North Carolina Transportation Issues - Hartgen...

27
North Carolina Transportation Issues David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. Emeritus Professor of Transportation Studies UNC Charlotte Remarks at the Shaftesbury Lecture John Locke Foundation Raleigh, North Carolina February 23, 2009

Transcript of North Carolina Transportation Issues - Hartgen...

North Carolina Transportation Issues

David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E.Emeritus Professor of Transportation Studies

UNC Charlotte

Remarks at the Shaftesbury Lecture 

John Locke Foundation 

Raleigh, North Carolina February 23, 2009 

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Prof. Hartgen’s talk to the Shaftesbury Society, Feb 23, 2009.

Issues 

•Status and Need•Funding •Expenditures •Project Selection•Transit and Climate Change •Organizational

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Topics to be covered

NC Highway Performance 2003‐06

North Carolina Highway Expenditures and Performance, 2003-2006$10.5B, 2003-2006 ($ 171,000 per mile of responsibility)

-63.16

-0.22

-4.69

-0.33 -0.11-4.43 -7.18-1.59

-70.00

-60.00

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00Per Mile

Disbursementsrelative to US

Avg

Pct RI

Poor

Pct ROPA Poor

Pct UI

Poor

Pct UI

Congested

Pct ROPA

Narrow

Fatalities/ 1B VMT

Pct BridgesDeficient

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The good news: From 2003 to 2006 NC spent about $ 10 b on the state-owned highway. NC the largest state-owned system 80,000 miles. has improved its system on most indicators, and at a cost of just 1/3 the average state.

Highway Status

Item 2006 2007– 79,800 miles 2nd 2nd

– $ 3.2 B budget 8th 8th

• 58 % “Capital”• 22 % “Maintenance” 16th 16th

Status• Rural Interstate Pavement 40th 43rd

• Urban Interstate Pavement 25th 22nd

• Rural Primary Pavement 39th 29th

• Urban Interstate Congestion 48th 46th Wow !• Fatality Rate 29th 37th

• Deficient Bridges 41st 34th

• Narrow Lanes 34th 33rd

Study will be at reason org June 2009

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Bad News: other states also improved, so NC remains in the 30’s and 40’s in terms of basic indicators, and is 46th in urban Interstate congestion.

Congestion Trends

• Congestion Will DOUBLE in 25 years

•Charlotte 1.31 1.62 (“Chicago”)

•Raleigh 1.19 1.37 (“Minneapolis”)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Congestion is rising. The 3 largest cities have significant congestion which will approach big-city levels in the future. The others have lower levels, but faster growth.

NC 25‐Yr. Road Needs 

•Condition  $ 10‐15 B•Congestion $ 10‐15 B•Safety $     3‐5 B•Bridges $ 15‐20 B•Other $ 10‐15 B•Total $ 48‐70 B

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Road needs are variously estimated at $ 48-70 B. This is not necessarily a ‘goal’ just a vision of cost to bring system up to good status.

Highway Expenditures 90-07

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Dis

burs

emen

ts (

$M

)

Capital Physical MaintenanceHighway and Traffic Services Administration/ResearchHighway Law Enforcement Bond Interest/Refinancing

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The system is supported by about $ 3 B annually in funds. The maintenance share, once 35%, is shrinking, and is now about 22%.

NC State Hy Revenue Sources, 2006 

•State‐Motor Fuel $ 1153 m•State – Vehicle $   472•State‐Other  $   590•Misc $     38•Bonds $       0 •Federal Funds $   979•Local Govts $     16•Total $ 3251 m 

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Revenues come from several major sources, including the state’s funds, and federal funds. The Obama stimulus package will add about $ 800 m, or 1/3 the program, for just 1 year. Clearly not a long-term fix.

Growth is Increasing Faster than Fuel Sales

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Revenues are tied primarily to fuel sales, and are slowing relative to growth. 2008 saw a downturn in revenue. The gas tax, about 30 cents, is the highest in the SE.

