It’s About Time: Investing in Transportation to Keep Texas Economically Competitive

1. It’s About Time: Investing in Transportation to Keep Texas Economically Competitive José Weissmann

2. UTSA Bridge needs TTI Mobility needs CTR Pavement needs First 2030 – Unconstrained Funds – 2010 Report

3. 2011 Report Committee

4. Primary 2030 Report Researchers

5. Results from the First 2030 - 2010

6. Committee Accomplishments2011 • Scenarios describe possible “futures” • Transportation infrastructure – roads & bridges • Urban and rural mobility • Effect on economic competitiveness & quality of life • Possible funding options • Guiding principles for projects/programs • How Texans will pay for transportation • Information for future decisions

7. Committee ScenariosConditions, Funding and Letter Grade F - Unacceptable Conditions – What will happen if policies do not change? Conditions deteriorate & congestion grows rapidly D - Worst Acceptable Conditions – Preserve enormous infrastructure investment, but congestion grows rapidly C - Minimum Competitive Conditions – Conditions equal to or better than median of peer cities & states B - Continue 2010 Conditions – Maintain current quality & congestion levels F – Unacceptable Conditions D – Worst Acceptable Conditions C – Minimum Competitive Conditions B – Continue 2010 Conditions

8. Average Annual Transportation Costs per Household, 2011 to 2035

9. Annual Investment2011 to 2035

10. Breakdown for Scenarios

11. Where are we on Revenues?

12. Capture existing revenue • $100+ million/year from a variety of truck fees • Transfers to DPS: $600 million per year • System-wide sources • Fuel tax • Vehicle registration fee • Targeted options • Toll roads • Project-specific incentives • Public-private partnerships • Area approaches • Local option vehicle registration fees • Local option fuel tax Examples of Revenue Options

13. Committee Conclusions • Certain – Texans will pay more for transportation in the future • Uncertain – the answer to “how?” and “how much?” • Local and state officials should select projects • Transportation Action Principles should guide investment decisions • Many funding options are available . Pay more & suffer ? OR Pay less & solve ? Doesn’t seem like a difficult choice

14. Ohio bridge collapse 1967 46 victims Congress passed law, 1970 Started in 1978 600,000 records Inspection frequency, 2 years Database - 116 Items per bridge Helps allocate $ 4.7 billion to States (2007) Available Data for Bridge AnalysisNational Bridge Inventory (NBI)In Texas: BRINSAP

15. Texas Record Count 8.5%(More than 50,000 records) NBI Total 600,000 records

16. Texas Deck Area 11.3%(38.5 million m2) (414.4 million ft2 ) NBI Total 340 million m2 (3.7 billion ft2 )

17. HBP (Highway Bridge Program)Allocations for FY2007 Texas: 7.6% of $4.8 Billion = $362 Million Texas Deck Area 11.3%

18. Limit 8 t Texas Bridge Data

19. Historical Data Data available 1995 - 2010

20. On and Off Systems

21. TxDOT Goals • Not structurally deficient (2030 Committee goal) • Not functionally obsolete • Not substandard for load only (2030 Committee goal) 2030 Goals • Forecast number of deficient bridges under constrained funding • Forecast User Costs associated with deficient bridges

22. Future Needs - Constrained

23. Deck Area On and Off Systems by Year Built (sqft)

24. The F Grade Scenario • Grade F 460 million/yr • Grade B 590 million/yr Percent of Deficient Deck Area • Public Impacts • Detours • Ride Quality

25. Questions ? Questions ??