Reason Foundation’s 28th Annual Highway Report evaluates state highway systems on cost versus quality using a method developed in the early 1990s by David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. This method has since been refined by Hartgen, M. Gregory Fields, Baruch Feigenbaum, and Truong Bui.

Since states have different budgets, system sizes, and traffic and geographic circumstances, their comparative performance depends on both system performance and the resources available. To determine relative performance across the country, state highway system budgets (per mile of responsibility) are compared with system performance, state by state. States with high rankings typically have better-than-average system conditions (good for road users) along with relatively low per-mile expenditures (also good for taxpayers).

The following table shows the overall highway performance of the state highway systems in the 28th Annual Highway Report, primarily using data that each state directly reported to the Federal Highway Administration.

Similar to last year, the top-performing states are a mix of large and small states as well as states that are more urban and more rural. (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and Figure 1). Five large-population (more than seven million people) states place in the top 10 of the overall rankings: North Carolina (2nd), Virginia (4th), Tennessee (5th), Georgia (6th), and Ohio (10th).

Numerous factors—terrain, climate, truck volumes, urbanization, system age, budget priorities, unit cost differences, state budget circumstances, and management/maintenance philosophies—all affect overall performance in the Annual Highway Report. The remainder of this report reviews the statistics underlying these overall rankings in more detail.

The overall rankings are not dramatically different from the previous version of the Annual Highway Report. However, three states’ overall ranking improved by double digits this year, while two states’ overall rankings declined by 10 or more spots:

• Idaho improved 19 positions from 34th to 15th in the overall rankings, as rural Interstate condition improved by 34 positions and urban Interstate condition improved by 22 positions. In addition, the rural fatality rate improved by 20 positions.
• Maine improved 11 positions from 32nd to 21st in the overall rankings, as rural Interstate condition improved by 24 positions. Capital disbursements also improved by 12 positions.
• New Jersey improved 10 positions from 44th to 34th in the overall rankings, as administrative and maintenance disbursements improved by 15 and 25 positions respectively. Rural Interstate condition improved by 12 positions.
• Massachusetts declined 20 positions from 20th to 40th in the overall rankings, as rural Interstate condition declined by 23 positions. The state also fared poorly in disbursements. Administrative disbursements worsened by 19 positions and maintenance disbursements declined by 26 positions.
• Arkansas declined 15 positions from 13th to 28th in the overall rankings, as rural fatalities declined by 25 positions and urban fatalities worsened by 39 positions. Capital disbursements also declined by 10 positions.

The post 28th Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Each state’s overall rating is determined by rankings in 13 categories, including highway expenditures per mile, Interstate and primary road pavement conditions, urbanized area congestion, bridge conditions, and fatality rates.

The study is based on spending and performance data state highway agencies submitted to the federal government, supplemented by data from the National Bridge Inventory, INRIX, and the American Community Survey. This study also reviews changes in highway performance over the past year. 

Although individual state highway sections (roads, bridges, pavements) deteriorate over time due to age, traffic, and weather, states perform maintenance to keep infrastructure in a state of good repair. They also reconstruct roadways when necessary. As a result, system performance can improve even as individual roads and bridges worsen. Table ES1 summarizes recent system trends for key indicators. The U.S. saw system improvements in some categories from 2020 to 2022, but declines in several other categories.

Between 2020 and 2022, three of the four disbursement measures (Capital and Bridge, Maintenance, and Administrative) for the U.S. state-owned highway system increased (states spent more money on their highway systems in 2022 than in 2020). The other disbursement measure (Other) decreased from the previous report. And when factoring inflation into account, spending has been roughly consistent over all categories during the past five years.

Further, six of the nine performance measures improved, including Rural Interstate Pavement Condition, Urban Interstate Pavement Condition, Rural Other Arterial Pavement Condition, Urban Other Arterial Pavement Condition, Rural Fatality Rate, and Structurally Deficient Bridges (a smaller percentage of bridges is structurally deficient).

Three of the nine performance measures worsened: Urbanized Area Congestion, Urban Fatality Rate, and Other Fatality Rate.

Overall, when adjusting for inflation, states are spending about the same amount of money for a slightly better quality roadway system.

