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