OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 2010 · 2012-01-03 · 3 With over 4 million miles of public roads, including more than 163,000 miles of the National Highway System roadways, our nation is

OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS2010

OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS2010

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public under-standing. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous qual-ity improvement.

3333333333333333

With over 4 million miles of public roads, including more than 163,000 miles of the National Highway System roadways, our nation is connected coasts to coasts and communities to communities. The 2010 edition of Our Nation’s Highways includes updates on this complex roadway system and the latest changes due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of High-way Policy Information establishes various travel monitoring policies and guidelines, collect and analyze a wide range of data including rev-enue, finance, vehicle registration, licensed drivers, highway fuel con-sumption, travel trend, travel behavior, and travel conditions in order to keep you updated on the state of our nation’s treasured highway system. We hope that this edition will continue to serve you as a valuable re-source.

David R. Winter, P.E.DirectorOffice of Highway Policy Information

4

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION. A NEW BEGINNINGFigure A-1. Cumulative Funds Awarded to State AgenciesFigure A-2. Cumulative Projects Funded by Recovery ActFigure A-3. Cumulative Hours of Work Funded by the Recovery ActFigure A-4. Types of Recovery Act Projects

CHAPTER 1. HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTUREFigure 1-1. Hierarchy of Our Highway SystemFigure 1-2. Access and MobilityFigure 1-3. National Highway SystemFigure 1-4. National Truck NetworkFigure 1-5. Public Road Centerline and Lane Mile Growth: 1985-2008Figure 1-6. Public Road Ownership: 2008Figure 1-7. Bridges for Public RoadsFigure 1-8. Toll Road, Bridges and Tunnels Centerline Miles by States:

2008

CHAPTER 2. HIGHWAY TRAVELFigure 2-1. Passenger Travel Mode Choice Figure 2-2. Freight Movement Mode Share by Tonnage and Dollar

Value: 2008Figure 2-3. 2008 Interstate Travel Peak Hour Operating ConditionsFigure 2-4. Annual Vehicle Mile Traveled on Rural and Urban Area Public Roads: 1960-2008Figure 2-5. Growth Index of Vehicle Miles Traveled on Public Roads by Vehicle Type: 1970-2008Figure 2-6. Toll Road Vehicle Miles Traveled: 1993-2008 CHAPTER 3. VEHICLES Figure 3-1. Registered Vehicle Growth Trend—Automobiles, Trucks, and Buses: 1970-2008Figure 3-2. Vehicles Per Capita by State: 2008 CHAPTER 4. DRIVERSFigure 4-1. Number of Licensed Drivers by Gender: 1970-2008

5

Figure 4-2. Licensed Drivers Per 1,000 Residents by State: 2008 Figure 4-3. Licensed Drivers by Age and Gender: 2008Figure 4-4. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled per Licensed Driver:

1970-2008Figure 4-5. Trip Length as a Percentage of Daily Vehicle Trips and Daily

Vehicle MilesFigure 4-6. Start Time for Trips by PurposeFigure 4-7 Hourly Diurnal Distribution for Weekday and Weekend Figure 4-8 Daily Traffic DistributionFigure 4-9 Monthly Traffic Distribution

CHAPTER 5. MOTOR FUEL Figure 5-1. Highway Fuel Usage: 1970–2008Figure 5-2. Fuel Consumption by State and Type: 2008

CHAPTER 6. FUNDING AND EXPENDITURESTable 6-1. Federal Highway User FeesFigure 6-1. Ratio of Relative Trust Apportionments/Allocations to

Relative Trust Fund Payments: 2008Figure 6-2. Highway Trust Fund Receipts: 1970-2008Figure 6-3. Highway Funding and Expenditures by Local, State, and

Federal Government: 1970-2008Figure 6-4. State Disbursements for Highways by Type in Dollars: 2008Figure 6-5. State Disbursements for Highways by Type as Percentage of

Total: 2008Figure 6-6. Toll Facility Revenue: 1993-2008Figure 6-7. Highway Construction Price Trends and Consumer Price

Index: 2003-2008

CHAPTER 7. CONDITION, PERFORMANCE AND SAFETYFigure 7-1. Pavement Surface Smoothness on Rural and Urban Interstate: 2008Figure 7-2. Pavement Surface Condition by State: Rural and Urban Interstate 2008 Figure 7-3. Bridge Conditions: 1991-2009 Figure 7-4. Highway Fatality Rates: 1980-2008

6

INTRODUCTION. A NEW BEGINNING

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), whose main goals are to create new jobs as well as save existing ones, spur economic activity, invest in long-term eco-nomic growth, and foster unprecedented levels of accountabil-ity and transparency in government spending.