Table ES2 summarizes system trends over the past 10 years.

Over a 10-year period disbursements increased, pavement quality worsened, congestion improved (on a statewide basis), the percentage of structurally deficient bridges decreased, and the fatality rate held steady. The worsening urban Interstate quality and rural arterial pavement quality are a change from the previous 10-year period. Figure ES1 displays this information in a graph.

Figure ES1: Trends in Highway System Performance

Figure ES2 shows each state’s ranking based on 2022 data. The top-performing states tend to be a mix of high-population and low-population states that lean both urban and rural.
Very rural, low-population states may have had a slight advantage before 2019. But since the report changed to using expected disbursements and ratios, that advantage no longer exists. For example, while North Dakota often leads the rankings, this year North Carolina ranked first followed by South Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and Tennessee.

At the other end of the rankings are Alaska, California, Hawaii, Washington, and Louisiana. Two of the five worst performing states rank in the bottom 11 in population.

A number of states with large populations and/or large metro areas fared well: North Carolina (1st), Virginia (4th), Tennessee (5th), Georgia (6th), and Ohio (10th).

Some states had large increases or decreases in their ratings. The rankings for Idaho, Maine, and New Jersey improved by at least 10 spots.

However, the rankings for Massachusetts and Arkansas worsened by at least 10 spots.

Certain states spend significantly more than the national average. This spending may be justified if these states perform well in other categories. While some states’ disbursements have improved their deficiencies, other states are still performing badly:

• For Capital and Bridge Disbursements, five states have per-mile ratios higher than
  1.5: Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, and Indiana.
• For Maintenance Disbursements, 11 states have per-mile ratios higher than 1.5: Washington, Indiana, Vermont, Oregon, Delaware, Colorado, California, Oklahoma, New York, Massachusetts, and Alaska.
• For Administrative Disbursements, six states have per-mile ratios higher than 2.0: Vermont, Nevada, Delaware, Washington, New Hampshire, and South Dakota.
• For Other Disbursements, three states have per-mile ratios higher than 2.0: Washington, Kansas, and Vermont.

System performance problems in each measured category seem to be concentrated in a handful of states:

• More than 25% of the rural Interstate mileage in poor condition is in just three states: Alaska, Colorado, and California.
• More than 30% of the urban Interstate mileage in poor condition is in just six states: Hawaii, Louisiana, New York, California, Delaware, and Colorado.
• Approximately 13% of the rural arterial mileage in poor condition is in just three states: Alaska, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
• Approximately 40% of the urban arterial primary mileage in poor condition is in just five states: California, Nebraska, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.
• Automobile commuters in seven states spend more than 60 hours annually stuck in peak-hour traffic congestion: New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, Illinois, Maryland, and California.
• Although a majority of states saw the percentage of structurally deficient bridges decline, nine states report more than 10% of their bridges as structurally deficient: West Virginia, Iowa, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Maine, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Dakota.
• Three states have rural fatality rates of 2.0 per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled or higher: Hawaii, Delaware, and Alaska.
• Urban fatality rates continue to worsen as 27 states have urban fatality rates of 1.0 per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled or higher: New Mexico, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, Colorado, Georgia, Arizona, Louisiana, Delaware, Oregon, Texas, California, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Maryland, Washington, Connecticut, Nevada, and Michigan.
• Other fatality rates continue to worsen as 25 states have other fatality rates of 1.5 per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled or higher: West Virginia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, California, Oregon, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, South Dakota, North Carolina, Delaware, Nevada, Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Washington, Colorado, Ohio, Mississippi, Georgia, Illinois, Florida, and Alabama.

System performance improved for some states but declined for others this year, with slightly less than half of the states (21 of 50) making progress between 2020 and 2022. However, a 10-year average of state overall performance data indicates that system performance problems are concentrated in a handful of states. These states are finding it difficult to improve. There is also increasing evidence that higher-level highway systems (Interstates, other freeways, and principal arterials) are in better shape than lower-level highway systems, particularly local roads.

