1. Spending data are from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Statistics. Unless stated otherwise, inflation adjustments are made using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and constant dollar amounts are expressed in 2008 dollars.
2. The year 1988 is used as the starting point for comparison because it is the first year for which accurate national spending data on transit are available. This does not imply that the real federal funding levels in 1988 are considered ideal or even adequate.
3. FHWA, Highway Statistics 2006 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 2008).
4. Spending data are from American Public Transportation Association (APTA), 2008 Public Transportation Fact Book (Washington, DC: June 2008).
5. Ibid.
6. Spending data from Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Issues and Options in Infrastructure Investment (Washington, DC: May 2008). Data on gross domestic product are as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
7. Spending data are from the CBO Testimony on Issues and Options in Infrastructure Investment, May 8, 2008, Tables W-1 and W-2.
8. FHWA, op. cit. note 3
9. Ibid.; 2005 and 2006 transit data from APTA, op. cit. note 4, Part 2: Historical Tables 34-36.
10. FHWA, 2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance (Washington, DC: DOT, 2007), Chapter 6.
11. Ibid.; FHWA, op. cit. note 3, Table HF-10.
12. FHWA, op. cit. note 10.
13. Government Accountability Office, Trends in Federal and State Highway Investment (Washington, DC: June 2003).
14. APTA, op. cit. note 4, Tables 35 and 39.
15. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009 (Washington, DC: 2008).
16. APTA, Primer on Transit Funding (Washington, DC: 2008).
17. Historical data from FHWA, op. cit. note 3; 2007 revenues from U.S. Treasury Bulletin, March 2008.
18. DOT, "Highway Trust Fund Revenue Falls $3 Billion in Single Year as Americans Drove Almost 11 Billion Fewer Miles This September," press release (Washington, DC: November 19, 2008).
19. Preliminary data for 2008 from the U.S. Treasury, FY 2008 Highway Consolidated Report, unaudited income statement; 2007 data from U.S. Treasury Bulletin, op. cit. note 17.
20. FHWA, op. cit. note 3, Tables FE-210 and FE-101A.
21. U.S. Treasury Bulletin, op. cit. note 17.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2008 (Washington, DC: September 2008).
23. U.S. Treasury Bulletin, op. cit. note 17. Congress enacted changes to the structure of the tire and HVUT taxes in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, but the yield of the taxes was not appreciably changed.
24. Preliminary data for 2008 from the U.S. Treasury, op. cit. note 19; data for 1998-2007 from U.S. Treasury Bulletins.
25. FHWA Fact Sheets.
26. U.S. Treasury Bulletin, op. cit. note 17.
27. FHWA, op. cit. note 3, Table FE-210.
28. Prior-year data from U.S. Treasury Bulletins; 2008 preliminary data from the U.S. Treasury, op. cit. note 19.
29. These figures were developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials using its federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) funding model and based on assumptions contained in the Midsession Review of the FY 2009 Budget. As the 2008 preliminary actuals have come in under the revenue estimates contained in the Midsession Review, Exhibit 2-12 likely understates the HTF (Highway Account) solvency risk and funding potential under current law.
30. These figures were developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials using its federal HTF funding model and based on assumptions contained in the Midsession Review of the FY 2009 Budget. As the 2008 preliminary actuals have come in under the revenue estimates contained in the Midsession Review, Exhibit 2-13 likely understates the HTF (Transit Account) solvency risk and funding potential under current law.
31. Ibid.
32. Transportation Research Board (TRB), The Fuel Tax: Alternatives for Transportation Funding, Special Report No. 285 (Washington, DC: 2006).
33. FHWA, Travel Monitoring: August 2008 Volume Traffic Trends (Washington, DC: 2008)
34. The term "freight trucks" is a category used by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and includes medium to heavy trucks; in Exhibit 2-17 it refers to tractor units for semi trucks. EIA, "Table 7. Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered Energy Consumption," Excel sheet, December 2008, at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/aeotab_7.xls.
35. Cristiano Facanha and Jeff Ang-Olson, ICF International, paper presented at "Policies to Reduce Green House Gases from Freight Movements," FHWA Innovations for Tomorrow Workshop, January 2009.
36. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires average fuel efficiency for new light-duty vehicles to reach 35 MPG by 2020 (49 CFR Parts 531 and 533). But based on historical vehicle turnover rates, the average efficiency of the entire fleet is expected to be only 31 MPG by 2035 (based on extension of EIA forecast through 2035; EIA, op. cit. note 34.
37. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, "Future Financing Options to Meet Highway and Transit Needs," Project No. 20-24(49) (Washington, DC: TRB, September 2006).
38. The Conditions & Performance report estimates are based on investment needs for all highways, including state and local facilities that are not part of the federal-aid highway system and are thus ineligible to receive federal funding. Conversely, the Policy Commission highway estimates are only for needs on the federal-aid highway system.
39. Estimates in the Policy Commission report were developed in 2006 dollars; they have been converted here to 2008 dollars.
40. The figures presented as the Policy Commission's average annual investment estimates were derived by averaging the high (Scenario 4) and low (Scenario 2) estimates.
41. Estimate assumes the ratio of federal to state/local funding in 2008 maintains the historical 45/55 ratio.
The resulting state/local total capital spending estimate for 2008 ($44 billion) is then held constant through 2035. The ratio of highway to transit capital spending used the 2006 split: 86 percent highways/14 percent transit.
42. The 2006 Conditions & Performance report transit estimates are based on what the Commission considers to be a low average annual ridership growth assumption of 2 percent.
43. For transit, the "need to maintain" estimates include the costs to continue current vehicle replacement cycles (maintaining the current average age of the public transportation fleet and other assets) and to sustain current system performance (maintaining current operating speeds and accommodating new riders). The "need to improve" estimates include the costs to shorten vehicle replacement cycles (replacing the public transportation fleet according to Federal Transit Administration-recommended replacement cycles) and to improve the speed of underperforming facilities (bringing both passenger densities and operating speeds up to national averages).
44. It is estimated that during the 2008-35 period the annual motor fuel tax yield per penny will rise only slightly above the current yield (in nominal terms) to $2.06 billion. Total vehicle miles traveled will increase to about 5 trillion, based on estimates supplied by the FHWA.
45. Highway Economic Requirements System and National Bridge Investment Analysis System. Estimates of comparable transit performance statistics were not available.
46. The Adjusted Average User Costs statistic estimates changes in user costs attributable to changes in overall system conditions and performance. It excludes projected reductions in user costs attributable to improved fuel economy. Pavement condition improvement is measured by changes in the average International Roughness Index rating for all roads.
47. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., State and National Public Transportation Needs Analysis (Bethesda, MD: September 2008).
48. FHWA, op. cit. note 3, Table HM-16.
49. Estimates derived from FHWA model runs using the Highway Economic Requirements System and the National Bridge Investment Analysis System.
50. Highway Economic Requirements System and National Bridge Investment Analysis System. Estimates of comparable transit performance statistics were not available.