The passage of the Recovery Act has brought about a renewed focus on the importance of infrastructure throughout the United States. In addition to the physical improvements to the national roadway system, the Recovery Act has also increased the awareness of the need for preserving and improving our highway infrastructure.

Figure A-1. Cumulative Funds Awarded to State Agencies

Since its enactment in February 2009, cumulative funds of near 27 billion dollars has been obligated by states for transportation-related projects.

INTRODUCTION. A NEW BEGINNING

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), whose main goals are to create new jobs as well as save existing ones, spur economic activity, invest in long-term eco-nomic growth, and foster unprecedented levels of accountabil-ity and transparency in government spending.

The passage of the Recovery Act has brought about a renewed focus on the importance of infrastructure throughout the United States. In addition to the physical improvements to the national roadway system, the Recovery Act has also increased the awareness of the need for preserving and improving our highway infrastructure.

10

15

20

25

30

MAY 09

JUN 09

JUL 09

AUG 09

SEP 09

OCT 09

NOV 09

DEC 09

JAN 10

FEB 10

MAR 10

Tota

l ARR

A F

unds

Obl

igat

ed

(bill

ion

dolla

rs)

7

Figure A-2. Cumulative Projects Funded by the Recovery Act

To date, over 12,000 projects have been funded or partially funded by the Recovery Act. These projects have both short-term and long-term benefits. While they immediately create an increase in employment op-portunities, they also improve roadway system for travel and commerce for years to come.

Data Source for Figure A-1 and A-2: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Recovery Act Data System

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

MAY 09

JUN 09

JUL 09

AUG 09

SEP 09

OCT 09

NOV 09

DEC 09

JAN 10

FEB 10

MAR 10

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

8

Figure A-3. Cumulative Hours of Work Funded by the Recovery Act

The Recovery Act has helped spur economic recovery by creating employment opportunities for people across the country. The hours of work grew more slowly grows in the winter months due to weather-related construction interruptions.

Data Source for Figure A-3 and A-4: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Recovery Act Data System

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

APR 09

MAY 09

JUN 09

JUL 09

AUG 09

SEP 09

OCT 09

NOV 09

DEC 09

JAN 10

FEB 10

MAR 10

Hou

rs o

f wor

k (m

illio

n)

9

Figure A-4. Types of Recovery Act Projects

There are a wide range of transportation projects funded under the Recovery Act. These projects include: Bridge Improvement, Bridge Replacement, New Bridge Construction, New Construction, Pavement Improvement, Pavement Widening, Safety/Traffic Management, Trans-portation Enhancements, and Other. Pavement projects are the main type of activities under the Recovery Act.

Bridge Improvement

4.5%

Bridge Replacement

5.3%

New Bridge Construction

0.5%New Construction1.4%

Other6.3%

Pavement Improvement

59.1%

Pavement Widening

3.2%

Safety/Traffic Management

7.4%

Transportation Enhancements

12.2%

10

CHAPTER 1. HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURECHAPTER 1. HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” –Mark Twain

Improvements of the highway infrastructure not only provide benefits to the economic system due to an increase in infra-structure development, but also encourages and provides ways for the American public to experience all that the United States has to offer. Since the introduction of a plan for an interstate system to Congress in 1939, the Nation has devoted significant resources to the creation of a roadway system that connects ev-ery major population center. With the interstate system acting as the system’s backbone, we have enjoyed freedom of travel and efficiency of commerce as never before.

The Federal Highway Administration established a Functional Classifi-cation Schema in 1989 that classifies roadways by their functions. The three basic categories that comprise our highway system are local roads, collectors, and arterials. Local roads serve homes, businesses, farms, and small communities, and provide access to collector roadways. Collectors channel traffic from the local roads to the arterials, which provide safe, reliable, and efficient travel between larger towns and major cities. The key purposes of all roadways are to provide access and mobility. Lo-cal roads chiefly provide access, while mobility is the primary function of arterials. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 illustrate the relationships between the classes of roadways and their relative functions.

Data Source: Figures 1-1 and 1-2 are redrawn from Figure II-1 and II-4 of FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines, 1989, Office of Planning, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation. (www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec2_1.htm).