The post 28th Annual Highway Report: Executive summary of findings and state rankings appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason’s 27^th Annual Highway Report rates state highway systems on cost versus quality using a method developed in the early 1990s by David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., who was emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. This method has since been refined by Hartgen, M. Gregory Fields, Ph.D., Baruch Feigenbaum, and Truong Bui. Since states have different budgets, system sizes, and traffic and geographic circumstances, their comparative performance depends on both system performance and the resources available. To determine relative performance across the country, state highway system budgets (per mile of responsibility) are compared with system performance, state by state. States with high ratings typically have better-than-average system conditions (good for road users) along with relatively low per-mile expenditures (good for taxpayers).

The following table shows the overall highway performance of the state highway systems using 2020 and 2021 data. This year’s leading states are Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Connecticut. At the other end of the rankings are Alaska, New York, Hawaii, California, and Washington.

Similar to last year, the top-performing states are a mix of large and small states as well as states that are more urban and more rural (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and Figure 1). Five high-population states rank in the top 10 of the overall rankings: Virginia (1^st), North Carolina (2^nd), Tennessee (3^rd), Georgia (4^th), and Florida (8^th). Numerous factors—terrain, climate, truck volumes, urbanization, system age, budget priorities, unit cost differences, state budget circumstances, and management/maintenance philosophies— all affect overall performance. Some categories in the report cannot be compared to previous years due to methodological changes that also impacted the overall rankings of some states. These methodological changes are fully explained in Part 2 and the appendix of this report. The remainder of this report reviews the statistics underlying these overall ratings in more detail.

27th Annual Highway Report: Each State’s Highway Performance Ranking By Category

The post 27th Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

A number of states with large populations and busy highways performed well in the overall rankings, including Virginia (2nd overall), Missouri (3rd), North Carolina (5th), Georgia (14th), and Texas (16th).

Nationally, the study finds America’s highway system is incrementally improving in almost every category. However, a 10-year average indicates the nation’s highway system problems are concentrated in the bottom 10 states and, despite spending more and more money, these worst-performing states are finding it difficult to improve.

For example, 43% of the urban arterial primary mileage in poor condition is in six states—California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Nebraska, and Rhode Island. Approximately 25% of the rural Interstate mileage in poor condition is in just three states (Alaska, Colorado, and Washington). While a majority of states reduced their percentages of structurally deficient bridges, five states—Rhode Island, West Virginia, Iowa, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania—still report more than 15% of their bridges as deficient.

For total spending, three states—Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey—spent more than $250,000 per lane-mile of highway. In contrast, five states—Missouri, South Carolina, West Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota—spent less than $30,000 per mile of highway.

Introduction

Reason Foundation’s 26^th Annual Highway Report rates state highway systems on cost versus quality using a method developed in the early 1990s by David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and since been refined by Hartgen, M. Gregory Fields, Ph.D., Baruch Feigenbaum, and Spence Purnell.

Since states have different highway budgets, system sizes, and traffic and geographic circumstances, their comparative performance depends on both system performance and the resources available. To determine relative performance across the country, state highway system budgets (per mile of responsibility) are compared with system performance, state-by-state. In this report, states with high overall ratings typically have better-than-average highway system conditions (good for road users) along with relatively efficient spending in per-mile categories (good for taxpayers).

The following table shows the overall highway performance of the state highway systems using 2019 and 2020 data. This year’s leading states are North Dakota, Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, and North Carolina. At the other end of the rankings are New Jersey, Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii, and New York.

The top-performing states are a mix of large and small states as well as more urban and more rural. In the report’s overall rankings, some very rural states may have a slight advantage (see Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and Figure 1). But a number of states with large urban areas also rank highly in the overall rankings, including: Virginia (2^nd), Missouri (3^rd), North Carolina (5^th), Tennessee (10^th), Georgia (14^th), and Texas (16^th).

A careful review suggests that numerous factors— terrain, climate, truck volumes, urbanization, system age, budget priorities, unit cost differences, state budget circumstances, and management/maintenance philosophies, just to name a few—are all affecting the overall highway system performance in each state.

