Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Committee for a Study of the Future Interstate Highway System A Consensus Study Report of Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway System A Foundation for the Future tRANSpoRtAtIoN ReSeARCH boARd SpeCIAl RepoRt 329
Transportation Research Board Special Report 329 Subscriber Categories Highways; policy; planning and forecasting; finance, operations, and traffic man- agement; bridges and other structures; freight transportation; passenger transpor- tation; transportation, general Transportation Research Board (TRB) publications are available by ordering indi- vidual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or www.nationalacademies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Wash- ington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRB- firstname.lastname@example.org). Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America This publication was reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine. This study was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-48755-9 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-48755-2 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25334 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018968501
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Con- gress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the char- ter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, En- gineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi- cine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activi- ties annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the studyâs statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typi- cally include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committeeâs deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
v COMMITTEE FOR A STUDY OF THE FUTURE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM Norman R. Augustine (NAS, NAE), Chair, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Bethesda, Maryland Vicki A. Arroyo, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC Moshe E. Ben-Akiva, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts Ann M. Drake, DSC Logistics, Des Plaines, Illinois Genevieve Giuliano, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California Steve Heminger, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, California Chris T. Hendrickson (NAE), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Keith L. Killough, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona Adrian K. Lund, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (retired), Arlington, Virginia Joan M. McDonald, JMM Strategic Solutions, Mahopac, New York Norman Y. Mineta, Mineta & Associates, LLC, Edgewater, Maryland Kirk T. Steudle, Econolite, Lansing, Michigan Michael S. Townes, Michael S. Townes, LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada C. Michael Walton (NAE), The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Transportation Research Board Staff Monica A. Starnes, Study Director Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., Program Director of Consensus and Advisory Studies Steve Godwin, Scholar Micah Himmel, Senior Program Officer Katherine Kortum, Senior Program Officer Anusha Jayasinghe, Associate Program Officer Consultants Susan J. Binder, Cambridge Systematics Jagannath Mallela, WSP USA Inc. Richard Margiotta, Cambridge Systematics
vii Preface In Section 6021 of the Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation Act of 2015, the U.S. Congress asked the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study of the actions needed to upgrade and restore the Interstate High- way System to fulfill its role as a crucial national asset, serving the needs of people, cities and towns, businesses, and the military while remaining the safest highway network in the country. To conduct this study, TRB formed the Committee on the Future Interstate Highway System. The committee members were selected for their expertise in the areas of civil engineering (highway construction, maintenance, operations, and safety); transporta- tion; public transportation; highway safety; systems engineering; environ- mental and community impact mitigation; modeling; funding and finance; supply chain and freight; and economics (biographical information on the committee members is provided in Appendix A). Understanding the perspectives of providers, operators, and users of the Interstate System, as well as national experts and private-sector stakehold- ers, was vital to the study. To gain this understanding, the committee held eight public listening sessions across the nation, focused on learning from experts and gathering information on specific topics related to the Interstate System, as well as their views on needs and aspirations for the systemâs future. One additional national public session was held online via webcast. To help conduct its analyses and deliberations, the committee also com- missioned white papers exploring in depth five key topics that will influence the Interstate Highway System of the future: demographics and population, economics, technology, climate change, and projected travel demand. In
viii PREFACE addition, a consulting team, led by Cambridge Systematics and WSP USA Inc., conducted extensive computer modeling of a variety of scenarios relat- ing to the future system. This report reflects the contributions from all of these sources, together with information gleaned from the committeeâs review of the salient litera- ture and the collective expertise of its members. Thus informed, the com- mittee formulated a series of recommendations, characterized as a blueprint for action, designed to guide the reinvestment needed to meet the challenges of today and those anticipated for the future, thereby renewing and restor- ing a system that is critical to nearly every aspect of American life. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee thanks the many individuals who contributed to its work on this study. During its information-gathering sessions, which were open to the public, the committee was briefed by officials, topical experts, and Interstate users on a diverse range of subjects. The committee thanks the more than 100 such individuals who shared information and their views on the issues addressed by the study. Among them were the following federal and state executives who presented to the committee: James Bass, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation; Randall Blankenhorn, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation; Carlos Braceras, Director, Utah Department of Transportation, and President of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Bruce Busler, Director, Joint Process Analysis Center, and Executive Director for Transportation, U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD); Kristin French, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Acting Assistant Secretary, Logistics and Materiel Readiness, DoD; Gregory Nadeau, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrator (2015â2017); William Panos, Director and Chief Executive Officer, Wyoming Department of Transportation; Michael Trentacoste, Associate Administrator for Research, Development, and Technology (2009â2017); Walter âButchâ Waidelich, FHWA Executive Director (2016â2018); and Bud Wright, Executive Director of AASHTO. The committee also wishes to thank Thomas D. Everett, FHWA Ex- ecutive Director, who served as the principal contact between FHWA and the committee and coordinated information requests from the committee to offices within the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). In addition, the American Automobile Association (AAA) provided archived maps dating to 1955, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) shared data regarding Interstate safety.