11

Figure 1-1. Hierarchy of Our Highway System

Urban Center

Urban Center Urban Center

Arterial Arterial

Collector

Town

Local road Farms

Figure 1-2. Access and Mobility

Mobility

Land Access

Proportion of Service

Arterials

Collectors

Locals

Land Access

Mobility

12

Figure 1-3. National Highway System

13

Our National Highway System (NHS) road-ways are important to our Nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS includes all Interstate highways (arterials), the Strate-gic Highway Network (defense purpose), in-termodal connectors (roads connecting to major intermodal fa-cilities), and other principal arterials. Currently, the NHS includes over 163,000 miles (262,267 kilo-meters) of highway.

30.6 16.0

82.3

34.1

0255075

100125

Rural Interstate Urban Interstate Rural Others Urban Others

Mile

s (th

ousa

nd)

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

Our National Highway System (NHS) road-ways are important to our Nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. The NHS includes all Interstate highways (arterials), the Strate-gic Highway Network (defense purpose), intermodal connectors (roads connecting to major intermodal facili-ties), and other princi-pal arterials. Currently, the NHS includes over 163,000 miles (262,267 kilometers) of highway.

14

Figure 1-4. National Truck Network The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 authorized the establishment of a national network of highways designed for use by large trucks. The National Network covers over 200,000 miles (321,890 kilometers) and includes the Interstate Highway System and some other highways. On these highways, Federal width and length limits apply.

The Surface Transporta-tion Assistance Act of 1982 authorized the establishment of a national network of highways designed for use by large trucks. The National Network covers over 200,000 miles (321,890 kilometers) and includes the Interstate Highway System and some other highways. On these highways, Federal width and length limits apply.

Figure 1-4. National Truck Network

15

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Note: Figure 1-4 is for illustration purpose only and shall not be used or interpreted as the official NN network to be used for truck size and weight enforcement purpose.

16

7.6

7.8

8.0

8.2

8.4

8.6

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Lane

Mile

s (m

illio

n)

Cent

erlin

e M

iles (

mill

ion)

Centerline MileLane Mile

By the late 1980s, the U.S. highway network was near completion. Now, virtually all population centers are linked by paved roadways. The total number of lane-miles has been increasing as highways are widened with additional lanes to carry more vehicles; on the whole, capacity has been added to existing highways rather than building new ones.

Note: In 1997, forest development roads ceased being treated as public roads. This is why Figure 1-5 (above) indicates significant drops in both centerline and lane mileage in 1998.

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics.

Figure 1-5. Public Road Centerline and Lane-Mile Growth: 1985-2008

17

0 1 2 3 4

Rural

Urban

Miles (million)

State

County

Town

Other

Federal

Local governments own the majority of public roads at about 76 per-cent ownership. The Federal Government owns approximately 3 per-cent of public roads, most of which are located in national parks and forests, military garrisons, and Indian reservations. State governments own the remaining 19 percent of public roads, which includes most of the Interstate system highways.


Figure 1-6. Public Road Ownership: 2008

18

560

565

570

575

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Num

ber o

f Brid

ges (

thou

sand

)

Figure 1-7. Bridges for Public Roads

Bridges are one of the key components of our nation’s highway sys-tem. Their integrity can have a significant impact on the safety and efficiency of travel. The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) collects information on the nation's bridges located on public roads, including Interstate Highways, U.S. highways, State and county roads, as well as publicly-accessible bridges on Federal lands. Each State is required to conduct periodic inspections of all bridges and report the data to the FHWA.

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Bridge Technology, National Bridge Inventory

19

0 200 400 600 800

ALAKCACODEFL

GAILINIA

KSLA

MEMDMAMI

NVNHNJNYOHOKORPARI

SCTXVA

WAWVPR

Miles

Figure 1-8. Toll Road, Bridges, and Tunnels Centerline Miles by States: 2008

Roads, bridges, and tunnels that require drivers to pay a fee for usage are referred to as toll highways, turnpikes, or toll structures. The fee collected is typically used to repay the money previously borrowed for the road construction. As the debit is paid off, the toll may be used for ongoing operations and maintenance. This figure shows the centerline length of toll roads, bridges, and tunnels by State in 2008.


20

Passenger Vehicle82.6%

Public Transportation

2.0%

Other Means15.5%

Passenger VehicleAuto, Van 54.5%Pickup 10%Utility Vehicle 17.3%Other private vehicles 0.8%

Public TransportationBus, Trolley 1.4%Commuter Train 0.16%Subway 0.39%

Other MeansAirplane 0.08%Amtrak 0.03Taxi 0.21%Walk 10.9%School Bus 1.72%other 2.5%

While motor vehicles—automobiles, light trucks, vans, sports utility vehicles, and motorcycles—are the main forms of per-sonal transportation, freight-carrying trucks predominate among all modes of freight movement in terms of tonnage and dollar value. The following figures and diagrams are snapshots of vehicle travel statistics on our highway system.