26th Annual Highway Report: Each State’s Highway Performance Ranking By Category

The post Annual Highway Report: Ranking each state’s highway conditions and cost-effectiveness appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Of the nation’s most populous states, Ohio (ranked 13^th overall), North Carolina (14^th)—which manages the largest state-owned highway system, and Texas (18^th)—with the second-largest amount of state mileage, are doing the best job of combining road performance and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, New York (ranked 44^th overall), California (43^rd), and Florida (40^th) are in the bottom 10 overall.

The 25^th Annual Highway Report finds the general quality and safety of the nation’s highways has incrementally improved as spending on state-owned roads increased by 9 percent, up to $151.8 billion, since the previous report.  Of the Annual Highway Report’s nine categories focused on performance, including structurally deficient bridges and traffic congestion, the country made incremental progress in seven of them.

However, the pavement condition of the nation’s urban Interstate system worsened slightly. Over a quarter of the urban Interstate mileage in poor condition is in just three states: California, New York, and, perhaps surprisingly, Wyoming.

The study also finds drivers in 11 states spent more than 50 hours per year in traffic congestion, with commuters in the three most-congested states—Delaware, Illinois, and Massachusetts—spending over 100 hours per year in traffic congestion in 2019.

Most states—35 out of 50 —reduced their overall traffic fatality rates. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey reported the overall lowest fatality rates while South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arizona had the highest fatality rates.

In the report’s spending categories, Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Dakota, and Tennessee reported the lowest expenditures per mile. New Jersey, Massachusetts, Alaska, Delaware, and Maryland had the highest costs most per-mile. In total, the 50 states disbursed $151.8 billion for state-owned roads, a 9.2 percent increase from $139 billion in 2016, the previous data available.

The condition of the nation’s bridges improved slightly in 2019. Of the 613,517 highway bridges reported, 46,771 (7.6 percent) were rated deficient. The best rankings go to three states where less than two percent of their bridges are structurally deficient: Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. Meanwhile, Rhode Island reported a whopping 23 percent of its bridges as structurally deficient.

Five states made double-digit improvements in their overall performance and cost-effectiveness rankings:  Arkansas improved from 32^nd to 9^th  overall; Mississippi moved from 25^th to 8^th; Wisconsin went from 38^th to 22^nd; South Carolina jumped from 20^th to 6^th; and Iowa improved from 31^st to 20^th overall.

25th Annual Highway Report Overall Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Rankings

Click a state name for detailed information about its results.

“Although it is tempting to ascribe these ratings to geography or population, a more careful review suggests that numerous factors, including terrain, climate, truck traffic volumes, urbanization and congestion, system age, budget priorities, and management and maintenance practices all significantly impact state highway performance,” says Baruch Feigenbaum, lead author of the report and managing director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation. “The states with the three largest highway systems—North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia—all rank in the top 21 this year. Meanwhile, states with the smallest amount of mileage to manage, like Hawaii, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, are some of the worst-performing states. Prioritizing maintenance, targeting and fixing problem areas, and reducing bottlenecks are among the successful strategies states can use to improve their quality and efficiency.”

Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of state-controlled highways in 13 categories, including pavement condition, traffic congestion, structurally deficient bridges, traffic fatalities, and spending (capital, maintenance, administrative, overall) per mile.  The Annual Highway Report is based on spending and performance data submitted by state highway agencies to the federal government for 2018 as well as 2019 urban congestion data from INRIX and bridge condition data from the Better Roads inventory for 2019.

25th Annual Highway Report: Each State’s Highway Performance Ranking By Category

Editor’s Note (Jan. 12, 2021): The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified an “error in the 2018 HM-64 Highway Statistics table” that it is still in the process of correcting. This FHWA error in the 2018 HM-64 table negatively impacted Wyoming’s pavement condition figures and rankings in the 25h Annual Highway Report. And, as a result, the FHWA data error would have also played a role in Wyoming’s overall ranking falling from 11th overall in the previous report to 36th overall in the 25th Annual Highway Report. 

The post 25th Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Unfortunately, a recent Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) survey of state departments of transportation (DOTs) officials found that only five or six states systematically use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate transportation projects. FHWA’s survey found that state DOTs also use life-cycle cost analysis and multifactorial scoring systems to make decisions on whether to fund a project. Most state DOTs do not include measurements of transportation projects’ effects on emissions or freight. There are also problems with the accuracy of state estimates of traffic demand.

