STATEMENT OF
MARY E. PETERS, ADMINISTRATOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING ON THE STATUS OF THE NATION'S HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the state of our Nation's
highway and bridge infrastructure.
Section 502(g) of title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.)
requires the Secretary of Transportation to submit to the Congress every two
years a report that describes "estimates of the future highway and bridge needs
of the United States" and "the backlog of current highway and bridge needs." This is commonly known as the Conditions and
Performance Report. Since 1993, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has partnered with the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) to produce a Conditions and Performance Report that
contains both highway and transit data.
The 2002 edition of the
Conditions and Performance Report is in final clearance. I know that this report is of interest to
Congress in the reauthorization
process, and it is my hope that the
report will be transmitted to the Congress this fall. Today, I would like to share some of the findings from the
Conditions and Performance Report that can help you understand the state of the
Nation's highway and bridge infrastructure.
In addition, a summary of the major findings of the Conditions and
Performance Report is attached to this statement.
Significant
Increases in Highway and Bridge Infrastructure Investment
The 2002 edition of the Conditions
and Performance Report is the first edition to capture the effects of
investment in highways, bridges, and transit under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
Since the enactment of TEA-21 in 1998,
combined investment in highway
infrastructure, by all levels of government, has increased sharply. Total highway expenditures by Federal, State, and local
governments increased by 25.0 percent between 1997 and 2000. This equates to a 14.4 percent increase in
constant dollar terms. Highway capital
spending alone rose to $64.6 billion in 2000, a 33.7 percent increase over
1997.
The increased Federal funding levels for highway capital investment under TEA-21
through 2000 have been matched and exceeded by increases in State and local
investment. This is a very important point. State and local governments did not simply
substitute Federal funds for their own during this robust economic period. Instead, they poured billions of additional
dollars into transportation projects beyond the minimum increases necessary to
meet Federal matching requirements. As
a result, the State share of highway capital investment rose from 1997 to
2000. In 1998, the State share of
highway capital outlays was above 60 percent for the first time since 1959, and
remained above that level through 2000.
New
Emphasis on System Preservation
The
TEA-21 era coincided with a shift in the types of capital improvements made by
State and local governments. During
the TEA-21 era, States redirected their investments toward system preservation
projects (the resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of existing
highway lanes and bridges). There was a
45.7 percent increase in spending on system preservation, from $23.2 billion in
1997 to $33.6 billion in 2000. The fact
that system preservation projects tend to have shorter lead times and are often
less controversial than system expansion projects, may have contributed to such
projects attracting a greater share of the increased funding available under
TEA-21. Investment in system expansion
(the construction of new roads and bridges and the widening of existing roads)
grew more slowly, rising 20.8 percent from $21.6 billion to $25.9 billion.
This increase in system preservation investment has
had a profound effect on the overall physical condition of the Nation's highway
and bridge infrastructure. The
percentage of highway mileage with "acceptable" ride quality rose from 82.5
percent in 1993 to 86.0 percent in 2000.
The percentage of bridge deck area considered deficient dropped from
30.9 percent in 1996 to 27.9 percent in 2000.
These improvements, however, were not uniform across all highways and
bridges. For example, the condition of
higher-order roads, such as Interstates, has improved considerably since 1993,
while conditions on many lower-order roads have deteriorated. Bridge condition also differs by functional
system. Interstate bridges, for
example, tend to be less structurally deficient or functionally obsolete than
bridges on collector or local roads.
Continued Improvement in
Highway Safety
The 2002 Conditions and Performance
Report also documents the Nation's continued improvement in the area of highway
safety. Safety is the top priority for
the Department of Transportation. I am
pleased to report that highways have become safer even as travel sharply
increased. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has
decreased, from 3.3 in 1980 to 1.5 in 2000, which met the Department's
Performance Plan target. The Department
will continue to work with our State and local partners to reduce the number of
crashes on our Nation's highways even further.
Deterioration
in Operational Performance
Despite the historic
investment in highway infrastructure and improved conditions on many roads and
bridges, operational performance of the infrastructure-the quality of the
user's experience-has steadily deteriorated over the past decade. In 1987 for example, a trip that would take
20 minutes during non-congested periods required, on average, 25.8 minutes
under congested conditions. By 2000,
the same trip under congested conditions required 30.2 minutes, or an
additional 4.4 minutes.