CHAPTER 2. HIGHWAY TRAVEL

Among all of the travel modes in the United States—rail, air, water, highway—the personal motor vehicle (automobile, light truck, van, and motorcycle) is predominant.

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, National Household Travel Survey.

Figure 2-1. Passenger Travel Mode Choice by Number of Trips

While motor vehicles—automobiles, light trucks, vans, sports utility vehicles, and motorcycles—are the main forms of per-sonal transportation, freight-carrying trucks predominate among all modes of freight movement in terms of tonnage and dollar value. The following figures and diagrams are snapshots of vehicle travel statistics on our highway system.

CHAPTER 2. HIGHWAY TRAVEL

21

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Truck Rail Water Air Intermodal Pipeline & Other

13.24

2.01

0.630.01

1.66

3.94

Wei

ght o

f Shi

pmen

ts (

billi

on to

ns)

A total of 21.5 billion tons of goods for 2008

Figure 2-2. Freight Movement Mode Share by Tonnage and Dollar Value: 2008

In 2008, the U.S. transportation system moved nearly 21.5 billion tons of freight worth 16.8 trillion dollars. Trucks provided the majority of freight movement with 61.6 percent in weight and 66.8 percent of dollar value.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Truck Rail Water Air Intermodal Pipeline & Other

11.19

0.47 0.041.02

1.88 2.16

Valu

e of

Shi

pmen

ts (

trill

ion

dolla

rs)

A total of 16.8 trillion dollars worth of goods for 2008

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Facts and Figures 2009

22

Figure 2-3. 2008 Interstate Travel Peak Hour Operating Conditions

V/C - the Volume to Capacity ratio analysis is primarily based on data from Highway Performance Monitoring System, Travel Monitoring and Analysis System.V/C < 0.8 — typically indicates adequate capacity. V/C > 0.8 — roadway approaching or exceeding capacity -unstable travel. V/C > 1.0 — roadway exceeds capacity - highly congested and unstable travel.

In 2008, travel data covering urban interstate highways during peak travel time indicates that approximately 14% of travel was experiencing moderate congestion, and 37% was experiencing the so called “stop-go” highly congested condition. On the other hand, only 2% of travel on rural interstate highways was experiencing moderate congestion and less than 1% was experiencing highly congested condition during peak travel time.

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Travel Monitoring and Analysis System (TMAS).

V/C≤0.829,191 miles

97%

0.8<V/C≤1579 miles

2%

V/C>1.0425 miles

1%

Rural Interstate

V/C≤0.88,021 miles 49%

0.8<V/C≤12,349 miles 14%

V/C>1.06,187 miles 37%

Urban Interstate

23

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Vehi

cle M

iles (

trilli

on)

Rural

Urban

Total

Figure 2-4. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled on Rural and Urban Public Roads: 1960-2008

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is one of the most widely used measures of travel intensity and facility utilization. For any given segment of roadway, the VMT is obtained by multiplying the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) by the length of the roadway segment. For example, on a 5-mile highway segment traveled by 5,000 vehicles daily (an average obtained over a year), the VMT would be 25,000. VMT is a measure of total vehicle activity.


24

0

2

4

6

8

10

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Ind

ex:

197

0=1

Passenge VehicleOther 2 Axle 4 Tire VehicleSingle Unit TruckCombination Truck

Figure 2-5. Growth Index of Vehicle Miles Traveled on Public Roads by Vehicle Type: 1970-2008

Ownership levels, personal preference, and economic factors affect the variation in usage of different types of vehicles. As a result, VMT for the vehicle types also differ. The above figure indicated that single unit truck has been growing steadily over the last decade while combination truck growths stay flat. On the passenger travel side, after decades increase in sport utility vehicle travel, the travel growth has been leveled off for the last four years.


25

130

150

170

190

210

230

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Mile

s (m

illio

n)


Figure 2-6. Toll Road Vehicle Miles Traveled: 1993-2008

Over the last 15 years, the annual average VMT growth rate for toll roads exceeds 4 percent as compared with the 2 percent average of all other roadway types. Although VMT for toll road is still growing, VMT growth rates for toll road have been declining since 2003. The toll VMT growth rate is more than the national average of all roads.

26

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Num

ber o

f Veh

icle

s (h

undr

ed m

illion

s)

Auto BusTruck Total

CHAPTER 3. VEHICLES

While vehicle ownership is one of the many indicators relat-ed to income and wealth, it also has strong implications for the environment and energy use. The following figures show the status of vehicle ownership in 2008 as well as historical trends.