Two states, North Carolina and Virginia, have the most objective selection processes. Prior to 2013, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) used a transportation project funding assessment model that failed to measure costs of design, construction, regulatory compliance, and operations and maintenance. In 2013, the North Carolina Legislature adopted the Strategic Transportation Investments Act, which established a Strategic Mobility Formula that allocates transportation project funding on the basis of how the projects perform on different criteria.

The Strategic Mobility Formula gives the following weights to these evaluative categories:

1. The needs of the state’s 14 transportation divisions (30 percent);
2. regional impact (30 percent); and
3. statewide impact (40 percent).

Since implementing this, North Carolina has been able to dedicate more resources to capital and bridge spending while maintaining top-25 rankings in all four of the Annual Highway Report’s pavement condition categories without increasing taxes. 

Similarly, prior to 2014, Virginia used a multi-criteria evaluation system that used qualitative factors (such as, local and regional support) to determine whether to fund a project. This system failed to include quantitative metrics such as cost-benefit analysis. In 2014, to address this problem, the Virginia Legislature adopted the HB 2 Prioritization Process for Project Selection, which instituted a method for quantitatively scoring prospective transportation projects before they were reviewed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). (In Virginia, the CTB allocates funds for transportation projects).

HB 2 created Smart Scale, which uses 10 criteria to measure project effectiveness. The criteria are weighted as follows:

1. The reduction of congestion (35 percent);
2. project readiness (25 percent);
3. service deficiencies (5 percent);
4. reduction in vehicle-miles traveled (5 percent);
5. improvements in transportation safety (5 percent);
6. increased connections between activity centers (5 percent);
7. increased regional and modal integration (5 percent);
8. improved bicycle and pedestrian travel options (5 percent);
9. improved management of existing operations (5 percent); and
10. cost-sharing with other entities (5 percent).

I have some minor concerns with the Virginia model. By examining benefits on a regional or local level as opposed to a statewide level, the system risks prioritizing small projects over large projects. For example, a bicycle project could score better than highway capacity or expansion of the Blue Line/Orange Line/Silver Line Metrorail tunnel under the Potomac.

I also don’t think the current system weighs safety highly enough. Regardless, it is a major improvement over the previous process, which disbursed funding over so many projects that there was seldom enough money to build any major projects. And, similar to North Carolina, Virginia maintains top 25 rankings in all four pavement categories, although urban traffic congestion is a major problem in several areas of the state. 

Not all quantitative scoring processes work well. FHWA cited the cost-benefit methodology of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the cost-efficiency methodology of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) as examples of methodological shortcomings of state DOT evaluation processes.

Caltrans formulated the Cal-B/C methodology to evaluate the costs and benefits of transportation projects on the basis of:

1. Time savings for travelers;
2. vehicle operating cost savings;
3. safety cost savings;
4. lowered air pollution emissions;
5. construction costs; and 
6. operations and maintenance costs.

However, CalTrans’ methodology has a major problem — In calculating travel time savings, it does not include travel demand network data. As a result, this skews the analysis inputs, making the conclusion of the cost-benefit analysis inaccurate.

Similarly problematic, the WSDOT’s cost-efficiency evaluation only uses travel time savings to estimate users’ benefits, which potentially ignores other benefits including safety and redundancy. 

Almost every state could benefit from a quantitative review process, including states viewed as effective and innovative. Recently, an audit of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) found that the agency does not have a formal cost-benefit analysis process. Auditors found that GDOT’s initial project selection process is not transparent and includes very few objective criteria. Further, the $2 billion project to build truck lanes on I-75 between I-475, north of Macon, and Henry County in the southeast Atlanta suburbs, was approved without any cost-benefit analysis. To its credit, GDOT has refined its scoring method and revised scoring criteria to meet objective goals. 

GDOT ranks first or second in delivering projects on-time and under-budget. The state’s pavement condition ranks relatively high. And much of the criticism of the agency has come from the Southern Environmental Law Center, a group that opposes nearly every type of roadway project.