PREFACE ix A number of other individuals also shared their expertise with the com- mittee through five commissioned papers. Guangqing Chi, Pennsylvania State University, authored a paper on how a changing U.S. population and its evolving spatial patterns could affect demand for Interstate highways in various parts of the country. Mark Sieber and Glen Weisbrod, EDR Group, co-authored a second paper on how future highway demand will be affected by evolving shifts in the economy. Steven E. Polzin, University of South Florida, provided a paper on Interstate travel demand, its influ- ence factors, and projections for the future. Steven E. Shladover, University of California, Berkeley, addressed how the development and deployment of connected and automated vehicle technology could affect the supply of and demand for transportation on the Interstates. And finally, Donald J. Wuebbles, University of Illinois, and Jennifer M. Jacobs, University of New Hampshire, examined climate change and how it could impact the condi- tion and performance of the Interstate System. Monica A. Starnes managed the study under the guidance of the com- mittee and the supervision of Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., Director, Consensus and Advisory Studies, TRB. Together with Steven R. Godwin, they also drafted the report under the guidance of the committee. Rona Briere edited the report and Alisa S. Decatur prepared the report for prepublication. TRB staff Micah Himmel, Anusha Jayasinghe, and Katherine Kortum provided support for the study. Additionally, the staff and the committee thank Stephanie Seki, Fellow of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicineâs Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Gradu- ate Program, who contributed to the committeeâs research on the historical perspetive of the Interstate Highway System. The committeeâs work was also supported by a consulting team led by Susan Binder, Jag Mallela, and Richard Margiotta, who conducted case studies and modeling and collected information under the committeeâs guid- ance. Alan Pisarski and Gary Maring, additional members of the consulting team, were instrumental in providing information to the committee. The staff and committee thank Tom Boast, JosÃ© Manuel Vassallo Magro, and Remy Cohen for input into and review of the international funding and financing material in Appendix J, as well as Adrian Moore for input into and review of material regarding mileage-based user fees. The committee also thanks Richard Arnold, Omar Smadi, and Martin Wachs for their interim review of the modeling approach. This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this indepen- dent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as pos- sible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality,
x PREFACE objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Tom Adler, RSG; Richard Arnold, Oregon Department of Transportation; John W. Fisher (NAE), Lehigh University (Emeritus); Emil H. Frankel, Eno Center for Transportation; James L. Kirtley (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Susan Martinovich, CH2M Hill; Carl L. Monismith (NAE), University of California, Berkeley (Emeritus); Ariel Pakes (NAS), Harvard University; Ananth Prasad, Florida Transpor- tation Builders Association; Joseph L. Schofer, Northwestern University; Kumares C. Sinha (NAE), Purdue University; and Martin Wachs, University of California, Los Angeles. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments, they were not asked to endorse the committeeâs conclusions and recommendations, nor did they see the final version of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by National Academy of Sciences members Charles F. Manski, Northwestern University, and Susan Hanson, Clark University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent review of the report was conducted in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully con- sidered by the committee. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests solely with the authoring committee and the institution. Karen Febey, Senior Report Review Officer, TRB, managed the report review process.