In the past four decades, the number of registered vehicles in the country has been growing, and the number as compared to the number of licensed drivers has also been growing. Before 1975, the country had roughly 1.0 vehicle per licensed driver. Since then, the ownership of vehicles on a licensed driver basis has been increasing at an accelerating rate, reaching 1.2 at the end of 2008.

Figure 3-1. Registered Vehicle Growth Trend—Automobiles, Trucks, and Busses: 1970-2008

27

0.36

0.54

0.38

0.340.34

0.26NA

0.48

0.38

0.43

0.480.35

0.31

0.45

0.43

0.53

0.44

0.45

0.5

0.44

0.43

0.44

0.44

0.59

0.47

0.33

0.47

0.38

0.44

0.39

0.43

0.48

0.45

0.55

0.460.5

0.49

0.42

0.44

0.380.47

0.49

CT0.57

RI0.46

NH0.49

DE0.52

VT0.49

NJ0.44

DC0.28

AK0.35

HI0.37


Figure 3-2. Vehicles Per Capita by State: 2008

The vehicle ownership rate (# of vehicle per capita) varies markedly from State to State. This map shows that a State’s rates of vehicle owner-ship ranges from 0.26 vehicles per capita in Nevada to near 0.6 vehicles per capita in Iowa.

28

CHAPTER 4. DRIVERS

The 2000 Census revealed the United States had 281.4 mil-lion people, an increase of 33 million people since 1990. It is predicted that the 2010 Census will account for a population that has approached 310 million. The growth in numbers of licensed drivers is following the trend of population growth very closely. This section provides an overview of licensed drivers by State, age, sex, and rate per population.

Figure 4-1. Number of Licensed Drivers by Gender: 1970-2008

In 1950, 57 percent of the driving-age population was licensed to drive a motor vehicle. Fifty-eight years later in 2008, that number has increased to 87 percent of the driving-age population. The year 2005 marked the first time that the number of licensed female drivers surpassed male driv-ers.


0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Num

ber o

f Driv

ers (

mill

ion)

Female Drivers

Male Drivers

29

645

632

579

766

640

695

693

712

646

700

682

719

870

756

716

710

724

672

664

611

680

805

730

687

711632

754

663

659

722

720

617646

688

750

755

681

764764

743

737

759CT824

NH784

VT872

DE747 DC

631

RI712

NJ666

AK733

HI687

Figure 4-2. Licensed Drivers per 1,000 Residents by State: 2008


The number of licensed drivers per 1,000 residents differs significantly from State to State. The average percentage of licensed drivers ranges from 58 percent of State residents in New York to more than 87 percent in Vermont.

30

10.0

17.3

18.4

17.8

19.3

19.8

21.3

20.2

17.6

14.5

10.7

7.8

6.1

4.4

3.2

0 5 10 15 20 25

<=19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

>=85

Number of Drivers (million)

Age

Gro

upTotalFemaleMale

Figure 4-3. Licensed Drivers by Age and Gender: 2008

In 2008, there were over 208 million licensed drivers in the United States. As the average age of the U.S. population at large shifts upward with the “baby boom” bulge, the trend in licensed drivers follows. In 2008, the 45–49, and 50-54 age groups contained the largest share of drivers.


31

Figure 4-4. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled per Licensed Driver: 1970–2008

Altogether, Americans drove over 3 trillion miles in 2007. For about 25 years from 1980-2005, the average annual VMT per licensed driver had been increasing. The annual VMT per licensed driver has been decreas-ing since 2005. Demographic shifts, the increase in gas prices and the economy may have influenced the shift in driving behavior.


8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Veh

icel

Mile

s pe

r Driv

er

32

< 0.5 miles, 3.9%

0.5 to 1 miles, 5.4%

1 to 10 miles, 62.8%

10 to 20 miles, 16.0%

20 to 30 miles, 6.0%

30 to 50 miles, 3.8% 50 to 75 miles,

1.1%

75 to 100 miles, 0.4%

>100 miles, 0.8%

Daily Vehicle Trip Length

< 0.5 miles0.1%

0.5 to 1 miles0.3%

1 to 10 miles24.2%

10 to 20 miles21.2%

20 to 30 miles13.9%

30 to 50 miles13.8%

50 to 75 miles6.6%

75 to 100 miles2.9%

>100 miles17.1%

Daily Vehicle Miles

Figure 4-5. Trip Length as a Percentage of Daily Vehicle Trips and Daily Vehicle Miles


For household-based travel, short trips account for the vast majority of trips. Over half of all vehicle trips are between 1 and 10 miles. However, Daily Vehicle Miles in this category only accounts for 24.2 percent of household based travel.