Further, developing an accurate scoring system for state transportation projects is daunting and challenging. Implementing a system with major flaws, as has happened in California and Washington, would be a step backward for many states. Yet, as North Carolina and Virginia have shown, it is possible to adopt an effective, accurate system that improves a state’s process and infrastructure. In addition to improving project selection, developing an effective cost-benefit analysis system can make it easier for transportation departments to generate support from both elected officials and taxpayers, which is critical to building and maintaining an effective transportation system. 

The post States Using Cost-Benefit Analysis Have More Efficient Transportation Systems appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This is the 24th year of our Annual Highway Report, and Florida came in 40th. That’s definitely not where any of us wants the state to rank on something as important as transportation performance and cost-effectiveness. But if we look at some of the factors that lead to this result, we can see where the challenges lie.

On the positive side, Florida does very well on the pavement condition of state highways. And compared to most other states, Florida’s maintenance of roads and bridges, in both cities and rural areas, is outstanding.

Unfortunately, that high performance comes at a high price. On overall expenditures per state-controlled lane-mile of highway, Florida comes in at 49th. In most of the spending categories, Florida tends to spend three to five times as much money as other states. To be fair, Floridians get good road conditions and sound bridges from that, but there are other states in the top 10 on road conditions that spend far less than Florida does to get there. So a great area for Florida leaders and the Florida Department of Transportation to focus on would be figuring out ways to be more cost-effective. That is not always easy, but there are some states worth looking at. Alabama and Tennessee, for example, have pretty good road conditions at a fraction of what Florida spends, so there might be something to learn from them.

Florida ranks 42nd in overall fatality rate on state highways, which, for those of us who drive here and have loved ones who drive here, is terrible to see. But it is hard to see what more the state government could do, and especially the department of transportation, to improve this ranking, in part, because Florida is one of the most tourist-laden states in the country with many foreign and unfamiliar drivers navigating the roads. Our economy depends on them, so we don’t want to discourage them from driving. But the state should continue its already strenuous efforts to encourage safer driving behaviors.

There’s not a lot about the way the roads are built or maintained that could make a big difference on road safety. Florida has an extremely high rate of pedestrian/auto accidents but reports there is blame on both sides. Pedestrians struck by cars are typically crossing outside of a crosswalk or in unsafe conditions. Drivers for their part are typically speeding and/or distracted when they strike a pedestrian. You can’t really design a road to improve those factors much, with some exceptions. There have been some interesting experiments and using different kinds of signs and flashing signals to mark crosswalks, but again that affects people who are crossing at the crosswalk.

Separating pedestrians and bicyclists from auto traffic would be effective but costly. Likewise, making sure there are sufficient crosswalks commensurate with pedestrian traffic would help a lot as well. But the bottom line is that most of the problem is with the drivers and pedestrians involved in the accident, and it’s they who have to change.

Finally, Florida ranks 40th on urban area congestion. Florida is growing rapidly, and the transportation system needs to accommodate that growth. Decades of investing in public transit, pedestrian access and bicycle trails has appreciably increased the share of travel that happens on those modes. In Florida’s cities, at least 90 percent of all travel is still by car and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. So the only way to reduce urban traffic congestion is to increase capacity. That should be a combination of more managed lanes on the freeways, integrated with more-flexible bus rapid transit systems, improved intersection design and arterial expansion where necessary or possible. That could be costly and complicated, but so is congestion.

The bottom line for Florida’s highway performance is it’s doing very well in some areas but its good results come at a high price. The state has some challenges not entirely in its control, while ether are other areas where it can clearly take policy steps to help improve. The whole point of the Annual Highway Report is to highlight that kind of thing and show other states that might have some ideas worth borrowing. Let’s hope transportation planners in Florida are willing to do that.

This column was originally published in the Sarasota Observer.

The post Florida’s Highway Performance Shows Good Results at Very High Costs appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Based on data that each state submitted to the federal government, Reason Foundation’s 24th Annual Highway Report measures the condition and cost-effectiveness of state-owned roads in 13 categories, including the pavement condition on urban and rural Interstates, the percentage of structurally deficient bridges, number of traffic fatalities, how much states spend on administrative costs, and their total spending per mile of state-controlled roads.

