Transcript Colombia Bridge Aerial View

It’s About Time:
Investing in Transportation to Keep
Texas Economically Competitive
José Weissmann
First 2030 – Unconstrained Funds – 2010 Report
• UTSA Bridge needs
• TTI Mobility needs
• CTR Pavement needs
2011 Report Committee
Primary 2030 Report Researchers
Results from the First 2030 - 2010
Committee Accomplishments
2011
• Scenarios describe possible “futures”
– Transportation infrastructure – roads &
bridges
– Urban and rural mobility
– Effect on economic competitiveness &
quality of life
• Possible funding options
• Guiding principles for projects/programs
• How Texans will pay for transportation
• Information for future decisions
Committee Scenarios
Conditions, Funding and Letter Grade
F – Unacceptable
F - Unacceptable Conditions – What will happen
Conditions
if policies do not change? Conditions deteriorate &
congestion grows rapidly
DD–- Worst
Worst Acceptable
Acceptable Conditions
Conditions – Preserve
enormous infrastructure investment, but congestion
grows rapidly
C
C –- Minimum Competitive Conditions –
Conditions equal to or better than median of peer
cities & states
B –- Continue 2010 Conditions – Maintain current
B
quality & congestion levels
Average Annual Transportation Costs
per Household, 2011 to 2035
Wasted Fuel, Time & Maintenance Costs
$6,000
Taxes & Fees
$5,000
$4,000
6,095
4,228
4,825
3,652
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
F-Unacceptable
511
406
232
D-Worst
Acceptable
C-Minimum
Competitive
634
B-Continue 2010
Conditions
Annual Investment
2011 to 2035
Scenario & Grade
Total Investment
$Billion ($2010)
Average Cost
per Household
F - Unacceptable Conditions
$4.0
$232
D - Worst Acceptable
$7.0
$406
C - Minimum Competitive
$8.7
$511
$10.8
$634
B - Continue 2010 Conditions
Breakdown for Scenarios
Where are we on Revenues?
• Capture existing revenue
– $100+ million/year from a variety of truck fees
– Transfers to DPS: $600 million per year
• System-wide sources
– Fuel tax
– Vehicle registration fee
• Targeted options
– Toll roads
– Project-specific incentives
– Public-private partnerships
• Area approaches
– Local option vehicle registration fees
– Local option fuel tax
Examples
of
Revenue
Options
Committee Conclusions
• Certain – Texans will pay more for transportation in
the future
• Uncertain – the answer to “how?” and “how much?”
• Local and state officials should select projects
• Transportation Action Principles should guide
investment decisions
• Many funding options are available
.
Pay more & suffer ? OR
Pay less & solve ?
Doesn’t seem like a difficult choice
Available Data for Bridge Analysis
National Bridge Inventory (NBI)
In Texas: BRINSAP
• Ohio bridge collapse 1967
– 46 victims
•
•
•
•
•
•
Congress passed law, 1970
Started in 1978
600,000 records
Inspection frequency, 2 years
Database - 116 Items per bridge
Helps allocate $ 4.7 billion to States
(2007)
Te
xa
s
O
h
Ill io
in
o
K is
an
sa
s
C Iow
al
i fo a
M rni
is a
O so u
Pe kla ri
n n ho
sy ma
Te l va
nn ni
es a
se
N
or In e
th d i
C ana
ar
N ol in
ew a
M
is Yor
si
ss k
A ip p
la
i
N b am
eb
ra a
s
G ka
eo
W rg
is
co ia
K ns
en in
tu
c
Vi ky
rg
Lo in
u ia
M isia
in
ne na
A sot
rk a
an
s
Fl as
or
So M i i d
ut ch a
ig
h
C an
ar
C olin
o
W lor a
as ad
hi o
ng
A ton
riz
o
W Or na
es eg
t V on
N irg
ew i
So J n ia
ut ers
h
e
D y
ak
M ot
ar a
yl
an
d
Texas Record Count 8.5%
(More than 50,000 records)
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
NBI Total 600,000 records
C Te
a
Lo li foxas
u i rn
s i
Fl iana
or a
N O i da
e
Pe w Y hio
n n Il or
sy l ino k
M l va is
is n
Te Al so ui a
nn ab ri
e am
Vi sse a
r
M Ge gine
is o i
N O si s rg a
or k s ia
th la ip
C ho pi
ar m
K ol ina
an a
s
W I Io as
a nd w
So Ne shi ia a
ut w ng na
h Je to
C rs n
M aro ey
W ich lin
a
i
M scoig a
in n n
A nes sin
r
K kanota
en s
a
O tu c s
M reg ky
ar o
M
A yla n
as C riz n d
sa olo o n
ch ra a
W Ne us do
e b e
C st V rastts
on i k
ne rgi a
n
Pu M ctic ia
So e on u
ut rto tan t
h R a
D ic
a o
N
ew ko
t
M U ta a
ex h
I ic
N daho
W ev o
yo ad
m a
H in
aw g
ai
i
Texas Deck Area 11.3%
(38.5 million m2) (414.4 million ft2 )
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
NBI Total 340 million m2 (3.7 billion ft2 )
LI
NE FO
W RN
PE
YO IA
N
NS T R
NE YL EX K
A
M WA W VA S
AS S JE N
SA H I RS IA
CH N G EY
US TO
N
IL ET
LI TS
N
O
LO
IS
UI OH
CO M SIA IO
NNIC H NA
NO
EC IGA
RT
T N
H OR ICU
CA EG T
R O
G OL N
E
O O IN
K R A
LA G
M HO IA
IS M
AL SO A
M A B UR
A
I
TE R Y AM
SO
NN LA A
UT
E ND
H FL SS
C O EE
AR RI
O D
VI LI A
R N
G A
I
M
IS I N IA
SI O
SS W
RH
I A
I
W OD ND PPI
ES E IA
I N
DI T V SLA A
ST IR N
. O GI D
F NIA
KA CO
KE N L.
W NT SA
IS U S
CO CO CK
N Y
M LO SI
IN R N
NE AD
S O
AR ID OT
A
KA AH
O
NS
NE ALA AS
BR SK
A A
HA SK
W A
AI
I
CA
HBP (Highway Bridge Program)
Allocations for FY2007
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Texas: 7.6% of $4.8 Billion = $362 Million
Texas Deck Area 11.3%
Texas Bridge Data
Limit
8t
Historical Data
Data available 1995 - 2010
On and Off Systems
TxDOT Goals
• Not structurally deficient (2030 Committee goal)
• Not functionally obsolete
• Not substandard for load only (2030 Committee goal)
2030 Goals
• Forecast number of deficient bridges under
constrained funding
• Forecast User Costs associated with deficient bridges
Future Needs - Constrained
Deck Area On and Off
Systems by Year Built (sqft)
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
18
88
19
03
19
07
19
11
19
15
19
19
19
23
19
27
19
31
19
35
19
39
19
43
19
47
19
51
19
55
19
59
19
63
19
67
19
71
19
75
19
79
19
83
19
87
19
91
19
95
19
99
20
03
20
07
-
The F Grade Scenario
Percent of Deficient Deck Area
• Grade F 460 million/yr
• Grade B 590 million/yr
• Public Impacts
• Detours
• Ride Quality
Questions ?
Questions ??