| 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
|
Transit Capital Spending
Versus Investment Requirements
This section compares transit capital spending to the investment
requirements estimated by TERM and presented in Chapter 7. The first point of
comparison is the actual total transit capital spending in 1997, which was
discussed and reported in Chapter 6. A second point of comparison, to estimated
capital expenditures for the period 1998-2003, is warranted given the dramatic
growth in Federal funding for mass transit that is authorized by TEA-21.
Capital expenditures for transit in 1997 totaled $7.636 billion
(Exhibit 6-23). This sum is well below the required investment amounts in each
of the scenarios estimated by TERM, with the exception of the pure
rehabilitation and replacement necessary solely to maintain current conditions.
This "gap" between funding and investment requirements is presented
in Exhibit 8-9. The estimates from TERM imply that simply maintaining the
current physical condition and operating performance of the Nation's transit
system over the next 20 years would require expenditures 41 percent
above actual transit capital spending in 1997. The difference between actual
expenditures and the cost of improvements to conditions and performance is much
greater: improving both conditions and performance would cost more than double
the amount actually spent in 1997.
Exhibit 8-9. Average
Annual Transit Investment Requirements Versus 1997 Capital
Expenditures
Exhibit 8-10 disaggregates investment requirements and 1997 capital funding
into vehicle and non-vehicle expenditures. For the Maintain Conditions and
Performance scenario, the percent difference between spending and needs is
much greater for vehicles (58 percent) than it is for non-vehicle
expenditures (34 percent). For the Improve Conditions and
Performance scenario, however, the percent difference for non-vehicle
spending (116 percent) is somewhat larger than for vehicle spending (95
percent).
Exhibit 8-10. Average
Annual Transit Investment Requirements Versus 1997 Capital Spending by Asset
Type
| Q Why does moving from the
Maintain Conditions and Performance scenario to the Improve Conditions and
Performance scenario have a much greater impact on investment requirements for
non-vehicle expenditures than it does on vehicle expenditures? |
| A The larger impact on
non-vehicle investment requirements is due primarily to the performance
improvements that TERM makes. In order to alleviate crowding and improve
operating speeds, TERM will often build new or expand existing rail systems
relative to bus system expansion, as rail transit generally has a greater
capacity and speed. Since rail investments require relatively more non-vehicle
capital (such as guideways) than bus system expansions do, the relative share
of estimated non-vehicle capital investment will also increase. |
|