If you’re looking for good news in the study, California’s overall highway fatality rate is relatively low, ranking 18th best in the country. And the state has a similar ranking, 19th best, in the percentage of structurally deficient bridges in use.

Beyond that, however, there’s not a lot to like about the state’s roads. California’s highway system ranks 43rd overall in cost-effectiveness and performance, which is actually one-spot worse than it did in the previous Annual Highway Report, where it ranked 42nd overall.

California’s spending numbers are on the high side and it could certainly benefit from streamlining in ways that would reduce its overhead and administrative costs but, in terms of examining total costs per mile, it has done a better job than states like New Jersey, New York, Florida and Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, California’s highway conditions and performance significantly lag its neighbors and other West Coast states. Arizona (ranks 29th), Nevada (ranks 27th), Oregon (12th), and Utah (9th) are all far ahead of California in the rankings. And the state doesn’t fare much better in comparisons to America’s other highly-populated states. California, 43rd overall, significantly trails Texas (23rd), which has the largest state highway system in the country. Virginia has the third-largest highway system, larger than California’s, and it manages to rank second overall in performance and cost-effectiveness. Meanwhile, California also trails Ohio (18th), Georgia (26th), Illinois (28th), Pennsylvania (35th), and Florida (40th), among others.

The state is really hurt by ranking 48th out of 50 in urban traffic congestion. California’s large population, with its booming cities that are filled with people using their cars, has made the state’s traffic jams infamous. The long-term answer to that gridlock in Southern California is a region-wide network of toll lanes operating like the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, which offer people congestion-free lanes and provide a sustainable revenue stream to maintain them. Similarly, the I-10 and I-110 toll lanes and lanes under construction on I-15 and I-405 promise to offer congestion relief for drivers willing to pay a variable toll. Ideally, over time, Southern California would develop a network of managed lanes connecting the major freeways in Los Angeles, Orange County, Palmdale, Riverside, and San Bernardino.

In the interim, California could still significantly improve its overall ranking and road performance by reducing the number of fatalities on rural highways, where it ranks 47th out 50. It could also dedicate itself to improving its pavement quality and condition on urban arterial roads (ranks 49th out 50), urban Interstate pavement condition (ranks 47th), and rural Interstate pavement (ranks 45th). 

Given the amount of money California spends on its highways already, improving those poor pavement conditions are a realistic and achievable goal. Gov. Newsom, the state legislature and Caltrans would need to prioritize maintenance and publicly commit to significantly reducing the potholes, rough spots, and other pavement problems plaguing the state. It’s an effort that could yield rapid benefits to drivers and the economy. And with smoother, safer roads, California would start to make up ground on its neighbors and competitors. 

This column was originally published in the Orange County Register.

The post California Should Focus on Congestion and Pavement Condition to Improve State’s Highways appeared first on Reason Foundation.

“In looking at the nation’s highway system as a whole, there was a decades-long trend of incremental improvement in most key categories, but the overall condition of the highway system has worsened in recent years,” says Baruch Feigenbaum, lead author of the Annual Highway Report and assistant director of transportation at Reason Foundation. “This year we see some improvement on structurally deficient bridges, but pavement conditions on rural and urban highways are declining, the rise in traffic fatalities is worrying, and we aren’t making needed progress on traffic congestion in our major cities.”

The 24th Annual Highway Report, based on data that states submitted to the federal government, ranks each state’s highway system in 13 categories, including traffic fatalities, pavement condition, congestion, spending per mile, administrative costs and more. This edition of the Annual Highway Report uses state-submitted highway data from 2016, the most recent year with complete figures currently available, along with traffic congestion and bridge data from 2017.

North Dakota ranks first in the Annual Highway Report’s overall performance and cost-effectiveness rankings of state highway systems for the second year in a row. North Dakota’s rural and urban Interstate pavement conditions both rank in the top 10 and the state has kept its per-mile costs down.  Virginia jumps an impressive 25 spots in the rankings—from 27th overall in the previous report—into second-place in performance and cost-effectiveness.  Missouri, Maine and Kentucky round out the top five states.