Conversely, trips of 100 miles or more account for less than one percent of all vehicle trips, but over 17 percent of all household-based vehicle miles travelled.

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 am

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112

noo

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112

am

Ann

ual T

rips

(bill

ion)

Trips Start Time

Commute Family/PersonalSchool/Church Social/RecreationOther Total

Figure 4-6. Start Time for Trips by Purpose


The 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data shows that peak commute periods also include high levels of non-work travel for purposes such as family and personal, school and church, and social activities. Including trips by all modes of transportation, the number of non-work trips occurring in midday actually exceeds the number of com-muting trips in peak travel periods. As most of the trips throughout the midday are local, short trips, they potentially have a greater impact on energy use and air quality than on highway congestion.

34

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

1 am

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112

noo

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112

am

Perc

ent o

f Tra

ffic

Weekend

Weekday

Rural Interstate

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

1 am

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112

noo

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112

am

Perc

ent o

f tra

ffic

Weekend

Weekday

Urban Interstate

Data Source for Figure 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9: US Department of Transportation, Federal High-way Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Traffic Monitoring and Analysis System

Figure 4-7 Hourly Diurnal Distribution for Weekday and Weekend

The above two figures depict the hourly travel patterns for urban and rural interstate highways for both weekdays and weekend. The diurnal (24 hours) distribution pattern for urban interstates during weekdays and the single peak of weekend trend pattern provides us the information to devise trend demand management strategies.

35


Figure 4-8 Daily Traffic Distribution

Figure 4-8 illustrates the daily distribution pattern for rural and urban interstate highways. Friday is the heaviest travel day for both rural and urban interstate. While weekend travel on rural interstate is in par with weekend travel, travel on urban interstate on the weekend is still lagging behind weekday travel.

14.4%13.5% 13.1% 13.7%

14.5%

16.7%

14.1%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT

Perc

ent

of T

raff

icRural Interstate

10.9%

14.6% 14.9% 15.3% 15.5%16.2%

12.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT

Perc

ent o

f Tra

ffic

Urban Interstate

36

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC2004 2006 2008

Urban Interstate

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

2004 2006 2008

Rural Interstate

Figure 4-9 Monthly Traffic Distribution

Figure 4-9 illustrates the monthly travel patterns for rural and urban inter-state highways. The 2004, 2006 and 2008 data demonstrates the yearly seasonal phenomenon.


37

38

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Gal

lons

(billi

on)

GasolineDieselTotal

CHAPTER 5. MOTOR FUEL CHAPTER 5. MOTOR FUEL

The number of registered vehicles has increased every year in the last four decades, and the number of licensed drivers is also climbing. The result is more travel on the Nation’s high-ways, which in turn leads to an increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled. One key ingredient that has made the VMT growth possible is fuel, which includes gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and other less common fuels.

Figure 5-1. Highway Fuel Usage Trend: 1970–2008

Data Source for Figure 5-1 and 5-2: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics

From 1970 to 2008, total highway fuel consumption increased from 92 billion gallons to nearly 181 billion gallons in 2007. The vehicle fuel consumption decreased to 175 billion gallons in 2008. Although consumption of gasoline/gasohol and special fuels is increasing, diesel consumption is increasing at a faster rate than gasoline.

39

0 5 10 15 20

ALAKAZARCACOCTDEDCFL

GAHIIDILINIA

KSKYLA

MEMDMAMI

MNMSMOMTNENVNHNJ

NMNYNCNDOHOKORPARI

SCSDTNTXUTVTVAWAWVWI

WY

Gallons (billion)

GasolineDiesel

Figure 5-2. Fuel Consumption by State and Type: 2008

40

Motor Fuels Cents Per GallonGasoline 18.4Gasohol 18.4Diesel and Kerosene fuel 24.4Special fuels 18.3 Liquefied Petroleum Gas 13.6 Liquefied Natural Gas 11.9 Other Special Fuels 18.4Other User Fees Rate

Heavy use vehicels (annual fee)

Trucks 55,000-75,000 pounds GVW, $100 plus $22 for each 1,000 pounds (or fraction thereof) in excess of 55,000 pounds Trucks over 75,000 pounds GVW, $550

Tires

Tax is imposed on tires sold by manufacturers, producers, or importers at the rate of $.0945 ($.04725 in the case of a bias ply or super single tire) for each 10 pounds of the maximum rated load capacity over 3,500 pounds.

