Part I: Description of Current System
Part II: Investment Performance Analyses
Part III: Bridges
Part IV: Special Topics
Part V: Supplemental Analyses of System Components
Ch 27: Transit on Federal Lands
Federal lands account for approximately 29 percent of the
land area of the United States, principally in the western part of the
country. These lands include those owned by the National Park Service
(NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
Transit can serve as a cost-effective method of accommodating an increasing number of visitors to popular Federal lands while preserving the natural environment and providing visitors with a pleasant experience. Transit services have been put in place or are the process of being developed in the most heavily visited National Parks and in some smaller NPS sites without parking facilities. In Fiscal Year 2001, NPS and FHWA set aside approximately $8.4 million from the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) for transit projects. USFWS offers transit services to the National Wildlife Refuge at Sanibel Island, Florida, and the Santa Anna National Wildlife Refuge, Texas.
A transit system is being developed on both USFS and NPS lands to serve Grand Canyon
A 2001 study of transit needs on Federal Lands managed by the Interior
Department identified significant transit needs at NPS, BLM, and USFWS
sites. Total transit needs for the 20-year period (2001 to 2020) are estimated
to be $1.71 billion in 1999 dollars ($17.45 billion in 2000 dollars).
NPS will have the largest transit needs, estimated at just under $1,554
million, followed by USFWS with estimated needs of $126 million, and BLM
with estimated needs of $30 million. (In 2000 dollars, $1,586 million,
$129 million and $31 million, respectively.)
Appendices: Investment Requirements Methodology
Appendices A, B, and C describe the modeling techniques
used to generate the estimates of future investment requirements highlighted
in Chapters 7 through 10, focusing on changes in methodology since the
previous C&P report. All three models incorporate benefit-cost analysis
in their selection of transportation capital improvements.
Appendix A describes changes in the Highway
Economic Requirements System (HERS), which is used to generate estimates
of investment requirements for highway preservation and highway and bridge
capacity expansion. Significant changes to HERS include the addition of
incident delay to the calculations of congestion levels; updating the
routines for estimating vehicle emissions costs; and refinements to procedures
incorporating travel demand elasticity in the model.
The National Bridge Investment Analysis System (NBIAS) is used
for the first time in this report as the primary tool for estimating bridge
preservation investment requirements. The model, which is described in
Appendix B, includes routines for estimating investment
for both bridge replacement and bridge repair and rehabilitation.
Appendix C presents the Transit Economic Requirements
Model (TERM), used to estimate transit investment requirements in
urbanized areas. TERM estimates the funding that will be required to replace
and rehabilitate transit vehicles and other assets; to invest in new assets
to accommodate future transit ridership growth; and to improve operating
performance to targeted levels. The results in this report reflect revisions
in estimated depreciation schedules for rail vehicles, facilities and