The state highway systems in New Jersey (50th), Alaska (49th), Rhode Island (48th), Hawaii (47th), Massachusetts (46th) and New York (45th) rank at the bottom of the nation in overall performance and cost-effectiveness. Despite spending more money per mile than any other state, New Jersey has the worst urban traffic congestion and among the worst urban Interstate pavement conditions in the country.

Overall Rankings, 24th Annual Highway Report
(Click on states for their detailed rankings and information)

The study finds pavement conditions on both urban Interstates and rural Interstates are deteriorating, with the percentage of urban Interstate mileage in poor condition increasing in 29 of 50 states. One-third, 33 percent, of the nation’s urban Interstate mileage in poor condition is concentrated in just five states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, and New York.

It’s not just urban Interstates with the rougher pavement, however, the Annual Highway Report finds the percentage of rural arterial principal roads in poor condition at its worst levels since 2000.

Similarly, the study’s three traffic fatality categories —overall, urban and rural—all show more fatalities in 2016 than in any year since 2007.

The most positive news is on bridges, where 39 states lowered the percentage of bridges deemed structurally deficient. Unfortunately, 18 percent or more of bridges remain structurally deficient in these five states: Iowa, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

Traffic congestion remains about the same from the previous report, with Americans spending an average of 35 hours a year stuck in traffic. Drivers in New Jersey, New York, California, Georgia and Massachusetts experience the longest delays due to urban traffic congestion in their metro regions.

The Annual Highway Report finds states disbursed about $139 billion for state-controlled highways and arterials in 2016, a four percent decrease from approximately $145 billion spent in 2015.

“Some may point to the slight decrease in overall state highway spending in 2016 as a cause of the lack of improvement in key highway metrics, but 21 states made overall progress in 2016. Examining the 10-year average of state overall performance data indicates that the national system performance problems are largely concentrated in the bottom 10 states,” Feigenbaum says. “Towards the bottom of the rankings, you have highly populated states, like last-place New Jersey, along with Massachusetts, New York, and California to a lesser extent, that are spending a lot but often failing to keep up with traffic congestion and road maintenance. There are also a few very problematic low-population states like Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii and Alaska, which contribute an outsized share of the nation’s structurally deficient bridges, poor pavement conditions, and high administrative costs—money that doesn’t make it to roads.”

New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut spent the most on their highways on a per-mile basis, with each state spending more than $200,000 per mile of highway it controls. In contrast, Missouri, which ranks third overall in performance and cost-effectiveness, did so while spending just $23,534 per mile of highway it controls.

Massachusetts ranks low in the overall rankings but shows the nation’s lowest traffic fatality rate, while South Carolina reports the highest.

Executive Summary From 24th Annual Highway Report

Full Study: 24th Annual Highway Report

24th Annual Highway Report’s State-by-State Summaries

Previous Editions of the Annual Highway Report

Overall Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Rankings
24th Annual Highway Report (PDF)

Click a state name for detailed information about its results.

Each State’s Highway Performance Rankings in Each Category

The post 24th Annual Highway Report appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Report ranks the performance of state highway systems in 11 categories, including spending per mile, pavement conditions, deficient bridges, traffic congestion, and fatality rates.

North Dakota was the top-ranked state on performance and cost-effectiveness thanks to excellent scores on urban Interstate pavement condition (3rd overall), rural Interstate pavement condition (4th), urbanized area traffic congestion (4th), and maintenance disbursements per mile (3rd).  Kansas, South Dakota, Nebraska and South Carolina were the other states in top five of the overall rankings.

New Jersey ranked last, 50th, in overall performance and cost-effectiveness due to having the worst urban traffic congestion and spending the most per mile — $2 million per mile of state-controlled highway, more than double what Florida, the next highest state, spent per mile. Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii and Connecticut were also in the bottom five of the overall rankings.

This edition of the study is based on spending and performance data that state highway agencies submitted to the federal government for the year 2015, the most recent year with complete data available. The overall rankings are:

Overall Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Rankings
23rd Annual Highway Report (PDF)

Click a state name for detailed information about its results.