sa fety becam ef ron t page new s in t he 198 0s w hen anIn tersta te br idge on I -90 co l lapsed in toScho ha r ie Creek nea r A l bany , N ew York ,k i l l i n g 10 peop le . U n fo r tuna te l y , t he sameforces that compel state t ranspor tat iondepar tm ents to neg lec t c rum bl i ng roads inf av o r o f l ay i n g d o w n n e w p a v em e n t

e l sew here are a l so a t w o rk on ou r n a ti on sbr idges.

M a in tenance i s t he poo r stepch i l d t o b r i dgedesign , fo rm er U .S. Representa tive an dChai r o f the H ou se Transpor ta tionC o m m i t te e N o r m a n M i n e ta to l d t h e A l b a n yU n i o n T i m e s i n 1 9 9 5 . I t s m u c h m o r ea tt rac t i ve po l i t i ca l l y t o o pen a b rand newbr id ge than to d ed ica te a new (br id ge) pa in t

j o b . In th e sam e ar ti c l e, W i l l i am Po u n d ,

execu t i ve d i r ec to r o f t he N a tiona l

Co nferenc e of State Legislatures, exp la in stha t w h i l e the in te rsta te system w as be in g

bu i l t t he emp hasis w as on con st ruc t i on . It h in k t h e p u b li c n o w w i l l d em a n d t h at w ef i x w ha t w e a l ready have .

The 199 1 ISTEA law ded ica ted ove r $2b i l l io n per year to i t s Br idge Repa i r p rogram .I t has he lp ed to a t least ho l d the l i ne onde ter io ra ti ng b r i dges acco rd ing to FH W A,the num ber o f ov e ra l l b r i dges e l i g ib le f o rfederal fun ds tha t are st ruc tura l ly de f ic ien t d e c li n ed f ro m 1 3 % i n 1 9 9 0 t o 1 1 % i n 1 9 9 6 .

Ye t the h ighw ay lob by as w e l l as m any statedepar tm ents o f t ranspo r tat ion (D O Ts) havew aged a st rong c am paign agains t ISTEA sBr idge Repa i r p rogram , dec lar ing i t a bu rdensome m anda te and u rg ing i t se l i m i n a t io n . W h i l e t h e H o u se b i l l toreauthor ize ISTEA protects the Br idge Repairp rogram , there is l i t t le dou bt tha t theh ighw ay lobb y w i l l con t i nue i t s e ff o r ts t o gu tthe program as leg isla t ion m ov es th roughCongress.


29/36



30/36


M ethodology and D ata Sources

Chapter Four

All analyses in this study wererestricted to urban and suburbaninterstates, freeways, and ex-pressways (referred to through-out the repo rt as urban h igh-ways) the road s that are usedby thousand s of automob ilecom mu ters every day. Rep air ofthese roads is almost always therespo nsibility of state d ep art-ments of transportation therecipients of federal ISTEA funds no t local jurisdiction s. Statespending of federal transporta-tion dollars was analyzed fromFiscal Year 1992 the first yearthat ISTEA was in effect tothe presen t. Spe nding data con-sists of either spending on re-pairs on urban highways, orspending on new urban h igh-ways or ne w rural highways.Arterials, collectors, and localroads we re not include d in theanalyses because these roads areoften the re spo nsibility of localgovernme nts, not state de part-me nts of transpo rtation . In or-der to ensure adequate samplesize, all state-level analyses wererestricted to states with at least100 miles of urban highway.

Data on highway spending inthe United States was obtainedfrom the Financial ManagementInform ation System , a da tabaseof all highw ay spen ding main-

tained by the United States De-partment of Transportation(USDO T). The datab ase, w hichcon tains ap p roximately 427,000records, was o btained by Envi-ronm ental Working Grou p via aFreed om of Information reque stto U.S. DOT. All p rojects arecode d in the database using 15differen t cod es to iden tify high-way improvement types (NewConstruction , Mino r Widen ing,etc.). Using the se code s, allhighway spending was classifiedas either spending on new high-wa ys, or spe nding on repair.The follow ing DO T codes we reclassified as new spending: NewConstruction, Relocation, MajorWidening, and Reconstruction w/Additional Capacity.

The following w ere classifiedas rep air and reha bilitationspe nd ing: Minor Widen ing, Res-toration and Reh ab., Resurfacing,and Recon struction w/ o Addi-tion al Capacity. Spe nd ing onbridges (w hich is fun ded from aseparate ISTEA program) was notinclud ed in the analysis. In ord erto ensure that w e o nly analyzedexpenditure of flexible funds(funds no t restricted to sp ecificactivities and p rojects), We ex-cluded several ISTEA program swh ich d o not p rovide flexiblefund s for roadw ay repair the


31/36

2 8 PO T H O L E POLITICS: H O W C ON GR E S S C A N FIX YO U R RO A D S

CMAQ, Enhancements, and Inter-state Construction programs.