Truck and trailer sales

12 percent of retailer's sales price for tractors and trucks over 33,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and trailers over 26,000 pounds GVW. The tax applies to parts and accessories sold in connection with the vehicle

CHAPTER 6. FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES

Receipts from the Federal taxation of motor fuel, along with a number of other highway-related taxes (shown below), are deposited in the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The Trust Fund has two accounts—highway and mass transit—and is dedi-cated to funding Federal surface transportation programs. In this way, the taxes on highway users stay within the highway system by funding highway facilities. The Trust Fund has provided a stable funding source for highway programs since it was established in 1956.

Data Source for Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1: US Department of Transportation, Federal High-way Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics.

Table 6-1. Federal Highway User Fees

Revenue sources of the Federal Highway Trust Fund include the Fed-eral fuel tax and a variety of other fees. The Federal gas tax rate has not changed since 1996.

41

Figure 6-1. Ratio of Relative Trust Apportionments/Allocations to Rela-tive Trust Fund Payments: 2008

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0


GAHIIDILINIAKSKYLA

MEMDMAMI

MNMSMOMTNENVNHNJ

NMNYNCNDOHOKORPARISCSDTNTXUTVTVA

WAWVWIWY

This chart shows a comparison by State of Highway Trust Fund (HTF) Highway Account receipts attributable to highway users, and apportionments and allocations to the States from the HTF. The ratio is computed from each State’s percentage received from the total apportionments and allocations for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories divided by that State’s percentage contribution to the total receipt. U.S. Territories do not contribute to the receipt of HTF.

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dol

lars

(bill

ion)

Miscellaneous

Other Taxes

Motor Fuel Taxes

Figure 6-2. Highway Trust Fund Receipts: 1970-2008

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is the federal funding source for all surface transportation programs; and it has two accounts—highway and mass transit. Revenue for both the highway and transit accounts is from fuel, truck, and tire sales taxes. The fuel tax rates have been changed several times since the Highway Trust Fund was established. Variation in the volume of fuel sales affects receipts. Fuel tax is collected by the Internal Revenue Service at the fuel terminal level. Note: Under a Congressional mandate known as the Delayed Deposit Provision, about $6 billion of FY 1998 Highway Trust Fund revenue was delayed from FY 1998 to FY 1999.


43

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dol

lars

(bill

ion)

Federal Funding

State Funding

Local Funding

Federal Expenditure

State Expenditure

Local Expenditure

Figure 6-3. Highway Funding and Expenditures by Local, State, and Fed-eral Government: 1970–2008

Data Source for Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1: US Department of Transportation, Federal High-way Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics.

Total highway funding by all units of government—Federal, State, and local—reached nearly $193 billion in 2008. The vest majority of federal funds are transferred to state highway agencies as part of the Federal Aid Highway program. The Federal Expenditure are dollar amount spent on roadways within the National Parks, military installations and other federal owned facilities.

44

Figure 6-4. State Disbursements for Highways by Type in Dollars: 2008

0 5 10 15 20


GAHIIDILINIAKSKYLA

MEMDMAMI

MNMSMOMTNENVNHNJ

NMNYNCNDOHOKORPARI

SCSDTNTXUTVTVA

WAWVWIWY

Dollars (billion)

Capital MaintenanceAdmin & Research Enforcement & SafetyBond Retirement Grants to Local Government

Disbursements for highways are grouped in the following categories: 1. Capital Outlays: Cost associated with land acquisition, design, construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, rehabilitation, restoration, and installation of guard rails, fencing, signs, and signals.2. Maintenance Cost: Expenses associated with activities to keep highway in usable condition but do not extend the service life of a highway beyond its original design.3. Administration and Research: General expenses of administering a highway program including overhead, engineering, and research cost that are not assigned to specific road projects.4. Enforcement and Safety: General expenses associated with traffic supervision activities of State highway patrols, driver education and training, motorcycle safety, vehicle inspection, enforcement of vehicle size, and weight limitations.5. Bond Retirement: Service cost associated with borrowing funds for highway, road, and street projects.6. Grants to Local Government: Transfer of funds to local governments.

