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

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

2011 Report Committee

Primary 2030 Report Researchers

Results from the First

Committee Accomplishments 2011 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

Committee Scenarios Conditions, 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

Average Annual Transportation Costs per Household, 2011 to 2035

Annual Investment 2011 to 2035

Breakdown for Scenarios

Where are we on Revenues?

Examples of Revenue Options 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

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

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

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

Texas Deck Area 11.3% (38.5 million m 2 ) (414.4 million ft 2 ) NBI Total 340 million m 2 (3.7 billion ft 2 )

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

Texas Bridge Data Limit 8 t

Historical Data Data available

On and Off Systems

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

Future Needs - Constrained

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

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

Questions ? Questions ??