480 likes | 629 Views
Quantifying Transportation Needs and Assessing Revenue Options: The Texas Experience presented to The Arkansas Blue Ribbon Committee on Highway Finance. Dr. David Ellis Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas
E N D
Quantifying Transportation Needsand Assessing Revenue Options:The Texas Experiencepresented toThe Arkansas Blue Ribbon Committee on Highway Finance Dr. David Ellis Research Scientist Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas Phone: 979.845.6165 E-mail: d-ellis@tamu.edu
Two Efforts • The 2030 Committee to Determine Transportation Needs and Recommend Investment Level • The TRENDS Model to Assess Revenue Alternatives
Analytical Process Current/Future Revenue Stream Current/Future Expense Stream The TRENDS Model Desired Mobility Level Investment Required The 2030 Committee Benefit/Cost Economic Impact
Needs Determination Process Summary • Travel demand models • Peak period speeds • Regular delay and incident/irregular delay • Calculate performance measures • Identify road sections over congestion threshold • Estimate road needed to accomplish scenario • Group by area type and functional class • Estimate cost for area/functional class additions • Add interchange and right-of-way costs
Urban Mobility Analysis Overview Performance Measures • Peak and free-flow travel speed • Delay reductions from signal coordination, • access mgmt, incident clearance, ramp metering • Texas Congestion Index • Delay per “commuter” • Total delay and extra fuel costs
Types of Benefits • Delay savings – compared to free-flow • Fuel savings – simple estimate (% of delay) • Reduced cost of goods and services (productivity) • Business Effects • Economic impact of construction • Business profitability & job creation • Local tax revenue
Mobility Investment and Congestion Mitigation Cost (billions of $ 2008) Reduce Congestion Prevent Worsening Congestion Maintain Economic Competitiveness MINIMUM Current Funding Trend Inadequate Mobility Investment Delay Hours per Commuter in 2030
Costs of Improvements and Congestion Costs in Billions (2008 $)
Total Investment Needed: 2010 to 2030(in 2008 $) 2030 Need Area Investment Required Pavements $ 89 Billion Bridges $ 36 Billion Urban Mobility $ 171 Billion Rural Mobility and Safety Projects $ 17 Billion TOTAL $ 313 Billion
The Transportation Revenue Estimator and Needs Determination System (TRENDS) Model
Dynamic and InteractiveAnalytical Planning Tool • Web-based • Menu Driven • Allows User to Make Choices
TRENDS Model Process • Gallons of Fuel Used • Population • Relationship of Fuel Used to Population • Fuel Efficiency • Fuel Used/Fuel Efficiency = VMT • Future Population yields Future Fuel Use and VMT
68 Variables • Taxes • Fees • Maintenance Levels • Fuel Economy • Inflation Rate • Population
Report Formats • Tabular Form • Revenue and Expense Statement • Charts
Backcasting Using the TRENDS Model Absolute Mean Value of Error: 1992-2008 Gasoline Revenues: 2.19 % Diesel Revenues: 2.68 % Registration Fee Revenues: 2.55 %
David EllisResearch ScientistTexas Transportation InstituteThe Texas A&M University SystemCollege Station, Texas 77845979.845.6165d-ellis@tamu.edu
Average Fleetwide Fuel Efficiency in Texas: Gasoline Powered Vehicles
Fuel Efficiency Adjusted Fuel Tax Paid (assuming 12,000 annual miles)
Over the next 20 years: • VMT is projected to increase 33 percent • Fuel tax revenue is projected to decrease 23 percent
Vehicle Miles Traveled in the United States (in millions): 1936 through 2009 (Source: Federal Highway Administration)
R-Squared Value - Price of Gasoline and Per Capita Consumption by Month August 1997 through July 2009
Year-Over-Year Percent Change in Consumption of Gasoline Per Capita Versus Year-Over-Year in Percent Change in Gasoline Price in Texas (All Months - August 1997 through July 2009)