NC Highway Formulas

STIP: Allocations to 7 Regions: ½ Population¼  1/7th each¼  Miles to complete Intrastate 

System

Loop: Discretionary, based on status

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Funds are distributed by several formulas, the largest of which is the STIP formula, which spreads $ by geography. No performance or need info is used in most formulas. Projects are not compared head-to-head for worthiness, either within or between regions.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The formula distributes $ to 7 regions, that is pairs of the 14 DOT regions. The spread in $, per capita, between the regions is about 25%, but the western and eastern regions receive the most per capita. On a county basis the spread would be much larger, about 3:1.

Highway Projects, 1990‐2003by Cost Effectiveness 

0 40 80 120

Miles

2002 Cost Effectiveness0.000 to 0.0100.010 to 0.0200.020 to 0.0270.027 to 0.0400.040 to 0.0530.053 to 0.0800.080 to 0.1000.100 to 0.1500.150 to 0.2000.200 to 1.290

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Using ‘cost effectiveness’ (cost per vehicle mile served), the state average is about 2.7 cents per VMT. But this ranges from over $ 1 to less than 1 cent. There are good and weak projects everywhere, in rural and in urban areas, east and west.

Haywood County I‐40Newfound Rd, Exit 33 (I‐2103)

New Exit and approach road, 1995, 0.99 mi, $4.9 M, ADT2 500

C-E $1.23

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The single highest cost/VMT project is a new exit on I40, serving just 500 cars a day, costing about $ 1.23 per VMT.

Beaulaville, NC 24 (R‐2010)Widening from 2 to 5 Lanes 

5.25 miles, $9.3 M, 1994 ADT2 4100

C-E $ 0.063

Presenter
Presentation Notes
A ‘commercial widening (2 to 5 lanes) on NC 24 cost about 2.5 times the average, 6.3 cents/VMT. Not clear what the commercial section is needed for.

Recommendations

• Re‐allocate 10‐12% of weakest capital projects;  Use for Maintenance. 

• Fund Worthy Projects, not Regions – Congestion Relief and Travel Time Savings– Accident Reduction– Operating Cost Reduction– Economic Impacts– Environmental Impacts

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Basically, we fund many projects that have low benefit for the cost. If we cut out the worst 10% of these and used funds for maintenance, we would have a better system, without much impact. Projects should be funded based on worthiness, not geography.

Strategy for Funding System Maintenance

• Capital and Maintenance Program 1990-2002 = $20.5 B

• Divert 50 Low CE Projects to Maintenance = $2.5B

349 Major Projects $7.3B

CE

5.34

$ 2.5 B saved from 50 least CE projects

2.67

TIP + Loop Other Maintenance Program $13.5B $1.4B $5.5B

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Basic idea: move the $ for the 10% of the weakest projects to maintenance. This increases maintenance by about 40%, at no cost increase. It is our insistence on funding weak projects that puts the full system at risk.

Highway Revenues and Expenditures

•Review Revenues• Tolls• Mileage Taxes• Local Options/ State Infr. Bank• PPP’s 

•End Diversions •Fund the Best Projects•Modify Highway Formula•End the “Loop” Program

Presenter
Presentation Notes
We also have to look at revenues, but tolls are not likely to add more than about 1% to revenues, and mileage taxes may not be feasible within one state. PPPs and some form of ‘infrastructure’ bank, such as SCs, might help local funding for municipal systems. For the state system, end diversions from the funds ($ 200 m). End the loop program which is being used to fund projects that cant get thru the STIP. Modify the formula to include measures of need, eg congestion, access, traveltime savings, safety, etc.

Transit Systems

• 10 Largest NC SystemsCharlotte (20 M)…..TTA( 900,000)

• Performance vs. Plans• Recommendations

• Release: May 2006– Study at www.johnlocke.org

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The top 10 Transit systems ranges from the largest (Charlotte) to TTA. They total about 2/3 of the ridership of the state’s 125+ systems.

Summary Statistics for 10 Systems

Summary of K ey Statistics (Aggregate)

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

TotalOperatingFunds

Total CapitalFunds

A nnualV ehic leRevenueMiles

A nnualUnlinkedTrips (Total)

His torical Projec ted

Presenter
Presentation Notes
System costs are increasing much faster than ridership. They are approaching $ 200 m annually, or about 7% of the highway program, but serve just 0.2 percent of the regions’ passenger-miles.

