Conditions and Performance Chapter Listing

Conditions and Performance Home Page

Introduction

Summary

Highway and Bridge Spending Versus Investment Requirements

Transit Capital Spending Versus Investment Requirements

Summary

Exhibit 8-1 compares the difference between investment requirements and spending in this report, with the corresponding difference based on the data reported in the 1997 C&P report. The first column contains values shown in the 1997 C&P report, which compared 1995 spending with estimated investment requirements for 1996. The second column restates these values, comparing 1995 spending with the average annual investment requirements reported in the 1997 C&P report. These restated values are comparable to the latest values based on 1997 data, shown in the third column.

Exhibit 8-1. Highway, Bridge and Transit Spending Versus Investment Requirements, Compared with Data from the 1997 C&P Report

This chapter compares current highway and bridge spending with average annual investment requirements, while the 1997 C&P report cited figures based on a comparison of current spending with estimated "Year 1" (1996) investment requirements. The procedure for estimating the distribution of the investment requirements within the 20-year period was changed in this report. The 1997 C&P report used a process called "ramping," in which it was assumed that investment requirements for capacity expansion would grow in proportion to average annual VMT growth. In this report, the distribution of highway, bridge, and transit investment requirements is based more directly on the outputs of the Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS), the Bridge Needs and Investment Process (BNIP), and the Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM).

When measured using the comparable procedures, the gaps between highway and bridge spending and the investment requirement scenarios have declined since the last report, and are expected to decline further in the future, as a result of increased funding for highways, bridges, and transit under TEA-21. While this comparison was not shown in the 1997 C&P report, the average investment requirements for the Maintain User Costs scenario developed using 1995 data were 21.0 percent higher than 1995 report-related capital expenditures. The comparable difference using 1997 data for the Cost to Maintain Highways and Bridges and 1997 spending is 16.3 percent ($7.9 billion), and is expected to decline to an average of 5.7 percent ($3.0 billion) annually over the six-year period 1998 through 2003.

Average annual transit investment requirements for the Cost to Maintain Transit in the 1997 C&P report were 38.6 percent higher than actual 1995 capital expenditures. The comparable difference using the most recent data increased to 41.0 percent ($3.2 billion), but is expected to decline to an average of 12.9 percent ($1.2 billion) annually from 1998 through 2003.

The average investment requirements for the Maximum Economic Investment scenario in the 1997 C&P report were 108.9 percent higher than the 1995 report-related capital expenditures. This difference declined to 92.9 percent ($45.3 billion) based on the most recent data, and is projected to decline to an average of 75.3 percent ($40.4 billion) annually from 1998 through 2003. For the Transit Cost to Improve scenario, the difference has increased from 102.9 percent to 110.2 percent ($8.4 billion) since the 1997 C&P report, but is expected to decline to an average of 68.3 percent ($6.5 billion) annually from 1998 through 2003.