45

Figure 6-5. State Disbursements for Highways by Type as Percentage of Total: 2008

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


GAHIIDILINIAKSKYLA

MEMDMAMIM…

MSM…

MTNENVNHNJN…

NYNCNDOHOKORPARI

SCSDTNTXUTVTVA

WAWVWIWY

Percent

Legends refers to Figure 6-4

46

0

5

10

15

20

25

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Dol

lars

(bill

ion)

StateLocal

Figure 6-6 Toll Facility Revenue: 1993-2008

Toll facility revenue is typically the only funding source for repaying money borrowed to construct a toll road and to provide for its ongoing maintenance and operations. Over the last 14 years, toll revenue has been increasing at an annual rate approaching 8 percent, approximately equal to the rate growth associated with FHWA Highway Trust Fund.


47

100

110

120

130

140

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Inde

x 20

03=1

00

FHWA NHCCI IndexConsumer Price Index

Figure 6-7. Highway Construction Price Trends and Consumer Price Index: 2003-2008

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information. The Consumer Price Index is compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is based upon a 2003 Base of 100.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures the changes in the cost of purchasing products and services. The CPI is computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The higher the number, the faster the product or service rises in price over time. FHWA has developed an approach to generating a construction cost index, entitled the National Highway Construction Cost Index (NHCCI). The NHCCI is intended as a cost index that can be used to assess the purchasing power of the dollar.

48

CHAPTER 7. CONDITION, PERFORMANCE AND SAFETYCHAPTER 7. CONDITION, PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY

Our reliance on highways for commerce, to commute to work, shop, vacation, and other activities, is creating significant de-mand on the system. Performance, reliability, safety, and asset preservation are key concerns for transportation agencies. Op-erating speeds, congestion, and pavement and bridge condition are some of the ways to measure the performance, condition, and safety of the Nation’s highways.

Figure 7-1. Pavement Surface Smoothness on Rural and Urban Interstate: 2008

Data Source for Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2: US Department of Transportation, Federal High-way Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Performance Monitoring System

The International Roughness Index (IRI) is one of the most widely used measures of pavement smoothness or ride quality. Pavements with an IRI rating of less than 170 are considered to have an acceptable ride quality, while those with an IRI of less than 95 can be considered to have a good or very good ride quality.

The International Rough-

Good 23,535 miles

78%

Acceptable5,962 miles

20%

Poor579 miles

2%

Rural

Good 10,159 miles62%

Acceptable5,306 miles

33%

Poor883 miles

5%

Urban

49

0 1 2 3 4


GAHIIDILINIAKSKYLA

MEMDMAMI

MNMSMOMTNENVNHNJ

NMNYNCNDOHOKORPARISCSDTNTXUTVTVA

WAWVWIWYPR

Miles (thousand)

Good (less than 95)

Acceptable (between 95 and 170)

Poor (greater than 170)

InternationalRoughness IndexScores:

Figure 7-2. Pavement Surface Smoothness by State: Rural and Urban Interstate 2008

50

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009N

umbe

r of B

ridge

s

Structurally DeficientFunctionally Obsolete

Figure 7-3. Bridge Conditions: 1991-2009


The National Bridge Inventory data documents the conditions of bridges on all public roads, regardless of their ownership. Bridges are evaluated and rated as “not deficient,” “functionally obsolete,” or “structurally deficient.” A bridge rated “functionally obsolete” or “structurally defi-cient” is not necessarily unsafe for all vehicles. Rather, it typically has an older design that lacks modern safety features such as adequate shoulder space, an appropriate railing system, or other features. Strict observance of signs limiting traffic or speed on the bridge will provide adequate safeguards for those who use bridges rated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

As indicted in the above figure, the number of structurally deficient bridges has been declining since 1992. The number of functionally ob-solete bridges has stayed relatively constant since 1992. Of the 603,254 bridges in the United States as of December 2009, 71,179 were rated structurally deficient and 78,468 were rated functionally obsolete.

51

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Fata

lity

Rate

(fat

aliti

es p

er 1

00

mill

ion

VM

T)

Num

ber o

f Fat

aliti

es

Number of FatalitiesFatality Rate

Figure 7-4. Highway Fatality Rates: 1980-2008

Data Source: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-tration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System

The fatality rate (fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel) on the Nation’s highways continues to decline. In 2008, the fatality rate reached 1.26, which is a historical low. Although the fatality rate is declining, there were still 37,660 fatalities in 2008.

The highway and transit authorization bill for 2005–2009, SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), has authorized a new core safety program known as the Highway Safety Improvement Program. FHWA has been working with other Federal, State, and local authorities and private organizations to develop new strategies and approaches to improve highway travel safety.

52

Publication Number: FHWA-PL-10-023

Documents

OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 2010 · 2012-01-03 · 3 With over 4 million miles of public roads, including more than 163,000 miles of the National Highway System roadways, our nation is