xi Contents Summary 1 Looming Challenges, 2 An Investment Imperative, 3 Recommendations, 5 Concluding Comments, 7 1 Introduction 11 Study Charge, 14 Study Approach, 15 Report Organization, 25 References, 26 2 The Vision Takes Root and Pays Off 27 The Vision Takes Root, 28 Advent and Evolution of the Interstate System, 31 A Boon to Passenger and Freight Transportation, 35 Broader Economic and Social Consequences, 38 Role in National Defense, 42 Safety Benefits, 42 Summary, 44 References, 45
xii CONTENTS 3 Emerging Challenges 49 Rebuilding the Systemâs Foundation, 51 Expanding and Managing Urban System Capacity, 59 Demand for Changing the Systemâs Length and Layout, 66 Ensuring Safety while Accommodating a Growing and Changing Vehicle Fleet, 71 Adding Resilience, 74 Summary, 79 References, 80 4 Confronting an Uncertain Future 85 Changing Centers of Population and Economic Activity, 88 Future Travel Demand and the Interstate System, 100 Future Impact of Connected and Automated Vehicles on the Interstate Highway System, 106 Climate Change and the Interstate Highway System, 113 Summary, 120 References, 123 5 System Investment Needs: A 20-Year Horizon 127 General Approach for Estimating Investment Needs, 128 Recent Interstate Capital Spending and the Investment Backlog, 130 Modeling Tools and Assumptions Used in Estimating Future Investment Needs, 134 Estimating 20-Year Pavement and Bridge Renewal Investment Needs, 143 Estimating 20-Year Capacity Investment Needs, 151 Summary of 20-Year Investment Needs, 157 Supplemental Investments in Resilience and Rightsizing, 161 Summary, 164 References, 166 6 Investment Funding Options 169 Background, 172 National Commission Recommendations, 173 Evaluation Criteria, 174 User FeeâBased Options, 175 Other Funding Options, 189 Summary, 193 References, 196
CONTENTS xiii *Available only online at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25334. 7 A Blueprint for Action 199 Looming Challenges, 200 An Investment Imperative, 203 Recommendations, 207 Concluding Comments, 210 Appendixes A Study Committee Biographical Information 211 B Panelists Who Presented Testimony to the Study Committee 223 C Vehicle-Miles Traveled: Trends and Implications for the U.S. Interstate Highway System 231 D Economic Outlook Factors Affecting Highway Demand 267 E Demographic Forecasting and Future Interstate Highway System Demands 313 F Connected and Automated Vehicle Technology Impacts on Future Interstate Highway System 351 G Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Interstate Highway System 389 H* Summary of HERS, NBIAS, and PHT Modeling Tools 457 I* Case Studies 511 J Additional Detail on Funding and Financing Options 549
xv Acronyms and Abbreviations AAA American Automobile Association AADT annual average daily traffic AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials AET all-electronic tolling AMPO Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ATA American Trucking Associations ATM active traffic management ATRI American Transportation Research Institute Auto-ISAC Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center BCR benefit-cost ratio BEV battery-electric vehicle BPR Bureau of Public Roads BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics C&P Conditions and Performance CAFE corporate average fuel economy CAV connected and automated vehicle CBD Central Business District CBO Congressional Budget Office CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CRCP continuously reinforced concrete pavement
xvi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS DDOT District Department of Transportation DoD Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union EV electric vehicle FAST Act Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation Act FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRED Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office GDP gross domestic product GHG greenhouse gas GMSL global mean sea level GPS Global Positioning System GVW gross vehicle weight HERS Highway Economic Requirements System HLDI Highway Loss Data Institute HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HOT high-occupancy toll (lane) HOV high-occupancy vehicle HTF Highway Trust Fund HVUT heavy vehicle use tax IC Interstate Construction ICE Interstate Cost Estimate IRI International Roughness Index ITEP Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy MBUF mileage-based user fee MPO metropolitan planning organization NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NBI National Bridge Inventory NBIAS National Bridge Investment Analysis System NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHCCI National Highway Construction Cost Index
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xvii NHS National Highway System NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NMFN National Multimodal Freight Network NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOx nitrogen oxide NRC National Research Council NYCEDC New York City Economic Development Corporation PHT Pavement Health Track PM10 particulate matter SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SOX sulphur oxide STRAHNET Strategic Highway Network TDF travel demand forecasting TRB Transportation Research Board TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation VMT vehicle-miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound vphpl vehicles per hour per lane ZEV zero-emission vehicle