Data on the con ditions o f thenations roads we re o btainedfrom the Highw ay Performan ceMonitoring System . This da ta-base, wh ich con tains over

150,000 records, was also ob-taine d from U.S. DO T via a Free -dom o f Information requ est. Thedatab ase co ntains a statisticalsamp le o f all urban highwaymiles in the nation. State de pa rt-me nts of transpo rtation, respon -sible for reporting data to thedatabase, assign e ach m ile o fhighway sampled a numericalranking know n as either the

Present Serviceability Ranking(PSR) o r the International Rou gh-ne ss Inde x (IRI) ind icating theroad condition. Until 1995, U.S.DO T assigned a verbal ranking very good, good, fair, medio-cre, or po or to these roadsbased upon the objective numeri-cal ran king. In 1995, U.S. DO T

V erbal Rating I RI Rating D escription

Po o r > 1 7 0 (I); > 2 2 0 (F,E) N eed s im m ed iate rep ai r to resto re serv i v eab i l i ty

M e di oc re 1 20 -1 70 (I); 1 71 -2 20 (F,E) N e ed s rep ai r i n th e n ear fu tu re to preserv e u sab il ity

Fai r 9 5 -1 1 9 (I ); 9 5 -1 7 0 (F,E) W i ll l i kel y need rep ai r i n th e n ear fu tu re, b u t d ep en d s o n traffi c use

Go o d 6 0 - 9 4 I n d e ce n t co n d i t i o n . W i l l n o t r e q u i r e r e p a i r i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e.

V ery G o o d < 6 0 N ew o r alm o st n ew p av em en t, w i l l n o t req u i re rep ai r fo r so m e tim e.

I= In terstates, F,E = Freew ays and Expressway s

So u r ce : F HW A, 1 9 9 3 . H ig h w a y Per f o rm a n ce M o n i t o r i n g Syst e m Fie l d M a n u a l . W a sh in g t o n , D C.

Table 12 . D ef init ion of term s.

did not assign these rankings.Becau se o f this, EWG a nd STPPassigned these verbal rankingsbased u po n U.S. DOT stand ardsused un til 1995 (Table 12).

If road projects or roads arelocated in census-defined me tro-

po litan are as, the HPMS andFMIS databases contain codesiden tifying the are a. This al-low ed us to con duct all analysesat the metro area level as well asthe state level.

The cost of driving on badroads w as calculated using m od-els prepared by U.S. DOT an dother transportation experts.

Driving on po thole-plaguedroads increases maintenancecosts, tire wear, and depreciationrates, and de creases fuel effi-ciency. Resea rchers have esti-mated the relative costs, permile, of driving o n ro ads tha t arein poor, mediocre, fair, andgood condition (FHWA 1992;


32/36


FHWA 1982; Texas Transporta-tion Institute 1994). Using the semodels, and estimates of theannual mileage driven on urbanhighways in less than good con-

dition, we estimated the totalcost to drivers at the national,

state, and metropolitan area level.These costs are based only onurban highway driving and donot include costs due to drivingon non -highw ays in less than

good condition.


33/36

3 0 PO T H O L E POLITICS: H O W C ON GR E S S C A N FIX YO U R RO A D S


34/36


References


California Assem bly Office o f Rese arch . California 2000: Gridlockin the Making. Sacramen to. March.

FHWA. 1982. Veh icle O pe rating Costs, Fuel Consum ption, andPavem en t Type and Cond ition Factors. Jun e. Washington , DC.

FHWA 1992.: Cost of Ow ning & O p erating Automo biles, Vans,and Light Trucks, April, Washington, DC.

FHWA. 1993. Highw ay Perform an ce Monitoring System FieldManu al. Washington , DC.

FHWA. 1997. 1995 Highw ay Perform ance Mon itoring System ma s-ter dataset. Washington , DC.

FHWA. 1997b. Finan acial Managem en t Inform ation System m asterdataset. Washington , DC.

Texas Transpo rtation Institute. 1994. Upd ated fue l con sum ptionestimates for benefit-cost analysis of transportation alternatives.SWUTC/94/60013-1. College Station, Texas


35/36



36/36

SURFACETRANSPORTATION

POLICYPROJECT



1100 17TH ST., NW, 10TH FLOORWASHINGTON, DC 20036TEL 202-466-2636FAX 202-466-2247

1718 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW, SUITE 600WASHINGTON, DC 20009TEL 202-667-6982FAX [email protected]

www.ewg.org

Download - Potholes and Politics

Top Related