LYNX Station, Carolina Place

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Charlotte’s new LYNX line has generated much attention. Is it a boon, a bane, or a blip?

LYNX Cost and Ridership HistoryLYNX Traffic And Cost Forecasts

5535

15500

1288013945

14000

21100

25760

1790018100

17650

18100

91009090

6691

12457

11930

14246 14807

12689

16239

16140

1689516357

16265 15440

1541816470

40.5

227

348.2370.8

385.9398.7

426.9

462.7

521.9

331.1

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Jun-

89Ju

l-98

Nov-

00No

v-01

Nov-

02No

v-03

Nov-

04No

v-05

Apr-0

7No

v-07

Dec-

07Ja

n-08

Feb-

08M

ar-0

8Ap

r-08

May

-08

Jun-

08Ju

l-09

Aug

-08

Sep

t-08

Oct

-08

Nov

-08

Dec

-08

Jan-

09

Ride

s/da

y

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Cost

$M

Est. (2005) 2025Rides/day

Est. OpeningDay Rides

Actual Ridership

Est. Cost $M

Opening DayFull Funding

Final DesignPrelim Eng

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The untold story: LYNX ridership is FALLING, and is down 18% from July. Its average is about 13,900/weekday. About ¼ are car diversions, ½ are former bus riders, and ¼ are walk-ups and drop-offs. The drop has come before the bank layoffs hit Charlotte. However bus ridership has not fallen as much, suggesting that people have tried LYNX and those who can use it are choosing to, but others are reverting. Given the time cost (about 20 minutes) vs the parking savings (about $ 2.50/trip), one’s value of time has to be less than about $ 7 for this to be economical. LYNX projections were initially 25ooo riders, then backpedaled after approval. Costs totaled $ 522 m.

LYNX Benefits and CostsTotal Cost, 20 years $  706 m

User Benefits $  181 mLand Use Benefits    $ 297 mEnviron Benefits       $    3  mTotal  $   481 m

B/C 0.68“Local” B/C 1.20

Presenter
Presentation Notes
LYNX costs about $ 700 m over its life (likely low), or about $ 6.90 per trip. The ave fare is 60 cents, about 9% of costs. Land use benefits are modest. From a state perspective, the B/C is under 1, but the local B/C is higher because some costs are not locally born. Environmental impacts are minimal.

Recommendations For Transit 

• Reassess mission, focus on mobility• Hold down costs; overall funding proportional

to ridership. • Regional consolidation• Coordinate with service agencies and schools• Independent forecasts of use and costs

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Our NC systems are primarily mobility-assisters, stepping stones for those who need mobility. They are NOT energy savers, land use shapers, or congestion reducers.

Recommendations ‐ cont.

• Limit assistance to 25%• Rider participation 25 %• Uniform expansion criteria• Review capital expansions • No state $ for ‘new starts’• Limit state share of capital costs• Encourage private-sector operation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Taxpayer assistance should be limited to 25% (state share of op costs), and riders should pay a min of 25% (now 11-15%).

Raleigh, NC Trends in CO2

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Year

Dai

ly T

ons,

K Traffic Growth New CAFEHY and Behavior

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Transportation-based CO2 emissions in Raleigh would grow sharply, but new CAFÉ standards will lower that growth. However, even with stringent other actions, CO2 will not return to 2005 levels.

Organization IssuesBoard •Do We Need One? •Smaller (5‐7 members), Policy Oriented, Experts •Approve Major Projects. No  ‘Advocacy’ •Prohibit Political Contributions. Open Records •Election? 

Agency• Prioritize Major Projects , Select Others with   Objective Data

Legislature•Fund Programs, not projects•Modify/Drop Formula

Presenter
Presentation Notes
½ the states have no Board. Those that do have smaller boards that focus on policy, not projects. Major projects (>$ 20m). DOT analyzes, Board selects Mid-sized: ($ 5-20 M): DOT analyzes and selects. Smaller: DOT analyzes and selects. Use objective, transparent and vetted data to select all projects. Drop or modify the current formula, or use it only as an overlay.

Contact: 

David T. Hartgen , Ph.D. P.E. 

[email protected]@hartgengroup.net704‐405‐4278

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Prof. Hartgen’s contact information.