Some estimates attribute as
much delay to incidents as to recurring congestion. Part of the answer to all forms of congestion is an increased
emphasis on operations, including more effective responses to incidents, better
management of work zones, and deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Highway
Investment Requirements Analysis
The heart of the
Conditions and Performance Report is an analysis of future capital investment
requirements under different scenarios.
The Cost to Improve Highways and Bridges scenario is intended to define
the upper limit of cost-effective national investment based on engineering and
economic criteria. This is essentially an "investment ceiling" above which it
would not be cost-beneficial to invest.
This scenario implicitly assumes unlimited availability of funding, and
does not take into account competing investment options in the economy that may
have an even more favorable cost-benefit return. The Cost to Maintain Highways and Bridges scenario is designed to
show the investment required to keep future indicators of conditions and
performance at current levels, based on long term projections of future highway
use. These benchmarks are intended to
be illustrative and do not represent comprehensive alternative transportation
policies.
In addition to these
primary scenarios, the report also identifies the projected level of investment
required to achieve other specific benchmarks, such as average pavement
conditions, and estimates the current backlog of cost-beneficial preservation
and capacity investments based solely on current conditions and traffic
volume.
It is important to note
that the scenarios in the Conditions and Performance Report are intended to address
investment requirements for all levels of government combined. The report makes no attempt to address the
question of what share of total infrastructure investment should be borne by
the Federal government, State governments, local governments, or the private
sector.
The average annual
investment level under the Cost to Improve Highways and Bridges Scenario
is projected to be $106.9 billion for 2001 through 2020, stated in constant
year 2000 dollars. This is 65.3 percent
higher than the $64.6 billion of total capital investments by all levels of
government in 2000. The average annual
investment level under the Cost to Maintain Highways and Bridges is
projected to be $75.9 billion for 2001 through 2020, which is 17.5 percent
larger than the $64.6 billion of capital spending in 2000.
Capital spending by all
levels of government is projected to increase in constant dollar terms over the
remainder of the life of TEA-21. This
assumes, however, that Federal, State, and local governments will be in a financial
position to allow them to continue to increase their highway and bridge
investments. Government at all levels
may not be able to sustain the rate of increase in infrastructure investment
observed in recent years.
In addition to the two
investment scenarios I have just described, the Conditions and Performance
Report also predicts the impacts of numerous alternative investment levels on a
variety of condition and performance indicators.
If investment were to
remain at year 2000 levels, or anticipated levels for 2001 to 2003, it is
projected that recent trends observed in the condition and performance of the
highway system would continue. At this
range of investment levels, conditions and safety performance would improve,
but the operational performance of the highway system would further
deteriorate. Average speeds would
decline, the amount of delay experienced by drivers would increase, and the
average length of congested periods on the Nation's urban principal arterials
would increase. Recent trends towards
improvements in bridge conditions would also continue; however, the aging of
the Nation's bridges, particularly on the Interstate system, will present
additional challenges in the future.
The preceding edition of
the Conditions and Performance report suggested that it would be
cost-beneficial to devote a larger share of future highway investment increases
toward system preservation. As I
previously noted, such a shift did occur between 1997 and 2000, resulting in
significant improvements in the physical conditions of the Nation's highways
and bridges; however, the operational performance of the highway system
continued to decline over this period.
Since 1997, infrastructure investment at all levels of government has
been more successful in addressing physical conditions than operating
performance. Therefore, the Conditions
and Performance Report now suggests that it would be cost-beneficial to devote
a larger share of future increases in highway capital investment toward system
expansion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the state
of the Nation's road and bridge infrastructure has generally improved due to
the significant investment increases of the TEA-21 era. Since the enactment of TEA-21, State and
local governments-spurred in part by higher levels of Federal investment-have
poured billions of dollars into highway infrastructure. This investment led to improved highway and
bridge conditions, particularly on higher-order functional systems. Despite record levels of funding, however, operational
performance-measured by congestion-worsened throughout the country. Congestion increased in metropolitan areas
of every size. FHWA's analysis of
highway and bridge needs and investment requirements suggests that future
funding continue to address system preservation needs, but that increases be
reoriented toward system expansion to reduce user costs and enhance system
performance.
Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee, this concludes my statement. I again thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and I look forward to working with you as we prepare for
reauthorization of the surface transportation programs. I will be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
|